276 
(c) CONTINUATION.—Any study recommended to be 
carried out in a report that the Chief of Engineers pre-
pares for such study shall be considered a continuation 
of the study described in subsection (a). 
(d) CONSIDERATION; CONSULTATION.—In developing 
recommendations pursuant to subsection (a), the Sec-
retary shall— 
(1) consider the use of natural and nature- 
based features; 
(2) consult with applicable Federal and State 
agencies and other stakeholders within the geo-
graphic scope of the project; and 
(3) solicit public comments. 
(e) INTERIM PROGRESS; REPORT TO CONGRESS.— 
Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Pub-
lic Works of the Senate a report detailing— 
(1) any recommendations made pursuant to 
subsection (a); 
(2) any projects or activities carried out under 
subsection (b);
277 
(3) any additional, site-specific areas within the 
geographic scope of the project for which additional 
study is recommended by the Secretary; and 
(4) any interim actions related to reduction of 
comprehensive flood risk within the geographic scope 
of the project undertaken by the Secretary during 
the study period. 
(f) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Any additional action author-
ized by this section shall not delay any existing study, en-
gineering, or planning work underway as of the date of 
enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 333. WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OHIO, INDIANA, AND 
MICHIGAN. 
Section 441 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 328) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘flood con-
trol,’’ and inserting ‘‘flood risk management, hurri-
cane and storm damage risk reduction,’’; 
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘the study’’ 
and inserting ‘‘any study under this section’’; and 
(3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF STUDIES.—Any study carried 
out by the Secretary under this section after the date of 
enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of
278 
2024 shall be treated as a continuation of the initial study 
carried out under this section. 
‘‘(d) PROJECTS.—A project resulting from a study 
carried out under this section may be implemented pursu-
ant to section 212.’’. 
SEC. 334. WILLAMETTE VALLEY, OREGON. 
The Secretary may not complete its review of, and 
consultation with other Federal agencies on, the operation 
and maintenance of the projects for flood control, naviga-
tion, and other purposes, Willamette River Basin, Oregon, 
authorized by section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chap-
ter 795, 52 Stat. 1222; 62 Stat. 1178; 64 Stat. 177; 68 
Stat. 1264; 74 Stat. 499; 100 Stat. 4144), until the Sec-
retary prepares and formally analyzes an alternative that 
ceases hydropower operations at the projects, notwith-
standing hydropower being an authorized purpose of such 
projects. 
SEC. 335. COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL, OREGON AND WASH-
INGTON. 
In carrying out maintenance activities on the project 
for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and 
Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
280), the Secretary is authorized to include, as part of 
the full operating costs of the Cutter Suction Dredge pro-
279 
vided by the non-Federal interest for the project, any costs 
of replacing the Cutter Suction Dredge that the Secretary 
and the non-Federal interest agree are necessary. 
SEC. 336. BUFFALO BAYOU TRIBUTARIES AND RESILIENCY 
STUDY, TEXAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite com-
pletion of the Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency 
Study, Texas, carried out pursuant to title IV of the Bi-
partisan Budget Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 76). 
(b) REPORTS.—The final report of the Chief of Engi-
neers for the study described in subsection (a) shall con-
tain recommendations for projects that— 
(1) align with community objectives; 
(2) avoid or minimize adverse effects on the en-
vironment and community; and 
(3) promote the resiliency of infrastructure. 
(c) DEADLINE.—Not later than December 31, 2025, 
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate the final report described in subsection (b). 
SEC. 337. MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL JETTY DEFICIENCY, 
PORT LAVACA, TEXAS. 
(a) IN
GENERAL.—The project for navigation, 
Matagorda Ship Channel, Port Lavaca, Texas, authorized
280 
by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 
Stat. 298), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry 
out the repairs for the Matagorda Ship Channel Jetty De-
ficiency, as described in the report titled ‘‘Matagorda Ship 
Channel Project Deficiency Report’’ and published by the 
Secretary in the June 2020 Matagorda Ship Channel 
Project Deficiency Report. 
(b) COST SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost 
of the repairs carried out pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
be 10 percent. 
SEC. 338. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. 
The project for flood control, San Antonio channel 
improvement, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1954 as part of the project for flood 
protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, 
Texas (68 Stat. 1259; 90 Stat. 2921; 114 Stat. 2611), 
is modified to require the Secretary to carry out the 
project substantially in accordance with Alternative 7, as 
identified in the final General Re-evaluation Report and 
Environmental Assessment for the project, dated January 
2014. 
SEC. 339. WESTERN WASHINGTON STATE, WASHINGTON. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary 
may establish a program to provide environmental assist-
ance to non-Federal interests in Chelan County, Island
281 
County, King County, Kittitas County, Pierce County, 
San Juan County, Snohomish County, Skagit County, and 
Whatcom County, Washington. 
(b) FORM
OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided 
under this section may be in the form of design and con-
struction assistance for water-related environmental infra-
structure and resource protection and development 
projects in the counties listed in subsection (a) or make 
defined term for Western Washington State, including 
projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, 
water supply and related facilities, environmental restora-
tion, and surface water resource protection and develop-
ment. 
(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may 
provide assistance for a project under this section only if 
the project is publicly owned. 
(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance 
under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Sec-
retary shall enter into a partnership agreement 
under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest 
with respect to the project to be carried out with 
such assistance.
282 
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agree-
ment for a project entered into under this subsection 
shall provide for the following: 
(A) Development by the Secretary, in con-
sultation with appropriate Federal and State of-
ficials, of a facilities or resource protection and 
development plan, including appropriate engi-
neering plans and specifications. 
(B) Establishment of such legal and insti-
tutional structures as are necessary to ensure 
the effective long-term operation of the project 
by the non-Federal interest. 
(3) COST SHARING.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of 
the cost of a project under this section— 
(i) shall be 75 percent; and 
(ii) may be provided in the form of 
grants or reimbursements of project costs. 
(B) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a 
delay in the funding of the Federal share of a 
project that is the subject of an agreement 
under this section, the non-Federal interest 
shall receive credit for reasonable interest ac-
crued on the cost of providing the non-Federal 
share of the project cost.
283 
(C) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND 
RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—Notwithstanding 
section 
221(a)(4)(G) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Fed-
eral interest shall receive credit for land, ease-
ments, rights-of-way, and relocations toward 
the non-Federal share of project cost (including 
all reasonable costs associated with obtaining 
permits necessary for the construction, oper-
ation, and maintenance of the project on pub-
licly owned or controlled land), except that the 
credit may not exceed 25 percent of total 
project costs. 
(D) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The 
non-Federal share of operation and mainte-
nance costs for projects constructed with assist-
ance provided under this section shall be 100 
percent. 
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be 
appropriated $242,000,000 to carry out this section. 
(2) CORPS
OF
ENGINEERS
EXPENSES.—Not 
more than 10 percent of the amounts made available 
to carry out this section may be used by the Sec-
284 
retary to administer projects under this section at 
Federal expense. 
(f) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 219(f)(404) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 is re-
pealed. 
SEC. 340. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE. 
(a) NEW PROJECTS.—Section 219(f) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1258; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended 
by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(406) BUCKEYE, ARIZONA.—$12,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water reclamation, City of Buckeye, Arizona. 
‘‘(407) FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.—$5,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water reclamation, City of Flagstaff, Arizona. 
‘‘(408) 
PAGE, 
ARIZONA.—$10,000,000 
for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water reclamation, City of Page, Arizona. 
‘‘(409) SAHUARITA, ARIZONA.—$4,800,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water reclamation, in the town of Sahuarita, Ari-
zona.
285 
‘‘(410) TUCSON, ARIZONA.—$20,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water reclamation, City of Tucson, Arizona. 
‘‘(411) WINSLOW, ARIZONA.—$3,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water reclamation, City of Winslow, Arizona. 
‘‘(412) ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City 
of Adelanto, California. 
‘‘(413) APTOS, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of 
Aptos, California. 
‘‘(414) BISHOP, CALIFORNIA.—$2,500,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of 
Bishop, California. 
‘‘(415) 
BLOOMINGTON, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, in Bloom-
ington, California. 
‘‘(416) 
BUTTE
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, water sup-
ply, environmental restoration, and surface water re-
source protection in Butte County, California.
286 
‘‘(417) 
CALIFORNIA
CITY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$1,902,808 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
including water supply, in the city of California City, 
California. 
‘‘(418) CARSON, CALIFORNIA.—$11,000,000 for 
water and water supply infrastructure in the City of 
Carson, California. 
‘‘(419) 
CEDAR
GLEN, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply and water storage, in 
Cedar Glen, California. 
‘‘(420) 
CULVER
CITY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply and drinking water, in 
City of Culver City, California. 
‘‘(421) 
COLTON, 
CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of Colton, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(422) EAST
SAN
FERNANDO
VALLEY, CALI-
FORNIA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater in-
frastructure, including stormwater management, 
drinking water, and water supply, in the City of Los 
Angeles, California, including Sun Valley.
287 
‘‘(423) 
FRESNO
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, surface 
water resource protection, and environmental res-
toration, in Fresno County, California. 
‘‘(424) GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY 
DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.—$20,500,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including water supply 
and water storage, for communities served by the 
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(425) 
GRAND
TERRACE, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, in the city 
of Grand Terrace, California. 
‘‘(426) HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
related environmental infrastructure, in the city of 
Hayward, California. 
‘‘(427) HOLLISTER, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city 
of Hollister, California. 
‘‘(428) 
KERN
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastruc-
ture in Kern County, California.
288 
‘‘(429) 
LAKE
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, in Lake 
County, California. 
‘‘(430) LAKE TAHOE BASIN.—$20,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply, in the communities within the Lake 
Tahoe Basin in Nevada and California. 
‘‘(431) LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City 
of La Quinta, California. 
‘‘(432) LAKEWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$8,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city 
of Lakewood, California. 
‘‘(433) LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA.—$6,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, and environmental infra-
structure, in the city of Lawndale, California. 
‘‘(434) LONE PINE, CALIFORNIA.—$7,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the town of Lone Pine, 
California. 
‘‘(435) LOMITA, CALIFORNIA.—$5,500,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including
289 
water supply and stormwater management, in the 
city of Lomita, California. 
‘‘(436) LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of Los Banos, 
California. 
‘‘(437) LOS OLIVOS, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town 
of Los Olivos, California. 
‘‘(438) LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$12,000,000 
for water and water supply infrastructure in the city 
of Lynwood, California. 
‘‘(439) 
MADERA
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$27,500,000 for water and water supply infrastruc-
ture in Madera County, California. 
‘‘(440) MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 
for water and water supply infrastructure in the city 
of Milpitas, California. 
‘‘(441) 
MONTECITO, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply and stormwater man-
agement, in the town of Montecito, California. 
‘‘(442) OAKLAND-ALAMEDA
ESTUARY, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater in-
290 
frastructure, including stormwater management, in 
the cities of Oakland and Alameda, California. 
‘‘(443) OXNARD, 
CALIFORNIA.—$40,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply, conservation, water reuse and related 
facilities, environmental restoration, and surface 
water resource protection, in the city of Oxnard, 
California. 
‘‘(444) 
PATTERSON, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply and environmental res-
toration, in the city of Patterson, California. 
‘‘(445) POMONA, 
CALIFORNIA.—$35,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply and drinking water, in Pomona, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(446) 
ROHNERT
PARK, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastruc-
ture in the city of Rohnert Park, California. 
‘‘(447) SALINAS, 
CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply, in the city of Salinas, California. 
‘‘(448) SAN
BENITO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
291 
ture, including water supply, in San Benito County, 
California. 
‘‘(449) SAN
BUENAVENTURA, CALIFORNIA.— 
$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water reclamation, City of San 
Buenaventura, California. 
‘‘(450) SAN
DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 
$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply, in San Diego County, 
California. 
‘‘(451) SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 
for water and water supply infrastructure in the city 
of South Gate, California. 
‘‘(452) SAN
LUIS
OBISPO
COUNTY, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater in-
frastructure, including drinking water and water 
supply, in San Luis Obispo County, California. 
‘‘(453) STANISLAUS
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply and stormwater man-
agement, in Stanislaus County, California. 
‘‘(454) 
TULARE
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, surface
292 
water resource protection, and environmental res-
toration, in Tulare County, California. 
‘‘(455) 
WATSONVILLE, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture in the city of Watsonville, California. 
‘‘(456) 
YOLO
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply and stormwater man-
agement, in Yolo County, California. 
‘‘(457) YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT, CALI-
FORNIA.—$6,500,000 for water and water supply in-
frastructure in communities served by the Yorba 
Linda Water District, California. 
‘‘(458) 
FREMONT
COUNTY, 
COLORADO.— 
$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastruc-
ture, in Fremont County, Colorado. 
‘‘(459) 
EAST
HAMPTON, 
CONNECTICUT.— 
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply, in the town of East 
Hampton, Connecticut. 
‘‘(460) 
EAST
LYME, 
CONNECTICUT.— 
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply, in the town of East 
Lyme, Connecticut.
293 
‘‘(461) 
BETHANY
BEACH
TO
REHOBOTH 
BEACH, DELAWARE.—$25,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, water storage and treatment, and envi-
ronmental restoration in the town of Bethany Beach, 
Delaware, and the city of Rehoboth Beach, Dela-
ware. 
‘‘(462) 
WILMINGTON, 
DELAWARE.— 
$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, water stor-
age and treatment, and environmental restoration in 
the City of Wilmington, Delaware. 
‘‘(463) 
BROWARD
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.— 
$50,000,000 for water and water-related infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, water stor-
age and treatment, surface water protection, and en-
vironmental restoration, in Broward County, Flor-
ida. 
‘‘(464) DELTONA, FLORIDA.—$31,200,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of 
Deltona, Florida. 
‘‘(465) LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA.—$2,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the Town of Longboat 
Key, Florida.
294 
‘‘(466) 
MARION
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastruc-
ture, including water supply, in Marion County, 
Florida. 
‘‘(467) OVIEDO, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water storage and treatment, in the city of Oviedo, 
Florida. 
‘‘(468) 
OSCEOLA
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.— 
$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
including water supply, and environmental restora-
tion, in Osceola County, Florida. 
‘‘(469) CENTRAL
FLORIDA.—$45,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply, in Brevard County, Orange County, 
and Osceola County, Florida. 
‘‘(470) CENTRAL
COASTAL
GEORGIA, GEOR-
GIA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure, including stormwater management and 
water 
supply, 
in 
Bryan, 
Camden, 
Chatham, 
Effingham, Glynn, and McIntosh Counties, Georgia. 
‘‘(471) 
DEKALB
COUNTY, 
GEORGIA.— 
$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including drinking water and water treatment, 
in DeKalb County, Georgia.
328 
that is 18 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act. 
(2) FLOOD CHANNELS DESCRIBED.—The flood 
channels referred to in paragraph (1) are the fol-
lowing flood channels operated and maintained by 
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, as 
generally defined in Corps of Engineers operations 
and maintenance manuals and as may be further de-
scribed in an agreement entered into under para-
graph (3): 
(A) 
Arcadia 
Wash 
Channel 
(Auburn 
Branch Channel). 
(B) Arcadia Wash Channel (Baldwin Ave. 
Branch Channel). 
(C) Arcadia Wash Channel (East Branch 
Channel). 
(D) Arcadia Wash Channel (Lima St. 
Branch Channel). 
(E) Bel Aire Dr./Sunset Canyon Channel. 
(F) Big Dalton Wash Channel. 
(G) Big Dalton Wash Channel (East 
Branch Inlet Channel). 
(H) Blanchard Canyon Channel. 
(I) Blue Gum Canyon Channel. 
(J) Brand Canyon Channel.
335 
Rivers and Harbors Improvement Act of 1930, Ch. 
847, 46 Stat. 918, 920 (1930), and The Rivers and 
Harbors Improvement Act of 1937, Ch. 832, 50 
Stat. 844, 845 (1937). 
(2) The Newtown Creek navigation project is 
modified to reduce, in part, the authorized dimen-
sions of the project, such that the remaining author-
ized depths are as follows: 
(A) A 18-foot deep channel with a center 
line beginning at point North 40.727729 and 
West 73.929142, thence to a point North 
40.722214 and West 73.925874. [Reach EA] 
(B) A 18-foot deep Turning Basin South- 
West of a line formed by points North 
40.726202 and West 73.927289; and North 
40.723508 and West 73.924713. [Reaches E1A 
and GA] 
(C) A 16-foot-deep channel with a center 
line beginning at a point North 40.722214 and 
West 73.925874, thence to a point North 
40.718664 and West 73.924176. [Reaches EB 
and H] 
(D) A 16-foot-deep channel with a center 
line beginning at a point North 40.718664 and
341 
actment and quarterly thereafter regarding the 
status of the request. 
‘‘(B) SENSE
OF
CONGRESS.—It is the 
sense of Congress that the Secretary should re-
spond to any request for a renegotiation of 
terms submitted under paragraph (2) in a time-
ly manner.’’. 
TITLE IV—WATER RESOURCES 
INFRASTRUCTURE 
SEC. 401. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 
The following projects for water resources develop-
ment and conservation and other purposes, as identified 
in the reports titled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water 
Resources Development’’ submitted to Congress pursuant 
to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Devel-
opment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise re-
viewed by Congress, are authorized to be carried out by 
the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, 
and subject to the conditions, described in the respective 
reports or decision documents designated in this section: 
(1) NAVIGATION.—
342 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. CA 
Oakland Harbor 
Turning Basins 
Widening, Oak-
land 
May 30, 
2024 
Federal: $408,164,600 
Non-Federal: $200,780,400 
Total: $608,945,000 
2. MD 
Baltimore Harbor 
Anchorages and 
Channels Modi-
fication of 
Seagirt Loop 
Channel, City 
of Baltimore, 
Deep Draft 
Navigation 
June 22, 
2023 
Federal: $47,956,500 
Non-Federal: $15,985,500 
Total: $63,942,000 
(2) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK RE-
DUCTION.— 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. DC, 
VA 
Metropolitan 
Washington, 
District of Co-
lumbia, Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
June 17, 
2024 
Federal: $9,899,000 
Non-Federal: $5,330,500 
Total: $15,230,000 
2. FL 
St. Johns County, 
Ponte Vedra 
Beach Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
April 18, 
2024 
Initial Federal: $24,591,000 
Initial Non-Federal: 
$35,533,000 
Total: $60,124,000 
Renourishment Federal: 
$24,632,000 
Renourishment Non-Federal: 
$53,564,000 
Renourishment Total: 
$78,196,000