H. R. 1495—43 
(A) consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Sec-
retary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary 
of Transportation, the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, the National Academy of Sciences, 
and the Council on Environmental Quality; and 
(B) solicit and consider public and expert comments. 
(5) PUBLICATION.—The Secretary shall— 
(A) submit to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives copies of— 
(i) the revisions to the principles and guidelines 
for use by the Secretary; and 
(ii) an explanation of the intent of each revision, 
how each revision is consistent with this section, and 
the probable impact of each revision on water resources 
projects carried out by the Secretary; and 
(B) make the revisions to the principles and guidelines 
for use by the Secretary available to the public, including 
on the Internet. 
(6) EFFECT.—Subject to the requirements of this subsection, 
the principles and guidelines as revised under this subsection 
shall apply to water resources projects carried out by the Sec-
retary instead of the principles and guidelines for such projects 
in effect on the day before date of enactment of this Act. 
(7) APPLICABILITY.—After the date of issuance of the revi-
sions to the principles and guidelines, the revisions shall 
apply— 
(A) to all water resources projects carried out by the 
Secretary, other than projects for which the Secretary has 
commenced a feasibility study before the date of such 
issuance; 
(B) at the request of a non-Federal interest, to a water 
resources project for which the Secretary has commenced 
a feasibility study before the date of such issuance; and 
(C) to the reevaluation or modification of a water 
resources project, other than a reevaluation or modification 
that has been commenced by the Secretary before the date 
of such issuance. 
(8) EXISTING
STUDIES.—Revisions to the principles and 
guidelines issued under paragraph (2) shall not affect the 
validity of any completed study of a water resources project. 
(9) RECOMMENDATION.—Upon completion of the revisions 
to the principles and guidelines for use by the Secretary, the 
Secretary shall make a recommendation to Congress as to 
the advisability of repealing subsections (a) and (b) of section 
80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
1962d–17). 
SEC. 2032. WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES REPORT. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress 
a report describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage 
from flooding, including— 
(1) the risk to human life;
H. R. 1495—44 
(2) the risk to property; and 
(3) the comparative risks faced by different regions of the 
United States. 
(b) INCLUSIONS.—The report under subsection (a) shall 
include— 
(1) an assessment of the extent to which programs in 
the United States relating to flooding address flood risk reduc-
tion priorities; 
(2) the extent to which those programs may be encouraging 
development and economic activity in flood-prone areas; 
(3) recommendations for improving those programs with 
respect to reducing and responding to flood risks; and 
(4) proposals for implementing the recommendations. 
SEC. 2033. PLANNING. 
(a) MATTERS
TO BE ADDRESSED
IN PLANNING.—Section 904 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281) 
is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘Enhancing’’ and inserting the following: 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Enhancing’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(b) ASSESSMENTS.—For all feasibility reports for water 
resources projects completed after December 31, 2007, the Secretary 
shall assess whether— 
‘‘(1) the water resources project and each separable element 
is cost-effective; and 
‘‘(2) the water resources project complies with Federal, 
State, and local laws (including regulations) and public poli-
cies.’’. 
(b) PLANNING PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.—The Chief of Engi-
neers— 
(1) shall adopt a risk analysis approach to project cost 
estimates for water resources projects; and 
(2) not later than one year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, shall— 
(A) issue procedures for risk analysis for cost esti-
mation for water resources projects; and 
(B) submit to Congress a report that includes any 
recommended amendments to section 902 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280). 
(c) BENCHMARKS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 months after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish 
benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take 
to conduct a feasibility study for a water resources project 
and its associated review process under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Chief 
of Engineers shall use such benchmarks as a management 
tool to make the feasibility study process more efficient in 
all districts of the Corps of Engineers. 
(2) BENCHMARK
GOALS.—The Chief of Engineers shall 
establish, to the extent practicable, under paragraph (1) bench-
mark goals for completion of feasibility studies for water 
resources projects generally within 2 years. In the case of 
feasibility studies that the Chief of Engineers determines may 
require additional time based on the project type, size, cost,
H. R. 1495—45 
or complexity, the benchmark goal for completion shall be gen-
erally within 4 years. 
(d) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE 
REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility study for a project for flood 
damage reduction shall include, as part of the calculation of benefits 
and costs— 
(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following 
completion of the proposed project; 
(2) a calculation of the residual risk of loss of human 
life and residual risk to human safety following completion 
of the proposed project; 
(3) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts 
of the proposed project; and 
(4) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs associ-
ated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are evalu-
ated in an equitable manner. 
(e) CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPERTISE.— 
(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary may establish centers 
of expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for water 
resources projects to be carried out by the Secretary in order 
to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts 
of the Corps of Engineers. 
(2) DUTIES.—A center of expertise established under this 
subsection shall— 
(A) provide technical and managerial assistance to dis-
trict commanders of the Corps of Engineers for project 
planning, development, and implementation; 
(B) provide agency peer reviews of new major scientific, 
engineering, or economic methods, models, or analyses that 
will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with 
respect to feasibility studies for water resources projects; 
(C) provide support for independent peer review panels 
under section 2034; and 
(D) carry out such other duties as are prescribed by 
the Secretary. 
(f) COMPLETION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS REPORTS.— 
(1) ALTERNATIVES.— 
(A) IN
GENERAL.—Feasibility and other studies and 
assessments for a water resources project shall include 
recommendations for alternatives— 
(i) that, as determined in coordination with the 
non-Federal interest for the project, promote integrated 
water resources management; and 
(ii) for which the non-Federal interest is willing 
to provide the non-Federal share for the studies or 
assessments. 
(B) CONSTRAINTS.—The alternatives contained in 
studies and assessments described in subparagraph (A) 
shall not be constrained by budgetary or other policy. 
(C) REPORTS
OF
CHIEF
OF
ENGINEERS.—The reports 
of the Chief of Engineers shall identify any recommendation 
that is not the best technical solution to water resource 
needs and problems and the reason for the deviation. 
(2) REPORT COMPLETION.—The completion of a report of 
the Chief of Engineers for a water resources project—
H. R. 1495—46 
(A) shall not be delayed while consideration is being 
given to potential changes in policy or priority for project 
consideration; and 
(B) shall be submitted, on completion, to— 
(i) the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate; and 
(ii) the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives. 
(g) COMPLETION REVIEW.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
later than 120 days after the date of completion of a report 
of the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a water 
resources project, the Secretary shall— 
(A) review the report; and 
(B) provide any recommendations of the Secretary 
regarding the water resources project to Congress. 
(2) PRIOR
REPORTS.—Not later than 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, with respect to any report of 
the Chief of Engineers recommending a water resources project 
that is complete prior to the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary shall complete review of, and provide rec-
ommendations to Congress for, the report in accordance with 
paragraph (1). 
SEC. 2034. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. 
(a) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Project studies shall be subject to a peer 
review by an independent panel of experts as determined under 
this section. 
(2) SCOPE.—The peer review may include a review of the 
economic and environmental assumptions and projections, 
project evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental anal-
yses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, 
methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in 
evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of proposed 
projects, and any biological opinions of the project study. 
(3) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW.— 
(A) MANDATORY.—A project study shall be subject to 
peer review under paragraph (1) if— 
(i) the project has an estimated total cost of more 
than $45,000,000, including mitigation costs, and is 
not determined by the Chief of Engineers to be exempt 
from peer review under paragraph (6); 
(ii) the Governor of an affected State requests a 
peer review by an independent panel of experts; or 
(iii) the Chief of Engineers determines that the 
project study is controversial considering the factors 
set forth in paragraph (4). 
(B) DISCRETIONARY.— 
(i) AGENCY
REQUEST.—A project study shall be 
considered by the Chief of Engineers for peer review 
under this section if the head of a Federal or State 
agency charged with reviewing the project study deter-
mines that the project is likely to have a significant 
adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other 
resources under the jurisdiction of the agency after 
implementation of proposed mitigation plans and