99–762 PDF 

Calendar No. 420 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–236 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

BILL, 2017 

APRIL 14, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. ALEXANDER, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 

the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2804] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2804) making appropriations for energy and water development and related 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, 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 .................... $38,370,741,000 

Amount of 2016 appropriations ............................... 37,322,990,000 

Amount of 2017 budget estimate ............................ 37,547,285,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2016 appropriations .......................................... ∂1,047,751,000 

2017 budget estimate ........................................ ∂823,456,000 
(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 ..................................................................................... 8 

Construction ....................................................................................... 15 

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

Operations and Maintenance ............................................................ 25 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 43 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 43 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 43 

Expenses ............................................................................................. 43 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .......... 43 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil ..................................... 44 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 45 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 47 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 54 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 55 

Policy and Administration ................................................................. 55 

Indian Water Rights Settlements ..................................................... 55 

San Joaquin Restoration Fund ......................................................... 56 

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

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 63 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ............................................ 70 

Nuclear Energy .......................................................................................... 73 

Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................. 76 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 80 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 80 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 81 

Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 81 

Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 81 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 82 

Science ........................................................................................................ 83 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................ 88 

Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ......................................... 88 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program .................................. 89 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program ............. 89 

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 90 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 91 

Weapons Activities .................................................................................... 92 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 95 

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 97 

Federal Salaries and Expenses ................................................................ 98 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 98 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Federal Contribution ................................................................................... 101 

Other Defense Activities ........................................................................... 101 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ................................................................................................... 101 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration .................................................... 102 

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ................. 102 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses ......... 102 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 126 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 127 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 127 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 128 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 128 

Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 128 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 128 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 131 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 132 

General Provisions ........................................................................................... 132 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 133 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 134 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 134 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 135 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 137 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 138 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for fiscal 

year 2017, beginning October 1, 2016, and ending September 30, 

2017, 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 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, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV. 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The fiscal year 2017 budget estimates for the bill total $37,547,285,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $38,370,741,000. This is 

$823,456,000 above the budget estimates and $1,047,751,000 above 

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development held four sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of 

the Federal agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The recommendations for fiscal year 2017, therefore, have been 

developed after careful consideration of available data. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Develop- ment’s allocation totals $37,537,000,000 of net budget authority for 

fiscal year 2017, including adjustments, which represents an increase of $355,010,000 over fiscal year 2016. Within the amount 

recommended, $20,023,000,000 is classified as defense (050) spending and $17,514,000,000 is classified as non-defense (non-050) 

spending. 

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

priorities and ensuring these funds are executed as Congress has 

directed. To develop this recommendation, the Committee held four 

budget hearings in February and March 2016 to examine the budget requests for the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The hearings provided of-
5 

ficials 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. 

The Committee’s recommendation reflects that process, and includes funding for the highest priority activities across the agencies 

funded in the bill. The recommendation includes funds for critical 

water infrastructure, including our Nation’s inland waterways, 

ports, and harbors; agricultural water supply and drought relief in 

the West; groundbreaking scientific research and development, including world-class supercomputing; support for the Nation’s nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and nuclear Navy programs; and 

critical economic development. The Committee did not recommend 

funding for low-priority programs, and rescinded unused funds 

from prior years. 

OVERSIGHT

To ensure appropriate oversight of taxpayer dollars, the Committee’s recommendation includes financial reporting requirements in 

each title of the bill, and creates additional budget control points 

for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
(6) 

TITLE I 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers, an increase of $1,380,000,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting our 

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

$106,000,000 of fiscal year 2017 revenues from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and meets the target for Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund expenditures prescribed for the Corps of Engineers in 

the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 

[WRRDA]. 

INTRODUCTION

The Corps of Engineers’ 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 of Engineers. 

The Corps of Engineers 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 of Engineers’ 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 of Engineers’ 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 of Engineers’ projects; 

—regulation of waters under Federal statutes; and 

—maintaining hydropower capacity of nearly 24,000 megawatts 

at 75 projects. 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 WORK PLAN

The Committee has recommended funding above the budget request for Investigations, Construction, Operations and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries. The Corps of Engineers is directed to submit to the Committee a work plan, not later 

than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act, subject to the 

Committee’s approval, proposing its allocation of these additional 

funds. The Corps of Engineers is directed not to obligate any funding above the budget request for studies or projects until the Committee has approved the work plan for fiscal year 2017. The work 

plan shall be consistent with the following general guidance, as 

well as the specific direction the Committee provides within each 

account. 

—None of the funds may be used for any item for which the 

Committee has specifically denied funding. 

—Except for funds proposed for new starts, 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. 

—The work plan shall include a single group of new starts for 

Investigations and Construction. 

—Funding associated with a category may be allocated to eligible 

studies or projects within that category. 

—Funding associated with a subcategory may be allocated only 

to eligible studies or projects within that subcategory. 

—The Corps of Engineers may not withhold funding from a study 

or project because it is inconsistent with the administration’s 

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, 2016. 

AQUACULTURE ACTIVITIES

Since 2007, shellfish growers in the State of Washington have 

submitted approximately 1,000 requests to initiate or expand aquaculture activities. To date, the Corps of Engineers has not processed any of these requests and the Committee is concerned with 

this ongoing delay. The Committee directs the Corps of Engineers 

to work with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to complete Endangered Species Act consultations, finalize the associated Biological Opinion(s), and process 
8 

the shellfish growers’ requests. The Committee further encourages 

the Corps of Engineers to communicate directly with the regulated 

industry and other interested stakeholders to ensure all have clarity on permitting requirements. 

NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

The Committee recommends new starts in both the Investigations and Construction accounts for fiscal year 2017. The Committee decision is based, in part, on the budget request which provides funding to complete 11 feasibility studies, 1 preconstruction 

engineering design [PED] studies, and 6 construction projects. 

Investments in our infrastructure are investments in our economy. These investments should be continued even during constrained budgets, as the benefits continue to accrue for decades. 

The Committee recommends up to 5 new feasibility study starts, 

and 8 new construction starts. 

The Corps of Engineers is directed to propose, not later than 60 

days after the date of enactment of this act, a single group of new 

starts to the Committee as a part of the work plan, under the direction included above under the heading ‘‘Fiscal Year 2017 Work 

Plan’’. 

A new start construction shall not be required for work undertaken to correct a design deficiency on an existing Federal project; 

it shall be considered ongoing work. 

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. 

INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $121,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 85,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 126,522,000 

The Committee recommends $126,522,000 for Investigations, an increase of $41,522,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s 

recommendation allows the Corps of Engineers to begin up to 5 

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 is very concerned that 

only one-third of the budget request for Investigations is directed 

to specifically authorized studies, with the remainder directed to 

nationwide programs that will not result in construction recommendations. The Committee recognizes that the administration’s 
9 

budget does not provide adequate funding for Investigations, and 

specifically PED funding to allow many of America’s most important waterways to move efficiently from planning to construction. 

The Committee therefore recommends additional funding to be 

used to seamlessly continue feasibility studies into the PED study 

phase. 

NEW STARTS

The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for up to 5 

new feasibility study starts. Each new feasibility study shall be selected based on the Corps of Engineers’ prioritization process and 

included as a part of the Investigations work plan. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

recommendation for Investigations. Funding is classified as either 

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

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED 

ALABAMA 

MOBILE HARBOR DEEPENING AND WIDENING, AL (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT) ........................................................................................... 1,246 ................ 1,246 ................

ALASKA 

LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL FLOOD DIVERSION, AK ........................................... 500 ................ 500 ................

UNALASKA (DUTCH) HARBOR, AK ................................................................. 500 ................ 500 ................

ARIZONA 

LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, AZ ................................................................... 400 ................ 400 ................

ARKANSAS 

THREE RIVERS, AR ........................................................................................ 580 ................ 580 ................

CALIFORNIA 

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) RESTORATION, CA ........................................ 425 ................ 425 ................

LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA .................................. ................ 400 ................ 400 

PORT OF LONG BEACH NAV IMP, CA ............................................................ 400 ................ 400 ................

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION (PHASE 3) (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT), CA .................................................................................... 625 ................ 625 ................

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE, CA .............................................. ................ 500 ................ 500 

YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA (ENGLEBRIGHT & DAGUERRE POINT 

DAMS) ....................................................................................................... 590 ................ 590 ................

COLORADO 

ADAMS AND DENVER COUNTIES, CO ............................................................ 175 ................ 175 ................

CONNECTICUT 

NEW HAVEN HARBOR DEEPENING, CT .......................................................... 500 ................ 500 ................

DELAWARE 

DELAWARE INLAND BAYS AND DELAWARE BAY COAST, DE ......................... 300 ................ 300 ................

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DC ................................................................. 300 ................ 300 ................
10 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED 

FLORIDA 

MANATEE HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, FL ........................................................ 275 ................ 275 ................

GEORGIA 

PROCTOR CREEK WATERSHED, FULTON COUNTY, GA .................................. 200 ................ 200 ................

SAVANNAH HARBOR BELOW AUGUSTA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA ....... 500 ................ 500 ................

SWEETWATER CREEK, GA .............................................................................. 500 ................ 500 ................

IDAHO 

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID ............................................................................... 73 ................ 73 ................

ILLINOIS 

DU PAGE RIVER, IL ....................................................................................... 400 ................ 400 ................

INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES- MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON ROAD) ............................... 2,600 ................ 2,600 ................

KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, IL ......................................................................... 600 ................ 600 ................

ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO & IL (SEE MISSOURI) ................... ................ ................ ................ ................

INDIANA 

INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUATIC 

NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON ROAD) (SEE ILLINOIS) ................ ................ ................ ................

IOWA 

DES MOINES LEVEE SYSTEM, DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA ...... 300 ................ 300 ................

GRAND RIVER BASIN, IA & MO ..................................................................... 500 ................ 500 ................

LOUISIANA 

INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK REPLACEMENT, LA (GENERAL 

REEVALUATION REPORT) .......................................................................... 550 ................ 550 ................

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .......................... 520 ................ 520 ................

MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, LA (GENERAL 

REEVALUATION REPORT) .......................................................................... 450 ................ 450 ................

MARYLAND 

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, & VA ........................... 1,950 ................ 1,950 ................

MINNESOTA 

MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN & SD (MINNESOTA RIVER AUTHORITY) ................................................................................................... 873 ................ 873 ................

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD & MANITOBA, CANADA 

(SEE NORTH DAKOTA) ............................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................

MISSOURI 

GRAND RIVER BASIN, IA & MO (SEE IOWA) ................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................

ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO & IL .............................................. 150 ................ 150 ................

NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY BACKBAYS, NJ ......................................................................... 575 ................ 575 ................

NEW YORK–NEW JERSEY HARBOR AND TRIBUTARIES, NY & NJ (SEE NEW 

YORK) ....................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................

RAHWAY RIVER BASIN (UPPER BASIN), NJ ................................................... 379 ................ 379 ................

NEW MEXICO 

RIO GRANDE, SANDIA PUEBLO TO ISLETA PUEBLO, NM ............................... 500 ................ 500 ................

NEW YORK 

NASSAU COUNTY BACK BAYS, NY ................................................................ 300 ................ 300 ................

NEW YORK–NEW JERSEY HARBOR AND TRIBUTARIES, NY & NJ .................. 575 ................ 575 ................
11 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED 

NORTH DAKOTA 

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD & MANITOBA, CANADA ...... 496 ................ 496 ................

SOURIS RIVER, ND ........................................................................................ 500 ................ 500 ................

OHIO 

INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES–MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES, IL, IN, OH & WI (BRANDON ROAD) (SEE ILLINOIS) ...... ................ ................ ................ ................

OKLAHOMA 

ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OK ................................................................. 415 ................ 415 ................

PENNSYLVANIA 

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, & VA (SEE MARYLAND) ................ ................ ................ ................

PUERTO RICO 

CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PR (ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION) ....... ................ 750 ................ 750 

SAN JUAN HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, PR ........................................ 730 ................ 730 ................

TEXAS 

COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION STUDY, TX ...................... 1,825 ................ 1,825 ................

GIWW–BRAZOS RIVER FLOODGATES & COLORADO RIVER LOCK, TX ........... 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................... 1,750 ................ 1,750 ................

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................... 500 ................ 500 ................

SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX ....................................... 47 ................ 47 ................

VIRGINIA 

CITY OF NORFOLK, VA ................................................................................... 575 ................ 575 ................

NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA (55-FOOT DEEPENING) (GENERAL 

REEVALUATION REPORT), VA .................................................................... 350 ................ 350 ................

WASHINGTON 

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA .................................................................................. 500 ................ 500 ................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ................................................... 27,999 1,650 27,999 1,650 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:.

FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ........................................... ................ ................ 5,000 ................

FLOOD CONTROL ......................................................................... ................ ................ 4,000 ................

SHORE PROTECTION .................................................................... ................ ................ 2,500 ................

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

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

INLAND ........................................................................................ ................ ................ 5,000 ................

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES: .......................................... ................ ................ 2,340 ................

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ............................... ................ ................ 1,500 ................

COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES: 

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

COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ......................... 90 ................ 90 ................

OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS: 

COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES ...... 455 ................ 455 ................

INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ............................ 300 ................ 300 ................

INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ...................... 175 ................ 175 ................

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

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................ 1,300 ................ 1,300 ................

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

PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ............................................. 5,500 ................ 6,000 ................

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA: 

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI–CADD ................. 251 ................ 251 ................
12 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

FEAS PED FEAS PED 

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

FLOOD DAMAGE DATA .......................................................................... 220 ................ 220 ................

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ............................................... 15,000 ................ 16,000 ................

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 ......................... 47 ................ 47 ................

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

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ................................................................. 985 ................ 985 ................

WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY .............................................. 1,000 ................ 1,000 ................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 16,818 ................ 25,000 ................

OTHER–MISC: 

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

TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ......................................................... 500 ................ 2,000 ................

SUBTOTAL ........................................................................................ 55,351 ................ 96,873 ................

TOTAL ............................................................................................... 83,350 1,650 124,872 1,650 

GRAND TOTAL .................................................................................. ................ 85,000 ................ 126,522 

Arctic Deep Draft Port Study.—The Committee encourages the 

Corps of Engineers to continue to thoroughly evaluate the proposed 

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

of search and rescue capabilities it would provide, and the national 

security reasons for its construction. The President noted during 

his visit to Alaska that an Arctic port north of Dutch Harbor is 

needed, and the Committee supports that goal. 

Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System.—In the Fiscal 

Year 2016 Omnibus, the Committee required the Corps of Engineers to provide a report detailing the scope, schedule, and budget 

for completing any update or reanalysis of the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program [NESP]. The Committee is aware 

that this report is under review, but the Administration has now 

missed the Committee’s deadline by at least 3 months. While an 

updated economic analysis may be required, the Administration 

has failed to tell the Committee what it believes is necessary to 

move forward and complete PED. This information is fundamental 

to the Committee’s ability to conduct oversight of the program. The 

Corps of Engineers is directed to provide this report to the Committee expeditiously. 

Puget Sound Nearshore Study.—The Committee commends the 

Corps of Engineers for developing an implementation strategy for 

the Puget Sound Nearshore Study with the State of Washington in 

June 2015. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to 

proceed with the tiered implementation strategy by advancing four 

projects through authorities under section 544 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and an additional eight projects 
13 

through section 206 of the Continuing Authorities Program. The 

Committee directs the Puget Sound Nearshore Study to be recognized as the feasibility component for the purposes of section 544. 

The Committee further encourages the Corps of Engineers to acknowledge early action restoration efforts by the State of Washington as part of the overall implementation strategy, including 

cost share obligations. 

Puget Sound Federal Caucus.—The Committee commends the 

Corps of Engineers for signing the Puget Sound Federal Caucus 

Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] on March 23, 2014. The recovery and cleanup of Puget Sound is essential to our Nation’s 

economy and continued coordination and sharing of expertise 

among Federal partners is critical to furthering current efforts. The 

Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to work with their 

counterparts in the Puget Sound Federal Caucus to renew and 

strengthen the MOU prior to its expiration on March 27, 2017. 

Missouri River Projects.—None of the funds made available by 

this act may be used for the study of the Missouri River Projects 

authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water Development 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111– 

8). 

Aquatic Nuisance Species.—The Corps of Engineers is directed to 

expedite authorized actions related to addressing the threat Asian 

carp pose to the Great Lakes basin, including the Brandon Road 

Study. Given the promise Brandon Road Lock and Dam holds as 

a single point to control transfer of invasive species, including 

Asian carp, delays to this study would pose an unnecessary threat 

to the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basin. Upon completion 

of the study, the Corps of Engineers is directed to expeditiously 

pursue authorization of any proposed modification to Brandon Road 

Lock and Dam through the appropriate congressional committees. 

The Corps of Engineers is further directed to establish formal 

emergency procedures under the authorities provided under section 

1039 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 

(Public Law 113–121), including rapid response protocols, monitoring, and other countermeasures, that are appropriate to prevent 

Asian carp from passing beyond the Brandon Road Lock and Dam 

while still complying with the Lock’s existing authorized purposes 

and the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). 

These procedures shall be established in coordination with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee. 

Research and Development, Additional Topic—Urban Flood Damage Reduction and Stream Restoration in Arid Regions.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the Corps of Engineers’ research and development [R&D] program to continue its 

focus on the management of water resources projects that promote 

public safety; reduce risk; improve operational efficiencies; reduce 

flood damage in arid and semi-arid regions; sustain the environment; and position our water resource systems to be managed as 

systems and adaptable due to the implications of a changing climate. The R&D program should also continue its focus on science 

and technology efforts to address needs for resilient water resources infrastructure. 
14 

Export Terminals.—The Committee strongly encourages the 

Corps of Engineers to complete environmental review for export 

terminal projects as expeditiously as possible, in a transparent 

manner, and in a reasonable timeframe. In addition, the Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to thoroughly consult with 

the Secretary of the Interior, and all affected tribal nations regarding the environmental and economic impacts as well as treaty 

rights of all tribes affected by export terminal projects undergoing 

environmental review. 

Disposition of Completed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for disposition of completed projects to be 

administered as provided in the budget request. The Corps of Engineers is encouraged to work with State and local stakeholders on 

these projects. 

Coastal Resiliency Projects.—In the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113–235), the 

Committee directed the Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to work collaboratively to 

identify projects that would enhance the resiliency of ocean and 

coastal ecosystems, communities, and economies. With this initial 

phase of identification now complete, the Committee expects the 

Corps of Engineers to begin implementation of these projects 

through the Continuing Authorities Program or other Corps of Engineers authorities, as required by WRRDA section 4014. The Committee also urges the Corps of Engineers to complete its Implementation Guidance for WRRDA Section 4014 as soon as practicable. 

San Francisquito.—The Committee is concerned by repeated 

delays with the San Francisquito Creek flood control study, 18 

years after a significant flood event. The Committee urges the 

Corps of Engineers to proceed at an expeditious pace to achieve a 

Chief’s Report by early 2018 and involve other Federal agencies so 

as to avoid future permitting delays. 

Hydraulic Modeling.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to 

develop a hydraulic model to assist in the regional strategic flood 

risk management decisions of at least five States along a major 

navigable waterway. 

Oyster Reefs.—The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers 

when conducting or reviewing environmental assessments or impact statements for navigation or coastal restoration projects in 

areas where oyster reefs exist to consider water quality impacts on 

those reefs and where feasible mitigate any negative impacts. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $30,340,000 in additional funds for Investigations. From these additional funds, the Corps of Engineers is 

authorized to begin up to 5 new feasibility studies. The Corps of 

Engineers is directed to allocate these additional funds in accordance with the direction in the front matter under the heading ‘‘Fiscal Year 2017 Work Plan’’. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers 

shall comply with the following direction in allocating funds made 

available for Investigations: 

—Allocating funds for PED and new feasibility studies shall take 

priority over allocating funds for ongoing feasibility studies. 

—The Corps of Engineers shall not apply new start criteria to 

studies moving from the feasibility phase to the PED phase. 
15 

—The Corps of Engineers shall consider PED phase work as a 

continuation of the investigations and by definition, a study is 

not completed until PED is completed. 

—When evaluating proposals for new feasibility studies, the 

Corps of Engineers 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 of Engineers is encouraged to support opportunities to restore critical habitat and enhance the 

Nation’s economic development, job growth, and international 

competitiveness. 

—When evaluating ongoing studies to propose for funding, the 

Corps of Engineers shall consider completing or accelerating 

ongoing studies which will enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth, and international competitiveness; 

studies located in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters; or studies for areas where revisions to flood frequency 

flow lines may result in existing infrastructure failing to meet 

the requirements under the National Flood Insurance Program. 

—The Corps of Engineers shall include appropriate requests for 

funding in future budget submissions for PED and new feasibility studies initiated in fiscal year 2017. 

—Funding shall be available for existing studies, including studies in the PED phase, that were either not included in the 

budget request or for which the recommendation in the budget 

request was inadequate. Ongoing studies that are actively progressing and can utilize the funding in a timely manner are eligible for these additional funds. 

—The Corps of Engineers, in future fiscal years, shall prepare 

the budget to reflect study completions, defined as completion 

of PED. 

CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,862,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,090,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,813,649,000 

The Committee recommends $1,813,649,000 for Construction, an 

increase of $723,649,000 above the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation allows the Corps of Engineers to select up to 

8 new construction starts to begin in fiscal year 2017. 

INTRODUCTION

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

projects having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 

water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other 

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

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

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

this account. Consequently, the recommendation includes 

$696,649,000 in additional funding for ongoing work. 
16 

NEW STARTS

The Committee recommends up to 8 new construction starts. Of 

the new construction starts, at least one shall be for an environmental infrastructure project with priority given to projects that 

use advanced technologies to diversify and improve the efficiency of 

water supplies, and at least one navigation project. The Committee 

considers the Mud Mountain Dam project—proposed in the budget 

request as a new start—to be ongoing construction and therefore 

not subject to a new start determination. 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND

The Committee notes that the budget request only proposed to 

spend $33,750,000 of the estimated $106,000,000 deposits for fiscal 

year 2017 into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF]. This 

would leave an estimated $72,250,000 of fiscal year 2017 IWTF deposits unspent. Congress has taken several steps in recent years to 

provide additional funding to our Nation’s inland waterways. First, 

Congress passed WRRDA 2014, which reduced the amount of 

money that is required from the IWTF to replace Olmsted Lock. 

Second, Congress worked with the commercial waterways industry 

to establish a priority list for projects that needed to be funded. 

Third, in 2014, Congress enacted the bipartisan Able Act, which increased the user fee that commercial barge owners had asked to 

pay in order to provide more money to replace locks and dams 

across the country. These steps increased the amount of funding 

that was available annually for inland waterways projects from the 

IWTF from about $85,000,000 in fiscal year 2014 to now 

$106,000,000 this year. Unfortunately, the President’s budget request severely underfunds inland waterways projects, and in fact, 

only proposes to fund a single project, the Olmsted Locks and Dam 

project, and providing no funding for the other three ongoing construction projects, the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela 

River Navigation Project, the Kentucky Lock Addition, and the 

Chickamauga Lock. The Committee recommends using an additional $75,325,000 of IWTF deposits above the budget request to 

address this deficiency. 

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 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, NATOMAS BASIN, CA ................... 21,150 21,150 ........................

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA ......... 20,740 20,740 ........................

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA ........................ 21,040 21,040 ........................

HAMILTON CITY, CA .................................................................................... 8,500 8,500 ........................

ISABELLA LAKE, CA (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................ 70,500 70,500 ........................

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA .............................................. 1,056 1,056 ........................
17 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA ............................. 8,000 8,000 ........................

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ............................................................. 37,200 37,200 ........................

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA .............................................................................. 7,000 7,000 ........................

DELAWARE 

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, & DE (SEE NEW JERSEY) ...... ........................ ........................ ........................

FLORIDA 

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) .................................... 49,500 49,500 ........................

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (EVERGLADES), FL ............... 106,000 106,000 ........................

GEORGIA 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ....................................... 930 930 ........................

SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ......................................................... 42,700 42,700 ........................

IDAHO 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID (CRFM) (SEE WASHINGTON) ................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

ILLINOIS 

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY .................................... 225,000 225,000 ........................

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI ............... 20,000 20,000 ........................

IOWA 

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

ND & SD ................................................................................................ 18,000 18,000 ........................

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI (SEE ILLINOIS) ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

KANSAS 

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

ND & SD (SEE IOWA) ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

TOPEKA, KS ................................................................................................ 8,034 8,034 ........................

KENTUCKY 

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY (SEE ILLINOIS) ........... ........................ ........................ ........................

LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ....................... 9,000 9,000 ........................

MARYLAND 

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

POPLAR ISLAND, MD .................................................................................. 62,300 62,300 

MINNESOTA 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI (SEE ILLINOIS) ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

MISSOURI 

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

ND & SD (SEE IOWA) ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

MONARCH- CHESTERFIELD, MO ................................................................. 7,000 7,000 ........................

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI (SEE ILLINOIS) ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

MONTANA 

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

ND & SD (SEE IOWA) ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................
18 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

NEBRASKA 

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

ND & SD (SEE IOWA) ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

NEW JERSEY 

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, & DE ...................................... 33,125 33,125 ........................

RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB–BASIN, NJ ............................ 10,000 10,000 ........................

NORTH DAKOTA 

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

ND & SD (SEE IOWA) ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

OHIO 

BOLIVAR DAM, OH (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ................................................... 5,000 5,000 ........................

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ............................................. 21,900 21,900 ........................

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID (CRFM) (SEE WASHINGTON) ................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

PENNSYLVANIA 

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA, DE (SEE NEW JERSEY) .......... ........................ ........................ ........................

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................. 56,250 56,250 ........................

SOUTH CAROLINA 

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC (SEE GEORGIA) .............. ........................ ........................ ........................

SOUTH DAKOTA 

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

ND & SD (SEE IOWA) ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .............................................................................. 40,000 40,000 ........................

TEXAS 

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................... 13,300 13,300 ........................

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT DEEP 

CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VA ...................................................................... 12,000 12,000 ........................

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA (SEE OREGON) .................... ........................ ........................ ........................

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID (CRFM) ....................... 84,000 84,000 ........................

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .......................................................................... 22,350 22,350 ........................

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 4,000 4,000 ........................

WISCONSIN 

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI (SEE ILLINOIS) ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES .................................................... 1,046,175 1,046,175 ........................

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE 

REDUCTION ............................................................................................ ........................ 62,000 ∂62,000 

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................... ........................ 125,000 ∂125,000 
19 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

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

NAVIGATION ....................................................................................... ........................ 227,374 ∂227,374 

INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND PROJECTS ................................... ........................ 75,325 ∂75,325 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ........................................ ........................ 48,000 ∂48,000 

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

ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS .................................. ........................ 68,950 ∂68,950 

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ......................................................... ........................ 9,000 ∂9,000 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC 

LEGISLATION:.

NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) ............................................. ........................ 7,000 ∂7,000 

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

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) ..................................... 500 500 ........................

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ........................ 1,000 8,000 ∂7,000 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135) .................................................................. 1,000 3,000 ∂2,000 

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............... 21,000 21,000 ........................

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ..................................................................... 19,000 19,000 ........................

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD - BOARD EXPENSE ........................... 50 50 ........................

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

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

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 43,825 767,474 ∂723,649 

TOTAL ............................................................................................ 1,090,000 1,813,649 ∂723,649 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois.— 

The issue of hydrologic separation shall be fully studied by the 

Corps of Engineers 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. 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 for the Aquatic Plant Control Program. 

Within available funds, $4,000,000 is recommended for nationwide 

research and development to address invasive aquatic plants; 

$4,000,000 is for watercraft inspection stations, as authorized by 

section 1039(d) of WRRDA; and $1,000,000 is for monitoring and 

contingency planning associated with watercraft inspection stations 

as authorized by section 1039(e) of WRRDA. The Corps of Engineers is encouraged to support cost-shared aquatic plant management programs. 

Continuing Authorities Program.—The Committee recommends 

$19,500,000 for the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP], an increase of $16,000,000 from the budget request. CAP is a useful tool 

for the Corps of Engineers to undertake small localized projects 

without being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization 

phases typical of most Corps of Engineers projects. The standing 

CAP authorities are: flood control (section 205), emergency 

streambank and shoreline protection (section 14), beach erosion 

control (section 103), mitigation of shore damages (section 111), 

navigation projects (section 107), snagging and clearing (section 

208), aquatic ecosystem restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of 

dredged material (section 204), and project modifications for im-
20 

provement of the environment (section 1135). The Committee has 

chosen to fund five of the nine sections rather than only the four 

sections proposed in the budget request. 

The Committee urges the administration to execute the CAP program laid out by the Committee and include sufficient funding for 

this program in future budget requests. The Corps of Engineers 

shall continue the ongoing processes for initiating, suspending, and 

terminating projects. Suspended projects shall not be reactivated or 

funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in writing its support for the 

project and establishes its willingness and capability to execute its 

project responsibilities. The Chief of Engineers shall provide an annual report within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year detailing 

the progress made on the backlog of projects. The report shall include the completions and terminations as well as progress of ongoing work. 

Hawaii Water Management, Oahu, Hawaii.—The Committee is 

encouraged by the progress of the Hawaii Water Management 

Project, and encourages the Corps of Engineers to utilize funds appropriated in prior years to this project to continue progress in rehabilitating aged Hawaii irrigation infrastructure. 

Public-Private Partnerships.—The Committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Chief of Engineers have expressed strong support for public-private partnerships as a method to reduce the Federal cost of future construction 

projects, and selected one such project as a new start in the fiscal 

year 2016 workplan. The Committee continues to support the idea 

of partnerships and recommends that the Corps of Engineers identify new construction starts that leverage the private sector 

through partnerships in fiscal year 2017. 

Reimbursements.—The Committee directs the Secretary to 

prioritize the Corps of Engineers’ reimbursement obligations based 

on projects with signed Project Partnership Agreements. The Secretary shall demonstrate plans for the additional funding provided 

by Congress to meet the Project Partnership Agreement and Federal Government’s fiscal responsibilities. The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to consider prioritizing projects where 

non-Federal sponsors intend to use the funds for additional water 

resources development activities. 

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.—The Committee is 

disappointed by the Corps of Engineer’s failure to provide funding 

for McCook Reservoir, and concerned by the Corps of Engineers’ decision to reject congressional intent and its own history on this 

project. Congressional intent has been clear since its authorization 

in 1988, and in subsequent modification; the project is 75 percent 

complete and the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to complete the project. The McCook Reservoir was authorized for flood 

risk management and constructed to help alleviate flooding problems in the Metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois. 

Melvin Price Lock and Dam, Illinois and Missouri.—The length 

of time it is taking the Corps of Engineers to rectify the seepage 

problems that the impoundment of the navigation pool is causing 

to the Wood River Levee, as well as escalating cost estimates, continues to be troublesome. The Corps of Engineers is encouraged to 

ensure that the Independent External Peer Review and oversight 
21 

of this project continues and is conducted in a manner that will not 

lengthen an already long schedule. 

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

by the lack of funding provided to the Metro East levee system, 

which is critical to protecting 288,000 residents and employees, 

111,700 acres and more than $7,000,000,000 in property and infrastructure in the Metro East region from rising waters on the Mississippi River. These levees are more than 70 years old, in need of 

repair, and have been prioritized by the Corps of Engineers in the 

past. Further, the Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to engage in heightened cooperation with non-Federal sponsors. The 

Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to enter a cost share 

agreement with the non-Federal sponsors. 

Mud Mountain Dam.—The Committee commends the Corps of 

Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service for reaching 

agreement on a biological opinion [BiOp] to mitigate the impact of 

the ongoing operation of Mud Mountain Dam on species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act [ESA] by replacing the barrier 

structure and building a new fish trap facility. The Committee directs that a new construction start shall not be required for the 

Mud Mountain fish passage project based on how the Corps of Engineers has treated this and similar projects in the past. First, this 

project has received funding from the Construction account in prior 

years, and has received more than $13,000,000 during just the last 

two fiscal years. Second, the Corps of Engineers has not considered 

similar projects associated with BiOp compliance as requiring new 

start determinations. Finally, this project is replacing existing infrastructure. Accordingly, no new start determination shall be required for this project. The Committee further encourages the 

Corps of Engineers to uphold the agency’s ESA and tribal treaty 

responsibilities by requesting sufficient funding in future budgets 

to implement the BiOp requirements and complete construction by 

2020. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee recommendation includes $696,649,000 in additional funds for Construction. From these additional funds, the Corps of Engineers is 

authorized to begin up to eight new construction starts. The Corps 

of Engineers is directed to allocate these additional funds in accordance with the direction in the front matter under the heading ‘‘Fiscal Year 2017 Work Plan’’. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers 

shall comply with the following direction in allocating funds made 

available for Construction: 

—Of the additional funds provided in this account for flood and 

storm damage reduction and flood control, the Corps of Engineers shall allocate not less than $20,000,000 to continue construction of projects which principally address drainage in 

urban areas. 

—Additional considerations include whether the project is positioned to permit award of significant items of construction, 

achieve necessary milestones, or otherwise realize notable construction progress in fiscal year 2017; and the project sponsor 

expended funds under an existing Project Partnership Agreement for creditable work, including acquisition of rights-ofway. 
22 

—None of these funds shall be used for projects in the Continuing Authorities Program. 

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

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

to continue with construction of remaining authorized project 

features. 

When allocating the additional funding provided in this account, 

the Corps of Engineers shall consider giving priority to the following: 

—the 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 fiscal 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; 

—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 has experienced flooding; 

—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 shared with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

[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 with the greater economic impact, projects in rural communities, and projects that 

benefit counties or parishes with high poverty rates. 

Environmental Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends an 

additional $68,950,000 in the Construction account for environmental infrastructure. The Corps of Engineers is encouraged to 

give priority to projects that could be completed in fiscal year 2017; 

projects in rural areas; and projects located in towns, cities, and 

municipalities experiencing compliance difficulties with Federal environmental regulations. Within available funds, $10,000,000 is for 

projects authorized under section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended. 

Prioritization of Corps of Engineers Projects in Drought Stricken 

Areas.—The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers to prioritize 

any authorized projects that would alleviate water supply issues in 

areas that have been afflicted by severe droughts in the last three 
23 

fiscal years, to include projects focused on the treatment of brackish water. 

Efficiency Review.—The Corps of Engineers is directed to initiate 

the efficiency review required by WRRDA section 1012 and the 

evaluation of project partnership agreements required by WRRDA 

section 1013. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $345,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 222,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 368,000,000 

The Committee recommends $368,000,000 for Mississippi River 

and Tributaries, an increase of $146,000,000 over the budget request. Funds recommended in this account are for planning, construction, and operations and maintenance activities associated 

with water resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River 

Valley from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. 

The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s 

recommendation: 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

CONSTRUCTION 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENTS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ... 36,669 36,669 ........................

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ........................ 21,600 21,600 ........................

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ................ 3,100 3,100 ........................

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................ 2,505 2,505 ........................

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ........................................... 400 400 ........................

SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION .......................................................... 64,274 64,274 ........................

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, REVETMENTS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ... 45,605 45,605 ........................

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DREDGING, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........ 15,370 15,370 ........................

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, DIKES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ............... 2,515 2,515 ........................

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ........................ 9,795 9,795 ........................

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................... 15 15 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................... 532 532 ........................

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ............................................. 294 294 ........................

LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ............................................. 198 198 ........................

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

TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ............................ 2,579 2,579 ........................

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

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................... 28 28 ........................

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................ 12,898 12,898 ........................

ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ........................................... 1,692 1,692 ........................

BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA .............................................. 55 55 ........................

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

BONNET CARRE, LA .................................................................................... 2,331 2,331 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................... 1,106 1,106 ........................

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

MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................. 496 496 ........................

OLD RIVER, LA ........................................................................................... 8,086 8,086 ........................

TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ............................................. 3,345 3,345 ........................

GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................... 24 24 ........................
24 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................. 67 67 ........................

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................... 42 42 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ........................................................ 5,483 5,483 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .............................................. 185 185 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................... 5,024 5,024 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................... 807 807 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ........................................................... 5,487 5,487 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS .................................................................. 1,344 1,344 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................... 6,668 6,668 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................... 967 967 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ............................... 384 384 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................... 544 544 ........................

YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS ................................................................. 731 731 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................. 237 237 ........................

WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .............................................................................. 4,912 4,912 ........................

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

MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN .................................................. 2,132 2,132 ........................

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................. 149,509 149,509 ........................

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK 

CONSTRUCTION: CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO 

& TN ............................................................................................. ........................ 15,462 ∂15,462 

O & M: CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ..... ........................ 13,634 ∂13,634 

CONSTRUCTION: MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAIN STEM : 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES ............................................................... ........................ 3,400 ∂3,400 

O & M: LMRMS PROJECT; MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES .............................. ........................ 1,381 ∂1,381 

DREDGING ......................................................................................... ........................ 8,090 ∂8,090 

FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................... ........................ 64,033 ∂64,033 

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

COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA .................................................. 7,000 7,000 ........................

MAPPING ..................................................................................................... 1,127 1,127 ........................

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

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 8,217 154,217 ∂146,000 

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

TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES .............................. 222,000 368,000 ∂146,000 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work—Flood Control.—Of the 

additional funds provided in this account, the Corps of Engineers 

shall allocate not less than $30,000,000 for additional flood control 

construction projects outside of the Lower Mississippi River Main 

Stem. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work—Other Authorized Purposes.—Of the additional funds provided in this account for other 

authorized project purposes, the Corps of Engineers shall allocate 

not less than $5,000,000 for operation and maintenance of facilities 

that are educational or to continue land management of mitigation 

features. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work—Dredging.—Of the additional funds provided in this account for dredging, the Corps of Engineers shall allocate not less than $7,000,000 for maintenance 

dredging of ports and harbors. Within that amount, no port or har-
25 

bor funded by this account shall receive less than $900,000 unless 

such sums exceed a port’s fiscal year 2017 total capability. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,137,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 2,705,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,173,829,000 

The Committee recommends $3,173,829,000 for Operation and 

Maintenance, an increase of $468,829,000 over the budget request. 

INTRODUCTION

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

and related activities at water resource projects that the Corps of 

Engineers 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 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA—COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL .......................... 176 176 ........................

ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ........................................................................ 14,080 14,080 ........................

BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ......................................... 24,101 24,101 ........................

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ......................................................... 6,075 6,075 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ................................................... 215 215 ........................

MOBILE HARBOR, AL .................................................................................. 23,389 23,389 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ............................................................ 190 190 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL ................................................ 100 100 ........................

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS ... 1,700 1,700 ........................

TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS ...................................... 29,218 29,218 ........................

WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA .......................................... 11,930 11,930 ........................

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL ............................................. 20 20 ........................

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... 11,868 11,868 ........................

CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ........................................................................... 9,663 9,663 ........................

CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK ................................................................................. 200 200 ........................

DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... 1,050 1,050 ........................

HOMER HARBOR, AK .................................................................................. 462 462 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ................................................... 225 225 ........................

KETCHIKAN, THOMAS BASIN, AK ................................................................ 3,100 3,100 ........................

LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL (SEWARD) AK ...................................................... 591 591 ........................

NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK .............................................................................. 345 345 ........................

NOME HARBOR, AK .................................................................................... 2,920 2,920 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ............................................................ 700 700 ........................
26 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ ........................................................................................ 1,260 1,260 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ................................................... 96 96 ........................

PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ............................................................................ 830 830 ........................

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

WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ......................................................................... 317 317 ........................

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 9,019 9,019 ........................

BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR .................................................... 8,157 8,157 ........................

BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ......................................................................... 1,908 1,908 ........................

BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ............................................................................. 8,305 8,305 ........................

DEGRAY LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 6,121 6,121 ........................

DEQUEEN LAKE, AR .................................................................................... 1,780 1,780 ........................

DIERKS LAKE, AR ....................................................................................... 1,768 1,768 ........................

GILLHAM LAKE, AR ..................................................................................... 1,556 1,556 ........................

GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR .......................................................................... 9,403 9,403 ........................

HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................... 15 15 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................... 490 490 ........................

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............... 42,464 42,464 ........................

MILLWOOD LAKE, AR .................................................................................. 2,631 2,631 ........................

NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ......................................................... 4,912 4,912 ........................

NIMROD LAKE, AR ...................................................................................... 2,163 2,163 ........................

NORFORK LAKE, AR .................................................................................... 5,098 5,098 ........................

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

OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA .................................................. 8,445 8,445 ........................

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

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

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

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ............................................................................. 3,040 3,040 ........................

BODEGA BAY, CA ....................................................................................... 4,285 4,285 ........................

BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA .................................................. 2,078 2,078 ........................

CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA ................................................................ 7,980 7,980 ........................

COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ........................................... 4,284 4,284 ........................

DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ........................... 6,888 6,888 ........................

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

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA .............................................................. 2,377 2,377 ........................

HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ............................................................ 3,000 3,000 ........................

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ................................................... 3,588 3,588 ........................

ISABELLA LAKE, CA .................................................................................... 1,582 1,582 ........................

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ............................................. 17,447 17,447 ........................

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ................................................................ 484 484 ........................

MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ............................................................................ 375 375 ........................

MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA .......................................................................... 4,400 4,400 ........................

NAPA RIVER, CA ......................................................................................... 350 350 ........................

NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ............................................................................... 3,058 3,058 ........................

NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA .................................. 2,695 2,695 ........................

OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................... 17,155 17,155 ........................

OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ........................................................................... 2,275 2,275 ........................

PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ................................................................................... 3,440 3,440 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ............................................................ 1,698 1,698 ........................

REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA ..................................................................... 4,201 4,201 ........................

RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ............................................................................ 8,132 8,132 ........................

SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ........................................... 1,600 1,600 ........................

SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA .............. 1,548 1,548 ........................

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

SALINAS DAM, CA ....................................................................................... 1 1 ........................
27 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ............................... 1,096 1,096 ........................

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

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ...................... 3,870 3,870 ........................

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA .................................................................... 3,220 3,220 ........................

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA .......................................... 3,242 3,242 ........................

SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA ....................................... 2,025 2,025 ........................

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA .................................................................... 4,871 4,871 ........................

SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ................................................................... 2,695 2,695 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ............................................... 1,198 1,198 ........................

SUCCESS LAKE, CA .................................................................................... 2,509 2,509 ........................

SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ........................................................................ 4,031 4,031 ........................

TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA (DAM SAFETY) ................................... 2,227 2,227 ........................

VENTURA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................... 4,300 4,300 ........................

YUBA RIVER, CA ......................................................................................... 1,422 1,422 ........................

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO .............................................................................. 437 437 ........................

CHATFIELD LAKE, CO .................................................................................. 1,702 1,702 ........................

CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO .......................................................................... 1,159 1,159 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO .................................................. 376 376 ........................

JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ................................................................... 2,951 2,951 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ............................................... 576 576 ........................

TRINIDAD LAKE, CO .................................................................................... 1,565 1,565 ........................

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ............................................................................... 601 601 ........................

COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ..................................................................... 709 709 ........................

HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ....................................................................... 448 448 ........................

HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................ 1,203 1,203 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ................................................... 345 345 ........................

MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ................................................................... 605 605 ........................

NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................... 491 491 ........................

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

STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ........................................................ 626 626 ........................

THOMASTON DAM, CT ................................................................................. 800 800 ........................

WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ........................................................................ 661 661 ........................

DELAWARE 

HARBOR OF REFUGE, DELAWARE BAY, DE ................................................ 45 45 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ................................................... 58 58 ........................

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE 

& MD ..................................................................................................... 21,622 21,622 ........................

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

WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ......................................................................... 4,355 4,355 ........................

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC .................................................. 72 72 ........................

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

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

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

FLORIDA 

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ 4,069 4,069 ........................

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ..................................................... 14,889 14,889 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ................................................... 1,272 1,272 ........................

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ......................... 850 850 ........................

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................ 7,280 7,280 ........................

JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA ............... 6,506 6,506 ........................

MANATEE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................... 500 500 ........................

MIAMI HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................... 100 100 ........................
28 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ..................................................................... 2,790 2,790 ........................

PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ......................................................................... 3,330 3,330 ........................

PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ 1,915 1,915 ........................

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ................................................................ 300 300 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ............................................................ 1,425 1,425 ........................

REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL .......................................................... 3,130 3,130 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ................................................ 33 33 ........................

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ........................................ 299 299 ........................

TAMPA HARBOR, FL .................................................................................... 8,715 8,715 ........................

WATER / ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL .......................................... 165 165 ........................

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ................................................................................. 7,925 7,925 ........................

APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL ......... 1,026 1,026 ........................

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

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

BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ............................................ 9,823 9,823 ........................

CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA .................................................................... 7,724 7,724 ........................

HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC ......................................................................... 11,343 11,343 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ................................................... 227 227 ........................

J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC ........................................................ 18,399 18,399 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ............................................................ 128 128 ........................

RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ....................................... 7,842 7,842 ........................

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ............................................................................. 23,527 23,527 ........................

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

WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL ...................................................... 8,450 8,450 ........................

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI ..................................................................... 319 319 ........................

HILO HARBOR, HI ....................................................................................... 400 400 ........................

HONOLULU HARBOR, HI ............................................................................. 400 400 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI .................................................... 600 600 ........................

NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI ............................................................................. 400 400 ........................

PORT ALLEN HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ............................................................... 275 275 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ............................................................. 706 706 ........................

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ............................................................................... 1,274 1,274 ........................

DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ....................................................... 2,862 2,862 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID .................................................... 361 361 ........................

LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ................................................................................ 4,405 4,405 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ................................................ 640 640 ........................

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN .................................................... 2,827 2,827 ........................

CARLYLE LAKE, IL ...................................................................................... 6,287 6,287 ........................

CHICAGO HARBOR, IL ................................................................................. 2,824 2,824 ........................

CHICAGO RIVER, IL .................................................................................... 572 572 ........................

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL ................ 12,000 12,000 ........................

FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................... 446 446 ........................

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN ........................................... 34,059 34,059 ........................

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN ........................................... 1,847 1,847 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .................................................... 2,560 2,560 ........................

KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ............................................................. 2,093 2,093 ........................

LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL .................................................................. 800 800 ........................

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ................................................................................ 5,975 5,975 ........................

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR 

PORTION), IL .......................................................................................... 84,666 84,666 ........................

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS 

PORTION), IL .......................................................................................... 21,968 21,968 ........................
29 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ............................................................. 105 105 ........................

REND LAKE, IL ............................................................................................ 5,655 5,655 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ............................. 719 719 ........................

WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ............................................................................. 1,580 1,580 ........................

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN ................................................................................ 1,357 1,357 ........................

BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ................................................................ 3,034 3,034 ........................

CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ............................................................................... 1,074 1,074 ........................

CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ........................................................................ 1,180 1,180 ........................

INDIANA HARBOR, IN .................................................................................. 11,795 11,795 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN .................................................... 1,316 1,316 ........................

J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ....................................................................... 1,136 1,136 ........................

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ............................................................................. 1,168 1,168 ........................

MONROE LAKE, IN ...................................................................................... 1,324 1,324 ........................

PATOKA LAKE, IN ........................................................................................ 1,136 1,136 ........................

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

SALAMONIE LAKE, IN .................................................................................. 1,253 1,253 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ............................ 143 143 ........................

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ................................................................................. 4,326 4,326 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, IA ................... 21 21 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA .................................................... 1,370 1,370 ........................

MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE ........... 9,049 9,049 ........................

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

ND & SD ................................................................................................ 2,810 2,810 ........................

RATHBUN LAKE, IA ..................................................................................... 2,484 2,484 ........................

RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ................................................. 4,711 4,711 ........................

SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................... 5,526 5,526 ........................

KANSAS 

CLINTON LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 2,953 2,953 ........................

COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ......................................................................... 1,535 1,535 ........................

EL DORADO LAKE, KS ................................................................................. 801 801 ........................

ELK CITY LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 970 970 ........................

FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ................................................................................. 1,581 1,581 ........................

HILLSDALE LAKE, KS .................................................................................. 891 891 ........................

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ................................................... 1,206 1,206 ........................

JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ............................................... 1,565 1,565 ........................

KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS .................................................................................. 4,968 4,968 ........................

MARION LAKE, KS ....................................................................................... 4,482 4,482 ........................

MELVERN LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 2,490 2,490 ........................

MILFORD LAKE, KS ..................................................................................... 2,549 2,549 ........................

PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ................................................... 1,392 1,392 ........................

PERRY LAKE, KS ......................................................................................... 2,845 2,845 ........................

POMONA LAKE, KS ...................................................................................... 2,480 2,480 ........................

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

TORONTO LAKE, KS .................................................................................... 1,191 1,191 ........................

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ............................................................................ 7,464 7,464 ........................

WILSON LAKE, KS ....................................................................................... 1,711 1,711 ........................

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ........................................... 11,404 11,404 ........................

BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................... 2,754 2,754 ........................

BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ............................................................................ 1,908 1,908 ........................

BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 1,693 1,693 ........................

CARR CREEK LAKE, KY .............................................................................. 1,882 1,882 ........................

CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ................................................................................... 1,094 1,094 ........................
30 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

DEWEY LAKE, KY ........................................................................................ 1,749 1,749 ........................

ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY ....................................................... 925 925 ........................

FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY & IN .................................... 223 223 ........................

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

GRAYSON LAKE, KY .................................................................................... 1,525 1,525 ........................

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY .............................................................. 2,180 2,180 ........................

GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 2,575 2,575 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................... 1,301 1,301 ........................

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

LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................ 2,173 2,173 ........................

MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ........................................................................... 1,193 1,193 ........................

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

NOLIN LAKE, KY .......................................................................................... 2,709 2,709 ........................

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH ...................................... 30,930 30,930 ........................

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA & WV .................. 5,600 5,600 ........................

PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................ 1,263 1,263 ........................

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

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 3,116 3,116 ........................

TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................. 1,096 1,096 ........................

WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY .............................................. 9,195 9,195 ........................

YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................. 1,279 1,279 ........................

LOUISIANA 

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

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

BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ................................................................ 1,471 1,471 ........................

BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ..................... 911 911 ........................

BAYOU PIERRE, LA ..................................................................................... 23 23 ........................

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

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

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

CADDO LAKE, LA ........................................................................................ 209 209 ........................

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ............................................................... 21,393 21,393 ........................

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

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ......................................................... 32,844 32,844 ........................

HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ................................................................. 1,057 1,057 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................... 962 962 ........................

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ....................................................... 8,714 8,714 ........................

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ................................................................ 14 14 ........................

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

MERMENTAU RIVER, LA .............................................................................. 1,297 1,297 ........................

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

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA ............ 82,885 82,885 ........................

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

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

WALLACE LAKE, LA ..................................................................................... 226 226 ........................

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

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

MAINE 

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME .................................................. 104 104 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ........................................................... 1,100 1,100 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ........................... 25 25 ........................

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ............................... 20,575 20,575 ........................

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

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ..................................................... 186 186 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD .................................................. 119 119 ........................
31 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV ...................................................... 2,151 2,151 ........................

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

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

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

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA .............................................................................. 1,081 1,081 ........................

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................. 926 926 ........................

BOSTON HARBOR, MA ................................................................................ 12,000 12,000 ........................

BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................. 740 740 ........................

CAPE COD CANAL, MA ............................................................................... 10,552 10,552 ........................

CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ............................ 332 332 ........................

CHATHAM (STAGE) HARBOR, MA ................................................................ 470 470 ........................

CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ......................................................................... 703 703 ........................

EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ........................................................................ 687 687 ........................

GLOUCESTER HARBOR AND ANNISQUAM RIVER, MA ................................. 150 150 ........................

GREEN HARBOR, MA .................................................................................. 350 350 ........................

HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ........................................................................ 609 609 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA .................................................. 328 328 ........................

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ............................................................................... 1,019 1,019 ........................

LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................ 742 742 ........................

NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA ... 489 489 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ........................................................... 900 900 ........................

TULLY LAKE, MA ......................................................................................... 911 911 ........................

WEST HILL DAM, MA .................................................................................. 727 727 ........................

WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................. 572 572 ........................

MICHIGAN 

CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI .............................................................. 1,580 1,580 ........................

DETROIT RIVER, MI .................................................................................... 5,241 5,241 ........................

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ....................................................................... 511 511 ........................

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ............................................................................... 650 650 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ................................................... 215 215 ........................

KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ........................................................................ 906 906 ........................

MONROE HARBOR, MI ................................................................................ 500 500 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ............................................................ 720 720 ........................

SAGINAW RIVER, MI ................................................................................... 3,973 3,973 ........................

SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ............................................................................... 52 52 ........................

ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ................................................................................... 680 680 ........................

ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI ............................................................................. 750 750 ........................

ST MARYS RIVER, MI ................................................................................. 31,549 31,549 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ............................ 2,825 2,825 ........................

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE—WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD ...................................... 257 257 ........................

DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI .................................................. 7,166 7,166 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN .................................................. 408 408 ........................

LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ........................................ 891 891 ........................

MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .............................................................................. 260 260 ........................

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP 

PORTION), MN ........................................................................................ 66,866 66,866 ........................

ORWELL LAKE, MN ..................................................................................... 475 475 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ........................................................... 93 93 ........................

RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ........................................................................ 165 165 ........................

RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ....................... 3,648 3,648 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN .......................... 490 490 ........................

MISSISSIPPI 

BILOXI HARBOR, MS ................................................................................... 1,812 1,812 ........................

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS .................................................................. 1 1 ........................
32 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS .......................................................... 285 285 ........................

GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ............................................................................. 5,222 5,222 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................. 110 110 ........................

MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS .................................................................... 34 34 ........................

OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ................................................................................. 2,150 2,150 ........................

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ........................................................................ 1,360 1,360 ........................

PEARL RIVER, MS & LA ............................................................................. 150 150 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ........................................................... 151 151 ........................

ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS ............................................................................ 9 9 ........................

WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS ............................................ 20 20 ........................

YAZOO RIVER, MS ...................................................................................... 21 21 ........................

MISSOURI 

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO ................................................................. 815 815 ........................

CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ............................ 6,994 6,994 ........................

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ............................................................................. 3,328 3,328 ........................

HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO .......................................... 11,087 11,087 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO ................. 2 2 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................. 1,606 1,606 ........................

LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ................................................................. 879 879 ........................

LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ........................................................................... 733 733 ........................

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG 

WORKS), MO & IL .................................................................................. 24,608 24,608 ........................

NEW MADRID COUNTY HARBOR, MO ......................................................... 10 10 ........................

NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889) ..................................................... 15 15 ........................

POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ..................................................................... 3,327 3,327 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ........................................................... 1 1 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO .............................................. 169 169 ........................

SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ................................................................................ 1,551 1,551 ........................

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO .............................. 401 401 ........................

STOCKTON LAKE, MO .................................................................................. 5,857 5,857 ........................

TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR .................................................................... 8,638 8,638 ........................

MONTANA 

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ..................................................................... 5,535 5,535 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT .................................................. 274 274 ........................

LIBBY DAM, MT .......................................................................................... 2,025 2,025 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ............................................... 95 95 ........................

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD ........................... 9,306 9,306 ........................

HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ........................................................................ 4,393 4,393 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, NE .................. 33 33 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ................................................... 1,213 1,213 ........................

MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA .................... 90 90 ........................

PAPILLION CREEK, NE ................................................................................ 880 880 ........................

SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ......................................................... 2,934 2,934 ........................

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ................................................... 77 77 ........................

MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA ................................................................. 1,132 1,132 ........................

PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ................................................ 333 333 ........................

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH .............................................................................. 860 860 ........................

EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ................................................................ 563 563 ........................

FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ......................................................................... 809 809 ........................

HOPKINTON—EVERETT LAKES, NH ............................................................ 1,625 1,625 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH .................................................. 71 71 ........................

OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ............................................................................ 775 775 ........................
33 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH ................................ 1,100 1,100 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ........................................................... 250 250 ........................

SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ...................................................................... 810 810 ........................

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET, NJ .................................................................................. 425 425 ........................

COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ............................................................................. 375 375 ........................

DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ............................................................. 15 15 ........................

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE ................... 28,455 28,455 ........................

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ................................................... 339 339 ........................

MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ .............................................................................. 420 420 ........................

NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ ............................................. 960 960 ........................

NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ............................. 3,635 3,635 ........................

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ......................................... 600 600 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ............................................................ 1,944 1,944 ........................

SHARK RIVER, NJ ....................................................................................... 420 420 ........................

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ...................................................................................... 3,263 3,263 ........................

COCHITI LAKE, NM ..................................................................................... 3,452 3,452 ........................

CONCHAS LAKE, NM ................................................................................... 3,137 3,137 ........................

GALISTEO DAM, NM .................................................................................... 772 772 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM .................................................. 650 650 ........................

JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM .......................................................................... 1,085 1,085 ........................

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, 

NM ......................................................................................................... 2,367 2,367 ........................

SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM .............................................................. 1,712 1,712 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM .............................................. 213 213 ........................

TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ............................................................................... 599 599 ........................

UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM .................. 1,300 1,300 ........................

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY ...................................................................................... 437 437 ........................

ARKPORT DAM, NY ..................................................................................... 305 305 ........................

BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ............................ 1,785 1,785 ........................

BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ............................................................................... 2,650 2,650 ........................

EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY ....................................................................... 7,000 7,000 ........................

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY .............................................................................. 652 652 ........................

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ................................................... 50 50 ........................

HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ...................................................................... 1,600 1,600 ........................

HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) ...................................................................... 2,600 2,600 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ................................................... 1,011 1,011 ........................

MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY .......................................................................... 3,575 3,575 ........................

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ ...................................... 5,650 5,650 ........................

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................ 5,977 5,977 ........................

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) ...................................... 9,300 9,300 ........................

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ....... 1,200 1,200 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ............................................................ 2,252 2,252 ........................

SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ........................... 702 702 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ........................... 610 610 ........................

WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY .......................................................................... 792 792 ........................

NORTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC ................................................. 1,750 1,750 ........................

B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ................................................... 1,719 1,719 ........................

CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC .............................................. 931 931 ........................

FALLS LAKE, NC ......................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC .................................................. 200 200 ........................

MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC .............................................................. 1,876 1,876 ........................
34 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ............................. 26 26 ........................

MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ................................................................... 5,950 5,950 ........................

NEW RIVER INLET, NC ................................................................................ 220 220 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ........................................................... 700 700 ........................

ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC .......................................................................... 765 765 ........................

SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... 580 580 ........................

W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ................................................ 3,376 3,376 ........................

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... 13,400 13,400 ........................

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN HALEY, ND .................................................................................. 195 195 ........................

GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ..................................................... 14,913 14,913 ........................

HOMME LAKE, ND ....................................................................................... 285 285 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND .................................................. 375 375 ........................

LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ............................................... 1,510 1,510 ........................

PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ................................................................................... 597 597 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ............................................... 95 95 ........................

SOURIS RIVER, ND ..................................................................................... 357 357 ........................

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

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,553 1,553 ........................

ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ........................................................................... 2,315 2,315 ........................

BERLIN LAKE, OH ....................................................................................... 2,681 2,681 ........................

CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 2,061 2,061 ........................

CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ................................................................... 1,232 1,232 ........................

CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ........................................................................... 5,855 5,855 ........................

DEER CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,451 1,451 ........................

DELAWARE LAKE, OH .................................................................................. 1,508 1,508 ........................

DILLON LAKE, OH ....................................................................................... 1,519 1,519 ........................

FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH .............................................................................. 1,700 1,700 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH .................................................. 836 836 ........................

MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH .......................................... 86 86 ........................

MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ......................................... 1,390 1,390 ........................

MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................................... 1,222 1,222 ........................

MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH .................................................................. 11,281 11,281 ........................

NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ............................................. 517 517 ........................

OHIO–MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ................................................... 1,840 1,840 ........................

PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................. 1,403 1,403 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ........................................................... 305 305 ........................

ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ........................................... 35 35 ........................

SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ............................................................................ 1,618 1,618 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ........................... 255 255 ........................

TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ................................................................................. 5,905 5,905 ........................

TOM JENKINS DAM, OH .............................................................................. 774 774 ........................

WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................... 858 858 ........................

WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH .................................................................... 1,314 1,314 ........................

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 3,122 3,122 ........................

BIRCH LAKE, OK ......................................................................................... 674 674 ........................

BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 2,788 2,788 ........................

CANTON LAKE, OK ...................................................................................... 2,341 2,341 ........................

COPAN LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 1,053 1,053 ........................

EUFAULA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 6,158 6,158 ........................

FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 6,024 6,024 ........................

FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ............................................................................. 1,072 1,072 ........................

GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ................................................................... 340 340 ........................

HEYBURN LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 638 638 ........................

HUGO LAKE, OK .......................................................................................... 1,813 1,813 ........................
35 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

HULAH LAKE, OK ........................................................................................ 1,857 1,857 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ................................................... 221 221 ........................

KAW LAKE, OK ............................................................................................ 2,000 2,000 ........................

KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ................................................................................... 4,793 4,793 ........................

MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ............... 17,161 17,161 ........................

OOLOGAH LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 2,485 2,485 ........................

OPTIMA LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 112 112 ........................

PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK .......................... 163 163 ........................

PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ................................................................................ 6,535 6,535 ........................

SARDIS LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 889 889 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ............................................... 1,200 1,200 ........................

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK .................................................................................... 4,843 4,843 ........................

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK ...................................................................... 4,953 4,953 ........................

WAURIKA LAKE, OK ..................................................................................... 1,561 1,561 ........................

WISTER LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 849 849 ........................

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 1,180 1,180 ........................

BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 4,189 4,189 ........................

BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .................................................... 8,346 8,346 ........................

CHETCO RIVER, OR .................................................................................... 734 734 ........................

COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ............................................. 18,118 18,118 ........................

COOS BAY, OR ........................................................................................... 6,523 6,523 ........................

COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ........................................................................ 1,332 1,332 ........................

COUGAR LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 2,330 2,330 ........................

DETROIT LAKE, OR ..................................................................................... 1,007 1,007 ........................

DORENA LAKE, OR ...................................................................................... 1,324 1,324 ........................

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 390 390 ........................

FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 1,158 1,158 ........................

FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 1,622 1,622 ........................

GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR .......................................................... 2,497 2,497 ........................

HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR .............................................................................. 3,775 3,775 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR .................................................. 1,066 1,066 ........................

JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ........................................................ 4,901 4,901 ........................

LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ......................................................................... 1,937 1,937 ........................

LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................... 4,269 4,269 ........................

MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .......................................................... 8,252 8,252 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ........................................................... 400 400 ........................

ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OH .......................................................... 673 673 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ............................................... 98 98 ........................

SUISLAW RIVER, OR ................................................................................... 746 746 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ........................... 5,300 5,300 ........................

WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ........................................ 63 63 ........................

WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR .............................................. 200 200 ........................

WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR .......................................................................... 977 977 ........................

YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ................................................................ 2,806 2,806 ........................

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ............................................................................... 5,009 5,009 ........................

ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA ............................................................................. 627 627 ........................

AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................. 278 278 ........................

BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 1,410 1,410 ........................

BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA .............................................................................. 2,981 2,981 ........................

CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................... 1,346 1,346 ........................

COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ............................................................................. 2,113 2,113 ........................

CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ........................................................................ 1,900 1,900 ........................

CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ........................................................................... 876 876 ........................

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ............................ 11,985 11,985 ........................

EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................. 1,408 1,408 ........................

FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ............................................................. 1,148 1,148 ........................
36 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA ..................................................................... 1,140 1,140 ........................

GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA ................................. 380 380 ........................

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

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ................................................... 932 932 ........................

JOHNSTOWN, PA ......................................................................................... 46 46 ........................

KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ......................................... 1,695 1,695 ........................

LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ............................................................................... 1,588 1,588 ........................

MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ...................................................................... 1,449 1,449 ........................

MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ......................................................................... 17,905 17,905 ........................

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV .......................................... 33,197 33,197 ........................

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV ................................... 800 800 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ............................................................ 170 170 ........................

PROMPTON LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 655 655 ........................

PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ................................................................................... 48 48 ........................

RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 4,522 4,522 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ............................................... 35 35 ........................

SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ....................................................................... 2,303 2,303 ........................

STILLWATER LAKE, PA ................................................................................ 503 503 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ........................... 105 105 ........................

TIOGA—HAMMOND LAKES, PA ................................................................... 2,784 2,784 ........................

TIONESTA LAKE, PA .................................................................................... 2,080 2,080 ........................

UNION CITY LAKE, PA ................................................................................. 404 404 ........................

WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ..................................................................... 1,120 1,120 ........................

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ..................................................................... 735 735 ........................

YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD ..................................................... 2,523 2,523 ........................

PUERTO RICO 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PR ................................................... 281 281 ........................

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR .............................................................................. 2,300 2,300 ........................

RHODE ISLAND 

BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI .................................................... 350 350 ........................

FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ........................................ 1,067 1,067 ........................

GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI ...................................................... 350 350 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI .................................................... 52 52 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI ............................................................. 350 350 ........................

PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI ....................................................... 200 200 ........................

WOONSOCKET, RI ....................................................................................... 544 544 ........................

SOUTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC .................................................. 100 100 ........................

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ......................................................................... 13,920 13,920 ........................

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .............................................. 6,370 6,370 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ................................................... 65 65 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ............................................................ 875 875 ........................

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ............................................................ 10,393 10,393 ........................

COLD BROOK LAKE, SD .............................................................................. 346 346 ........................

COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD .............................................................. 258 258 ........................

FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ......................................... 11,139 11,139 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ................................................... 325 325 ........................

LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN ........................................................................ 579 579 ........................

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND ............................................................. 12,128 12,128 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ............................................... 107 107 ........................

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .............................................................................. 6,675 6,675 ........................

CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ................................................................. 7,787 7,787 ........................

CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ................................................ 7,255 7,255 ........................
37 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ............................................................................. 7,255 7,255 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................... 309 309 ........................

J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................... 5,244 5,244 ........................

NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE COUNTY, TN ............. 10 10 ........................

OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ............................................................ 9,636 9,636 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ............................................................ 1 1 ........................

TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................... 23,386 23,386 ........................

WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN .......................................................................... 1,366 1,366 ........................

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 1,093 1,093 ........................

ARKANSAS—RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VIII, TX .... 1,575 1,575 ........................

BARDWELL LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 1,629 1,629 ........................

BELTON LAKE, TX ....................................................................................... 4,135 4,135 ........................

BENBROOK LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 2,582 2,582 ........................

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX .................................................................... 2,700 2,700 ........................

BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................... 2,912 2,912 ........................

CANYON LAKE, TX ...................................................................................... 3,711 3,711 ........................

CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX ..................................................................... 1,395 1,395 ........................

CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX ................................................................ 50 50 ........................

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ......................................................... 7,400 7,400 ........................

DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX .............................................................. 17,854 17,854 ........................

ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX .................................... 35 35 ........................

FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ...................................... 4,210 4,210 ........................

FREEPORT HARBOR, TX .............................................................................. 8,300 8,300 ........................

GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ................................................... 10,350 10,350 ........................

GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ............................................................. 2,700 2,700 ........................

GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX .................................................................... 2,877 2,877 ........................

GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX .................................................................................. 3,045 3,045 ........................

GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ......................................................... 21,871 21,871 ........................

HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ............................................................................ 1,734 1,734 ........................

HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................... 30,000 30,000 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ................................................... 1,701 1,701 ........................

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 1,624 1,624 ........................

JOE POOL LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 1,602 1,602 ........................

LAKE KEMP, TX ........................................................................................... 277 277 ........................

LAVON LAKE, TX ......................................................................................... 3,579 3,579 ........................

LEWISVILLE DAM, TX .................................................................................. 4,639 4,639 ........................

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................ 5,200 5,200 ........................

NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX .......................................................................... 3,072 3,072 ........................

NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX .......................... 2,355 2,355 ........................

O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................ 1,167 1,167 ........................

PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ................................................................................. 1,287 1,287 ........................

PROCTOR LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 2,603 2,603 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ............................................................ 224 224 ........................

RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 1,530 1,530 ........................

SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX ............................................................. 13,625 13,625 ........................

SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ................................................. 6,769 6,769 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ................................................ 281 281 ........................

SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 3,420 3,420 ........................

STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ................................................................... 2,448 2,448 ........................

TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................. 4,000 4,000 ........................

TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ......................................... 2,968 2,968 ........................

WACO LAKE, TX .......................................................................................... 3,717 3,717 ........................

WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ................................................................................ 2,175 2,175 ........................

WHITNEY LAKE, TX ..................................................................................... 6,419 6,419 ........................

WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ........................................................ 3,371 3,371 ........................

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ................................................... 40 40 ........................
38 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ............................................... 506 506 ........................

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN, VT ................................................................................... 1,158 1,158 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ................................................... 88 88 ........................

NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY ................................................. 45 45 ........................

NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT ....................................................................... 963 963 ........................

NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ................................................................... 923 923 ........................

TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ................................................................................ 910 910 ........................

UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ............................................................................ 1,029 1,029 ........................

VIRGIN ISLANDS 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VI .................................................... 170 170 ........................

VIRGINIA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ....................................... 2,650 2,650 ........................

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ....................................... 1,380 1,380 ........................

CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA .......................................................................... 511 511 ........................

GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA ................................................. 2,223 2,223 ........................

HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................................................................. 1,500 1,500 ........................

HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ............ 114 114 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ................................................... 372 372 ........................

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ....................................................................... 4,100 4,100 ........................

JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC ................................................................... 16,940 16,940 ........................

JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ........................................ 2,292 2,292 ........................

LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA ............................................................................... 300 300 ........................

NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ............................................................................... 10,390 10,390 ........................

NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA .................................................. 619 619 ........................

PHILPOTT LAKE, VA .................................................................................... 4,615 4,615 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ............................................................ 1,163 1,163 ........................

RUDEE INLET, VA ....................................................................................... 350 350 ........................

TANGIER CHANNEL, VA ............................................................................... 500 500 ........................

WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATIONS, VA ................................... 135 135 ........................

WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA ............................................. 100 100 ........................

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ............................................................................. 628 628 ........................

COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA & 

PORTLAND, OR ....................................................................................... 38,181 38,181 ........................

COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR ............................................. 1,959 1,959 ........................

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR ....... 1,371 1,371 ........................

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID .................................... 2,194 2,194 ........................

EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ........................................ 1,638 1,638 ........................

GRAYS HARBOR(38–F00T DEEPENING), WA ............................................... 9,998 9,998 ........................

HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ....................................................................... 3,822 3,822 ........................

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................. 4,760 4,760 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA .................................................. 1,150 1,150 ........................

LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ......................................................... 12,325 12,325 ........................

LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................... 2,741 2,741 ........................

LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ....................................................... 3,218 3,218 ........................

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................... 2,860 2,860 ........................

MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ............................................................................... 2,490 2,490 ........................

MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ...................................... 399 399 ........................

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .......................................................................... 12,106 12,106 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ........................................................... 612 612 ........................

PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ............................................ 1,240 1,240 ........................

QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA .............................................................................. 1,619 1,619 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ............................................... 423 423 ........................

SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ................................................................................ 1,547 1,547 ........................
39 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ........................................................................ 292 292 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ........................... 64 64 ........................

SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA ......................................................................... 436 436 ........................

TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ................................................................. 155 155 ........................

THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR .................................................... 4,206 4,206 ........................

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV .............................................................................. 1,386 1,386 ........................

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 2,000 2,000 ........................

BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................... 2,768 2,768 ........................

EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ................................................................................. 2,564 2,564 ........................

ELKINS, WV ................................................................................................. 46 46 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV .................................................. 466 466 ........................

KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ................................................... 8,927 8,927 ........................

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH .......................................... 31,867 31,867 ........................

OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH ................................... 2,822 2,822 ........................

R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ................................................................................ 2,183 2,183 ........................

STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ................................................................ 1,405 1,405 ........................

SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV .......................................................................... 2,653 2,653 ........................

SUTTON LAKE, WV ...................................................................................... 2,525 2,525 ........................

TYGART LAKE, WV ...................................................................................... 1,453 1,453 ........................

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ....................................................................... 804 804 ........................

FOX RIVER, WI ............................................................................................ 2,378 2,378 ........................

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ........................................................................... 3,895 3,895 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ................................................... 54 54 ........................

KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI ............................................................................. 11 11 ........................

MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ........................................................................... 1,250 1,250 ........................

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ............................................................ 310 310 ........................

STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI .............. 819 819 ........................

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ............................ 575 575 ........................

WYOMING 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY .................................................. 118 118 ........................

JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY ....................................................................... 1,617 1,617 ........................

SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ............................................... 85 85 ........................

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES ............................. 2,536,111 2,536,111 ........................

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE ............................................................... ........................ 23,528 ∂23,528 

DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL ...................................... ........................ 250,000 ∂250,000 

DONOR AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS .................................. ........................ 50,000 ∂50,000 

INLAND WATERWAYS ................................................................ ........................ 45,000 ∂45,000 

SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE HARBORS AND CHANNELS .................................................................................... ........................ 48,000 ∂48,000 

OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ........................................................ ........................ 35,100 ∂35,100 

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH ................................................. 675 675 ........................

ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT [FEM] .. 3,250 3,250 ........................

BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS: 

STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM .................................................. 950 950 ........................

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ................. 4,200 4,200 ........................

RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................. 1,550 1,550 ........................

OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION ............................................ 322 322 ........................

CIVIL WORKS WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CWWMS) ............................ 10,000 10,000 ........................

COASTAL DATA INFORMATION PROGRAM (CDIP) ........................................ 2,500 6,000 ∂3,500 

COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................... 2,700 2,700 ........................

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS ............................ 6,000 6,000 ........................
40 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 1,500 1,500 ........................

DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE ..................................................... 11,690 11,690 ........................

DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ......................................................... 15,000 15,000 ........................

DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM .......... 1,119 1,119 ........................

DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) .......... 6,450 6,450 ........................

DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS) ............. 2,820 2,820 ........................

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ......................................... 100 100 ........................

FACILITY PROTECTION ................................................................................ 3,500 3,500 ........................

FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT ............. 5,400 5,400 ........................

GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL .............................................................. 600 600 ........................

INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS .................................................. 4,500 4,500 ........................

INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE 

PROTECTION DECISION CHRONOLOGY (IPET/HPDC) LESSONS LEARNED 

IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 ........................

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS ......... 30,500 30,500 ........................

MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ............................... 2,300 8,000 ∂5,700 

NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY ....................................................... 5,000 5,000 ........................

NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 ........................

NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ................................................... 6,300 9,300 ∂3,000 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT) ......... 10,000 10,000 ........................

NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ...................... 4,500 4,500 ........................

NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ........................ 800 800 ........................

SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROGRAM (SRP) ..................................................... 400 400 ........................

VETERAN’S CURATION PROGRAM AND COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT ........ 6,500 6,500 ........................

WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ...................................................... 4,669 4,669 ........................

HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ........................................ 795 795 ........................

REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................... 1,800 1,800 ........................

REVIEW OF NON–FEDERAL ALTERATIONS OF CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS 

(SECTION 408) ....................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 ........................

WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ................................... 500 5,500 ∂5,000 

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................... 168,890 637,718 ∂468,828 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................ 2,705,001 3,173,829 ∂468,828 

Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects.—Of the funding 

provided, $4,000,000 shall be for continued development and fieldtesting of platforms to enable scalable, cost effective structural 

health monitoring of critical civil infrastructure. 

Operations and Maintenance—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 of Engineers 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 2016, the Committee provided funding to continue preliminary 

research on the impact of reduced lock operations on riverine fish. 
41 

The Committee understands the research underway is proving valuable and, within available funds for ongoing work, directs the 

Corps of Engineers to continue this research at no less than the 

2016 level. The goal of the continued funding is to support the continuing research and, where appropriate, expand the work to look 

at ecosystem level impacts and additional waterways, lock structures, lock operation methods and fish species that will more fully 

inform the Corps of Engineers operations. 

Dam Optimization.—The Corps of Engineers is urged not to 

carry out any reservoir reoperation or reallocation for authorized 

purposes at Corps of Engineers’ facilities in the Southwestern Division with funds from any non-Federal entity other than the nonFederal sponsor until the Corps of Engineers has completed all 

public outreach and coordination, and submitted to the relevant authorizing and appropriations Committees, and the Congressional 

delegation representing such facility, a detailed analysis of the 

change in operations of the reservoir, and specific information on 

whether the activities would alter availability of water for existing 

authorized purposes at such facility, as well as compensation for 

lost water that would be necessary to make users whole if such activities were carried out. 

Dam Operations Manual Updates.—In the South Pacific Division, 

the Corps of Engineers may accept and expend contributions from 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies to fund all or a 

portion of the cost of carrying out a review or revision of operational documents, including water control plans, water control 

manuals, water control diagrams, release schedules, rule curves, 

operational agreements with non-Federal entities, and any associated environmental documentation for any Corps of Engineers 

project, non-Federal projects regulated for flood control by the Secretary, or Bureau of Reclamation transferred works regulated for 

flood control by the Secretary. 

The Dalles Dam.—The Committee is aware of a Corps of Engineers legal analysis which finds that a new tribal village can be 

constructed pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act authorizing construction of The Dalles Dam. The Corps of Engineers 

is encouraged to complete a development plan for a new tribal village at The Dalles Dam in consultation with affected Columbia 

River tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

WRRDA Section 6002.—The Committee supports the Corps of 

Engineers performing a review of their inventory, in accordance 

with section 6002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2014, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

WRRDA Section 4001.—The Congress has made clear its intent 

that the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basin Commissions be supported, and the Corps of Engineers is encouraged 

to budget accordingly. 

Isle of Shoals North and Cape Arundel Dredged Material Placement Site.—The Cape Arundel Disposal Site in the State of Maine 

selected by the Department of the Army as an alternative dredged 

material disposal site under section 103(b) of the Marine Protection 

Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, shall remain open until 

April, 15 2024, until the remaining disposal capacity of the site has 
42 

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. 

Donor Ports and Energy Transfer Ports.—The Committee pro- vides $50,000,000 for eligible donor ports and energy transfer ports 

in accordance with WRRDA section 2106. The Committee notes the 

Corps of Engineers has failed to issue implementation guidance for 

section 2106 as directed by the Committee. With respect to eligible 

donor ports, the Committee directs 50 percent of such funds be 

equally divided between the eligible donor ports; and the remaining 

50 percent of such funds be divided between the eligible donor 

ports based on each eligible donor port’s percentage of the total 

Harbor Maintenance Tax revenues generated at such ports, in accordance with WRRDA section 2101. Funds recommended for section 2106 shall be used at the discretion of each eligible donor port 

and energy transfer port in accordance with section 2106. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The fiscal year 2017 

budget request does not fund operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation 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. The Committee 

believes that investing in operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of infrastructure today will save taxpayers money in the future. 

The Committee recommendation includes additional funds to 

continue ongoing projects and activities, including periodic dredging of ports and harbors. The Committee directs that priority in allocating these funds be given to completing ongoing work maintaining authorized depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels, including where contaminated sediments are present, and for 

addressing critical maintenance backlog. Particular emphasis 

should be placed on projects where there is a U.S. Coast Guard 

presence; that will enhance national, regional, or local economic development; or that will promote job growth or international competitiveness. 

The Committee is concerned that the administration’s criteria for 

navigation maintenance do not allow small, remote, or subsistence 

harbors and waterways to properly compete for scarce navigation 

maintenance funds. The Committee urges the Corps of Engineers 

to revise the criteria used for determining which navigation maintenance projects are funded in order to develop a reasonable and 

equitable allocation under this account. The Committee supports 

including criteria to evaluate the economic impact that these 

projects provide to local and regional economies. 

Water Operations Technical Support.—Funding in addition to the 

budget request is included to continue research into atmospheric 

rivers funded in fiscal year 2015. 

Additional Funding for Ongoing Work—Deep Draft Harbor and 

Channel.—The Committee recommendation includes $250,000,000 
43 

in additional funding for deep-draft harbor and channel maintenance. Within the amounts available, the Committee urges the 

Corps of Engineers to give priority to funding strategic commercial 

ports, as designated by the Department of Defense, in the fiscal 

year 2017 work plan if their additional maintenance dredging capability for fiscal year 2017 exceeds the amount included in the budget request. 

Additional Funding for Navigation Maintenance on Great Lakes 

Navigation System.—The Committee encourages the Corps of Engineers to direct additional funding for ongoing work under O&M to 

navigation maintenance, specifically deep-draft harbor and channel 

projects as well as small navigation projects essential to the Great 

Lakes Navigation System. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $200,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 200,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Regulatory 

Program of the Corps of Engineers, the same as the budget request. 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $112,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 103,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 103,000,000 

The Committee recommends $103,000,000 for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, the same as the budget request. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $28,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 30,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000 

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Flood Control and 

Coastal Emergencies, the same as the budget request. 

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $179,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 180,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 180,000,000 

The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for Expenses, the 

same as the budget request. This appropriation finances the expenses for the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, 

and certain research and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. No funding is recommended for creation of an Office of Congressional Affairs. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $4,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 
44 

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

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 102. The bill includes language concerning funding transfers requested by the Administration related to fish hatcheries. 

Section 103. The bill includes language concerning the definitions 

‘‘fill material’’ or ‘‘discharge of fill material’’ for purposes of the Federal Pollution Control Act. 

Section 104. The bill includes language concerning the open lake 

placement of dredged material. 
(45) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $10,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 5,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Central Utah 

Project Completion account which includes $7,350,000 for Central 

Utah Project construction, $1,300,000 for transfer to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Utah 

Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, $1,350,000 

for necessary expenses of the Secretary of the Interior, and up to 

$1,500,000 for the Commission’s administrative expenses. This allows Reclamation 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 $1,265,000,000 for the Bureau of 

Reclamation [Reclamation], an increase of $158,841,000 from the 

budget request. The Committee recommendation sets priorities by 

supporting our Nation’s infrastructure. 

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water and 

power to the West, Reclamation continues to develop programs, initiatives, and activities that will help meet new water needs and 

balance the multitude of competing uses of water in the West. Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country, operating 348 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 million 

acre-feet. Reclamation projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water 

to more than 31 million people each year, and provide 1 out of 5 

western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners, 

289 recreation sites that have 90 million visits annually. 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 WORK PLAN

The Committee has recommended funding above the budget request for Water and Related Resources. Reclamation is directed to 
46 

submit a work plan, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act, to the Committee proposing its allocation of these 

additional funds. Reclamation is directed not to obligate any funding above the budget request for studies or projects until the Committee has approved the work plan for fiscal year 2017. 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, 2016. 

DROUGHT

The Committee is particularly concerned about the continued 

drought in the West. The U.S. Drought Monitor for May 12, 2016, 

shows that all Reclamation States are currently suffering from 

drought conditions. Ten of the seventeen Reclamation States are 

suffering from severe to exceptional drought over large portions of 

the individual States. Nearly all of California, one-half of Nevada, 

one-half of Oregon, and some areas of the southern Great Plains 

are suffering from extreme to exceptional drought. 

The Committee notes that although this year’s El Nin ̃ o weather 

system resulted in increased precipitation overall, one El Nin ̃ o 

event is not sufficient to alleviate the severe drought conditions facing Reclamation states. The State of California, for example, estimates that the state would have needed a snowpack total of 150 

percent of the historical average by April 1, 2016 in order to be 

able to consider the drought at an end. However, California’s 

snowpack, which supplies approximately 30 percent of California’s 

water needs in normal years, is only at 87 percent of its historical 

average, despite significant El Nin ̃ o storms. 

In order to address the continued drought in the West, the Committee directs Reclamation and the Department of the Interior to 

use all of the flexibility and tools at their disposal to mitigate the 

impacts of this drought. In particular, the Committee directs Reclamation to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and relevant state agencies to undertake comprehensive, around the clock, real-time monitoring of 

drought conditions and their impact on endangered species and 

rely upon the best available science. The Committee also directs 

Reclamation to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
47 

expand efforts to supply small rural communities with water during the current drought. 

The Committee is pleased to see that Reclamation has increased 

the funding for WaterSmart grants that increase efficiencies in current water uses. The Committee also appreciates Reclamation including a line in the budget request under WaterSmart to provide 

Drought Response and Comprehensive Drought Plans. 

However, these efforts are insufficient to address the current 

scope of this drought and do nothing to address future droughts. 

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. 

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 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, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,118,972,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 813,402,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,114,394,000 

The Committee recommends $1,114,394,000 for Water and Related Resources, an increase of $158,841,000 when accounting for 

the budget structure, which includes funding in this account for Indian Water Rights Settlements and the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund, as in prior years. 

INTRODUCTION

The Water and Related Resources account supports the development, management, and restoration of water and related natural 

resources in the 17 western States. The account includes funds for 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies. 

The Committee has 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. These 

funds may be used for environmental restoration and compliance 

activities; water conservation and delivery; increased operations 

and maintenance funding; drought emergency assistance planning; 

WaterSmart grants; and drought response and comprehensive 
48 

drought assistance. The Committee notes that Reclamation included more funds in its fiscal year 2017 budget request to address 

the continuing impacts from this drought. The Committee encourages Reclamation to maintain or increase these levels in the development of its fiscal year 2018 budget request. 

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 ................................................................... ........................ 15,735 ........................ 15,735 

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 .................................................. 1,315 24,999 1,315 24,999 

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT ....................................................... 647 674 647 674 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS ......................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/ 

MORMON ISLAND ............................................. 1,577 8,888 1,577 8,888 

AUBURN–FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ............................ 35 2,056 35 2,056 

DELTA DIVISION .................................................... 5,468 5,511 5,468 5,511 

EAST SIDE DIVISION ............................................. 1,290 2,644 1,290 2,644 

FRIANT DIVISION .................................................. 2,192 3,273 2,192 3,273 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ...................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 36,000 

MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ................ 8,589 454 8,589 454 

REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT. PROGRAM ............................... ........................ 16,362 ........................ 16,362 

SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ............................. 1,307 694 1,307 694 

SAN FELIPE DIVISION ........................................... 271 75 271 75 

SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ........................................ 52 ........................ 52 ........................

SHASTA DIVISION ................................................. 720 8,530 720 8,530 

TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ...................................... 12,178 5,177 12,178 5,177 

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ........................ 3,989 10,543 3,989 10,543 

WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT .... 2,957 5,915 2,957 5,915 

ORLAND PROJECT .......................................................... ........................ 930 ........................ 930

SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ................................ 300 ........................ 300 ........................

SOLANO PROJECT .......................................................... 1,329 2,367 1,329 2,367 

VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ............................................. 313 33 313 33 

COLORADO 

ANIMAS–LA PLATA PROJECT ......................................... 669 1,983 669 1,983 

ARMEL UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................. 5 480 5 480 

COLLBRAN PROJECT ...................................................... 229 1,960 229 1,960 

COLORADO–BIG THOMPSON PROJECT .......................... 732 16,024 732 16,024 

FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ..................................... 101 136 101 136 

FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT .................................. 141 12,574 141 12,574 

FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEY 

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

GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ....................... 260 1,691 260 1,691 

LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ....... ........................ 1,914 ........................ 1,914 

MANCOS PROJECT ......................................................... 61 237 61 237 

NARROWS UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. ........................ 36 ........................ 36 

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ................... 399 3,000 399 3,000 

PINE RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 123 321 123 321 
49 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN ................. 267 3,656 267 3,656 

SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CONEJOS DIVISION ........... 23 54 23 54 

UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT .............................................. 838 159 838 159 

UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ....... 270 ........................ 270 ........................

IDAHO 

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ................................................. 2,741 1,930 2,741 1,930 

COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 

PROJECT ................................................................... 18,000 ........................ 18,000 ........................

LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS .................................. 3,578 27 3,578 27 

MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ........................................... 2,631 2,169 2,631 2,169 

PRESTON BENCH PROJECT ........................................... 4 8 4 8 

KANSAS 

ALMENA UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................ 43 471 43 471 

BOSTWICK UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. 365 894 365 894 

CEDAR BLUFF UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... 40 541 40 541 

GLEN ELDER UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 65 1,238 65 1,238 

KANSAS RIVER UNIT, P–SMBP ...................................... ........................ 100 ........................ 100 

KIRWIN UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................. 37 472 37 472 

WEBSTER UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................. 15 490 15 490 

WICHITA PROJECT—CHENEY DIVISION ......................... 147 384 147 384 

MONTANA 

CANYON FERRY UNIT, P–SMBP .................................... 246 5,442 246 5,442 

EAST BENCH UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 202 652 202 652 

FORT PECK RESERVATION / DRY PRAIRIE RURAL 

WATER SYSTEM ........................................................ 4,625 ........................ 4,625 ........................

HELENA VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP .................................... 19 155 19 155 

HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ............................................. ........................ 508 ........................ 508 

HUNTLEY PROJECT ........................................................ 12 51 12 51 

LOWER MARIAS UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................... 102 1,636 102 1,636 

LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ................................... 364 16 364 16 

MILK RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 548 1,148 548 1,148 

MISSOURI BASIN O&M, P–SMBP .................................. 1,028 273 1,028 273 

ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................... 3,700 ........................ 3,700 ........................

SUN RIVER PROJECT ..................................................... 153 260 153 260 

YELLOWTAIL UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 22 6,780 22 6,780 

NEBRASKA 

AINSWORTH UNIT, P–SMBP ........................................... 70 103 70 103 

FRENCHMAN–CAMBRIDGE UNIT, P–SMBP .................... 325 1,842 325 1,842 

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ............................................... 13 98 13 98 

NORTH LOUP UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 89 121 89 121 

NEVADA 

LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ........................................... 6,325 3,526 6,325 3,526 

LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ....... 115 ........................ 115 ........................

LAKE MEAD /LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ................... 700 ........................ 700 ........................

NEW MEXICO 

CARLSBAD PROJECT ...................................................... 2,915 1,224 2,915 1,224 

EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY ........... 1,000 ........................ 1,000 ........................

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ..................................... 14,329 11,536 14,329 11,536 

RIO GRANDE PROJECT .................................................. 1,399 4,007 1,399 4,007 

RIO GRANDE PEUBLOS PROJECT .................................. 300 ........................ 300 ........................

TUCUMCARI PROJECT .................................................... 18 5 18 5 
50 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

NORTH DAKOTA 

DICKINSON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................ 212 569 212 569 

GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P–SMBP .......................... 16,406 7,122 16,406 7,122 

HEART BUTTE UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... 82 947 82 947 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT ...................................................... 67 171 67 171 

MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ............................................... 189 795 189 795 

MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ............................................ 84 602 84 602 

NORMAN PROJECT ......................................................... 71 298 71 298 

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT .............................................. 244 1,006 244 1,006 

W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ................................................... 59 539 59 539 

OREGON 

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ............................................ 284 516 284 516 

DESCHUTES PROJECT .................................................... 367 205 367 205 

EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ....................................... 536 222 536 222 

KLAMATH PROJECT ........................................................ 11,379 4,621 11,379 4,621 

ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ........ 1,601 1,236 1,601 1,236 

TUALATIN PROJECT ........................................................ 367 223 367 223 

UMATILLA PROJECT ....................................................... 503 2,347 503 2,347 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

ANGOSTURA UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 249 719 249 719 

BELLE FOURCHE UNIT, P–SMBP ................................... 270 1,025 270 1,025 

KEYHOLE UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................... 198 577 198 577 

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM .................. 2,775 ........................ 2,775 ........................

MID–DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT .......................... ........................ 15 ........................ 15 

MNI WICONI PROJECT ................................................... ........................ 12,200 ........................ 12,200 

OAHE UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................................... 36 71 36 71 

RAPID VALLEY PROJECT ................................................ ........................ 69 ........................ 69 

RAPID VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... ........................ 195 ........................ 195 

SHADEHILL UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................ 75 456 75 456 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT ................................................... 27 13 27 13 

CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ........................................... 84 135 84 135 

LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION PROGRAM ......................................................... 50 ........................ 50 ........................

NUECES RIVER PROJECT ............................................... 108 708 108 708 

SAN ANGELO PROJECT .................................................. 38 597 38 597 

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT ........................................................... 178 176 178 176 

MOON LAKE PROJECT .................................................... 9 84 9 84 

NEWTON PROJECT ......................................................... 29 95 29 95 

OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ................................................ 218 256 218 256 

PROVO RIVER PROJECT ................................................. 1,293 458 1,293 458 

SANPETE PROJECT ........................................................ 60 10 60 10 

SCOFIELD PROJECT ....................................................... 529 86 529 86 

STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT .................................... 505 100 505 100 

WEBER BASIN PROJECT ................................................ 1,135 925 1,135 925 

WEBER RIVER PROJECT ................................................ 60 86 60 86 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ........................................... 4,273 9,989 4,273 9,989 

WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ...................................... 459 64 459 64 

YAKIMA PROJECT ........................................................... 1,104 5,240 1,104 5,240 

YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 15,799 ........................ 15,799 ........................
51 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

WYOMING 

BOYSEN UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................ 231 1,872 231 1,872 

BUFFALO BILL DAM, DAM MODIFICATION, P–SMBP ...... 32 2,747 32 2,747 

KENDRICK PROJECT ...................................................... 106 3,692 106 3,692 

NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ............................................... 205 1,153 205 1,153 

NORTH PLATTE AREA, P–SMBP ..................................... 109 5,120 109 5,120 

OWL CREEK UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 6 105 6 105 

RIVERTON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. 8 566 8 566 

SHOSHONE PROJECT ..................................................... 76 753 76 753 

SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ................... 191,491 279,866 191,491 315,866 

REMAINING ITEMS 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK: 

RURAL WATER ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 43,841 ........................

FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS ..................... ........................ ........................ 5,000 ........................

WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY ............... ........................ ........................ 10,000 ........................

WESTERN DROUGHT REPONSE ............................. ........................ ........................ 100,000 ........................

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, 

TITLE I ...................................................................... ........................ 15,453 ........................ 15,453 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, 

TITLE II ..................................................................... 8,162 ........................ 8,162 ........................

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 5 ...................................................................... 3,935 6,500 3,935 6,500 

COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SECTION 8 ...................................................................... 2,765 ........................ 2,765 ........................

COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 

PROJECT ................................................................... 620 ........................ 620 ........................

DAM SAFETY PROGRAM: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY 

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

INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................ 64,500 ........................ 64,500 

SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ............. ........................ 20,284 ........................ 20,284 

EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ........................................................................ ........................ 1,250 ........................ 1,250 

ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION 

PROGRAM ................................................................. 27,305 ........................ 27,305 ........................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .............. 1,828 ........................ 1,828 ........................

EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ..................... ........................ 8,854 ........................ 8,854 

GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES .................................... 2,000 ........................ 2,000 ........................

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS: 

AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT ................ ........................ ........................ 6,379 ........................

CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT 

OF 2010 ........................................................... ........................ ........................ 12,772 ........................

NAVAJO–GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT .......... ........................ ........................ 87,000 ........................

LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................ 9,813 ........................ 9,813 ........................

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ...... 27,433 ........................ 27,433 ........................

MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS .......... ........................ 819 ........................ 819 

NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM ......................... 10,425 ........................ 10,425 ........................

NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ...................................................................... 1,764 ........................ 1,764 ........................

OPERATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ....................... 1,132 1,656 1,132 1,656 

POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ........................................ 2,391 307 2,391 307 

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ...................... 593 206 593 206 

RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ........................... 2,189 ........................ 2,189 ........................

RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .................................................................... 2,189 ........................ 2,189 ........................
52 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management Facilities OM&R Resources management Facilities OM&R 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: 

DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM ............................................................... 4,653 1,150 4,653 1,150 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ............... 22,765 ........................ 22,765 ........................

SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES ............................................ ........................ 26,220 ........................ 26,220 

UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT ................................................................... 90 ........................ 90 ........................

WATERSMART PROGRAM: 

WATERSMART GRANTS ......................................... 23,365 ........................ 23,365 ........................

WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM ............................................................... 4,179 ........................ 4,179 ........................

COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ........... 1,750 ........................ 1,750 ........................

BASIN STUDIES .................................................... 5,200 ........................ 5,200 ........................

DROUGHT RESPONSE & COMPREHENSIVE 

DROUGHT PLANS ............................................. 4,000 ........................ 4,000 ........................

RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ........ ........................ 1,500 ........................ 1,500 

TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PROGRAM ............................................................... 21,500 ........................ 21,500 ........................

SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ......................... 192,046 149,999 457,038 149,999 

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

TOTAL ............................................................... 383,537 429,865 648,529 465,865 

GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ..................................................... ........................ 813,402 ........................ 1,114,394 

CALFED Water Storage Feasibility Studies.—The Committee 

notes that with the passage of California Proposition 1 in 2014, the 

California Water Commission is expected to begin allocating 

$2,700,000,000 for the public benefits of water storage projects in 

2017. To ensure that the CALFED water supply projects are able 

to compete for the available State funding, the Committee directs 

Reclamation to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that 

each of the authorized CALFED water storage feasibility studies, 

and associated environmental impact statements, are completed as 

soon as practicable, and that, at a minimum, publicly available 

drafts of such studies and environmental reviews are completed expeditiously in accordance with Congressional direction. 

Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for Safety of Dams preconstruction activities 

at Scoggins Dam as requested. Consistent with the Tualatin 

Project Water Supply Feasibility Study authorized in Public Law 

108–137 and statutory authority granted in the fiscal year 2016 

Omnibus Appropriation allowing for additional benefits, such as 

storage, to be conducted simultaneously with dam safety improvements for new or supplementary works, the Committee directs the 

Bureau to evaluate alternatives, including new or supplementary 

works provided that safety remains the paramount consideration, 

to address dam safety modifications and additional benefits. The 

Committee directs Reclamation to prioritize this joint project including commencement of feasibility and environmental review of 
53 

the preferred alternative in fiscal year 2017. The Committee understands that a replacement structure downstream could significantly 

reduce project costs for both the Federal Government and local 

stakeholders. The Secretary may accept contributed funds from 

non-Federal contractors to expedite completion of any level of review. 

Rural Water Projects.—When allocating resources for rural water 

projects, the Committee prohibits Reclamation from using the ability of a non-Federal sponsor to contribute funds in excess of the authorized non-Federal cost share as a criterion for prioritizing these 

funds. 

The Committee also directs Reclamation to work with the United 

States Department of the Interior, the Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee, and House Natural Resources Committee on 

legislative solutions to funding authorized Reclamation Rural 

Water Projects. 

WaterSMART Program.—The Committee recommends that 

grants funded under the WaterSMART Program have a near-term 

impact on water and energy conservation and improved water management. Reclamation is urged to prioritize funding for projects in 

regions most stricken by drought. The Committee urges Reclamation to provide additional funds for the WaterSmart program to 

fund projects that address water challenges in the West, including 

projects that address drought or help agricultural water users comply with the Endangered Species Act, and projects that support collaborative approaches and reduce conflict, including litigation, over 

water management. 

Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The 

Committee recommendation includes an additional $158,841,000 

above the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies, 

projects, and activities. Priority in allocating these funds should be 

given to advance and complete ongoing work; improve water supply 

reliability; improve water deliveries; enhance national, regional, or 

local economic development; promote job growth; advance tribal 

and non-tribal water settlement studies and activities; or address 

critical backlog maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Funding 

provided under the heading Additional Funding for Ongoing Work 

may be utilized for pre-construction activities and on projects which 

provide new or existing water supplies through additional infrastructure. Reclamation should give priority in allocating funds to 

on-going work on authorized projects for which environmental compliance has been completed. 

Buried Metallic Water Pipe.—The Bureau of Reclamation has repeatedly disregarded congressional directives related to Technical 

Memorandum No. 8140–CC–2004–1 and the assembly and analysis 

of data on pipeline reliability. Due to this repeated pattern for a 

number of years and failure to meet congressional deadlines, Reclamation shall treat the Technical Memorandum as a set of nonbinding guidelines, instead of a set of requirements, as it has repeatedly told Congress. As a set of non-binding guidelines, deviations from the Technical Memorandum may occur without review 

and/or approval by any Federal entity if the water project has been 

designed and approved by a duly licensed and registered professional engineer. 
54 

Water Pumping in California.—The Committee notes that water 

pumping restrictions intended to protect endangered smelt in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta have resulted in roughly the 

same amount of water being pumped to Central and Southern California during the beginning of 2016, an El Nin ̃ o year, than was 

pumped during the same period of 2015, an extreme drought year. 

The Committee is deeply concerned that Federal agencies responsible for determining when to restrict water pumping are relying 

too heavily on assumptions and intuition rather than actual and 

regular monitoring of water conditions and Delta Smelt populations. In an effort to better understand the exact impact of pumping operations on the ability of Delta Smelt to survive, the Committee directs Reclamation to coordinate with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to determine additional real-time monitoring is 

necessary to accurately identify the effects of pumping on smelt, 

specifically, whether Delta Smelt are capable of migrating back out 

to the Central Delta when found further south of Prisoner’s Point, 

approximately 17 miles from the water pumps. If the Department 

of the Interior finds that additional monitoring or expeditious scientific study is necessary to make this determination, the Department shall promptly implement the necessary monitoring or study. 

The Bureau of Reclamation shall brief the Committee on the results of this coordinated inquiry with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not later than 60 days after enactment of this act. 

Fish monitoring.—The Committee notes that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has made significant 

progress in deploying acoustic tags to monitor the migration and 

survival of salmonids between spawning areas and the Pacific 

Ocean. In 2013, tags became small enough to implant in endangered winter-run Chinook. The Committee also notes that the 

Corps of Engineers is currently working on a prototype tag small 

and flexible enough for injection into juvenile Pacific Lamprey in 

the Columbia River Basin. The Committee directs Reclamation to 

work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, and the Corps of Engineers to coordinate and expand upon real time fish monitoring programs, including the potential deployment of new technology. The Bureau of 

Reclamation shall brief the Committee on its efforts not later than 

60 days after enactment of this act. 

Long-term Stewardship.—Walker Basin Restoration Program 

funds awarded by Reclamation to the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation may be used to establish long-term stewardship accounts to assist with the long-term management and disposition of 

land, water and related interests acquired from willing sellers, with 

continuing assistance from Reclamation under new or extended 

grant agreements until all Program funds have been expended. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $49,528,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 55,606,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,606,000 

The Committee recommends $55,606,000 for the Central Valley 

Project Restoration Fund, the same as the budget request. This ap-
55 

propriation is fully offset by a scorekeeping adjustment from revenues. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 

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

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $37,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 36,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,000,000 

The Committee recommends $36,000,000 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, 2016 ............................................................................. $59,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 59,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,000,000 

The Committee recommends $59,000,000 for Policy and Administration, the same as the 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. 

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $106,151,000 

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

The Committee recommends no funds for Indian Water Rights 

Settlements in this account. 

This account was proposed as a part of the administration request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water rights 

settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public 
56 

Law 111–291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands Management 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11), and the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act (Public Law 

110–390). Rather than create a new account as proposed, the Committee has recommended funding under the Water and Related Resources account as similar work and funding has been previously 

provided in that account. 

SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $36,000,000 

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

The Committee recommends no funds for the San Joaquin Restoration Fund in this account. 

The Committee has provided this funding request under the Central Valley Project, Friant Division of the Water and Related Resources account as similar work and funding has been provided in 

that account in prior years. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Section 201. The bill includes a provision regarding reprogramming and transfer of funds. 

Section 202. The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis 

Unit. 

Section 203. The bill includes a provision regarding Calfed BayDelta. 

Section 204. The bill includes a provision regarding the Secure 

Water Act. 
(57) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $30,741,296,000 for the Department of Energy, a decrease of $762,607,000 from the budget request. 

Within the funding recommendation, $19,889,000,000 is classified 

as defense and $10,852,296,000 is classified as non-defense. 

The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting 

basic energy research; reducing spending of mature technologies; 

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, and prevents proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials, and supports the Navy’s 

nuclear fleet; defense environmental cleanup to remediate the 

former nuclear weapons complex; and safeguards and security for 

Idaho National Laboratory. Non-defense funding is recommended 

for the Department’s energy research and development programs 

(including nuclear, fossil, and renewable energy, energy efficiency, 

grid modernization and resiliency, and the Office of Science), power 

marketing administrations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and administrative expenses. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee’s recommendation includes control points to ensure that the Secretary spends taxpayer funds in accordance with 

congressional direction. The Committee’s recommendation also includes reprogramming guidelines to allow the Secretary to request 

permission from the Committee for certain expenditures, as defined 
58 

below, which would not otherwise be permissible. The Secretary’s 

execution of appropriated funds should 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 this report. 

Prior to obligating any funds for an action defined below as a reprogramming, the Secretary shall notify and obtain approval of the 

Committee. The Secretary should submit a detailed reprogramming 

request in accordance with section 301 of the bill, which should, 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 Committee promptly 

and fully when a change in program execution and funding is required during the fiscal year. 

Definition.—A reprogramming includes: 

—the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within an 

appropriation; 

—any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or 

organization described in the agency’s budget justification as 

presented to and approved by Congress; 

—for construction projects, the reallocation of funds from one 

construction project identified in the agency’s budget justification to another project or a significant change in the scope of 

an approved project; 

—adoption of any reorganization proposal which includes moving 

prior appropriations between appropriations accounts; and 

—any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority, or prior 

year deobligations. 

CROSSCUTTING INITIATIVES

The budget request proposes several crosscutting initiatives that 

span several program offices. The Committee supports the Secretary’s efforts to 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; Exascale 

computing; the Grid Modernization Initiative; subsurface science, 

technology and engineering research, development, and deployment; supercritical carbon dioxide; cybersecurity; and advanced 

materials, would allow for a more comprehensive review of complex 

issues. Budgetary constraints do not allow the Committee to recommend full funding for these initiatives at this time, but the Committee directs the Secretary to prioritize funds that are provided 

within this recommendation to support these crosscutting initiatives to the maximum extent possible. 

Grid Modernization.—The Committee remains encouraged by the 

Secretary’s efforts toward grid modernization research and development planning that will ensure a path toward an integrated, secure, clean, and reliable electricity infrastructure while remaining 

affordable to consumers. The Committee recognizes the strategic 

goals of the grid modernization crosscut activity and is supportive 

of the valuable role of the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consor-
59 

tium, which consists of 14 National Laboratories that work in concert to address grid modernization challenges across the Department, and looks forward to execution of the first year of the Grid 

Multi-Year Program Plan. The Committee supports the continued 

implementation of a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary research 

and development program managed through the consortium of the 

National Laboratories and cost-shared with non-Federal partners 

to focus on six technical areas: institutional support; design and 

planning tools; system operations, power flow, and control; sensing 

and measurement; devices and integrated system testing; and security and resilience. The Committee also encourages the Department’s continued coordination to ensure grid-related research 

across the Department complex is not duplicative. 

The Committee directs the Department of Energy to conduct a 

study to determine the costs and benefits of net-metering and distributed solar generation to the electrical grid, utilities and ratepayers, no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

act. 

The Committee encourages the Department to support partnership efforts involving an institution of higher education, a National 

Laboratory, a State or local government, a regional transmission 

organization or independent system operator, technology provider, 

an electric utility or cooperative in projects designed to improve the 

performance or efficiency of the grid, including integration of distributed generation, microgrids, energy storage, electric vehicles, 

energy efficiency, demand response, intelligent loads, and combined 

heat and power systems. 

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. 

The Committee is aware that since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

was signed into law, the Government Accountability Office issued 

a series of reports calling for improved information and coordination from the Department at the energy-water nexus, including improving federal data for power plant water use (2009), improving 

information on water produced during oil and gas production 

(2012), and increasing federal coordination to better manage energy 

and water tradeoffs (2012). In response, the Secretary hosted a series of roundtables to plan and prioritize leveraging basic science, 

applied research, policy, and outreach to move towards a more resilient and sustainable coupled energy-water system. Additionally, 

the Department established a domestic energy and water research 

investment as part of a bilateral collaboration with China. 

The Committee supports areas where innovative technology advances could address the challenges faced in the energy-water 

nexus, as highlighted in the 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review. 

The Committee further supports an advanced, integrated data, 

modeling, and analysis platform to improve understanding and inform decision-making for a broad range of users and at multiple 

scales, as well as investments in targeted technology research op-
60 

portunities within the system of water-energy flows that offer the 

greatest potential for positive impact. 

Advanced Materials.—The Committee supports the first year for 

the Department-wide crosscut on advanced materials, with focuses 

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 supports formal coordination across offices 

through the Materials Working Group. This is an unprecedented 

opportunity to impact the materials development cycle from scientific discovery to technological innovation and deployment. The 

Committee directs the Department to seek community input to further define the highest priority research areas and critical funding 

modalities, as well as provide updates on future identified topics. 

Cybersecurity.—The Cybersecurity Crosscut has clearly defined 

objectives to protect the Department’s enterprise against 

cybersecurity threats and improve cybersecurity in the electric 

power sector and the oil and natural gas sector. The Committee acknowledges the paramount function of protecting the Department’s 

enterprise, which entails, among other things; cybersecurity programs centralized within the Office of the Chief Information Officer; situational awareness and incident response; identity credential and access management; protection of national laboratories; 

and oversight of classified and unclassified systems. 

The Committee also acknowledges the growing threat to the critical infrastructure of the power grid that is primarily owned and 

operated by the private sector. The Department, through the Office 

of Electricity and Energy Delivery, facilitates information sharing 

between the Federal Government and the private sector to enhance 

situational awareness. The Department of Energy has worked with 

the Department of Homeland Security, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, and industry to develop a set of best 

practices to assist owners and operators of the grid who are making 

investments in cybersecurity. The Department funds research and 

development that aims to build security into energy delivery systems to make the future grid more resilient to cyber threats. The 

Committee supports the increasingly important role of the Department in carrying out these activities, among many others, to help 

develop the modernized power grid that the public and private sectors seek to build in the coming decades. 

The Committee supports the Department’s cross-program partnership on seismic simulation and recommends funds within the 

National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of Science, 

Office of Nuclear Energy, and in-kind support provided by the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security. 

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS

The Committee urges the Department to utilize investments 

through existing regional capabilities that include industry, universities, and State and regional economic development assets. The 

Committee further encourages the national laboratories to expand 

their geographic outreach through people and access to specialized 
61 

equipment and user facilities in order to contribute to the success 

of these regional initiatives. 

MISSION INNOVATION

The Committee supports the premise and goals set out by Mission Innovation: to support innovative clean energy research and 

development to accelerate access to affordable, deployable, and 

transformative technologies. The Committee also supports the goal 

to double Federal clean energy investment over the next 5 years. 

The recommendations in this bill take the first step in this effort, 

while working within the constraints on discretionary funding. 

It is imperative this effort have the support and commitment of 

private industry as well, and the Breakthrough Energy Coalition 

has provided that opportunity through a separate, but parallel 

multinational initiative. Government investment in research alone 

is not enough, but by providing that public research pipeline, is integral to support a broad partnership of private investors and entrepreneurs to take risks to support innovative ideas in science and 

energy. Accelerated and aggressive investment in basic research, 

complimented with private sector investment, will provide breakthrough technologies to support energy independence, as well as 

drive those technologies to be affordable, resilient, and reliable systems. 

The Committee on Appropriations does not address mandatory 

funding proposals requested by the administration. 

The Committee believes the Secretary should focus more investment to support the goals of Mission Innovation through the national laboratory system, the Office of Science, and ARPA-E. This 

is reflected in the funding provided to Department of Energy programs. 

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL

ENERGY LABORATORIES

The Committee appreciates the work of the Committee to Review 

the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories [CRENEL]. 

CRENEL made recommendations to rebuild trust between the Department and the national laboratories, maintaining the focus and 

quality of the laboratory system, maximizing the scientific and economic impact of the laboratories, and increasing the effectiveness 

and efficiency of laboratory operations. The Committee urges the 

Secretary to take these recommendations seriously, particularly 

those regarding repairing the relationship between the Department 

and the national laboratories by increasing accountability and 

transparency and reducing transactional oversight. The Committee 

directs the Secretary to submit a report to the Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment on the 

progress made in implementing those CRENEL recommendations 

directed to the Department. 

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 
62 

that commingles commonly recycled paper with other solid waste 

at any point from the time of collection through materials recovery. 

SOCIAL COST OF CARBON

The Secretary should not promulgate any regulations in fiscal 

year 2017 using the May 2013 estimates for the social cost of carbon until a new working group is convened. The working group 

should include the relevant agencies and affected stakeholders, reexamine the social cost of carbon using the best available science, 

and revise the estimate using an accurate discount rate and domestic estimate in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and OMB 

Circular A–4. To increase transparency, the working group should 

solicit public comments prior to finalizing any updates. 

5 YEAR PLAN

The Secretary is required by section 7279–a of title 42 U.S.C., enacted by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, to include in 

the Department’s annual budget request proposed funding levels 

for the request year and 4 subsequent years, at a level of detail 

commensurate with the current budget justification documents. 

This requirement is to ensure that the Secretary is proposing a 

current budget that takes into account realistic budget constraints 

in future years, and that Congress has full visibility into the future 

implications of current budget decisions across the Department’s 

energy programs. 

Unfortunately, the Secretary has chosen not to comply by omitting any meaningful 5-year budgeting from its four budget requests 

since enactment of this legal requirement. The Committee directs 

the Secretary to submit a report, not later than September 30, 

2017, to the Committees on Appropriations of both the House of 

Representatives and Senate, on the plan to comply with section 

7279a of title 42 in its fiscal year 2018 budget request. Failure to 

provide this report may result in more directive measures to ensure 

the Secretary complies with the law and engages in practices that 

safeguard taxpayer dollars. 

TIMELY APPORTIONMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS

The Committee understands delays in the apportionment of appropriated budget authority from the Office of Management Budget 

to the Department are leading to program and project management 

inefficiencies both at Department headquarters and at the national 

laboratories. Monthly apportionments slow and delay procurements, increase administrative costs for the program and support 

staff allocating the funding, and lead to uncertainty and disruption 

of annual planning. Once the appropriation is signed into law, the 

Committee expects the budget authority to be apportioned in a reasonable, timely manner to maximize the efficient use of taxpayer 

dollars in executing the Department’s mission. 

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee directs the Department to ensure that laboratory 

operating contractors do not allocate costs of general and administrative overhead to laboratory directed research and development. 
63 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $2,073,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 2,898,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,073,000,000 

The Committee recommends $2,073,000,000 for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy [EERE], a decrease of $825,400,000 from 

the budget request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $153,500,000 for program direction. 

The Committee encourages the Department to continue the 

progress being made on the Sustainable Transportation, Renewable 

Power, and Energy Efficiency initiatives. These investments are 

critical to expanding U.S. energy security and global leadership, options for consumers, reducing the cost of U.S.-generated energy, 

and job creation. 

The Committee recommends that funding within EERE programs be allocated to facilitate the development and management 

of 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. 

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $308,300,000 for Vehicle Technologies. Within this amount, the Committee recommends not less 

than $32,000,000 for Electric Drive Technologies Research and Development, $37,141,000 for Advanced Combustion Engine Research 

and Development, $26,959,000 for Materials Technology, and 

$40,000,000 for Vehicle Systems. 

The Committee encourages the Department, when making grants 

through the Vehicle Technologies Program, to expand opportunities 

for the demonstration of zero-emissions technologies that will be of 

practical use in areas of extreme non-attainment with national ambient air quality standards. 

The Committee is supportive of the Department’s efforts in the 

Co-optimization of Fuels and Engines activities in coordination 

with the Bioenergy Technologies Program. Establishing a link 

across fuels and engines early in the research and development 

cycle will enable a new, synergistic, and complete systems-based 

approach to creating optimized powertrains. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $20,000,000 

for the SuperTruck II program to further improve the efficiency of 

heavy-duty class 8 long- and regional-haul vehicles and continue 

support of the fiscal year 2016 SuperTruck II awards. The Department is directed to continue with four awards using the multi-year 

allocation process that was used successfully by the SuperTruck I 

program. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$10,000,000 for continued funding of section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act for transportation electrification. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $40,700,000 

for Outreach, Deployment, and Analysis to support the Clean Cities 
64 

Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Deployment Program. Within this 

amount, $34,000,000 is provided 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 supports the EcoCAR 3 competition, which provides hands-on, real-world experience to demonstrate a variety of 

advanced technologies and designs, and supports development of a 

workforce trained in advanced vehicles. The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for year three of a 4-year collegiate engineering competition, EcoCAR 3. 

The Committee recognizes that the commercial off-road vehicle 

sector, including industrial, mining, and farm equipment, consumes 

over 2 Quads of energy per year and directs the Department to establish a dedicated activity to reduce the energy consumption of 

commercial off-road vehicles. The Committee recommends not less 

than $5,000,000 to support improving the energy efficiency of fluid 

power systems for commercial off-road vehicles. 

BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $218,100,000 for Bioenergy Technologies. 

Within available funds, the Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide a total of $30,000,000 for algal biofuels, and expects the 

Department to sustain the investment in development of algal 

biofuels. 

The Committee also recommends $35,000,000, as requested, to 

support the development of a Synthetic Biology Foundry to leverage recently developed synthetic biology tools to enable the biotechnology industry to achieve substantial improvements in conversion efficiencies and the scale-up of biological processes with lower 

development costs and lead times. 

The Committee continues to support the Secretary’s participation 

in the Farm to Fly 2 Initiative with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment. The Committee reiterates to the Federal entities involved that this is a cost-sharing research partnership among academia, industry, and the Federal government, and urges full collaboration between the Departments of Energy and Agriculture 

and other Federal agencies in the Initiative. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 

to establish a research, development, and demonstration biopower 

program that makes full and innovative use of biomass, municipally-derived biosolids, and municipal solid waste. 

The Committee further encourages the Bioenergy Technologies 

Office to use its existing authorities to fund activities that support 

the development and testing of new 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. 
65 

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $92,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cell Technologies. 

The Committee continues to support fuel cell and hydrogen energy systems for stationary, vehicle, motive, and portable power applications. Within available funds, the Committee recommends not 

less than $7,000,000 to demonstrate an integrated hydrogen renewable energy production, storage, and transportation fuel distribution and retailing system. 

Within Hydrogen Fuel research and development, the Committee 

recommends $3,000,000 for carbon-free production of hydrogen 

using new chemical synthesis methods that break apart natural 

gas to solid carbon and hydrogen. 

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for Safety, Codes, and 

Standards. 

SOLAR ENERGY

The Committee recommends $222,400,000 for solar energy. 

The Committee supports the Secretary’s emphasis on advancing 

integration of distributed solar generation with the existing power 

grid and on lowering the soft costs of solar installations for residential and small-scale commercial customers. The Secretary’s efforts 

to develop the workforce, regulatory and legal expertise, and information technology tools are needed to drive down costs for solar 

technology for every day consumers. 

The Committee recognizes that solar energy is one of the fastest 

growing industries in the United States, and employs 174,000 

workers today. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$1,000,000 for the Secretary’s contribution to the joint Solar Ready 

Vets program with the Department of Defense as a way to train 

America’s veterans to fill this growing skill need. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $55,000,000 

for concentrating solar power research, development, and demonstration of technologies that reduce overall system costs, better 

integrate subsystem components, develop higher-temperature receivers, and improve the design of solar collection and thermal energy storage. Within this amount $15,000,000 is provided for competitively selected projects focused on advanced thermal desalination techniques. 

Research programs for high efficiency thin-film photovoltaics and 

processes are encouraged to include cooperation between industry 

and academia, and to include advanced optical characterization 

that enables development of strong correlations between materials 

and cell optical properties, and the photovoltaic power performance 

of the working solar cells. 

The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to find 

ways to expand access to solar energy to residences and businesses 

in low-income communities. These efforts should build upon lessons 

learned in earlier grants under the Solar Market Pathways program. 

No funds are provided for the Next Generation Renewable Fuels 

and Chemicals Research and Development program. 
66 

WIND ENERGY

The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for Wind Energy. 

The Committee directs the advancement of innovative technologies for offshore wind development, including freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and transitional depth installations. Within 

these funds, the Committee recommends $40,000,000 for offshore 

wind demonstration projects, and $10,000,000 to further substantiate the design and economic value proposition of alternative 

project designs for offshore wind power. The Committee expects 

funds for the offshore wind demonstration projects be awarded for 

new and innovative technologies, including for deepwater technologies that have wide applications throughout the U.S. and have 

not yet been demonstrated elsewhere in the world. The Committee 

further directs the Department to support the deployment and testing of scale floating wind turbines designed to further reduce energy costs. The Committee also continues to support the Department’s efforts to competitively award funding for innovative distributed wind projects. 

Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to 

prioritize early stage research on materials and manufacturing 

methods and advanced components that will enable accessing highquality wind resources, and on development that will enable these 

technologies to compete in the marketplace without the need for 

subsidies. The Committee supports research using high-performance computing, modeling and simulation, including the Atmosphere to Electrons initiative program, reliability, and grid integration efforts. Further, the Department is urged to give priority to 

stewarding the assets and optimizing the operations of the Department-owned wind research and testing facilities and provides no 

less than $30,000,000 for the National Wind Technology Center. 

No additional funding is recommended for Wind Energy. 

WATER POWER

The Committee recommends $84,000,000 for Water Power. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $25,000,000 

for conventional hydropower and pumped storage activities, including up to $3,900,000 for the purposes of section 242 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–58). 

Of the amount provided, $3,000,000 shall be used for a thorough 

techno-economic analysis of the value of pumped storage hydro at 

two sites with high-levels of intermittent renewable energy generation in the United States to be determined by the Secretary of Energy, and building off the Department of Energy’s pumped storage 

hydro work initiated in fiscal year 2016. The techno-economic analysis shall include sub-hourly economic analysis and accounting of 

the full range of market-based revenue streams, regional cost savings and environmental benefits pumped storage hydropower provides both as a generation and transmission asset. Funding shall 

also be provided for a National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners committee to advise the Department’s work in the 

area of pumped hydro storage. Funding may also be used for research and analysis that will improve the pumped storage industry 
67 

more broadly, building off the Department of Energy’s existing 

pumped storage hydro work initiated in fiscal year 2016. 

Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Research, Development, and 

Deployment.—The Committee recommends $59,000,000 for marine 

and hydrokinetic technology research, development, and deployment activities. The Committee rejects the Department’s request to 

limit future competitive solicitations only to projects that would at 

least double the energy capture per unit of structural cost of wave 

energy convertor systems. Rather, selected projects should maintain a robust technology support pipeline from both advanced and 

low technology readiness level marine energy conversion systems 

and components. Therefore, the Committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for a balanced portfolio of competitive solicitations to 

support industry-led research, development, and demonstrations of 

wave and current (ocean, river, tidal) technologies to increase energy capture, reliability, and survivability at lower costs. 

The Committee finds that the proposed open-water, fully-energetic, grid-connected wave energy facility is a test facility with the 

capability of evaluating a range of emerging marine hydrokinetic 

components and systems. Therefore, the Secretary is directed to 

utilize a 20 percent non-Federal project construction cost share. 

With the funds provided in fiscal year 2016, the Committee provides $35,000,000 in fiscal year 2017 to complete construction of 

the test facility. 

The Committee provides $4,000,000 to support collaborations between universities and the National Laboratories, including personnel exchanges, to support industry by conducting research and 

testing of marine energy systems at facilities previously designated 

by the Department as National Marine Renewable Energy Centers. 

In addition, the Department is directed to continue its coordination 

with the U.S. Navy on marine energy technology demonstration. 

GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $70,500,000 for Geothermal Technologies. Funds made available by this section shall be disbursed 

to the full spectrum of geothermal technologies, as authorized by 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 

110–140). The Secretary is encouraged to continue to support comprehensive programs that foster academic and professional development initiatives. 

To facilitate necessary technology development and expand understanding of subsurface dynamics, the Committee recommends 

$35,000,000 for the continuation of activities of the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy [FORGE], with activities to include ongoing novel subsurface characterization, fullscale well drilling, and technology research and development to accelerate the commercial pathway to large-scale enhanced geothermal systems power generation. 

The Committee directs the Department to continue its efforts to 

identify prospective geothermal resources in areas with no obvious 

surface expressions. 
68 

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING

The Committee recommends $254,200,000 for Advanced Manufacturing. The Committee recognizes the importance of the manufacturing sector to the U.S. economy, which directly generates 12 

percent of the gross domestic product and employs nearly 12 million people. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $70,000,000 

to support the existing 5 Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes 

[CEMI], including $14,000,000 each for wide bandgap power electronics institute, the advanced composites institute, and the smart 

manufacturing institute, and two to-be-announced Institutes from 

prior year funding opportunities. The Committee is pleased with 

the ongoing work to support innovative advanced manufacturing 

opportunities through the Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes. 

The Committee recognizes the important role additive manufacturing can play in helping to advance the deployment of clean energy technologies. The Committee encourages the Department to 

further foster the partnership between the National Laboratories 

and industry to use 3D printing for renewable energy to include 

overcoming challenges to the development and implementation of 

innovative offshore wind technologies. 

The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to launch the 

Energy-Water Desalination Hub to lower the cost and energy intensity of technologies to provide clean, safe water. The Committee 

recommends $20,000,000 for this effort. 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Critical Materials Hub. This is the first year of support for the second 5-year 

phase. The Committee supports the Hub’s continued focus on technologies that will enable domestic manufacturers to make better 

use of the critical materials to which they have access, as well as 

to reduce or eliminate the need for materials that are subject to 

supply disruptions. The Committee notes that the Hub has focused 

on high-priority problems and has developed strong milestones. 

The Committee supports the Hub’s goal of developing at least one 

technology adopted by U.S. companies within each of its three focus 

areas: diversifying and expanding production; reducing wastes; and 

developing substitutes. 

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the final year of focus 

on developing new nanostructured metals with direct relevance to 

advanced energy technologies. 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for development of additive manufacturing processes, low-cost carbon fiber, and other 

manufacturing technologies at the Manufacturing Demonstration 

Facility [MDF]. The Committee notes the ongoing emphasis on assisting small- and medium-sized businesses to overcome the risks 

and challenges of investing in specialized, high-technology equipment at the MDF. The Secretary is encouraged to continue this emphasis in the coming year. 

The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the joint additive 

manufacturing pilot institute with the Department of Defense. 

Within the funds provided for the Industrial Assessment Centers, 

the Committee provides $1,500,000 for the expansion of wastewater 

treatment technical assistance. 
69 

The Committee supports efforts to research, develop and demonstrate micro-combined heat and power in residential and light 

commercial applications in coordination with industry to reduce 

emissions and improve resilient infrastructure. 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $203,400,000 for Building Technologies. The Committee supports ongoing efforts to work with 

State and local agencies to incorporate the latest technical knowledge and best practices into construction requirements. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $23,000,000 

for the Residential Building Integration Program. Within this 

amount, funding should be concentrated on Industry Teams to facilitate research, demonstrate and test new systems, and facilitate 

widespread deployment through direct engagement through direct 

engagement with builders, the construction trades, equipment 

manufacturers, smart grid technology and systems suppliers, integrators, and State and local governments. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $28,000,000 

for Commercial Buildings Integration. The Committee recommends 

a program of core research and development of more cost-effective 

integration techniques and technologies that could help the transition towards deep retrofits. In addition, the Committee recommends that DOE increase engagement with private sector stakeholders to develop market transforming policies and investments in 

commercial building retrofits. The Committee recommends $98,400,000 for the Emerging Technologies subprogram. Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than $23,000,000 for transactive controls research and development. Within funds available for transactive 

controls research and development, the Committee recommends 

$5,000,000 to promote regional demonstrations of new, utility-led, 

residential Connected Communities advancing smart grid systems. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $25,000,000 

for solid-state lighting technology development to focus on reducing 

the cost of organic light-emitting diodes and other technologies. If 

the Secretary finds solid-state lighting technology eligible for the 

Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize, specified under section 655 of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, $5,000,000 is included in addition to funds for solid-state lighting research and development. 

The Committee is concerned with the lack of funding for natural 

gas research and development within the Buildings Technology 

Program. Within available funds, the Committee provides 

$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, on-site 

combine heat and power, and natural gas appliance venting. The Committee recommends $54,000,000 for Equipment and 

Buildings Standards. 

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Committee encourages the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to create a pilot program that 
70 

would determine the potential for the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts to reduce energy consumption and provide energy cost savings in non-building applications. 

WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $264,600,000 for the Weatherization 

and Intergovernmental Program. Within this amount, $214,600,000 

is for the Weatherization Assistance Program, and $50,000,000 is 

for State Energy Program Grants. No funding is recommended for 

the Cities, Counties, and Communities Energy Program proposed 

in the budget request. 

Weatherization Assistance Program grant funds are to be allocated and on a statutory formula basis. 

CORPORATE SUPPORT PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $264,500,000 for Corporate Support, 

including $2,000,000 for the United States-Israel energy cooperative agreement within Strategic Programs. 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $206,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 262,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 206,000,000 

The Committee recommends $206,000,000 for Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, a decrease of $56,300,000 from the budget 

request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends 

$28,500,000 for program direction. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide regular updates of reported data on the status of 

energy infrastructure and concerns impacting the energy sector as 

they become available. 

The modernization of the electrical grid is critical to ensuring national security, sustaining our Nation’s economic growth, and maintaining our way of life. The electrical grid is a complex system, 

owned and operated by numerous regulated and non-regulated private and public entities. To maximize the value of taxpayer investment in the grid modernization strategy, the Committee suggests 

that the Secretary’s initiatives be fairly and equitably competed to 

ensure the best ideas, technologies, and teams are brought together 

to develop the best solutions for the electric grid of the future. 

To ensure our energy systems are safe, secure, reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective, the Committee supports a strategy that involves extensive partnerships between government, academia, and 

industry to undertake the transition and modernization of the electrical grid to address our major energy issues. The Committee understands an independent, third-party assessment of the United 

States’ capabilities to perform multi-megawatt testing that meets 

the goals supporting the Grid Modernization Multi-Year Program 

Plan is currently ongoing, per direction in the fiscal year 2016 report. Following the completion of the assessment and if the Secretary deems appropriate, the Committee urges the Secretary to establish through a competitive bid process, a national user center 

capable of operating in the multi-megawatt range, above 2 MW, to 

support the Nation’s grid modernization efforts to advance utility 
71 

scale technologies like energy storage. World-class testing facilities 

that can replicate real world conditions, without risks to the existing grid, are needed at the residential, commercial, and distribution level to test and validate these innovations. The Committee is 

aware the Secretary has invested in testing facilities of 2 MW and 

below, and facilities are needed at the multi-megawatt level above 

2 MW for technologies at the distribution level. 

CLEAN ENERGY TRANSMISSION AND RELIABILITY

The Committee recommends $36,000,000 for Clean Energy 

Transmission and Reliability. 

The Committee believes that the integration of distributed and 

intermittent renewable sources of generation into existing infrastructure and transmission and distribution networks is critical to 

the effective deployment of clean energy sources. Developing the 

analytical and modeling tools in collaboration with utilities, grid 

operators, and universities will lay the foundation for risk assessment. 

SMART GRID RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Smart Grid Research and Development. 

Within available funding, $5,000,000 is recommended for development of advanced, secure, low-cost sensors that measure, analyze, predict, and control the future grid during steady state and 

under extreme conditions. 

The Committee supports the promotion of regional demonstrations of new, utility-led, residential Connected Communities advancing smart grid systems. 

The Committee recognizes the opportunities presented by the application, integration, and investment in grid technologies across 

all sectors of the economy. The Committee encourages the Secretary to ensure that efforts in these areas are coordinated and focused on the evolution to the grid of the future. 

The Committee recommends that funds provided for the Advanced Grid Integration Division should 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. 

CYBER SECURITY FOR ENERGY DELIVERY SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $50,500,000 for Cyber Security for 

Energy Delivery Systems. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$5,000,000 to develop cyber and cyber-physical solutions for advanced control concepts for distribution and municipal utility companies. The potential threat posed by cyber security attacks on our 

critical energy infrastructure cannot be overemphasized and must 

be appropriately guarded against. 

ENERGY STORAGE

The Committee recommends $29,500,000 for Energy Storage. 
72 

Within available funds, the Committee supports developing an 

operational energy storage test facility capable of performance-driven data in a utility environment. 

For energy storage systems to be supported and accepted by industry, they must be validated and demonstrated to be safe and reliable. The Committee is aware the utility sector is concerned there 

is a disincentive for utilities to deploy battery storage on a utility 

scale, as these technologies are largely untested, and companies are 

risk-adverse to providing access to their systems. In addition, regulated utilities have difficulty convincing regulators that assets will 

live out their expected life. Thus, the Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the Committee, no later than 90 

days after enactment, detailing how investments in these demonstrations address these concerns and will lead to broader adoption and acceptance by the utility sector of commercial scale energy 

storage in the U.S. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to submit within this report, how existing programs can be 

used to mitigate challenges for deployment of utility scale projects 

by regulated utilities. 

Offshore wind has tremendous capacity to generate electricity. 

Ensuring that the power generated can be harnessed and reserved 

for use during periods of peak demand would extend the reach of 

this renewable resource. The Committee encourages the Department to partner with leaders in the energy storage industry to establish a pilot project in order to demonstrate how energy storage 

technology can reserve electricity generated offshore for use in 

meeting peak demand. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider expanding 

research and development partnerships related to the development 

and deployment of energy storage, with stakeholders in diverse geographic regions with unique market dynamics and policy challenges that can help to inform nationwide efforts to improve grid 

resiliency, reliability, and security, empower consumers, and increase integration of a broad range of generation sources. 

Within available funding, the Committee encourages the Department to further the development and demonstration of non-battery 

advanced storage components, including compressed air energy 

storage development and demonstration to enable efficiency improvements for utility-scale, bulk energy storage solutions. 

TRANSFORMER RESILIENCE AND ADVANCED COMPONENTS

The Committee recommends $8,500,000 for Transformer Resilience and Advanced Components. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Secretary to support research and development 

on 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. 

NATIONAL ELECTRICITY DELIVERY

The Committee recommends $7,500,000 for National Electricity 

Delivery. 
73 

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION

The Committee recommends $10,500,000 for Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration. 

The Committee supports further development of energy sector 

situational awareness capabilities, and the work of 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 also encourages the Department to continue to 

develop implementation strategies and analysis with industry to 

address potential impacts of geomagnetic disturbances and electromagnetic pulse threats to the electric grid. 

The Committee is supportive of proposed regional and State activities to improve capabilities to characterize energy sector supply 

disruptions, communication among local, State, regional, Federal, 

and industry partners, and the identification of gaps for use in energy planning and emergency response training programs. The 

Committee encourages the Department to support these efforts 

within Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $986,161,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 993,896,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,057,903,000 

The Committee recommends $1,057,903,000 for Nuclear Energy, an increase of $64,007,000 from the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation for nuclear power prioritizes funding for programs, projects and activities that will ensure a strong future for 

nuclear power in the United States. 

Nuclear power provides more than 20 percent of our Nation’s 

electricity and more than 60 percent of our emissions-free electricity. Electricity generation from our Nation’s 99 operating nuclear power plants is critical to our national security, economy, and 

way of life. 

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. The Committee supports the Department’s efforts to conduct high-priority 

research and development in this area and its cooperation with industry, but also recognizes that some operating reactors will not be 

extended, while others have already shut down. When power plants 

shut down, the social and economic impacts to surrounding communities can be significant. Communities often lack information and 

resources to assist with the economic transition. The Committee is 

aware that the Department is planning to convene a summit to address the early closure of nuclear power plants later this spring. 

While the summit will focus on stopping early plant closures, the 

Committee urges the Secretary to also address the impact of plants 

that have already shut down on communities, and ways the communities can mitigate the impacts. 

Within available funds, $600,000 is provided for the cross-program partnership on seismic simulation. 
74 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Integrated University Program, $5,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes the administration repeatedly attempts to defund this 

program, despite continued success in developing highly qualified 

nuclear specialists to meet national needs. 

SMALL MODULAR REACTOR LICENSING TECHNICAL SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $95,000,000 for Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support, $5,400,000 above the request. 

Within this amount, $23,000,000 shall be for the first award for design certification application development, siting preparation, and 

combined operating license application development. Further, 

$72,000,000 shall be for the second awardee for design certification 

application development, siting preparation, and combined operating license application development. Small modular reactors have 

the potential to provide reliable electricity generation to replace retiring fossil plants and meet domestic clean power needs. The Committee directs the Department to submit a report evaluating and 

prioritizing government and private sector actions needed for development and deployment of small modular reactors. The report 

should evaluate completion of design and licensing of small modular reactors, and licensing of deployment sites for small modular 

reactors. The report should include advanced manufacturing and 

supply chain development opportunities. The report should also 

evaluate public and private sector facilities that could be powered 

by small modular reactors. 

REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION

The Committee recommends $129,760,000 for Reactor Concepts 

Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Committee directs the Nuclear Energy Program to focus funding for Reactor 

Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration, which includes funding for Advanced SMRs and Advanced Reactor Concepts, on technologies that show clear potential to be safer, less 

waste producing, more cost competitive, and more proliferation-resistant than existing nuclear power technologies. Within available 

amounts, the Committee recommends up to $18,000,000 for the 

second year of the advanced reactor concepts program and 

$3,000,000 for testing and development of dynamic convection technology. The dynamic convection technology work should include a 

business case analysis that addresses cost, schedule, licensing, and 

other risks of implementation in a commercial nuclear plant. 

Light Water Reactor Sustainability.—Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $35,260,000. 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 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 
75 

license renewal. The Secretary should 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 $219,730,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development. No Defense function funds are provided. 

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 this important national issue, and recommends $61,040,000 for Integrated 

Waste Management System activities. Funding should be used to 

advance plans to consolidate spent nuclear fuel from around the 

United States to an interim central storage facility(s), with priority 

given to shutdown reactors, and to accelerate the development of 

a transportation capability to move the commercial spent fuel from 

its current storage locations. 

The Committee supports the Department’s efforts develop a process for consent-based siting by engaging State, local, and tribal government entities on the possible conditions under which an interim 

storage facility could be sited within their jurisdictions. Further, 

the Committee supports ongoing coordination between the Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to clarify the regulatory framework under which transportation and centralized interim storage of spent fuel could occur. However, The Committee 

directs the Department to take a more active role in future consent-based siting processes for spent nuclear fuel or any other high 

level waste than it has demonstrated in the deep borehole demonstration project in North Dakota. The Department cannot avoid 

its responsibilities of working with State and local communities by 

hiring a contractor to oversee and execute the work. The Secretary 

is encouraged to ensure lessons learned from the demonstration 

project in North Dakota are incorporated into its plan to develop 

a process for future consent-based siting. 

Research and development activities on behavior of spent fuel in 

long-term storage, under transportation conditions, and in various 

geologic media will continue to be important to developing a new 

solution to the waste problem. Within the amounts recommended 

for used nuclear fuel disposition, $14,250,000 shall be for continuance of these activities. Priority should 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 recommends $69,390,000 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. The Secretary is directed to share with the Committee the outcome of the 

consultation required in fiscal year 2016 with industry, universities 

and other interested organizations on a commercialization roadmap 
76 

for these technologies, including new ceramic cladding material. 

While the benefit of incremental improvements to existing commercially available fuels is acknowledged, there is concern that the Department’s ongoing activities on accident tolerant fuels will not ultimately lead to meaningful reductions in the consequences of unexpected severe accidents in nuclear power plants. Therefore, not 

less than $19,300,000 is provided to initiate Phase 2 of the industry-led, appropriately cost-shared basic research program on Accident Tolerant Fuels, and $3,000,000 is provided for continuation of 

the previously competitively awarded Small Business projects to 

develop ceramic cladding for Accident Tolerant Fuels. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $83,925,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies. The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for 

the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for Radiological Facilities Management, including $10,000,000 for the development of a 

radioactive liquid waste capability at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $295,185,000 for Idaho Facilities 

Management, which includes $141,000,000 for operations and 

maintenance of the Advanced Test Reactor. The Advanced Test Reactor is a vital asset that provides research capability across the 

Department. In order to provide better budget clarity and consistency appropriate for an operating reactor facility, a new control 

point for the Advanced Test Reactors Operations and Maintenance 

is established that consolidates all funding for the Advanced Test 

Reactor in the Nuclear Energy account. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $632,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 360,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 632,000,000 

The Committee recommends $632,000,000 for Fossil Energy Research and Development, an increase of $272,000,000 above the 

budget request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $60,000,000 for program direction. The Committee does 

not adopt the proposed changes to the budget structure for Fossil 

Energy Research and Development. 

The Committee recognizes that this program supports vital research on clean coal technologies, and has accordingly provided significant funds above the budget request to accelerate these activities. The Committee notes that clean coal technology affords our 

Nation the ability to respond to environmental challenges by improving the performance of our coal-based electricity fleet, while 
77 

also allowing for continued utilization of abundant and affordable 

U.S. coal. 

Fossil fuels support the activities of a modern economy, and will 

continue to supply our Nation’s energy needs for the foreseeable future. Approximately 67 percent of the electricity generated in the 

United States is from coal, natural gas, and petroleum, and fossil 

fuel generation is and will continue expanding across the world. 

The Committee notes that the Department should allocate sufficient resources to support fossil energy research, development, and 

demonstrations to improve both existing technologies and develop 

the next generation of clean, affordable, and safe systems. 

The Committee is aware of Department’s participation within the 

Propulsion Instrumentation Working Group. Innovative research is 

underway on dynamic sensors for turbine engines, including for 

fossil-fuel fired power plants, which have the potential to increase 

safety and fuel efficiency and decrease costs. The Committee encourages the Department to continue to support innovative research being carried out by the national labs and universities on 

engine sensor technology, with the goal of improving performance, 

safety, and fuel efficiency. 

The Committee includes funding levels for the Department of Energy’s National Carbon Capture Center consistent with the budget 

request. 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. 

COAL, CCS AND POWER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $377,000,000 for CCS and Power 

Systems. 

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 to support a new solicitation for two awards for post-combustion carbon capture retrofits 

to existing coal plants greater than 350 MWe. 

Carbon Capture.—Within the recommendation, $101,000,000 is 

for Carbon Capture to support the R&D and scale-up of 2nd generation and transformational technologies for capturing CO2 from 

new and existing industrial and power-producing plants. 

Carbon Storage.—Within the recommendation, $106,000,000 is 

for Carbon Storage. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Carbon Use and Reuse to continue research and development activities to support valuable and innovative uses for carbon. The Committee recognizes that finding new 

commercial uses for captured carbon could significantly offset the 

costs of capturing and sequestering carbon from our Nation’s coalfired power plants. The Committee encourages the Secretary to use 

its existing authorities to fund activities that promote the reuse of 

captured carbon from coal and other sources in the production of 

fuels and other products. The Committee is concerned that the Office of Fossil Energy has not prioritized non-enhanced oil recovery 

utilization of carbon dioxide since 2010. The Committee believes 
78 

the potential for carbon dioxide utilization technologies to become 

economically viable has improved in recent years and these technologies should receive renewed attention from the Office of Fossil 

Energy. The Committee encourages the Office of Fossil Energy to 

support other carbon dioxide utilization technologies in addition to 

enhanced oil recovery, including using carbon dioxide to produce 

algae. The Committee further encourages the Office of Fossil Energy to collaborate with the Bioenergy Technologies program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to support 

projects that utilize carbon dioxide in the production of algae. 

Advanced Energy Systems.—Within the recommendation, 

$105,000,000 is for Advanced Energy Systems, which supports improving the efficiency of coal-based power systems, enabling affordable CO2 capture, increasing plant availability, and maintaining 

the highest environmental standards. The Committee supports and 

encourages the Secretary to fund research and development of Gasification Systems, which focuses on technology developments to reduce the cost of coal gasification and facilitates co-feeding of coal 

with biomass or waste; Advanced Combustion Systems, which focuses on the development of oxy-combustion and chemical looping 

processes that are applicable to new and existing power plants; 

Coal and Coal-Biomass to Liquids, which the Secretary did not include in its budget request, and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, which focuses on research and development to enable efficient, cost-effective 

electricity generation from coal and natural gas with near-zero atmospheric emissions of CO2 and pollutants, as well as minimal 

water use in central power generation applications that can be integrated with carbon capture and storage. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. The Committee 

encourages the Secretary to promote and assist in the research and 

development of new higher efficiency gas turbines used in power 

generation systems in order to upgrade and increase the resiliency 

of the Nation’s electrical grid system, while reducing the cost of 

electricity and emissions. This includes awarding grants and contract proposals from industry, small businesses, universities and 

other appropriate parties. The Committee encourages the Department to support a pilot program to advance the application of solid 

state reforming technology to commercial success. 

NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $46,000,000 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] and supports including water 

tracking in pre-and post-drilling applications where required by 

States. The Committee also directs the Department to provide 

these funds to integrate 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 3.0, and additional reports. 

The Committee supports the continued efforts to provide public 

transparency, while protecting proprietary information. 
79 

Methane Hydrate Activities.—The Committee recommends 

$19,800,000 for methane hydrates, and notes that the request 

again does not include funding for methane hydrate research on 

the methods for producing methane hydrates, only funding for a 

fuel supply impact mitigation subprogram that will conduct investigations to confirm the nature and regional context of gas hydrate 

deposits in the Gulf of Mexico in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey. The Committee rejects the Secretary’s approach to limit 

spending to such research and encourages the Secretary to perform 

a long-term methane hydrates production test in the Arctic, as proposed in the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee’s May 21, 2014 

recommendations to the Secretary. 

The Committee encourages coordination with industry and U.S. 

Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration on leak detection technology development. 

The Committee remains supportive of investment in smart pipeline 

sensors and controls, internal pipeline inspection and repair, and 

composite and advanced material science technologies. The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider acoustic monitoring 

that can use ultrasonic sensors to detect leaks based on changes in 

background noise patterns to determine if acoustic sensors will respond to the sound generated by escaping gas at ultrasonic frequencies. 

Environmentally Prudent Development.—The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for Environmentally Prudent Development 

subprogram. 

Emissions Mitigations from Midstream Infrastructure.—The 

Committee recommends $7,000,000 for Emissions Mitigation from 

Midstream Infrastructure subprogram. 

Emissions Quantification from Natural Gas Infrastructure.—The 

Committee recommends $5,000,000 for Emissions Quantification 

from Natural Gas Infrastructure research subprogram. 

UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

The Committee recommends $23,245,000 for Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies. The Secretary did not include any funding 

in the fiscal year 2017 budget request, and 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. 

Prior Federal and private investment in research led to the current shale gas revolution, and continued research and development 

is vital for the environmentally responsible development of this resource. Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to support additional research efforts, with priority given to 

continue the successful work at the existing competitively awarded 

Unconventional Field Test Sites. 

The Secretary is encouraged to fund high-priority research, development, and deployment activities for unconventional oil, gas, 

and coal resources, including oil shale, as outlined in the September 2011 ‘‘Domestic Unconventional Fossil Energy Resource Opportunities and Technology Applications’’ report. 

The Committee expects Tasks 1–4 of the joint Department of Energy and Department of Transportation crude oil characterization 
80 

study to be complete and formalized by the end of calendar year 

2017. Both DOE and DOT shall use allocated resources to meet 

funding obligations to complete the study. 

Within available funds, the Committee encourages the Secretary 

to support efforts to increase production of unconventional fossil 

fuels through advanced technology and modeling, including optimizing high resolution and time-lapse geophysical methods for improved resource detection and better rock characterization at the 

micro- and nano-scale. The Committee also encourages the Secretary to examine the feasibility of utilizing geothermal energy 

from produced fluids for in-field energy requirements. 

NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

Fossil energy is the backbone of the United States’ energy future, 

and the National Energy Technology Laboratory [NETL] focuses on 

this critical national priority. The Committee supports NETL’s mission to discover, develop, and deploy new technologies to support 

a strong domestic fossil energy path. 

The Committee is supportive of the reorganization and budget restructuring of NETL, as it increases consistency with other National Laboratories. The new structure highlighting research and 

operations, as well as infrastructure funding requirements, reflects 

increased transparency in how funds are utilized, promoting enhanced visibility and oversight into cost drivers and more efficient 

resource allocation decisions. 

Within 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 an update and refresh of a subset of the processing units in the Joule 

high performance computer to upgrade the processing speed to five 

PFLOPS, a tenfold increase, financed through a 3-year lease. The 

Committee is aware that high performance computing is an essential element of mission-relevant research, development, and demonstration, and is supportive of maintaining a world-class supercomputer to enable key energy research. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $17,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 14,950,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,950,000 

The Committee recommends $14,950,000 for Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $212,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 257,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000 

The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a decrease of $57,000,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee recognizes the work the Secretary is undertaking 

to conduct a long-term strategic review of the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve. The Committee looks forward to the results of the review, 
81 

and the Secretary’s recommendations on future investments in infrastructure and associated maintenance. 

The Committee understands the importance of the Major Maintenance Projects and preventive/corrective maintenance activities 

needed at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve storage facilities and related facilities, and encourages the Department, when carrying out 

these maintenance and other construction projects to use as much 

American-made iron, steel, and other manufactured goods as possible. American manufacturers are most suited, for national and 

economic security reasons, to supply the materials for these critical 

infrastructure improvements at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $7,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 6,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,500,000 

The Committee recommends $6,500,000 for the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve, the same as the request. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $122,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 131,125,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 122,000,000 

The Committee recommends $122,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration [EIA], a decrease of $9,125,000 from the 

budget request. 

The Committee supports the EIA’s efforts to expand its monthly 

State-level estimates of generation and capacity of small-scale distributed generation systems. 

The Committee is aware that EIA has not kept pace with Staterun databases and interfaces to provide near real-time statistics on 

production of oil and natural gas and well integrity. The EIA has 

initiated work with State agencies to explore connecting State 

databases to create a national gateway that would allow the public 

to easily access information in a user-friendly manner. Accurate 

and accessible information about oil and gas production and well 

integrity is a national imperative. A National Oil and Gas Gateway 

that works in concert with State-run databases is an essential component for achieving this important objective. Within available 

funds, the Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the creation that 

Gateway. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of building energy information and the opportunity for better data collection presented 

by new technologies. The Secretary 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, 2016 ............................................................................. $255,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 218,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 255,000,000 
82 

The Committee recommends $255,000,000 for Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup, an increase of $36,600,000 from the budget request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee recommends $85,043,000 for Small 

Sites. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends 

$6,000,000 to complete the design and initiate construction of facilities pursuant to the agreement reached in 2012 between the Department of Energy, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and State and local governments to complete the demolition of K– 

25 in exchange for preserving the historic contributions made by 

the K–25 site to the Manhattan Project. Last year, the Committee 

directed the Secretary to request appropriate funding to satisfy the 

requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act in future 

budget requests, including the regulatory requirements agreed to 

by the Department of Energy, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and State and local governments regarding the K–25 

site. The Manhattan Project National Historical Park tells an important story in our Nation’s history: the development and production of the technology and materials necessary to create the world’s 

first atomic bomb. The new Park has locations in Hanford, Washington, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. It is 

administered and operated by the National Park Service in conjunction with the Department of Energy, which is working towards 

cleanup of these nuclear waste sites. The Committee directs the 

Department of Energy to submit an implementation plan to Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate no later 

than 180 after enactment of this act that details infrastructure 

needs, transition activities, schedule, and funding requirements to 

make these sites fully available to the public under the auspices of 

the National Park Service. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $9,200,000 

to continue to deactivate, decommission, and demolish facilities at 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

The budget request did not include funding for the decommissioning and decontamination of the Southwest Experimental Fast 

Oxide Reactor, despite that facility being constructed for, and used 

by, the Atomic Energy Commission. Within available funds, the 

Committee recommends $16,600,000 for the decommissioning and 

decontamination of the Southwest Experimental Fast Oxide Reactor. Combined with previously provided funding, this amount is 

sufficient to complete the decommissioning and decontamination of 

the site, and the Department will not provide any additional funding for this purpose. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $673,749,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 717,741,000 

The Committee recommends $717,741,000 for Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning [UED&D] activities, 

an increase of $717,741,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee recommendation includes $194,673,000 for East 

Tennessee Technology Park [ETTP], $205,530,000 for Paducah, and 
83 

$264,585,000 for Portsmouth. Within available funds for ETTP, the 

Committee recommendation includes funding for preparation and 

demolition of the buildings in the K–1200 Complex. These funding 

levels are adequate to maintain current manpower levels for decontamination and disposal work at all three sites based on current 

forecasts. The Department is directed to use any unexpended funds 

at the respective sites, if necessary, to maintain current manpower 

levels. 

The Committee directs the Department to develop long-term 

plans to adequately clean up sites exclusively through the annual 

appropriations process. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the Title X Uranium 

and Thorium Reimbursement Program. Title X of the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992 authorizes the Secretary to reimburse eligible licensees 

for the Federal Government’s share of the cost associated with 

cleaning up former uranium and thorium processing sites across 

the country. The Committee continues to be concerned about the 

accumulating balances and liabilities owed to private licensees for 

the Department’s failure to address the Federal Government’s cost 

share. Fulfilling the obligation to fully reimburse licensees is important to the health and safety of the impacted communities. Moving forward, the Committee expects the Secretary to request sufficient resources within its annual budget request to reimburse licensees for approved claim balances. 

The budget request included no discretionary funding for Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning 

[UED&D] activities. Instead, the Department recommended using 

mandatory funding that is not authorized for these activities. The 

Committee is concerned that such irresponsible budgeting practices 

demonstrate the Department’s lack of commitment to the cleanup 

of the former enrichment sites in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio. 

Going forward, the Department is directed to request discretionary 

funding for this work unless they have already obtained authorization for use of mandatory funds. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $5,350,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 5,572,069,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,400,000,000 

The Committee recommends $5,400,000,000 for Science, a decrease of $172,069,000 from the budget request. 

Distinguished Scientist Program.—The Committee recommends 

directing up to $2,000,000 to support the Department’s Distinguished Scientist Program, as authorized in section 5011 of Public 

Law 110–69 to promote scientific and academic excellence through 

collaborations between institutions of higher education and National laboratories to be funded from across all Office of Science 

programs. 

Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies 

[BRAIN] Initiative.—The Committee is aware of the Department’s 

partnership with the National Institutes of Health [NIH] and coordination with the interagency BRAIN initiative. The Committee 

supports the Department’s contributions to the BRAIN initiative 

through the development of imaging and sensing tools and tech-
84 

nologies at x-ray light sources and nanoscale research centers, as 

well as computational expertise, high performance computing, and 

data management. This complementary, multi-agency initiative is 

encouraged to take advantage of existing investments and infrastructure while engaging closely with the neuroscience community 

to accelerate our understanding of the brain. In addition, the Committee also encourages and supports the use of national laboratory 

system’s user facilities for the National Cancer Moonshot Initiative. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $656,180,000 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The Committee believes its recommendation would allow the Department to develop and maintain 

world-class computing and network facilities for science and deliver 

the necessary research in applied mathematics, computer science, 

and advanced networking to support the Department’s missions. 

The Committee is supportive of the coordinated Federal strategy 

in high performance computing research, development, and deployment through the National Strategic Computing Initiative. The 

Committee encourages further coordination between the Office of 

Science and National Nuclear Security Administration to support 

the Exascale Computing Initiative in development of a long range 

plan. The Committee strongly supports the Initiative, which is critical to maintaining our Nation’s global competitiveness and ensuring American technology outpaces rivals like China to support our 

national security. Exascale computers will be capable of a hundredfold increase in sustained performance over today’s computing capabilities. The Initiative is also a critical tool to advancing energy 

technologies. In fiscal year 2017, the ASCR portion of the Exascale 

Initiative is incorporated into a new budget line listed as the Office 

of Science Exascale Computing Project [SC–ECP] for activities required for the delivery of exascale computers. The SC–ECP will be 

managed following the principles of Order 413.3B, and a project 

management office has been established at Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, which has expertise in developing computational 

science and engineering applications, as well as managing high 

performance computing facilities and large scale scientific research 

projects. The Committee recommends including $154,000,000 for 

SC–ECP. This funding will support hardware and software research and development, including applications software, for the 

development and deployment of a capable exascale system to meet 

the scientific and national security mission needs of the Nation by 

the mid-2020s. 

The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Oak Ridge 

Leadership Computing Facility to ensure that it is the most capable, open computational system for science and maintains U.S. 

leadership in supercomputing. The Committee also recommends 

$80,000,000 for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, 

$92,145,000 for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing 

Center facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and 

$45,000,000 for ESnet. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for 

the Computational Sciences Graduate Program. Within available 

funds, the Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the cross-program partnership on seismic simulation. 
85 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,912,630,000 for Basic Energy 

Sciences [BES]. Of these funds, $1,722,630,000 is for research. The 

Committee is aware the Basic Sciences Advisory Committee will 

provide an updated assessment and prioritization of the next three 

to five projects by June, and will take into account for a finalized 

fiscal year 2017 agreement. The Committee recommends funding 

for optimal operations $489,059,000 for the five BES light sources 

to fully support research and allow the facilities to proceed with 

necessary maintenance, routine accelerator and instrumentation 

improvements, and crucial staff hires or replacements. The Committee recognizes the critical role that light sources play in the Nation’s innovation ecosystem, and the growing reliance on them by 

U.S. researchers and industry. In light of increased international 

investment in these unique scientific resources and the consequences for U.S. innovation leadership, the Committee supports 

the Secretary’s efforts to upgrade and renew these facilities across 

the full spectrum of x-ray capabilities. Within available funds for 

operations and maintenance of scientific user facilities, the Committee recommends $265,000,000 for high-flux neutron sources, 

which will allow for both Spallation Neutron Source [SNS] and 

High Flux Isotope Reactor [HFIR] to proceed with the most critical 

deferred repairs, replace outdated instruments, and make essential 

machine improvements. Further, the Committee recommends optimal funding for the Nanoscale Science Research Centers, and supports the development of capabilities with co-located facilities. 

The Committee recommends $190,000,000 to support the continuation of the construction effort for LCLS–II. In addition, the 

Committee is aware the Department did not provide adequate 

funding within Major Items of Equipment for the Advanced Photon 

Source Upgrade, which received approval for CD–1 in January 

2016, and is ready to move ahead with design and procurement. 

The Committee rejects this approach, and provides $50,000,000 for 

construction, as previously recommended by the Department. 

The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for exascale systems, 

the same as the crosscut request for fiscal year 2017. 

The Committee recommends within the funds provided, 

$3,000,000 to continue to work on a new generation of nanostructured catalysts that can be used to synthesize fertilizer and ammonia without any secondary greenhouse gases. 

The Committee recommends $24,088,000 for the Batteries and 

Energy Storage Hub, the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research 

[JCESR]. This is the last year of the first award period, and the 

Committee is encouraged by the work of JCESR to develop energy 

storage research prototypes for transportation and grid applications 

based on beyond lithium ion concepts. These protoypes will demonstrate the potential to scale up manufacturing prototype batteries to deliver five times the energy density of 2011 battery systems and one-fifth the cost. 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 commends JCESR for expanding 
86 

it partnership of national laboratories, academia, and industry to 

additional members outside their region. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Fuels from Sunlight Hub, the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis [JCAP] 

which was established in fiscal year 2010, and in September 2015 

was renewed for a second award term of up to 5 years. The JCAP 

will continue to perform research on the fundamental science of 

carbon dioxide reduction needed to enable efficient, sustainable 

solar-driven production of liquid transportation fuels, and will undergo a scientific and merit review in fiscal year 2017 to assess 

progress towards meeting project milestones and goals. The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Experimental 

Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR]. The Committee recognizes the importance of supporting basic research, 

spanning the broad range of the Department’s science and technology programs in States that have historically received disproportionate Federal research funding grants. The Committee encourages the Secretary to undertake additional efforts to include 

EPSCoR States in energy research activities related to the energy 

production and output contribution of their State. 

The Committee further encourages the Secretary to undertake 

additional efforts to perform energy research activities related to 

enhanced efficiency in energy conversion and utilization, including 

emergent polymer technologies, with a focus on infrared 

optoelectronic devices to ensure continued competitiveness in a 

global marketplace. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue funding to 

support research and development needs of graduate and postgraduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

The Committee recommends $637,000,000 for Biological and Environmental Research. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for exascale computing, the same as the request for fiscal year 2017 crosscut. The Department is urged to give 

priority to optimizing the operation of Biological and Environmental Research User Facilities. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$75,000,000 for three Bioenergy Research Centers for the final year 

of their funding period. 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 Committee encourages the Department to increase funding 

for academia to perform climate model studies that include the collection and evaluation of atmospheric data sets from satellite observations obtained in cooperation with NASA. Satellite observations 

of the atmosphere, within the context of the Earth as a global system, provide information that is critical in the interpretation of 

Earth-based observations. 

As other nations have launched research programs on albedo 

modification, the Committee recommends the Department review 

the findings of the National Academy of Sciences report entitled, 
87 

‘‘Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth,’’ and leverage existing computational and modeling capabilities to explore 

the potential impacts of albedo modification. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $280,110,000 for Fusion Energy 

Sciences. The Committee directs the Department to provide a 

prioritization and long-range plan for domestic Fusion Energy 

Sciences research and development program. 

U.S. Contribution to ITER.—The Committee recommends no 

funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 

[ITER] project. The Committee has previously expressed and continues to remain concerned about the rising cost of the United 

States’ participation in ITER under construction in St. Paul-lezDurance, France. Funding for the contribution to ITER continues 

to crowd out other Federal science investments, including domestic 

fusion research, as well as high performance computing and materials science, where the United States has maintained leadership. 

The Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act directed a report from the Secretary of Energy recommending either the United 

States to continue its participation in the ITER project or terminate participation, and that recommendation is expected not later 

than May 2, 2016. The Committee is aware an updated project cost 

and long term schedule are also under review by an independent 

panel, and will be provided to the ITER Organization in April 2016. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $832,997,000 for High Energy Physics. 

The Committee strongly supports the Secretary’s efforts to advance the recommendations of the Particle Physics Project 

Prioritization Panel Report, which established clear priorities for 

the domestic particle physics program over the next 10 years under 

realistic budget scenarios. Within available funds, the Committee 

recommends $55,000,000 for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/ 

Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment to ensure the United 

States meets its commitments to support joint DUNE detector design and prototyping in partnership with CERN, to complete site 

preparation and begin excavation for the far detector site, and to 

secure and define technical contributions from other international 

partners. 

The Committee recommendation provides Cosmic Frontier Experimental Physics an additional $5,000,000 to fund the Dark Energy 

Spectroscopic Instrument at $12,000,000 and the G2 Dark Matter 

Experiment LUX ZEPLIN at $12,500,000. The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope 

Camera, the same as the request. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee recommends $635,658,000 for Nuclear Physics. 

The Committee is supportive of the 2015 Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science released in October 2015 to address important scientific questions with modest or constrained growth in the nuclear 
88 

science budgets, while still maintaining a strong, vital and world 

leading program. Within these funds, the Committee recommends 

$100,000,000 for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and the budget request for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

The Committee recommends $20,925,000 for Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $130,000,000 for Science Laboratories Infrastructure consistent with the budget request. 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 supports multiple critical missions. 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $291,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 350,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 292,669,000 

The Committee recommends $292,669,000 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy [ARPA–E], a decrease of 

$57,331,000 from the request. Within available funds, the Committee recommends $29,250,000 for program direction. 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 lead. Project sponsors continue to 

form strategic partnerships and new companies, as well as securing 

private sector funding to help move ARPA–E technologies closer to 

the market. ARPA–E has, in total, invested in more than 400 

projects in 25 focused program areas. The Committee supports the 

program’s focus for fiscal year 2017 on transportation fuels and 

feedstocks; energy materials and processes; dispatchable energy; 

and sensors, information and integration. 

OFFICE OF INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $22,930,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Office of Indian 

Energy. The activities of this office have previously been funded 

through the Department of Administration appropriation. The 

Committee notes that the Department did not repeat its request to 

initiate a Tribal Indian Energy Loan Guarantee Program for fiscal 

year 2017. Within available funds, the Committee encourages the 

Office of Indian Energy to facilitate the utilization of existing loan 

programs by tribal governments, including the title 17 Innovative 

Technology Loan Guarantee Program and the Transmission Infrastructure Program. The Committee encourages the Office of Indian 
89 

Energy to facilitate better communication among different Federal 

agencies regarding rules, regulations issued, and actions taken by 

other Federal agencies impacting energy development on Indian 

lands. 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $42,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,057,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,000,000 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ¥$25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ¥30,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥30,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $17,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,027,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,000,000 

The Committee recommends $37,000,000 in funding for the Loan 

Guarantee Program, the same as the request. This funding is offset 

by $30,000,000 in receipts from loan guarantee applicants, for a net 

appropriation of $7,000,000. An additional $37,000,000 in prior receipts from loan guarantee applicants is credited to the bill as a 

scorekeeping adjustment. The Committee does not recommend any 

new loan authority, as proposed in the budget request. 

Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall provide the Committees on Appropriations of 

both Houses of Congress with a report that includes the following 

information: (1) a list of each conditional commitment the Secretary 

has offered and which has not been closed or withdrawn as of the 

date of enactment of this Act; (2) a status of each project listed 

under (1); and (3) a justification by the Secretary as to why each 

conditional commitment should continue to be pending and not 

withdrawn; and (4) any specific legal hindrances to withdrawing 

conditional commitments once the Secretary has offered them. The 

Committee encourages the Department to make $9,000,000 of the 

current renewable energy credit subsidy available for Indian Energy proposals. 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN

PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $6,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, the same as the request. 
90 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $248,142,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 270,037,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 232,142,000 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ¥$117,171,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ¥103,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥103,000,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $130,971,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 167,037,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 129,142,000 

The Committee recommends $232,142,000 in funding for Departmental Administration. Included within such amounts is funding 

for the Department’s activities related to implementation of the 

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. This funding offset by 

$103,000,000 in revenue for a net appropriation of $129,142,000. 

The Committee has reduced the number of control points in this 

account in order to provide flexibility to the Department in its 

management and funding of its support functions. The Department 

is directed to continue to submit its budget request for this account 

in its current structure. The Other Departmental Administration 

activity now includes Management, Chief Human Capital Officer, 

Chief Information Officer, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, General Counsel, Energy Policy and Systems 

Analysis, International Affairs, Public Affairs, Economic Impact 

and Diversity, and Office of Energy Jobs Development. The Office 

of Indian Energy Programs is funded in a separate account for the 

first time this year. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide technical assistance, including studies or analysis, at the request of State energy regulatory authorities, which capture the known and 

measureable current and future benefits and costs of distributed 

energy resources (such as distributed generation, demand response, 

storage, and energy efficiency) to the customers they serve and the 

utilities they regulate. The studies may include, but are not limited 

to, the following variables: (1) avoided energy, (2) line losses, (3) 

avoided capacity, (4) ancillary services, (5) transmission and distribution capacity, (6) avoided criteria pollutant costs, (7) avoided 

carbon dioxide emission cost, (8) fuel hedging, (9) utility integration 

and interconnection costs, (10) utility administration costs, (11) environmental costs. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to complete a survey of previous energy plants that have shutdown, how communities adapted, the opportunities and challenges facing these communities, and 

resources available to assist with the economic transition. Such a 

report is to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

no later than 180 days after the enactment of this act. 
91 

Technology Transfer.—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). 

The Committee directs the Department to submit a report, no 

later than 30 days after enactment of this act, detailing projects 

approved under 42 U.S.C. 16421 and the Department’s efforts to 

ensure compliance with State laws, as applicable under 42 U.S.C. 

16421(d)(2). 

Nonprofit Cost Share.—The Committee notes that the Secretary 

may reduce or eliminate the research and development match requirement established in section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, where necessary and appropriate. The Committee encourages 

the Secretary to consider the use of this discretion if the research 

goals of the Department of Energy would be advanced by reducing 

or eliminating the match requirement for nonprofit organizations 

and institutions. 

Small Refinery Exemption.—The Committee directs the Secretary 

to continue to follow the direction included under this heading in 

fiscal year 2016. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $46,424,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 44,424,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,424,000 

The Committee recommends $44,424,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, the same as the request. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $12,867,186,000 for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The Committee continues funding for recapitalization of our nuclear weapons infrastructure, while modernizing and maintaining a safe, secure, and 

credible nuclear deterrent without testing. This is among our most 

important national security priorities. 

At the same time, the Committee supports continuing important 

efforts to secure and permanently eliminate remaining stockpiles of 

nuclear and radiological materials overseas and in the United 

States that can be used for nuclear or radiological weapons. In addition, the Committee supports Naval Reactors and the important 

role they play in enabling the Navy’s nuclear fleet. 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

The Committee directs the Secretary to carry out the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 16274a in support of university research and 

development in areas relevant to the NNSA’s mission. Within 

available funds, the Committee recommends not less than 

$5,000,000 for the Integrated University Program to cultivate the 

next generation of leaders in nonproliferation, nuclear security, and 

international security. Together with funds from the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this pro-
92 

gram ensures highly qualified nuclear specialists will be available 

to meet national needs. The Committee directs the Secretary to request funding for this program in future budget years, and specifically highlight the source of funds within the budget request. Further, funding for this program shall not come from prior year 

funds. 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee is concerned about NNSA’s ability to properly estimate costs and timelines for large projects. The NNSA is encouraged to assess current performance on projects costing more than 

$750,000,000, and make appropriate project management changes. 

The Committee encourages the NNSA to identify problems in cost 

and schedule estimates early, and provide updated information to 

the Committee in a timely manner. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $8,846,948,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 9,285,147,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,285,147,000 

The Committee recommends $9,285,147,000 for Weapons Activities, the same as the budget request to ensure the safety, security, 

reliability, and effectiveness of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile without the need for nuclear testing. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommends $3,321,011,000 for Directed Stockpile Work. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$1,340,341,000 for Life Extension Programs and Major Alterations, 

which fully funds all life extension programs and major alterations 

in the budget request, consistent with the plan of record approved 

by the Nuclear Weapons Council. NNSA needs to ensure that Life 

Extension Programs are completed on time and on budget to prevent impact on other high priorities, such as modernizing aging infrastructure, critical nonproliferation activities to combat nuclear 

terrorism, and naval nuclear propulsion. 

W76 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$222,880,000 for the W76 Life Extension Program. Completing the 

W76 Life Extension Program, which makes up the largest share of 

the country’s nuclear weapon deterrent on the most survivable leg 

of the Triad, is this Committee’s highest priority for life extension 

programs. 

B61 Life Extension Program.—The Committee recommends 

$616,079,000 for the B61 Life Extension Program. The Committee 

supports the Nuclear Weapons Council plan to retire the B83, the 

last megaton class weapon in the stockpile, by 2025. 

W88 Alt 370.—The Committee recommends $281,129,000 for the 

W88 Alt 370. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy, in conjunction 

with the Nuclear Weapons Council, to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations of both the House and Senate, no later 

than 180 days after enactment of this act, to include: a military 
93 

justification for the Long Range Stand-Off missile and its operational capabilities; whether the Nuclear Weapons Council has directed the study of additional operational capabilities for the W80– 

4 relative to the W80–1 warhead; a detailed explanation of the extent to which conventional explosive systems can meet the same or 

similar military objectives as the Long Range Standoff weapon; a 

description of the blast, thermal and radiation spread of an atmospheric W80–4 nuclear explosion in representative operational employment conditions; a description of alternatives leading to the 

August, 2014 Nuclear Weapons Council decision to use the W80 

warhead for the Long Range Standoff weapon; and a comprehensive description and justification of all design options and associated systems and subsystems under evaluation in Phase 6.2, including whether the system or subsystem option is driven by aging, 

safety, security, or use control concerns. 

Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition.—The Committee supports the administration’s efforts to accelerate the dismantlement 

of retired nuclear weapons removed from the stockpile prior to 

2009. Further, the Committee supports accelerated dismantlements 

now as a way of preparing its workforce for necessary stockpile production work beginning later this decade. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommends $890,173,000 

for stockpile services. Within Stockpile Services, the Nuclear Materials Management Safeguards System [NMMSS] tracks movements, uses, inventories, and locations of all nuclear materials, including plutonium and high enriched uranium, domestically and 

internationally. The Committee supports the maintenance and expansion of NMMSS and encourages NNSA to ensure that NMMSS 

receives the management visibility and support needed to ensure 

technical and organizational sustainability. Further, the Committee 

directs the Department to submit a report to the Committees on 

Appropriations of both the Senate and House no later than 90 days 

after enactment on the activities and funding needed to enhance or 

expand the system to provide greater transparency to in-transit 

materials, delivery confirmation, excess materials awaiting disposal, and historical information. 

Strategic Materials.—The Committee recommends $577,837,000 

for Strategic Materials. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING

The Committee recommends $1,839,130,000 for Research, Development, Technology, and Engineering. 

Science.—The Committee commends NNSA for completing the 

Dynamic Compression Sector experiment at the Advanced Photon 

Source at the Argonne National Laboratory on time and on budget. 

This first of its kind experimental facility will help address gaps in 

understanding materials at extreme conditions that directly support the Stockpile Stewardship Mission and train the next generation of researchers. The Committee encourages NNSA to maximize 

the use of this new capability. As the first successful collaboration 

between NNSA, the Office of Science, and an academic institution, 

the Committee believes this project should serve as a model for future scientific collaborations between NNSA and the Office of 
94 

Science to address long-standing scientific challenges of stockpile 

stewardship in a cost effective manner. 

Current world events confirm the dynamic nature of the global 

threats we face today and confirm the need for a safe, secure, and 

effective nuclear deterrent. Central to this priority is recruiting and 

retaining a world-class workforce consisting of scientists, engineers, 

and technicians to sustain the Nation’s deterrent without nuclear 

explosive testing. The nuclear security enterprise must be able to 

effectively respond to emerging threats, unanticipated events, and 

technological innovation through science and engineering—all 

while continuing to carry out the necessary activities in support of 

the stockpile. The Committee notes NNSA’s successes in this regard and encourages NNSA to continue to prioritize efforts within 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation to improve certification 

capabilities. As such, within the funds available for Advanced Certification, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 above the budget request for NNSA to carry out section 3112 of the fiscal year 

2016 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign.—The Committee recommends $522,959,000 for the inertial 

confinement fusion ignition and high-yield campaign. The Committee supports the recent comprehensive Inertial Confinement Fusion Program Framework that details program requirements, milestones and metrics, and clear priorities for diagnostic investments 

that advance the three approaches to ignition and thermonuclear 

burning plasma capabilities primarily pursued at the National Ignition Facility, Z and Omega for the Stockpile Stewardship Program. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $663,184,000 for advanced simulation and computing. 

Within these funds, the Committee recommends no less than 

$95,000,000 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. The Committee is concerned that there is no clear distinction between the efforts within 

the NNSA and the Office of Science, and no way to determine if 

the work is complementary or duplicative. The Secretary is directed to provide a report to the Senate and House Appropriations 

Committees no later than 90 days after enactment of this act, 

which describes the roles and responsibilities of the NNSA and the 

Office of Science associated with exascale computing. 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $2,731,952,000 for Infrastructure 

and Operations. Within funding for Infrastructure and Safety, 

$2,200,000 is provided for the cross-program partnership on seismic 

simulation. 

Operations.—The Committee recommends $834,000,000 for Operations. 

Bannister Road Complex.—The Committee supports NNSA’s proposal to turn over the Bannister Road Complex to a private entity, 

consistent with section 3143 of the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. The Committee supports the budget re-
95 

quest and recommends $200,000,000 for the transfer of the Bannister Road Complex, and notes that the transfer will save the 

NNSA over $700,000,000 in cleanup costs. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $826,670,000 for 

major capital construction projects. 

Project 06–D–141, Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $575,000,000 to continue 

design and engineering work as well as site readiness and site 

preparation projects for the Uranium Processing Facility. 

The Committee supports efforts to replace existing enriched uranium capabilities currently residing in Building 9212 by 2025 for 

not more than $6.5 billion. The Committee supports the strategy of 

breaking the project into more manageable sub-projects. This practice is specifically permitted by DOE Order 413.3B, and is a practical approach for this project. The Committee expects the Secretary to ensure full compliance with the Department’s requirement to have a design that is at least 90 percent complete before 

approving the start of construction for the nuclear facilities. The 

Committee is encouraged that the NNSA plans to complete at least 

90 percent of the design of the project’s nuclear facilities by the end 

of 2017, and expects to start construction shortly thereafter. In 

order to make a smooth transition from design to construction, the 

NNSA must have adequate resources available to review Critical 

Decision documents from the contractor. The Committee directs the 

NNSA to provide the plan for reviewing those documents to the 

Senate and House Appropriations Committees with the fiscal year 

2018 budget request. 

Secure Transportation Asset.—The Committee recommends 

$261,420,000 for Secure Transportation Asset [STA]. The budget 

request for operations and equipment for fiscal year 2017 through 

2020 has grown by more than 33 percent when compared to that 

same timeframe in last year’s budget request, but NNSA does not 

explain the reason for the large increase. As such, the Committee 

concludes that the STA program does not have a stable procurement plan for replacing its assets. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Committee recommends $706,550,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Security. 

The recommendation provides additional funding above the budget request to meet shortfalls anticipated for the protective forces at 

Y–12 and other NNSA sites, and the need to replace vital security 

infrastructure. The Committee is concerned that NNSA continues 

to be overly aggressive in forecasting savings from the new contract 

structure at Y–12 and Pantex, and has not budgeted for a sufficient 

protective force to support production work required in the life extension programs. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,940,302,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,821,916,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,821,916,000 
96 

The Committee recommends $1,821,916,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation, the same as the budget request. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

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 is concerned 

that there is a disconnect between real-world threats and the 

planned work in nonproliferation. For example, the administration 

agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action last year, but did 

not request sufficient funds that could further directly support 

verification of that agreement. NNSA is directed to provide the 

Senate and House Appropriations Committees with a report that 

prioritizes threats to national security and links the budget request 

to those threats no later than June 30, 2017. 

Global Material Security.—The Committee recommends 

$344,108,000 for Global Material Security to increase the security 

of vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear weapons, weapons-usable nuclear materials, and radiological materials and to improve partner 

countries’ abilities to deter, detect, and interdict illicit trafficking. 

To ensure vital core capabilities in this area are maintained, it is 

imperative that the U.S. Government retain requisite expertise in 

uranium science and engineering, with appropriate infrastructure 

(laboratories, small-scale processing capability, and equipment), 

and resources to support nonproliferation and counter-proliferation 

efforts. 

The Committee supports the mission of the Nuclear Smuggling 

Detection and Deterrence program, but is also concerned about the 

cost and pace of the deployment of radiation detection equipment 

as part of this program. Specifically, over the last 5 years, the program has spent about $1 billion for work carried out in the 59 partner countries including deploying equipment, conducting training, 

and performing activities to transition operating responsibility to 

partner countries. Meanwhile, target dates for full transition to 

partner countries have been repeatedly delayed, and it is presently 

unclear when this work will be completed. Moreover, it is not clear 

whether NNSA has identified all of the program’s goals or how and 

when it will achieve them. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 

Secretary to submit a plan to the Senate and House Appropriations 

Committees within 180 days of enactment for completing the deployment and transition of radiation detection technologies, including all program goals, meaningful performance measures, and 

major milestones, and the cost, scope, and schedule of achieving 

those goals and milestones for all 59 partner countries. The Committee understands that some program post-transition activities 

will continue over the long-term to assist partner countries in combating nuclear smuggling. Nonetheless, such a plan is necessary so 

NNSA and Congress can assess progress in implementing the program. 
97 

Materials Management and Minimization.—The Committee recommends $32,744,000 for the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor Program, a reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request. 

Funds and program activities should be focused on fuel development for research reactors with lower peak power density requirements outside of the Department of Energy. 

Molybdenum-99.—The Committee continues to place a high priority on the development of domestic supplies of the medical isotope Molybdenum-99 [Moly-99] on a schedule adequate to meet 

public health needs. The Committee is encouraged by the progress 

made in establishing two or more domestic sources of Moly-99. 

NNSA is currently executing three cooperative agreements. In addition, there are at least seven other companies working to produce 

non-HEU-based Moly-99 without Government support. The Committee directs the Department to request funds sufficient to adequately support current and future cooperative agreement commitments and urges the Department to reconsider cost sharing caps as 

necessary in order to ensure timely supplies of this critical medical 

isotope. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development.— The Committee recommends $406,922,000 for Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Research and Development. Within available 

funds, the Committee recommends not less than $3,000,000 to be 

used for Ionizing Radiation Detector Development. The Committee 

supports a robust research and development capability to support 

nonproliferation initiatives, and does not support the drastic reductions proposed in the budget request. Proliferation of illicit nuclear 

materials and weapons continues to be 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. 

Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response.—The Committee recommends $271,881,000, an increase of $37,491,000 from 

fiscal year 2016 enacted for Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident 

Response. 

None of the funds available in this act or any other act are available for work under a Technical Engineering and Programmatic 

Support Blanket Purchase Agreement. If the Department wishes to 

place a contract under a Technical Engineering and Programmatic 

Support Blanket Purchase Agreement, the Department shall submit a reprogramming request in accordance with the reprogramming requirements carried in this act. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $1,375,496,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 1,420,120,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,351,520,000 

The Committee recommends $1,351,520,000 for Naval Reactors 

equal to the budget request when accounting for the programmatic 

transfer discussed below. The Committee’s recommendation fully 

funds important national priorities, including the Ohio-class replacement submarine design and the prototype refueling. The Committee also recommends full funding for Naval Reactors Operations 

and Infrastructure, recognizing the importance of safe operations of 
98 

the prototype reactors in New York and the spent fuel facility in 

Idaho, while properly maintaining overall infrastructure and facilities at four sites. 

OHIO-CLASS REPLACEMENT REACTOR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $213,700,000 for Ohio-Class Replacement Reactor Systems Development. 

NAVAL REACTORS DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $451,338,000 for Naval Reactors Development. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends 

$5,000,000 to continue the technical program to develop and qualify a low enriched uranium fuel system for naval cores. 

Advanced Test Reactor.—The Advanced Test Reactor [ATR] is an 

important research platform for nuclear testing and development, 

and is operated as a User Facility with broad applications across 

multiple programs. Historically, the operations and maintenance of 

the ATR has been funded in both the Naval Reactors and the Nuclear Energy accounts. External users other than Naval Reactors 

only pay for the incremental costs of their specific tests. The Committee supports adequate funding for the operations and maintenance of the ATR, but is consolidating the funding within the Nuclear Energy budget. As such, no funding is provided within the 

Naval Reactors account for ATR operations and maintenance. 

Naval Reactors should continue to fund NR-specific needs at ATR 

just like any other external user. 

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $134,300,000 for Construction. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $86,000,000 

for the Spent Fuel Handling Facility in Idaho and $33,300,000 for 

the Engine Room Team Trainer. 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $383,666,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 412,817,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 408,603,000 

The Committee recommends $408,603,000, a decrease of 

$4,214,000 from the budget request. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $5,289,742,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 5,235,350,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,379,018,000 

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $5,379,018,000, an increase of $143,668,000 from the 

budget request. Within available funds, the Department is directed 

to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker Training Program. 

The Committee rejects the Department’s inclusion of a single 

control point for infrastructure recapitalization and general plant 

projects for multiple sites. Further, the Office of Environmental 

Management shall not establish any central or consolidated appropriations accounts, or establish any separate controls within indi-
99 

vidual site accounts in any future budget request without prior 

agreement of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. 

Richland.—As a signatory to the Tri-Party Agreement, the Department of Energy 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 2017 budget request were enacted, 

several 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 $839,760,000 for Richland Operations. Additional funding is provided for cleanup of the 300–296 waste site, continued remediation of the 618–10 burial ground, groundwater treatment, 

site-wide infrastructure, and community and regulatory support. 

Within available funds in the River Corridor control point, the Department is directed to carry out maintenance and public safety efforts at the B Reactor, the Manhattan Project National Historical 

Park, and the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency 

Response facilities. 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommends $270,387,000 for 

NNSA sites. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommends 

$263,219,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. Within the funds available for Nuclear Facility D&D, the Committee recommends 

$45,400,000 to continue to support characterization and demolition 

of excess contaminated facilities and $6,000,000 to support preliminary design of a new landfill for the Oak Ridge Reservation. The 

existing on-site disposal facility is expected to reach capacity before 

all cleanup activities are completed. Planning for a new landfill is 

necessary to ensure that there is no interruption of cleanup activities. Within funds available for Cleanup and Waste Disposition, the 

Committee recommends $48,600,000 for continuing transuranic 

waste processing and storage to meet contractual and regulatory 

commitments. 

U–233 Disposition Program.—The Committee recommends 

$43,311,000 for the cleanup of Building 3019. Removal of legacy 

material from this building, an aging facility in the heart of the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory central campus, must remain a 

high priority for the Department. Timely completion of this effort 

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. 

Mercury Treatment Facility.—The Committee recommends 

$5,100,000 to complete the design 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 
100 

Poplar Creek continues to be a high priority for the Environmental 

Management program. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommends 

$1,499,965,000 for the Office of River Protection. 

The Committee is aware of a recent ruling by the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of Washington amending the 2010 

Consent Decree between the Department of Energy and State of 

Washington, setting new deadlines and requirements for the construction and operation of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant and tank waste retrievals. The Committee directs the 

Department to request sufficient funding in future budgets to ensure compliance with the 2016 Consent Decree. Furthermore, the 

Committee encourages the Department to use all means necessary 

to procure a spare A–E–1 reboiler for the 242–A Evaporator by December 31, 2016 as required by the Consent Decree. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommends 

$1,268,668,000 for the Savannah River site. Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is provided for disposition of spent fuel from the 

High Flux Isotope Reactor. 

Idaho.—The Committee is concerned about the lack of progress 

in starting operations at the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit. 

Completed in 2012 at a cost of $571,000,000, the facility is intended to treat 900,000 gallons of sodium-bearing radioactive 

waste. Unfortunately, design flaws and other problems have led to 

another $140,000,000 being spent without startup of the facility. 

Treating this waste is necessary for cleanup of the Idaho site and 

to meet regulatory commitments to the State. The Committee appreciates the efforts of the Department and its contractors to address the challenges associated with the current waste treatment 

approach. However, a new approach using different facilities may 

be necessary. The Department is directed to submit a report to the 

Committees on Appropriations of both the House and Senate within 60 days of enactment on the viability of the current approach 

and alternative approaches for treating the sodium-bearing waste 

in a timely manner. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.—The Committee recommends 

$274,540,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, including a total 

of $26,800,000 for settlement costs associated with the February 

2014 incidents. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to take all appropriate 

actions to reopen the facility on schedule at the end of this year 

and demonstrate the ability operate in a safe manner. Worker safety must continue to be a priority for the Department and its contractors. The Committee also encourages the Secretary to ensure 

that, once the site reopens and resumes emplacement of waste, 

adequate funding is requested for longer-term work required to return the site to its full operational capability. 

Technology Development and Demonstration.—The Committee 

supports the Department’s efforts to expand technology development and demonstration to address its long-term and technically 

complex cleanup challenges. Further, the Committee supports the 

Department’s efforts to award merit-based research at the national 

laboratories to address long-term cleanup mission needs. The Committee believes it is in the best interest of all sites that these funds 
101 

are competitively awarded and managed by Department of Energy 

Headquarters. The Committee directs the Department to submit a 

report to the Committees on Appropriations of both the Senate and 

House outlining its plans for cleanup technology development and 

demonstration, including technical focus areas, intended outcomes 

and performance measures, out-year funding needs, and how the 

Department intends to use the broad technical expertise of the national laboratories. 

The Committee supports the Department’s work to assess the 

current status and long term requirements for the extended storage 

and final disposition of spent fuel and high-level wastes through 

Technology Development and National Spent Nuclear Fuel programs. These programs are of vital importance, especially given the 

Department’s commitments to remove all spent fuel from Idaho by 

2035. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... $155,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 717,741,000 

The Committee recommends $717,741,000 to fully offset the fiscal year 2017 appropriation for the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning account. The Committee recommendation does not include authorization of a legislative proposal to reinstate a tax on nuclear utilities. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $776,425,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 791,552,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 791,552,000 

The Committee recommends $791,552,000 for Other Defense Activities, the same as the budget request. Within the funds provided, 

the Committee recommends $239,912,000 for Specialized Security 

Activities, and $63,698,000 for Environment, Health and Safety. 

Within the funds available for Environment, Health and Safety, 

the Committee recommends $50,510,000 for Health Programs, including $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 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $11,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 11,057,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,057,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $11,057,000 

for the Southwestern Power Administration. 
102 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $93,372,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 95,581,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 95,581,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $95,581,000 

for the Western Area Power Administration. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $228,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 232,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 232,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $232,000 for 

the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $319,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 346,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 346,000,000 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ¥$319,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ¥346,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥346,000,000 

The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $0 for the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

The Committee expects FERC to adhere to the schedule for environmental review for the projects in Docket Nos. CP14–517–000 

and CP14–518–000 noticed by the agency on June 26, 2015. 

The Committee encourages FERC, in accordance with Executive 

Order 13604 (5 U.S.C. 601 note; relating to improving performance 

of Federal permitting and review of infrastructure projects), 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. 

The Committee believes FERC should reopen its Rulemaking Regarding Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands in Docket 

No. RM11–6–000 and adopt a single per-acre rate to access Federal 

land use fees in the State of Alaska. 
103 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Sustainable Transportation: 

Vehicle technologies .................................................................................................................................................... 310,000 468,500 308,300 ¥1,700 ¥160,200 Bioenergy technologies ................................................................................................................................................ 225,000 278,900 218,100 ¥6,900 ¥60,800 Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies ........................................................................................................................... 100,950 105,500 92,000 ¥8,950 ¥13,500 

Subtotal, Sustainable Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 635,950 852,900 618,400 ¥17,550 ¥234,500 

Renewable Energy: 

Solar energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 241,600 285,100 222,400 ¥19,200 ¥62,700 Wind energy ................................................................................................................................................................. 95,450 156,000 80,000 ¥15,450 ¥76,000 Water power ................................................................................................................................................................. 70,000 80,000 84,000 ∂14,000 ∂4,000 Geothermal technologies ............................................................................................................................................. 71,000 99,500 70,500 ¥500 ¥29,000 

Subtotal, Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................................... 478,050 620,600 456,900 ¥21,150 ¥163,700 

Energy Efficiency: 

Advanced manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................ 228,500 261,000 254,200 ∂25,700 ¥6,800 Building technologies .................................................................................................................................................. 200,500 289,000 203,400 ∂2,900 ¥85,600 Federal energy management program ........................................................................................................................ 27,000 43,000 27,000 .......................... ¥16,000 Weatherization and intergovernmental: 

Weatherization: 

Weatherization assistance program .......................................................................................................... 211,600 225,000 211,600 .......................... ¥13,400 Training and technical assistance ........................................................................................................... 3,000 5,000 3,000 .......................... ¥2,000 NREL Site-Wide Facility Support ............................................................................................................... 400 .......................... .......................... ¥400 ..........................

Subtotal, Weatherization ....................................................................................................................... 215,000 230,000 214,600 ¥400 ¥15,400 

State energy program grants ...................................................................................................................................... 50,000 70,000 50,000 .......................... ¥20,000 Cities, counties and communities energy program .................................................................................................... .......................... 26,000 .......................... .......................... ¥26,000 
104 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Subtotal, Weatherization and intergovernmental program .................................................................................... 265,000 326,000 264,600 ¥400 ¥61,400 Subtotal, Energy Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 721,000 919,000 749,200 ∂28,200 ¥169,800 

Crosscutting Innovation Initiatives ...................................................................................................................................... .......................... 215,000 .......................... .......................... ¥215,000 Corporate Support: 

Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] ................................................................................................. 62,000 92,000 90,000 ∂28,000 ¥2,000 

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 155,000 170,900 153,500 ¥1,500 ¥17,400 Strategic programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 21,000 28,000 21,000 .......................... ¥7,000 

Subtotal, Corporate Support ................................................................................................................................... 238,000 290,900 264,500 ∂26,500 ¥26,400 Subtotal, Energy efficiency and renewable energy ................................................................................................ 2,073,000 2,898,400 2,089,000 ∂16,000 ¥809,400 

Use of Prior Year Balances .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥16,000 ¥16,000 ¥16,000 Rescissions ........................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Floor amendments ................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ......................................................................................... 2,073,000 2,898,400 2,073,000 .......................... ¥825,400 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

Research and development: 

Clean energy transmission and reliability .................................................................................................................. 39,000 30,300 36,000 ¥3,000 ∂5,700 Smart grid research and development ....................................................................................................................... 35,000 30,000 35,000 .......................... ∂5,000 Cyber security for energy delivery systems ................................................................................................................. 62,000 45,500 50,500 ¥11,500 ∂5,000 Energy storage ............................................................................................................................................................. 20,500 44,500 29,500 ∂9,000 ¥15,000 Transformer resilience and advanced components .................................................................................................... 5,000 15,000 8,500 ∂3,500 ¥6,500 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 161,500 165,300 159,500 ¥2,000 ¥5,800 

National electricity delivery .................................................................................................................................................. 7,500 6,500 7,500 .......................... ∂1,000 State Distribution-level Reform Program ............................................................................................................................. .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 
105 

Infrastructure security and energy restoration .................................................................................................................... 9,000 17,500 10,500 ∂1,500 ¥7,000 State energy reliability and assurance ................................................................................................................................ .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 28,000 29,000 28,500 ∂500 ¥500 Grid Institute ........................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 14,000 .......................... .......................... ¥14,000 

Subtotal, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability .............................................................................................. 206,000 262,300 206,000 .......................... ¥56,300 TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY ..................................................................................... 206,000 262,300 206,000 .......................... ¥56,300 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

Research and development: 

Integrated university program ..................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 5,000 .......................... ∂5,000 STEP R&D .................................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................Small modular reactor licensing technical support ................................................................................................... 62,500 89,600 95,000 ∂32,500 ∂5,400 Nuclear energy enabling technologies ........................................................................................................................ 111,600 89,510 83,925 ¥27,675 ¥5,585 Reactor concepts RD&D .............................................................................................................................................. 141,718 108,760 129,760 ¥11,958 ∂21,000 Fuel cycle research and development ......................................................................................................................... 203,800 249,938 219,730 ∂15,930 ¥30,208 International nuclear energy cooperation ................................................................................................................... 3,000 4,500 3,000 .......................... ¥1,500 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 532,618 542,308 536,415 ∂3,797 ¥5,893 

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 18,000 .......................... 10,000 ¥8,000 ∂10,000 Research reactor infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 6,800 7,000 7,000 ∂200 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 24,800 7,000 17,000 ¥7,800 ∂10,000 

INL facilities management: 

INL operations and infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 220,582 220,585 220,585 ∂3 ..........................ATR Defense contribution ................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 68,600 ∂68,600 ∂68,600 Construction: 

16–E–200 Sample preparation laboratory ................................................................................................ 2,000 6,000 6,000 ∂4,000 ..........................13–D–905 Remote-handled low level waste disposal project, INL ......................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction .......................................................................................................................... 2,000 6,000 6,000 ∂4,000 ..........................Subtotal, INL facilities management .................................................................................................... 222,582 226,585 295,185 ∂72,603 ∂68,600 Subtotal, Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 247,382 233,585 312,185 ∂64,803 ∂78,600 
106 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security .............................................................................................................................. 126,161 129,303 129,303 ∂3,142 ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 80,000 88,700 80,000 .......................... ¥8,700 

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 986,161 993,896 1,057,903 ∂71,742 ∂64,007 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 986,161 993,896 1,057,903 ∂71,742 ∂64,007 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Coal CCS and power systems: 

Carbon capture ............................................................................................................................................................ 101,000 109,200 101,000 .......................... ¥8,200 Carbon storage ............................................................................................................................................................ 106,000 90,875 106,000 .......................... ∂15,125 Advanced energy systems ........................................................................................................................................... 105,000 53,652 105,000 .......................... ∂51,348 Cross cutting research ................................................................................................................................................ 50,000 58,650 50,000 .......................... ¥8,650 NETL coal research and development ......................................................................................................................... 53,000 35,000 .......................... ¥53,000 ¥35,000 STEP (Supercritical CO2) ............................................................................................................................................. 15,000 24,300 15,000 .......................... ¥9,300 

Subtotal, CCS and power systems ......................................................................................................................... 430,000 371,677 377,000 ¥53,000 ∂5,323 

Natural Gas Technologies: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43,000 26,500 46,000 ∂3,000 ∂19,500 

CCS: 

Natural gas carbon capture ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... 31,000 .......................... .......................... ¥31,000 

Subtotal, Natural gas technologies ........................................................................................................................ 43,000 57,500 46,000 ∂3,000 ¥11,500 

Unconventional fossil energy technologies .......................................................................................................................... 20,321 .......................... 23,245 ∂2,924 ∂23,245 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 114,202 60,998 60,000 ¥54,202 ¥998 Plant and capital equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 15,782 .......................... .......................... ¥15,782 ..........................Fossil energy environmental restoration .............................................................................................................................. 7,995 .......................... .......................... ¥7,995 ..........................Super computer .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Special recruitment programs .............................................................................................................................................. 700 700 700 .......................... ..........................
107 

NETL Research and Operations ............................................................................................................................................ .......................... 44,984 73,000 ∂73,000 ∂28,016 NETL Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 64,141 52,055 ∂52,055 ¥12,086 

Use of prior year balances .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥240,000 .......................... .......................... ∂240,000 

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 632,000 360,000 632,000 .......................... ∂272,000 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ................................................................................................................... 17,500 14,950 14,950 ¥2,550 ..........................STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ........................................................................................................................................ 212,000 257,000 200,000 ¥12,000 ¥57,000 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ........................................................................................................................... 7,600 10,500 10,500 ∂2,900 ..........................Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥4,000 ¥4,000 ¥4,000 ..........................

TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ................................................................................................. 7,600 6,500 6,500 ¥1,100 ..........................

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................................................. 122,000 131,125 122,000 .......................... ¥9,125 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) .................................................................................................................................... 2,562 2,240 2,240 ¥322 ..........................Gaseous Diffusion Plants ..................................................................................................................................................... 104,403 101,304 101,304 ¥3,099 ..........................Small sites ........................................................................................................................................................................... 87,522 53,243 85,043 ¥2,479 ∂31,800 West Valley Demonstration Project ...................................................................................................................................... 59,213 61,613 66,413 ∂7,200 ∂4,800 Mercury storage facility ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,300 .......................... .......................... ¥1,300 ..........................

TOTAL, NON–DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ................................................................................................. 255,000 218,400 255,000 .......................... ∂36,600 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND 

Oak Ridge ............................................................................................................................................................................. 194,673 .......................... 194,673 .......................... ∂194,673 Paducah: 

Nuclear facility D&D, Paducah ................................................................................................................................... 198,729 .......................... 203,093 ∂4,364 ∂203,093 Construction: 15–U–407 On-site waste disposal facility, Paducah ................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................16–U–401 Solid waste management units 5&6 ........................................................................................................ 1,196 .......................... 2,437 ∂1,241 ∂2,437 

Total, Paducah ........................................................................................................................................................ 199,925 .......................... 205,530 ∂5,605 ∂205,530 

Portsmouth: 

Nuclear facility D&D, Portsmouth ............................................................................................................................... 203,417 .......................... 223,417 ∂20,000 ∂223,417 
108 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Construction: 

15–U–408 On-site waste disposal facility, Portsmouth ................................................................................... 21,749 .......................... 41,168 ∂19,419 ∂41,168 

Total, Portsmouth .................................................................................................................................................... 225,166 .......................... 264,585 ∂39,419 ∂264,585 

Pension and community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................. 21,026 .......................... 22,953 ∂1,927 ∂22,953 Title X uranium/thorium reimbursement program ............................................................................................................... 32,959 .......................... 30,000 ¥2,959 ∂30,000 

TOTAL, UED&D FUND ............................................................................................................................................... 673,749 .......................... 717,741 ∂43,992 ∂717,741 

SCIENCE 

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................................................................................. 621,000 509,180 502,180 ¥118,820 ¥7,000 

Construction: 17–SC–20 SC Exascale Computing Project ................................................................................................................ .......................... 154,000 154,000 ∂154,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Advanced scientific computing research ................................................................................................ 621,000 663,180 656,180 ∂35,180 ¥7,000 

Basic energy sciences: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,648,700 1,746,730 1,722,630 ∂73,930 ¥24,100 Construction: 

13–SC–10 LINAC coherent light source II, SLAC .............................................................................................. 200,300 190,000 190,000 ¥10,300 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 200,300 190,000 190,000 ¥10,300 ..........................Subtotal, Basic energy sciences .................................................................................................................... 1,849,000 1,936,730 1,912,630 ∂63,630 ¥24,100 

Biological and environmental research ............................................................................................................................... 609,000 661,920 637,000 ∂28,000 ¥24,920 Fusion energy sciences: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 323,000 273,178 280,110 ¥42,890 ∂6,932 Construction: 

14–SC–60 ITER .................................................................................................................................................. 115,000 125,000 .......................... ¥115,000 ¥125,000 

Subtotal, Fusion energy sciences .................................................................................................................. 438,000 398,178 280,110 ¥157,890 ¥118,068 
109 

High energy physics: 

Research ...................................................................................................................................................................... 728,900 729,476 734,476 ∂5,576 ∂5,000 Construction: 

11–SC–40 Project engineering and design [PED] long baseline neutrino experiment, FNAL .......................... 26,000 45,021 55,021 ∂29,021 ∂10,000 11–SC–41 Muon to electron conversion experiment, FNAL ............................................................................... 40,100 43,500 43,500 ∂3,400 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 66,100 88,521 98,521 ∂32,421 ∂10,000 Subtotal, High energy physics ....................................................................................................................... 795,000 817,997 832,997 ∂37,997 ∂15,000 

Nuclear physics: 

Operations and maintenance ...................................................................................................................................... 509,600 535,658 535,658 ∂26,058 ..........................Construction: 

14–SC–50 Facility for rare isotope beams, Michigan State University ............................................................ 100,000 100,000 100,000 .......................... ..........................06–SC–01 12 GeV continuous electron beam facility upgrade, TJNAF ............................................................ 7,500 .......................... .......................... ¥7,500 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 107,500 100,000 100,000 ¥7,500 ..........................Subtotal, Nuclear physics .............................................................................................................................. 617,100 635,658 635,658 ∂18,558 ..........................

Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................................................................................ 19,500 20,925 20,925 ∂1,425 ..........................Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Infrastructure support: 

Payment in lieu of taxes .................................................................................................................................... 1,713 1,764 1,764 ∂51 ..........................Oak Ridge landlord ............................................................................................................................................ 6,177 6,182 6,182 ∂5 ..........................Facilities and infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 24,800 32,603 32,603 ∂7,803 ..........................Oak Ridge nuclear operations ............................................................................................................................ 12,000 26,000 26,000 ∂14,000 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 44,690 66,549 66,549 ∂21,859 ..........................

Construction: 

17–SC–71 Integrated Engineering Research Center, FNAL ............................................................................... .......................... 2,500 2,500 ∂2,500 ..........................17 SC–73 Core Facility Revitalization, BNL ...................................................................................................... .......................... 1,800 1,800 ∂1,800 ..........................15–SC–78 Integrative genomics building, LBNL ............................................................................................... 20,000 19,561 19,561 ¥439 ..........................15–SC–77 Photon science laboratory building, SLAC ....................................................................................... 25,000 20,000 20,000 ¥5,000 ..........................15–SC–76 Materials design laboratory, ANL ..................................................................................................... 23,910 19,590 19,590 ¥4,320 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 68,910 63,451 63,451 ¥5,459 ..........................Subtotal, Science laboratories infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 113,600 130,000 130,000 ∂16,400 ..........................

Safeguards and security ...................................................................................................................................................... 103,000 103,000 103,000 .......................... ..........................
110 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Science program direction ................................................................................................................................................... 185,000 204,481 191,500 ∂6,500 ¥12,981 

Subtotal, Science .................................................................................................................................................... 5,350,200 5,572,069 5,400,000 ∂49,800 ¥172,069 TOTAL, SCIENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,350,200 5,572,069 5,400,000 ∂49,800 ¥172,069 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY—ENERGY 

ARPA–E projects ................................................................................................................................................................... 261,750 318,000 263,419 ∂1,669 ¥54,581 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 29,250 32,000 29,250 .......................... ¥2,750 

TOTAL, ARPA–E ....................................................................................................................................................... 291,000 350,000 292,669 ∂1,669 ¥57,331 

INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 4,800 4,800 ∂4,800 ..........................Tribal energy program .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 18,130 15,200 ∂15,200 ¥2,930 

TOTAL, INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ .......................... 22,930 20,000 ∂20,000 ¥2,930 

TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PGM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 42,000 37,000 37,000 ¥5,000 ..........................Offsetting collection ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥25,000 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 ¥5,000 ..........................

TOTAL, TITLE 17—INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ......................................................... 17,000 7,000 7,000 ¥10,000 ..........................

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PGM 

Administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,000 5,000 5,000 ¥1,000 ..........................

TOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM .................................................... 6,000 5,000 5,000 ¥1,000 ..........................
111 

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS ................................................................................................................................ .......................... 8,400 .......................... .......................... ¥8,400 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary: Program direction ............................................................................................................................................... 5,008 5,300 5,300 ∂292 ..........................Chief Financial Officer ....................................................................................................................................... 47,024 53,084 53,084 ∂6,060 ..........................Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 65,000 59,114 .......................... ¥65,000 ¥59,114 Project Management Oversight and Assessments ............................................................................................. .......................... 18,000 .......................... .......................... ¥18,000 Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation ......................................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 Office Of Energy jobs development .................................................................................................................... .......................... 3,700 .......................... .......................... ¥3,700 Chief human capital officer ............................................................................................................................... 24,500 25,424 .......................... ¥24,500 ¥25,424 Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................... 31,988 93,074 .......................... ¥31,988 ¥93,074 Office of Indian energy policy and programs .................................................................................................... 16,000 .......................... .......................... ¥16,000 ..........................Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ................................................................................................... 6,300 6,200 6,200 ¥100 ..........................Office Of Small and disadvantaged business utilization ................................................................................. 3,000 3,300 .......................... ¥3,000 ¥3,300 Economic impact and diversity .......................................................................................................................... 10,000 11,319 .......................... ¥10,000 ¥11,319 General Counsel ................................................................................................................................................. 33,000 33,000 .......................... ¥33,000 ¥33,000 Energy policy and systems analysis .................................................................................................................. 31,297 31,000 .......................... ¥31,297 ¥31,000 International Affairs ........................................................................................................................................... 18,000 19,107 .......................... ¥18,000 ¥19,107 Public affairs ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,431 3,431 .......................... ¥3,431 ¥3,431 Office of Technology transitions ........................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 8,400 ∂5,157 ∂5,157 Other Departmental Administration ................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 259,174 ∂262,417 ∂262,417 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................... 294,548 370,053 332,158 ∂37,610 ¥37,895 

Program support: 

Economic impact and diversity .......................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Policy analysis and system studies ................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Environmental policy studies ............................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Climate change technology program (prog. supp) ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Cybersecurity and secure communications ........................................................................................................ 21,006 .......................... .......................... ¥21,006 ..........................Corporate IT program support (CIO) .................................................................................................................. 20,224 .......................... .......................... ¥20,224 ..........................

Subtotal, Program support ..................................................................................................................................... 41,230 .......................... .......................... ¥41,230 ..........................Subtotal, Administrative operations ....................................................................................................................... 335,778 370,053 332,158 ¥3,620 ¥37,895 

Strategic partnership projects .................................................................................................................................... 40,000 40,000 40,000 .......................... ..........................
112 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Subtotal, Departmental administration .................................................................................................................. 375,778 410,053 372,158 ¥3,620 ¥37,895 

Use of prior-year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥8,800 ¥20,300 ¥20,300 ¥11,500 ..........................Digital service team—CIO ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Funding from other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. ¥118,836 ¥119,716 ¥119,716 ¥880 ..........................

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ........................................................................................................... 248,142 270,037 232,142 ¥16,000 ¥37,895 

Miscellaneous revenues ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥117,171 ¥103,000 ¥103,000 ∂14,171 ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ...................................................................................................... 130,971 167,037 129,142 ¥1,829 ¥37,895 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Office of the inspector general ............................................................................................................................................ 46,424 44,424 44,424 ¥2,000 ..........................

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ......................................................................................................... 46,424 44,424 44,424 ¥2,000 ..........................TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................................... 11,026,605 11,319,431 11,183,329 ∂156,724 ¥136,102 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Directed stockpile work: 

B61 Life extension program ........................................................................................................................................ 643,300 616,079 616,079 ¥27,221 ..........................W76 Life extension program ....................................................................................................................................... 244,019 222,880 222,880 ¥21,139 ..........................W88 Alteration 370 ..................................................................................................................................................... 220,176 281,129 281,129 ∂60,953 ..........................W80–4 Life extension program ................................................................................................................................... 195,037 220,253 220,253 ∂25,216 ..........................Stockpile systems: 

B61 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 52,247 57,313 57,313 ∂5,066 ..........................W76 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 50,921 38,604 38,604 ¥12,317 ..........................W78 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 64,092 56,413 56,413 ¥7,679 ..........................
113 

W80 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 68,005 64,631 64,631 ¥3,374 ..........................B83 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 42,177 41,659 41,659 ¥518 ..........................W87 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 89,299 81,982 81,982 ¥7,317 ..........................W88 Stockpile systems ....................................................................................................................................... 115,685 103,074 103,074 ¥12,611 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 482,426 443,676 443,676 ¥38,750 ..........................

Weapons dismantlement and disposition ................................................................................................................... 52,000 68,984 68,984 ∂16,984 ..........................Stockpile services: 

Production support ............................................................................................................................................. 447,527 457,043 447,527 .......................... ¥9,516 Research and Development support .................................................................................................................. 41,059 34,187 34,187 ¥6,872 ..........................R and D certification and safety ....................................................................................................................... 185,000 156,481 156,481 ¥28,519 ..........................Management, technology, and production ......................................................................................................... 264,994 251,978 251,978 ¥13,016 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 938,580 899,689 890,173 ¥48,407 ¥9,516 

Strategic materials: 

Uranium sustainment ......................................................................................................................................... 32,916 20,988 20,988 ¥11,928 ..........................Plutonium sustainment ...................................................................................................................................... 174,698 184,970 184,970 ∂10,272 ..........................Tritium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 104,600 109,787 109,787 ∂5,187 ..........................Domestic uranium enrichment ........................................................................................................................... 50,000 50,000 50,000 .......................... ..........................Strategic materials sustainment ....................................................................................................................... 250,040 212,092 212,092 ¥37,948 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 612,254 577,837 577,837 ¥34,417 ..........................Subtotal, Directed stockpile work ........................................................................................................................... 3,387,792 3,330,527 3,321,011 ¥66,781 ¥9,516 

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E): 

Science: 

Advanced certification ........................................................................................................................................ 58,747 58,000 68,000 ∂9,253 ∂10,000 Primary assessment technologies ...................................................................................................................... 95,512 99,000 99,000 ∂3,488 ..........................Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................................................................ 100,400 106,000 106,000 ∂5,600 ..........................Advanced radiography ........................................................................................................................................ 45,700 50,500 50,500 ∂4,800 ..........................Secondary assessment technologies .................................................................................................................. 72,900 76,000 76,000 ∂3,100 ..........................Academic alliances and partnerships ............................................................................................................... 49,800 52,484 40,000 ¥9,800 ¥12,484 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 423,059 441,984 439,500 ∂16,441 ¥2,484 

Engineering: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................................................................................. 50,821 37,196 37,196 ¥13,625 ..........................Weapons system engineering assessment technology ...................................................................................... 17,371 16,958 16,958 ¥413 ..........................Nuclear survivability ........................................................................................................................................... 24,461 43,105 30,000 ∂5,539 ¥13,105 
114 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Enhanced surveillance ....................................................................................................................................... 38,724 42,228 42,228 ∂3,504 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 131,377 139,487 126,382 ¥4,995 ¥13,105 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield: 

Ignition ............................................................................................................................................................... 76,334 75,432 75,432 ¥902 ..........................Support of other stockpile programs ................................................................................................................. 22,843 23,363 23,363 ∂520 ..........................Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ........................................................................................... 58,587 68,696 68,696 ∂10,109 ..........................Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion ......................................................................................................... 4,963 5,616 5,616 ∂653 ..........................Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ................................................................................ 8,900 9,492 9,492 ∂592 ..........................Facility operations and target production ......................................................................................................... 339,423 340,360 340,360 ∂937 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 511,050 522,959 522,959 ∂11,909 ..........................

Advanced simulation and computing ......................................................................................................................... 623,006 663,184 663,184 ∂40,178 ..........................

Advanced manufacturing development: 

Additive manfacturing ................................................................................................................................................. 12,600 12,000 12,000 ¥600 ..........................Component manufacturing development .................................................................................................................... 99,656 46,583 46,583 ¥53,073 ..........................Process technology development ................................................................................................................................. 17,800 28,522 28,522 ∂10,722 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 130,056 87,105 87,105 ¥42,951 ..........................Subtotal, RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,818,548 1,854,719 1,839,130 ∂20,582 ¥15,589 

Infrastructure and Operations (formerly RTBF): 

Operations of facilities: 

Kansas City Plant ............................................................................................................................................... 100,250 101,000 101,000 ∂750 ..........................Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ........................................................................................................... 70,671 70,500 70,500 ¥171 ..........................Los Alamos National Laboratory ........................................................................................................................ 196,460 196,500 196,500 ∂40 ..........................Nevada Test Site ................................................................................................................................................ 89,000 92,500 92,500 ∂3,500 ..........................Pantex ................................................................................................................................................................. 58,021 55,000 55,000 ¥3,021 ..........................Sandia National Laboratory ................................................................................................................................ 115,300 118,000 118,000 ∂2,700 ..........................Savannah River Site ........................................................................................................................................... 80,463 83,500 83,500 ∂3,037 ..........................
115 

Y–12 National Security Complex ........................................................................................................................ 120,625 107,000 117,000 ¥3,625 ∂10,000 

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 830,790 824,000 834,000 ∂3,210 ∂10,000 

Safety and environmental operations ......................................................................................................................... 107,701 110,000 110,000 ∂2,299 ..........................Maintenance and repair of facilities .......................................................................................................................... 277,000 294,000 294,000 ∂17,000 ..........................

Recapitalization: 

Infrastructure and safety ............................................................................................................................................ 253,724 554,643 554,643 ∂300,919 ..........................Capability based investments ..................................................................................................................................... 98,800 112,639 112,639 ∂13,839 ..........................

Subtotal, Recapitalization ....................................................................................................................................... 352,524 667,282 667,282 ∂314,758 ..........................

Construction: 

17–D–640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS ................................................................................... .......................... 11,500 11,500 ∂11,500 ..........................17–D–630, Electrical Distribution System, LLNL ............................................................................................... .......................... 25,000 25,000 ∂25,000 ..........................16–D–515 Albuquerque Complex project .......................................................................................................... 8,000 15,047 15,047 ∂7,047 ..........................16–D–621 TA–3 Substation replacement, LANL ............................................................................................... 25,000 .......................... .......................... ¥25,000 ..........................15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 ............................................................................................... 17,919 2,000 2,000 ¥15,919 ..........................15–D–301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................15–D–302 TA–55 Reinvestment project III, LANL ............................................................................................. 18,195 21,455 21,455 ∂3,260 ..........................12–D–301 TRU waste facility project, LANL ..................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project II, LANL .............................................................................................. 3,903 .......................... .......................... ¥3,903 ..........................07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility, LANL .......................................................................... 11,533 .......................... .......................... ¥11,533 ..........................07–O–220–04 TRU liquid waste facility, LANL ................................................................................................. 40,949 17,053 17,053 ¥23,896 ..........................06–D–141 Uranium Processing Facility, Y–12 .................................................................................................. 430,000 575,000 575,000 ∂145,000 ..........................

Chemistry and metallurgy replacement (CMRR): 

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, LANL .................................................................... .......................... 159,615 159,615 ∂159,615 ..........................04–D–125–04 RLUOB equipment installation, phase 2 ................................................................................... 117,000 .......................... .......................... ¥117,000 ..........................04–D–125–05 PF–4 equipment installation ..................................................................................................... 38,610 .......................... .......................... ¥38,610 ..........................

Subtotal, CMRR ....................................................................................................................................................... 155,610 159,615 159,615 ∂4,005 ..........................Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 711,109 826,670 826,670 ∂115,561 ..........................Subtotal, Infrastructure and Operations ................................................................................................................ 2,279,124 2,721,952 2,731,952 ∂452,828 ∂10,000 

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment .......................................................................................................................................... 140,000 179,132 157,820 ∂17,820 ¥21,312 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 97,118 103,600 103,600 ∂6,482 ..........................

Subtotal, Secure transportation asset .................................................................................................................... 237,118 282,732 261,420 ∂24,302 ¥21,312 
116 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Site stewardship ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Defense nuclear security: 

Defense nuclear security ............................................................................................................................................. 639,891 657,133 673,550 ∂33,659 ∂16,417 Security improvements program ................................................................................................................................. 30,000 .......................... 20,000 ¥10,000 ∂20,000 Construction: 

14–D–710 Device assembly facility argus installation project, NV ................................................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear security ......................................................................................................................... 682,891 670,133 706,550 ∂23,659 ∂36,417 

Information technology and cyber security .......................................................................................................................... 157,588 176,592 176,592 ∂19,004 ..........................Legacy contractor pensions .................................................................................................................................................. 283,887 248,492 248,492 ¥35,395 ..........................

Subtotal, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................. 8,846,948 9,285,147 9,285,147 ∂438,199 ..........................

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥50,400 .......................... .......................... ∂50,400 

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 8,846,948 9,234,747 9,285,147 ∂438,199 ∂50,400 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs: Global material security: 

International nuclear security ..................................................................................................................................... 130,527 46,027 46,027 ¥84,500 ..........................Radiological security ................................................................................................................................................... 153,749 146,106 153,106 ¥643 ∂7,000 Nuclear smuggling detection ...................................................................................................................................... 142,475 144,975 144,975 ∂2,500 ..........................

Subtotal, Global material security .......................................................................................................................... 426,751 337,108 344,108 ¥82,643 ∂7,000 

Material management and minimization: 

HEU reactor conversion ............................................................................................................................................... 115,000 128,359 108,359 ¥6,641 ¥20,000 Nuclear material removal ............................................................................................................................................ 115,000 68,902 68,902 ¥46,098 ..........................Material disposition ..................................................................................................................................................... 86,584 143,833 143,833 ∂57,249 ..........................
117 

Subtotal, Material management and minimization ............................................................................................... 316,584 341,094 321,094 ∂4,510 ¥20,000 

Nonproliferation and arms control ....................................................................................................................................... 130,203 124,703 124,703 ¥5,500 ..........................Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D ................................................................................................................................. 419,333 393,922 406,922 ¥12,411 ∂13,000 Nonproliferation construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS .......................................................................... 340,000 270,000 270,000 ¥70,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Nonproliferation construction ......................................................................................................... 340,000 270,000 270,000 ¥70,000 ..........................

Legacy contractor pensions .................................................................................................................................................. 94,617 83,208 83,208 ¥11,409 ..........................Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program .................................................................................................. 234,390 271,881 271,881 ∂37,491 ..........................Use of prior-year balances ................................................................................................................................................... ¥21,576 .......................... .......................... ∂21,576 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................................................................... 1,940,302 1,821,916 1,821,916 ¥118,386 ..........................

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥14,000 .......................... .......................... ∂14,000 

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ..................................................................................................... 1,940,302 1,807,916 1,821,916 ¥118,386 ∂14,000 

NAVAL REACTORS 

Naval reactors development ................................................................................................................................................. 446,896 437,338 451,338 ∂4,442 ∂14,000 OHIO replacement reactor systems development ................................................................................................................ 186,800 213,700 213,700 ∂26,900 ..........................S8G Prototype refueling ........................................................................................................................................................ 133,000 124,000 124,000 ¥9,000 ..........................Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 445,196 449,682 381,082 ¥64,114 ¥68,600 Construction: 

17–D–911 BL Fire System Upgrade ........................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,400 1,400 ∂1,400 ..........................15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ......................................................................................................... 900 700 700 ¥200 ..........................15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ............................................................................................................................ 600 .......................... .......................... ¥600 ..........................15–D–902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility ........................................................................................................ 3,100 33,300 33,300 ∂30,200 ..........................14–D–902 KL Materials characterization laboratory expansion, KAPL ...................................................................... 30,000 .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 ..........................14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ................................................................................... 86,000 100,000 86,000 .......................... ¥14,000 10–D–903, Security upgrades, KAPL .......................................................................................................................... 500 12,900 12,900 ∂12,400 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 121,100 148,300 134,300 ∂13,200 ¥14,000 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 42,504 47,100 47,100 ∂4,596 ..........................

Subtotal, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................ 1,375,496 1,420,120 1,351,520 ¥23,976 ¥68,600 TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ........................................................................................................................................ 1,375,496 1,420,120 1,351,520 ¥23,976 ¥68,600 
118 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ..................................................................................................................................... 383,666 412,817 408,603 ∂24,937 ¥4,214 Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥19,900 .......................... .......................... ∂19,900 ..........................

TOTAL, FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ............................................................................................................ 363,766 412,817 408,603 ∂44,837 ¥4,214 TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................... 12,526,512 12,875,600 12,867,186 ∂340,674 ¥8,414 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure sites ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4,889 9,389 9,389 ∂4,500 ..........................Richland: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations .............................................................................................................. 270,710 69,755 143,755 ¥126,955 ∂74,000 Central plateau remediation ....................................................................................................................................... 555,163 620,869 650,869 ∂95,706 ∂30,000 RL community and regulatory support ....................................................................................................................... 19,701 14,701 24,701 ∂5,000 ∂10,000 RL infrastructure recapitalization ............................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 8,949 ∂8,949 ∂8,949 Construction: 

15–D–401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL ........................................................................................ 77,016 11,486 11,486 ¥65,530 ..........................

Subtotal, Richland .................................................................................................................................................. 922,590 716,811 839,760 ¥82,830 ∂122,949 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant operations .............................................................................................. .......................... 3,000 3,000 ∂3,000 ..........................Construction: 

15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment sysem, ORP ................................................................................. 75,000 73,000 73,000 ¥2,000 ..........................01–D–16 A–D, Waste treatment and immobilization plant, ORP ..................................................................... 595,000 593,000 593,000 ¥2,000 ..........................01–D–16 E, Waste treatment and immobilization plant, Pretreatment facility, ORP ...................................... 95,000 97,000 97,000 ∂2,000 ..........................

Total, Construction .................................................................................................................................................. 765,000 763,000 763,000 ¥2,000 ..........................

Tank farm activities: 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ........................................................................................ 649,000 721,456 721,456 ∂72,456 ..........................ORP infrastructure recapitalization .................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 12,509 ∂12,509 ∂12,509 
119 

Subtotal, Office of river protection ......................................................................................................................... 1,414,000 1,487,456 1,499,965 ∂85,965 ∂12,509 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition ......................................................................................................................... 393,000 359,088 359,088 ¥33,912 ..........................Idaho community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................ 396,000 362,088 362,088 ¥33,912 ..........................

NNSA sites and Nevada offsites: 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory .................................................................................................................... 1,366 1,396 1,396 ∂30 ..........................Separations Process Research Unit ............................................................................................................................ .......................... 3,685 3,685 ∂3,685 ..........................Nevada ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62,385 62,176 62,176 ¥209 ..........................Sandia National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................................... 2,500 4,130 4,130 ∂1,630 ..........................Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................................................................................. 185,000 189,000 199,000 ∂14,000 ∂10,000 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites ................................................................................................................. 251,251 260,387 270,387 ∂19,136 ∂10,000 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D&D .............................................................................................................................................. 111,958 93,851 131,851 ∂19,893 ∂38,000 U233 disposition program ........................................................................................................................................... 35,895 37,311 43,311 ∂7,416 ∂6,000 OR cleanup and waste disposition ............................................................................................................................. 74,597 54,557 68,457 ¥6,140 ∂13,900 Construction: 

14–D–403 Outfall 200 mercury treatment facility ............................................................................................ 9,400 5,100 5,100 ¥4,300 ..........................16–D–401 onsite displosal facility .................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,000 ∂6,000 ∂6,000 

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 9,400 5,100 11,100 ∂1,700 ∂6,000 

OR community & regulatory support .......................................................................................................................... 4,400 4,400 5,500 ∂1,100 ∂1,100 OR Technology development and deployment ............................................................................................................. 2,800 3,000 3,000 ∂200 ..........................

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation ................................................................................................................................. 239,050 198,219 263,219 ∂24,169 ∂65,000 

Savannah River Site: 

SR site risk management operations ......................................................................................................................... 413,652 .......................... .......................... ¥413,652 ..........................Nuclear Material Management .................................................................................................................................... .......................... 311,062 311,062 ∂311,062 ..........................Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................... .......................... 152,504 152,504 ∂152,504 ..........................SR community and regulatory support ....................................................................................................................... 11,249 11,249 11,249 .......................... ..........................SR radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................ 554,878 645,332 600,000 ∂45,122 ¥45,332 SR infrastructure recapitalization ............................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 16,547 ∂16,547 ∂16,547 Construction: 

17–D–402 Saltstone disposal Unit #7, SRS ..................................................................................................... .......................... 9,729 9,729 ∂9,729 ..........................15–D–402 Saltstone disposal Unit #6, SRS ..................................................................................................... 34,642 7,577 7,577 ¥27,065 ..........................
120 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, SRS ................................................................................................. 194,000 160,000 160,000 ¥34,000 ..........................

Total, Savannah River Site ............................................................................................................................ 1,208,421 1,297,453 1,268,668 ∂60,247 ¥28,785 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant .......................................................................................................................................... 269,260 265,588 265,588 ¥3,672 ..........................Operations and maintenance ...................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Recovery activities ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Central characterization project .................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Carlsbad infrastructure recapitalization ..................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,887 ∂3,887 ∂3,887 Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP ............................................................... 23,218 2,532 2,532 ¥20,686 ..........................15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP ......................................................................................................................... 7,500 2,533 2,533 ¥4,967 ..........................

Total, Waste isolation pilot plant ........................................................................................................................... 299,978 270,653 274,540 ¥25,438 ∂3,887 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 281,951 290,050 290,050 ∂8,099 ..........................Program support ................................................................................................................................................................... 14,979 14,979 14,979 .......................... ..........................Safeguards and Security: ..................................................................................................................................................... 236,633 .......................... .......................... ¥236,633 ..........................

Carlsbad ...................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 4,860 4,860 ∂4,860 ..........................Oak Ridge .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 15,000 15,000 ∂15,000 ..........................Paducah ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 14,049 14,049 ∂14,049 ..........................Portsmouth .................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 14,049 14,049 ∂14,049 ..........................Richland ...................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 72,000 72,000 ∂72,000 ..........................Savannah River ........................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 134,000 134,000 ∂134,000 ..........................West Valley .................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 2,015 2,015 ∂2,015 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 236,633 255,973 255,973 ∂19,340 ..........................

Technology development ....................................................................................................................................................... 20,000 30,000 30,000 ∂10,000 ..........................Infrastructure recapitalization .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 41,892 .......................... .......................... ¥41,892 Defense Uranium enrichment D&D ...................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
121 

Subtotal, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................. 5,289,742 5,235,350 5,379,018 ∂89,276 ∂143,668 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP ........................................................................................................ 5,289,742 5,235,350 5,379,018 ∂89,276 ∂143,668 

Defense Environmental Cleanup (Legislative proposal) ...................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................DEFENSE URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING ................................................................. .......................... 155,100 717,741 ∂717,741 ∂562,641 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Environment, health, safety and security: 

Environment, health, safety and security ................................................................................................................... 118,763 130,693 128,693 ∂9,930 ¥2,000 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 62,235 66,519 66,519 ∂4,284 ..........................

Subtotal, Environment, Health, safety and security .............................................................................................. 180,998 197,212 195,212 ∂14,214 ¥2,000 

Independent enterprise assessments: 

Independent enterprise assessments .......................................................................................................................... 24,068 24,580 24,580 ∂512 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 49,466 51,893 51,893 ∂2,427 ..........................

Subtotal, Independent enterprise assessments ..................................................................................................... 73,534 76,473 76,473 ∂2,939 ..........................

Specialized security activities .............................................................................................................................................. 230,377 237,912 239,912 ∂9,535 ∂2,000 Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ................................................................................................................................................... 154,080 140,306 140,306 ¥13,774 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 13,100 14,014 14,014 ∂914 ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management ................................................................................................................ 167,180 154,320 154,320 ¥12,860 ..........................

Defense related administrative support .............................................................................................................................. 118,836 119,716 119,716 ∂880 ..........................Office of hearings and appeals ........................................................................................................................................... 5,500 5,919 5,919 ∂419 ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................... 776,425 791,552 791,552 ∂15,127 ..........................TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 18,592,679 19,057,602 19,755,497 ∂1,162,818 ∂697,895 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (1) 

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 83,600 78,929 78,929 ¥4,671 ..........................
122 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,900 6,000 6,000 ¥900 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 90,500 84,929 84,929 ¥5,571 ..........................

Less alternative financing [PPW] ......................................................................................................................................... ¥17,100 ¥18,169 ¥18,169 ¥1,069 ..........................Offsetting collections (for PPW) ........................................................................................................................................... ¥66,500 ¥60,760 ¥60,760 ∂5,740 ..........................Offsetting collections (PD) ................................................................................................................................................... ¥6,900 ¥1,000 ¥1,000 ∂5,900 ..........................Use of prior-year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥5,000 ¥5,000 ¥5,000 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses ..................................................................................................................................................... 19,279 13,896 13,896 ¥5,383 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 73,000 83,000 83,000 ∂10,000 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 31,932 31,516 31,516 ¥416 ..........................Construction ................................................................................................................................................................ 12,012 12,486 12,486 ∂474 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 136,223 140,898 140,898 ∂4,675 ..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................................................................................. ¥8,288 ¥6,269 ¥6,269 ∂2,019 ..........................Less alternative financing (for PPW) ................................................................................................................................... ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 .......................... ..........................Less alternative financing (Const) ...................................................................................................................................... ¥7,574 ¥5,986 ¥5,986 ∂1,588 ..........................Offsetting collections (PD) ................................................................................................................................................... ¥29,938 ¥29,271 ¥29,271 ∂667 ..........................Offsetting collections (for O&M) .......................................................................................................................................... ¥6,023 ¥5,315 ¥5,315 ∂708 ..........................Offsetting collections (for PPW) ........................................................................................................................................... ¥63,000 ¥73,000 ¥73,000 ¥10,000 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 11,400 11,057 11,057 ¥343 ..........................

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation .................................................................................................................................. 58,374 62,442 62,442 ∂4,068 ..........................
123 

Operation and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................ 80,901 76,697 76,697 ¥4,204 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 565,927 581,634 581,634 ∂15,707 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 236,398 226,497 226,497 ¥9,901 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 941,600 947,270 947,270 ∂5,670 ..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................................................................................. ¥1,757 .......................... .......................... ∂1,757 ..........................Less alternative financing (for Construction) ...................................................................................................................... ¥53,585 ¥43,884 ¥43,884 ∂9,701 ..........................Less alternative financing (for Program Dir.) ..................................................................................................................... ¥5,273 ¥6,343 ¥6,343 ¥1,070 ..........................Less alternative financing (for PPW) ................................................................................................................................... ¥213,114 ¥214,625 ¥214,625 ¥1,511 ..........................Offsetting collections (for program direction) ..................................................................................................................... ¥177,697 ¥178,441 ¥178,441 ¥744 ..........................Offsetting collections (for O&M) .......................................................................................................................................... ¥36,645 ¥33,122 ¥33,122 ∂3,523 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477, Public Law 109–103) .................................................................................. ¥352,813 ¥367,009 ¥367,009 ¥14,196 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ........................................................................................................................ ¥7,344 ¥8,265 ¥8,265 ¥921 ..........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 93,372 95,581 95,581 ∂2,209 ..........................

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND 

Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................................................. 4,950 4,393 4,393 ¥557 ..........................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................................... ¥4,262 ¥3,838 ¥3,838 ∂424 ..........................Less alternative financing ................................................................................................................................................... ¥460 ¥323 ¥323 ∂137 ..........................

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD O&M FUND ............................................................................................................. 228 232 232 ∂4 ..........................TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ....................................................................................................... 105,000 106,870 106,870 ∂1,870 ..........................

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ............................................................................................................................... 319,800 346,800 346,800 ∂27,000 ..........................FERC revenues ...................................................................................................................................................................... ¥319,800 ¥346,800 ¥346,800 ¥27,000 ..........................

General Provisions 

Title III Rescissions: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Efficiency and Energy Reliability ........................................................................................................... ¥3,806 .......................... .......................... ∂3,806 ..........................Science ............................................................................................................................................................... ¥3,200 .......................... .......................... ∂3,200 ..........................Nuclear Energy ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Fossil Energy Research and Development ......................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥240,000 ¥240,000 ¥240,000 Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ..................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
124 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Enacted Budget estimate 

Weapons activities (050) (rescission) ................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥50,400 ¥50,400 ¥50,400 Office of the Administrator (050) (rescission) .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Departmental Administration ............................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Defense Environmental Cleanup (050) .............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (050) ............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥14,000 ¥14,000 ¥14,000 Naval Reactors (050) ......................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Other Defense Activities (050) ........................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, General Provisions ........................................................................................................................................ ¥7,006 .......................... ¥304,400 ¥297,394 ¥304,400 GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ............................................................................................................... 29,717,278 30,483,903 30,741,296 ∂1,024,018 ∂257,393 (Total amount appropriated) .................................................................................................................................. (29,744,184 ) (30,548,303 ) (31,045,696 ) (∂1,301,512 ) (∂497,393 ) 

(Rescissions) ......................................................................................................................................... (¥26,906 ) (¥64,400 ) (¥304,400 ) (¥277,494 ) (¥240,000 ) 

SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy .............................................................................................................................. 2,073,000 2,898,400 2,073,000 .......................... ¥825,400 Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................................................................................. 206,000 262,300 206,000 .......................... ¥56,300 Nuclear energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 986,161 993,896 1,057,903 ∂71,742 ∂64,007 Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 632,000 360,000 632,000 .......................... ∂272,000 Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale Reserves ................................................................................................................................ 17,500 14,950 14,950 ¥2,550 ..........................Strategic petroleum reserves ............................................................................................................................................... 212,000 257,000 200,000 ¥12,000 ¥57,000 Northeast home heating oil reserve ..................................................................................................................................... 7,600 6,500 6,500 ¥1,100 ..........................Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 122,000 131,125 122,000 .......................... ¥9,125 Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ................................................................................................................................... 255,000 218,400 255,000 .......................... ∂36,600 Uranium enrichment D&D fund ........................................................................................................................................... 673,749 .......................... 717,741 ∂43,992 ∂717,741 Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,350,200 5,572,069 5,400,000 ∂49,800 ¥172,069 Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................ 291,000 350,000 292,669 ∂1,669 ¥57,331 Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 130,971 167,037 129,142 ¥1,829 ¥37,895 Indian energy program ......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 22,930 20,000 ∂20,000 ¥2,930 Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 46,424 44,424 44,424 ¥2,000 ..........................Title 17 Innovative technology loan guarantee program ..................................................................................................... 17,000 7,000 7,000 ¥10,000 ..........................
125 

Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan pgm .................................................................................................... 6,000 5,000 5,000 ¥1,000 ..........................Office of the technology transitions .................................................................................................................................... .......................... 8,400 .......................... .......................... ¥8,400 Clean coal technology .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Atomic energy defense activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ......................................................................................................................................... 8,846,948 9,234,747 9,285,147 ∂438,199 ∂50,400 Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 1,940,302 1,807,916 1,821,916 ¥118,386 ∂14,000 Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,375,496 1,420,120 1,351,520 ¥23,976 ¥68,600 Federal Salaries and Expenses ...................................................................................................................... 363,766 412,817 408,603 ∂44,837 ¥4,214 

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Admin .............................................................................................. 12,526,512 12,875,600 12,867,186 ∂340,674 ¥8,414 

Defense environmental cleanup .................................................................................................................................. 5,289,742 5,235,350 5,379,018 ∂89,276 ∂143,668 Defense environmental cleanup (legislative proposal) ............................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning ..................................................................... .......................... 155,100 717,741 ∂717,741 ∂562,641 Other defense activities .............................................................................................................................................. 776,425 791,552 791,552 ∂15,127 ..........................

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 18,592,679 19,057,602 19,755,497 ∂1,162,818 ∂697,895 

Power marketing administrations: 

Southeastern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Southwestern Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ 11,400 11,057 11,057 ¥343 ..........................Western Area Power Administration ............................................................................................................................ 93,372 95,581 95,581 ∂2,209 ..........................Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ............................................................................................. 228 232 232 ∂4 ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 105,000 106,870 106,870 ∂1,870 ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 319,800 346,800 346,800 ∂27,000 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥319,800 ¥346,800 ¥346,800 ¥27,000 ..........................

General Provisions ................................................................................................................................................................ ¥7,006 .......................... ¥304,400 ¥297,394 ¥304,400 

Total Summary of Accounts, Department of Energy .............................................................................................. 29,717,278 30,483,903 30,741,296 ∂1,024,018 ∂257,393 

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 
126 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Section 301. Language is included on the execution of appropriations, including reprogramming, and congressional notification. 

Section 302. Language is included rescinding unobligated balances. 

Section 303. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2016 Intelligence Authorization Act. 

Section 304. The Committee has included a provision related to 

nuclear safety requirements. 

Section 305. The Committee has included language related to 

independent cost estimates. 

Section 306. The Committee has included a provision on a pilot 

program related to consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel. 
(127) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $146,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 120,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 151,000,000 

The Committee recommends $151,000,000 for the Appalachian 

Regional Commission [ARC], an increase of $31,000,000 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, $75,000,000 if provided for base 

funds; and $20,000,000 is recommended 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 $16,000,000 of that amount is recommended for activities in South Central Appalachia. The funds 

shall be distributed according to the Commission’s Distressed 

Counties Formula, which is comprised of land area, population estimates, and a proportion of the number of distressed counties. Within available funding, the Committee recommends $6,000,000 for a 

program of basic infrastructure improvements in distressed counties in Central Appalachia. Funds shall be distributed according to 

ARC’s distressed counties formula and shall be in addition to the 

regular allocation to distressed counties. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommends $50,000,000, 

the same as the budget request, for the POWER Initiative to support communities, primarily in Appalachia, that have been adversely impacted by the closure of coal-powered generating plants 

and a declining coal industry by providing resources for economic 

diversification, job creation, job training, and other employment 

services. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $29,150,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 31,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,000,000 

The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, the same as the budget request. The Committee recognizes the important role of the Board in continued safe 

operations of the Department of Energy’s nuclear facilities. The 

highly-skilled men and women that comprise the Board’s technical 

staff, along with the current Board leadership, provide the Depart-
128 

ment of Energy and Congress with valuable advice and recommendations. 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 $969,000 within the Office of Inspector General of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

perform these services. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $25,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 15,936,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000 

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Delta Regional 

Authority, an increase of $9,064,000 from the request. The Delta 

Regional Authority is a Federal-State partnership that is designed 

to assist the eight-State Mississippi Delta Region in developing 

basic infrastructure, transportation, skill training, and opportunities for economic development for distressed counties and parishes. 

Within available funds, not less than $10,000,000 shall be used for 

flood control, basic public infrastructure development and transportation improvements, which shall be allocated separate from the 

State formula funding method. The Committee did not retain statutory language in Public Law 114–113 waiving the requirements 

under sections 382C(b)(2), 382F(d) and 382M of the Delta Regional 

Authority Act of 2000. The Committee directs the Delta Regional 

Authority to prioritize and allocate funding consistent with its authorized purposes, and prevent administrative expenses from exceeding 5 percent of the amount appropriated by this act. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $11,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 15,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the Denali Commission, the same as 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, 2016 ............................................................................. $7,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Northern Border Regional Commission, an increase of $5,000,000 from the budget request. The Northern Border Regional Commission is a Federal-State partnership intended to promote transportation, basic 

public infrastructure, job skills training and business development 

in areas of persistent economic distress in the northern border region, which covers portions of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, 

and Vermont. 
129 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $990,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 970,163,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 939,000,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ¥$872,864,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ¥851,161,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥822,240,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $117,136,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 119,002,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 116,760,000 

The Committee recommends $939,000,000 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Commission], a decrease of $31,163,000 from 

the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of 

$822,240,000, resulting in a net appropriation of $116,760,000. 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 no 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 

applicable, included in the table after the Office of Inspector General heading below. 

Realignment of Overhead Activities.—The recommendation 

adopts the Commission’s proposed realignment of overhead activities, which makes the Commission’s accounting for these activities 

more consistent with other Federal agencies. The Commission is directed to execute the appropriations provided for fiscal year 2017 

consistent with the realignment as proposed in the budget request 

without deviation, except as authorized under section 401 of the 

bill. Any additional realignments shall be proposed in subsequent 

budget requests after consultation with the Committee. 

Budget Control Points.—The recommendation includes additional 

budget control points for fiscal year 2017 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. The Committee notes that the Commission’s initial execution plan for fiscal year 2016 did not comply with 

the budget control points included in the explanatory statement accompanying the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2016, and 

directs the Commission to execute funds provided herein in accordance with the new control points. Although the Commission subsequently realigned its execution plan to comply with the budget control points, the Committee’s oversight responsibilities of taxpayer 

funds requires additional safeguards. Accordingly, the Committee 

includes statutory language incorporating the new control points by 

reference into law, and notes that any breaches are now subject to 
130 

the reporting requirements and remedies of the Antideficiency Act 

contained in title 31 of the United States Code. 

Reprogramming Authority.—Section 401 continues reprogramming authority included in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2016, 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 2016. The Committee’s recommendation requires the use of $15,100,000 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 now subject to the reprogramming guidelines in section 401, and shall not only be used to supplement appropriations consistent with those guidelines. 

Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for activities related to the development of 

regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor technologies, 

as requested. These funds are not subject to the Commission’s general fee recovery collection requirements. 

Reductions from Efficiencies.—The recommendation includes reductions to the budget request of $31,100,000 that were identified 

as potential savings by the Commission’s staff due to discontinuation, de-prioritization, or incremental reductions of activities. According to the Commission’s staff, including these savings would 

not adversely affect the Commission’s safety mission, and the Committee therefore adopts these proposed reductions in their entirety. 

The Committee applauds the Commission’s reviews of its programs 

to find these efficiencies, and urges the Commission to identify additional efficiencies. 

Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000 for the Integrated University Program, of which not 

less than $5,000,000 is for grants to support research projects that 

do not align with programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the discipline of nuclear science. 

Rulemaking.—The Committee directs the Commission to provide 

within 90 days after the enactment of this act, and quarterly thereafter, an update of appendix G of the budget request regarding 

planned rulemakings. 

Reporting Requirement.—The Committee directs the Commission 

to continue the reporting required in the explanatory statement for 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2016, relating to progress against the Commission’s licensing goals and 

right-sizing commitments. 

Subsequent License Renewal.—The Committee continues to encourage the Commission to act expeditiously to ensure that a fair, 

effective, predictable, and efficient process for subsequent licensing 
131 

is available for licensees actively planning to pursue second license 

renewal, including timely issuance of updated regulatory guidance 

to support receipt of the lead application in the 2018 timeframe. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $12,136,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 12,129,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,129,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. ¥$10,060,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... ¥10,044,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥10,044,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $2,076,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 2,085,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,085,000 

The Committee recommends $12,129,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the budget request, which is offset by revenues estimated at $10,044,000, for a net appropriation of 

$2,085,000. The Office of Inspector General serves both the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 

Board, and the recommendation includes $969,000 for that purpose 

that is not available from fee revenues. 

The Committee encourages the Office of Inspector General to examine, through its audit program, additional savings and efficiencies at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that could be realized through consolidations or other streamlining. 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

OPERATING REACTORS 

OPERATING REACTORS ............................................................................... 393,600 375,400 ¥18,200 

CORPORATE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 193,900 192,700 ¥1,200 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING REACTORS ............................................... 587,500 568,100 ¥19,400 

NEW REACTORS 

NEW REACTORS .......................................................................................... 113,200 107,900 ¥5,300 

CORPORATE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 56,600 54,800 ¥1,800 

SUBTOTAL, NEW REACTORS .......................................................... 169,800 162,700 ¥7,100 

FUEL FACILITIES 

FUEL FACILITIES ......................................................................................... 27,000 24,900 ¥2,100 

CORPORATE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 14,500 13,600 ¥900 

SUBTOTAL, FUEL FACILITIES ......................................................... 41,500 38,500 ¥3,000 

NUCLEAR MATERIALS USERS 

NUCLEAR MATERIALS USERS ..................................................................... 64,200 63,900 ¥300 
132 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item Budget 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Committee 

recommendation 

compared to 

budget estimate 

CORPORATE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 28,400 28,600 ∂200 

SUBTOTAL, NUCLEAR MATERIALS USERS ..................................... 92,600 92,500 ¥100 

SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION 

SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION .......................................... 25,300 24,800 ¥500 

CORPORATE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 11,900 12,000 ∂100 

SUBTOTAL, SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION .......... 37,200 36,800 ¥400 

DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW-LEVEL WASTE 

DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW-LEVEL WASTE ............................................. 27,800 26,700 ¥1,100 

CORPORATE SUPPORT ................................................................................ 13,800 13,800 ........................

SUBTOTAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW-LEVEL WASTE ............. 41,600 40,500 ¥1,100 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM .......................................................... ........................ 15,000 ∂15,000 

USE OF PRIOR YEAR BALANCES ................................................................ ........................ ¥15,100 ¥15,100 

TOTAL ............................................................................................ 970,200 939,000 ¥31,200 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2016 ............................................................................. $3,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2017 ........................................................................... 3,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,600,000 

The Committee recommends $3,600,000 for the Nuclear Waste 

Technical Review Board, the same as the budget request. 

GENERAL PROVISION 

Section 401. The Committee includes reprogramming language 

for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
(133) 

TITLE V 

The Committee is aware that agencies funded through this bill 

do a variety of different types of advertising. The Committee directs the agencies to clearly state within the text, audio, or video 

used for advertising or educational purposes, including emails or 

advertising/posting on the Internet, that the communications is 

printed, published, or produced and disseminated at U.S. taxpayer 

expense. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions is recommended by the 

Committee: 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds provided in this bill from being used to influence congressional action. 

Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority under 

this act. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

In fiscal year 2017, 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 Appropriation bill. The term ‘‘program, project or activity’’ shall include the most specific level of budget items identified in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2017 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 2017 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 2017 budget estimates as modified by 

congressional action. 
134 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills 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 2017: 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW—FISCAL YEAR 2017 

[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) ...................... 103,000 

EERE Program Direction ....................................................... 2006 110,500 164,198 153,500 

EERE Weatherization Activities ............................................. 2012 1,400,000 68,000 214,600 

EERE State Energy Programs ............................................... 2012 125,000 50,000 50,000 

Nuclear Energy ...................................................................... 2009 495,000 792,000 1,057,903 

Fossil Energy ......................................................................... 2009 641,000 727,320 632,000 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................ 2014 20,000 20,000 14,950 

Office of Science .................................................................. 2013 6,007,000 4,876,000 5,400,000 

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ..................... 2013 312,000 265,000 292,669 

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program ....... 2012 not specified 6,000 5,000 

Non-Defense Environment Cleanup: 

West Valley Demonstration .......................................... 1981 5,000 5,000 66,413 

Departmental Administration ............................................... 1984 246,963 185,682 129,142 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities .............................................. 2015 8,210,560 8,231,770 9,285,147 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ....................... 2015 1,774,758 1,641,369 1,821,916 

Naval Reactors ................................................... 2015 1,377,100 1,238,500 1,351,520 

Federal Salaries and Expenses .......................... 2015 386,863 370,000 408,603 

Defense Environmental Cleanup .......................................... 2015 4,884,538 5,010,830 5,379,018 

Other Defense Activities ....................................................... 2015 754,000 754,000 791,552 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Southwestern ............................................................... 1984 40,254 36,229 11,057 

Western Area ................................................................ 1984 259,700 194,630 95,581 

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................... 2013 110,000 68,263 151,000 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................. 2015 30,150 28,500 31,000 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........................................... 1985 460,000 448,200 118,845 

1 Program was initiated in 1972 and has never received a separate authorization. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on April 14, 2016, the 

Committee ordered favorably reported a bill (S. 2804) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other 

purposes, provided, that the bill be subject to amendment and that 

the bill be consistent with its budget allocation, by a recorded vote 

of 30–0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 
135 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Graham 

Mr. Kirk 

Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Moran 

Mr. Hoeven 

Mr. Boozman 

Mrs. Capito 

Mr. Cassidy 

Mr. Lankford 

Mr. Daines 

Ms. Mikulski 

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 

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, changes in existing law proposed to 

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. 
136 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 109B—SECURE WATER 

§ 10364. Water management improvement 

(a) Authorization of grants and cooperative agreements 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Authorization of appropriations 

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

ø$350,000,000¿ $400,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPROVEMENT ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108–361 

TITLE I—CALIFORNIA WATER SECURITY 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 103. BAY DELTA PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

* * * * * * * 

(e) NEW AND EXPANDED AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The heads of the Federal agencies described in this subsection are authorized to carry out the activities described in subsection (f) during each of fiscal years 

2005 through ø2017¿ 2019, in coordination with the Governor. 

* * * * * * * 

(f) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES UNDER NEW AND EXPANDED AU- THORIZATIONS.— 

(1) CONVEYANCE.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) LEVEE STABILITY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

(B) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 

report that describes the levee stability reconstruction 

projects and priorities that will be carried out under this 

title during each of fiscal years 2005 through ø2017¿ 2019. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 107. FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of implementing the Calfed Bay-Delta Program for fiscal years 2005 
137 

through ø2017¿ 2019 in the aggregate, as set forth in the Record 

of Decision, shall not exceed 33.3 percent. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary and 

the heads of the Federal agencies to pay the Federal share of the 

cost of carrying out the new and expanded authorities described in 

subsections (e) and (f) of section 103 $389,000,000 for the period of 

fiscal years 2005 through ø2017¿ 2019, to remain available until 

expended. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(A), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

guidance Amount in bill Committee guidance Amount in bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with 

Committee guidance to its subcommittees of amounts for 2017: Subcommittee 

on Energy and Water Development: 

Mandatory ............................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Discretionary ........................................ 37,537 37,537 37,561 1 37,560 

Security ....................................... 20,023 20,023 NA NA 

Nonsecurity ................................. 17,514 17,514 NA NA 

Projections of outlays associated with the 

recommendation: 

2017 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 2 21,874 

2018 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 10,818 

2019 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 3,724 

2020 ..................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 820 

2021 and future years ........................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 451 

Financial assistance to State and local 

governments for 2017 .............................. NA 176 NA 2 33 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

NOTE.—The Committee guidance will be considered favorably reported as the fiscal year 2017 section 302(b) budget allocations upon the filing by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of an allocation pursuant to section 102 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 to serve as a section 302(a) allocation for purposes of budget enforcement in the Senate. 
138 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 121,000 85,000 126,522 ∂5,522 ∂41,522 Construction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,862,250 1,090,000 1,813,649 ¥48,601 ∂723,649 Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................................................................................................................................ 345,000 222,000 368,000 ∂23,000 ∂146,000 Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................. 3,137,000 2,705,000 3,173,829 ∂36,829 ∂468,829 Regulatory Program .............................................................................................................................................................. 200,000 200,000 200,000 .......................... ..........................Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) ............................................................................................... 112,000 103,000 103,000 ¥9,000 ..........................Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .............................................................................................................................. 28,000 30,000 30,000 ∂2,000 ..........................Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................................... 179,000 180,000 180,000 ∂1,000 ..........................Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..................................................................................................... 4,750 5,000 5,000 ∂250 ..........................

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil .......................................................................................................... 5,989,000 4,620,000 6,000,000 ∂11,000 ∂1,380,000 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project Completion Account 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ........................................................................................................................... 10,000 5,600 10,000 .......................... ∂4,400 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water and Related Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 1,118,972 813,402 1,114,394 ¥4,578 ∂300,992 Central Valley Project Restoration Fund .............................................................................................................................. 49,528 55,606 55,606 ∂6,078 ..........................California Bay-Delta Restoration ......................................................................................................................................... 37,000 36,000 36,000 ¥1,000 ..........................Policy and Administration .................................................................................................................................................... 59,500 59,000 59,000 ¥500 ..........................Indian Water Rights Settlements ......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 106,151 .......................... .......................... ¥106,151 San Joaquin River Restoration Fund .................................................................................................................................... .......................... 36,000 .......................... .......................... ¥36,000 
139 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 1,265,000 1,106,159 1,265,000 .......................... ∂158,841 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 1,275,000 1,111,759 1,275,000 .......................... ∂163,241 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Programs 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy .............................................................................................................................. 2,073,000 2,898,400 2,073,000 .......................... ¥825,400 Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................................................................................. 206,000 262,300 206,000 .......................... ¥56,300 Nuclear Energy ..................................................................................................................................................................... 860,000 842,020 860,000 .......................... ∂17,980 

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... 126,161 151,876 197,903 ∂71,742 ∂46,027 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 986,161 993,896 1,057,903 ∂71,742 ∂64,007 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 632,000 360,000 632,000 .......................... ∂272,000 Office of Technology Transitions .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 8,400 .......................... .......................... ¥8,400 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 17,500 14,950 14,950 ¥2,550 ..........................Strategic Petroleum Reserve ................................................................................................................................................ 212,000 257,000 200,000 ¥12,000 ¥57,000 Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ................................................................................................................................... 7,600 6,500 6,500 ¥1,100 ..........................Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 122,000 131,125 122,000 .......................... ¥9,125 Non-defense environmental cleanup .................................................................................................................................... 255,000 218,400 255,000 .......................... ∂36,600 Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .................................................................................. 673,749 .......................... 717,741 ∂43,992 ∂717,741 Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,350,200 5,572,069 5,400,000 ∂49,800 ¥172,069 Nuclear waste disposal ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ........................................................................................................................ 291,000 350,000 292,669 ∂1,669 ¥57,331 Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ...................................................................................................................... .......................... 22,930 20,000 ∂20,000 ¥2,930 Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ................................................................................................... 42,000 37,000 37,000 ¥5,000 ..........................

Offsetting collection .................................................................................................................................................... ¥25,000 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 ¥5,000 ..........................Proposed change in subsidy cost ............................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,020,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,020,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 17,000 1,027,000 7,000 ¥10,000 ¥1,020,000 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program ........................................................................................... 6,000 5,000 5,000 ¥1,000 ..........................Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 248,142 270,037 232,142 ¥16,000 ¥37,895 

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥117,171 ¥103,000 ¥103,000 ∂14,171 ..........................

Net appropriation ............................................................................................................................................... 130,971 167,037 129,142 ¥1,829 ¥37,895 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 46,424 44,424 44,424 ¥2,000 ..........................

Total, Energy programs ........................................................................................................................................... 11,026,605 12,339,431 11,183,329 ∂156,724 ¥1,156,102 
140 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................................... 8,846,948 9,285,147 9,285,147 ∂438,199 ..........................

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥50,400 .......................... .......................... ∂50,400 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 8,846,948 9,234,747 9,285,147 ∂438,199 ∂50,400 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,940,302 1,821,916 1,821,916 ¥118,386 ..........................

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥14,000 .......................... .......................... ∂14,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,940,302 1,807,916 1,821,916 ¥118,386 ∂14,000 

Naval reactors ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,375,496 1,420,120 1,351,520 ¥23,976 ¥68,600 Federal salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 383,666 412,817 408,603 ∂24,937 ¥4,214 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥19,900 .......................... .......................... ∂19,900 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 363,766 412,817 408,603 ∂44,837 ¥4,214 Total, National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................................................................... 12,526,512 12,875,600 12,867,186 ∂340,674 ¥8,414 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities 

Defense environmental cleanup ........................................................................................................................................... 5,289,742 5,235,350 5,379,018 ∂89,276 ∂143,668 Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning ............................................................................. .......................... 155,100 717,741 ∂717,741 ∂562,641 Other Defense activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 776,425 791,552 791,552 ∂15,127 ..........................

Total, Environmental and other defense activities ................................................................................................ 6,066,167 6,182,002 6,888,311 ∂822,144 ∂706,309 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 18,592,679 19,057,602 19,755,497 ∂1,162,818 ∂697,895 
141 

Power Marketing Administrations 1

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 6,900 1,000 1,000 ¥5,900 ..........................

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................................................. ¥6,900 ¥1,000 ¥1,000 ∂5,900 ..........................Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 47,361 45,643 45,643 ¥1,718 ..........................

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................................................. ¥35,961 ¥34,586 ¥34,586 ∂1,375 ..........................Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 11,400 11,057 11,057 ¥343 ..........................

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ........................................ 307,714 307,144 307,144 ¥570 ..........................

Offsetting collections .............................................................................................................................................. ¥214,342 ¥211,563 ¥211,563 ∂2,779 ..........................Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 93,372 95,581 95,581 ∂2,209 ..........................

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ...................................................................................................... 4,490 4,070 4,070 ¥420 ..........................

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥4,262 ¥3,838 ¥3,838 ∂424 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 228 232 232 ∂4 ..........................Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 105,000 106,870 106,870 ∂1,870 ..........................

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 319,800 346,800 346,800 ∂27,000 ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥319,800 ¥346,800 ¥346,800 ¥27,000 ..........................

General Provisions 

Title III Rescissions: 

Department of Energy: Energy efficiency and energy reliability ...................................................................................................................... ¥3,806 .......................... .......................... ∂3,806 ..........................Science ........................................................................................................................................................................ ¥3,200 .......................... .......................... ∂3,200 ..........................Fossil Energy Research and Development .................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥240,000 ¥240,000 ¥240,000 Weapons activities ...................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥50,400 ¥50,400 ¥50,400 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥14,000 ¥14,000 ¥14,000 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... ¥7,006 .......................... ¥304,400 ¥297,394 ¥304,400 Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 29,717,278 31,503,903 30,741,296 ∂1,024,018 ¥762,607 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (29,744,184 ) (31,568,303 ) (31,045,696 ) (∂1,301,512 ) (¥522,607 ) 
142 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2016 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2016 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥26,906 ) (¥64,400 ) (¥304,400 ) (¥277,494 ) (¥240,000 ) 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 146,000 120,000 151,000 ∂5,000 ∂31,000 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 29,150 31,000 31,000 ∂1,850 ..........................Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 25,000 15,936 25,000 .......................... ∂9,064 Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 11,000 15,000 15,000 ∂4,000 ..........................Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................................................................................................ 7,500 5,000 10,000 ∂2,500 ∂5,000 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .......................................................................................................................... 250 .......................... .......................... ¥250 ..........................Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 990,000 970,163 939,000 ¥51,000 ¥31,163 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥872,864 ¥851,161 ¥822,240 ∂50,624 ∂28,921 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 117,136 119,002 116,760 ¥376 ¥2,242 

Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 12,136 12,129 12,129 ¥7 ..........................Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥10,060 ¥10,044 ¥10,044 ∂16 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,076 2,085 2,085 ∂9 ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................................................................... 119,212 121,087 118,845 ¥367 ¥2,242 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 3,600 3,600 3,600 .......................... ..........................

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 341,712 311,623 354,445 ∂12,733 ∂42,822 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (341,712 ) (311,623 ) (354,445 ) (∂12,733 ) (∂42,822 ) 
143 

Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 37,322,990 37,547,285 38,370,741 ∂1,047,751 ∂823,456 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (37,349,896 ) (37,611,685 ) (38,675,141 ) (∂1,325,245 ) (∂1,063,456 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥26,906 ) (¥64,400 ) (¥304,400 ) (¥277,494 ) (¥240,000 ) 

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