113 
a report containing the results of the review conducted 
under subsection (a), including— 
(1) the findings of the Secretary relating to— 
(A) the minimum rights in property that 
are necessary to construct, operate, or maintain 
projects for flood risk management, hurricane 
and storm risk reduction, or environmental res-
toration; 
(B) whether increased use of covered ease-
ments in relation to such projects could pro-
mote greater participation from cooperating 
landowners in addressing local flooding or envi-
ronmental restoration challenges; 
(C) whether such increased use could re-
sult in cost savings in the implementation of 
the projects, without any reduction in project 
benefits; and 
(D) whether such increased use is in the 
best interest of the United States; and 
(2) any recommendations of the Secretary relat-
ing to whether existing requirements or procedures 
related to such use of covered easements should be 
revised to reflect the results of the review.
114 
(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered 
easement’’ means an easement or other similar interest 
in real property that— 
(1) reserves for the Secretary rights in the 
property that are necessary to construct, operate, or 
maintain a water resources development project; 
(2) provides for appropriate public use of the 
property, and retains the right of continued use of 
the property by the owner of the property, to the ex-
tent such uses are consistent with purposes of the 
covered easement; 
(3) provides access to the property for oversight 
and inspection by the Secretary; 
(4) is permanently recorded; and 
(5) is enforceable under Federal and State law. 
SEC. 231. ASSESSMENT OF FOREST, RANGELAND, AND WA-
TERSHED 
RESTORATION 
SERVICES 
ON 
LANDS OWNED BY THE CORPS OF ENGI-
NEERS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out an 
assessment of forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration 
services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers, includ-
ing an assessment of whether the provision of such serv-
ices on such lands by non-Federal interests through good
115 
neighbor agreements would be in the best interests of the 
United States. 
(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out the assess-
ment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall— 
(1) describe the forest, rangeland, and water-
shed restoration services provided by the Secretary 
on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers; 
(2) assess whether such services, including ef-
forts to reduce hazardous fuels and to restore and 
improve forest, rangeland, and watershed health (in-
cluding the health of fish and wildlife habitats) 
would be enhanced by authorizing the Secretary to 
enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non- 
Federal interest; 
(3) describe the process for ensuring that Fed-
eral requirements for land management plans for 
forests on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers 
remain in effect under good neighbor agreements; 
(4) assess whether Congress should authorize 
the Secretary to enter into a good neighbor agree-
ment with a non-Federal interest to provide forest, 
rangeland, and watershed restoration services on 
lands owned by the Corps of Engineers, including by 
assessing any interest expressed by a non-Federal 
interest to enter into such an agreement;
116 
(5) consider whether implementation of a good 
neighbor agreement on lands owned by the Corps of 
Engineers would benefit State and local governments 
and Indian Tribes that are located in the same geo-
graphic area as such lands; and 
(6) consult with the heads of other Federal 
agencies authorized to enter into good neighbor 
agreements with non-Federal interests. 
(c) REPORT
TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 
months after the date of enactment of this section, 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, and make publicly available (including on a 
publicly available website), a report describing the results 
of the assessment carried out under subsection (a). 
(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) FOREST, RANGELAND, AND
WATERSHED 
RESTORATION SERVICES.—The term ‘‘forest, range-
land, and watershed restoration services’’ has the 
meaning given such term in section 8206 of the Ag-
ricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a). 
(2) GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT.—The term 
‘‘good neighbor agreement’’ means a cooperative 
agreement or contract (including a sole source con-
117 
tract) entered into between the Secretary and a non- 
Federal interest to carry out forest, rangeland, and 
watershed restoration services. 
(3) LANDS OWNED BY THE CORPS OF ENGI-
NEERS.—The term ‘‘lands owned by the Corps of 
Engineers’’ means any land owned by the Corps of 
Engineers, but does not include— 
(A) a component of the National Wilder-
ness Preservation System; 
(B) land on which the removal of vegeta-
tion is prohibited or restricted by law or Presi-
dential proclamation; 
(C) a wilderness study area; or 
(D) any other land with respect to which 
the Secretary determines that forest, rangeland, 
and watershed restoration services should re-
main the responsibility of the Secretary. 
SEC. 232. ELECTRONIC PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF 
APPLICATIONS. 
Section 2040(f) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345(f)) is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2016’’ and inserting 
‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2022’’; and
118 
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(2) REPORT ON ELECTRONIC SYSTEM IMPLE-
MENTATION.—The Secretary shall submit to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
quarterly report describing the status of the imple-
mentation of this section.’’. 
SEC. 233. REPORT ON CORROSION PREVENTION ACTIVI-
TIES. 
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available, 
a report that describes— 
(1) the extent to which the Secretary has car-
ried out section 1033 of the Water Resources Re-
form and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
2350); 
(2) the extent to which the Secretary has incor-
porated corrosion prevention activities (as defined in 
such section) at water resources development
119 
projects constructed or maintained by the Secretary 
since the date of enactment of such section; and 
(3) in instances where the Secretary has not in-
corporated corrosion prevention activities at such 
water resources development projects since such 
date, an explanation as to why such corrosion pre-
vention activities have not been incorporated. 
SEC. 234. GAO STUDIES ON MITIGATION. 
(a) STUDY ON MITIGATION FOR WATER RESOURCES 
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comp-
troller General of the United States shall conduct, 
and submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate, a report on the results of a study on 
projects and activities to mitigate fish and wildlife 
losses resulting from the construction, or operation 
and maintenance, of an authorized water resources 
development project. 
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the study 
under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General 
shall— 
(A) investigate the extent to which—
120 
(i) mitigation projects and activities 
(including the acquisition of lands or inter-
ests in lands) restore the natural hydro-
logic conditions, restore native vegetation, 
and otherwise support native fish and wild-
life species, as required under section 906 
of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283); 
(ii) mitigation projects or activities 
(including the acquisition of lands or inter-
ests in lands) are undertaken before, or 
concurrent with, the construction of the 
project; 
(iii) mitigation projects or activities 
(including the acquisition of lands or inter-
ests in lands) are completed; 
(iv) ongoing mitigation projects or ac-
tivities are undertaken to mitigate for fish 
and wildlife losses from the operation and 
maintenance of a project (including peri-
odic review and updating of such projects 
or activities); 
(v) the Secretary includes mitigation 
plans (as required under subsection (d) of 
such section 906) in any project study, as
121 
such term is defined in section 2034(l) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343); 
(vi) processing and approval of miti-
gation projects and activities (including the 
acquisition of lands or interests in lands) 
affects the timeline of completion of 
projects; and 
(vii) mitigation projects and activities 
(including the acquisition of lands or inter-
ests in lands) affect the total cost of 
projects; 
(B) review any reports submitted to Con-
gress in accordance with section 2036(b) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
(121 Stat. 1094) on the status of construction 
of projects that require mitigation; and 
(C) consult with independent scientists, 
economists, and other stakeholders with exper-
tise and experience. 
(b) STUDY ON THE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comp-
troller General of the United States shall conduct, 
and submit to the Committee on Transportation and
122 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate, a report on the results of a study on 
performance metrics for, compliance with, and ade-
quacy in addressing project impacts of, potential 
mechanisms for fulfilling compensatory mitigation 
obligations pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Comptroller General 
shall include in the study under paragraph (1) an 
analysis of— 
(A) the primary mechanisms for fulfilling 
compensatory mitigation obligations, includ-
ing— 
(i) mitigation banks; 
(ii) in-lieu fee programs; and 
(iii) direct mitigation by permittees; 
(B) the timeliness of initiation and suc-
cessful completion of compensatory mitigation 
activities in relation to when the permitted ac-
tivity occurs; 
(C) the timeliness of processing and ap-
proval of compensatory mitigation activities; 
(D) the costs of carrying out compensatory 
mitigation activities borne by the Federal Gov-
123 
ernment, permittee, or any other involved enti-
ty; 
(E) Federal and State agency oversight 
and short- and long-term monitoring of the 
compensatory mitigation activities; 
(F) whether the compensatory mitigation 
activity successfully replaces any lost or ad-
versely affected habitat with habitat having 
similar functions of equal or greater ecological 
value; and 
(G) the continued, long-term success of the 
compensatory mitigation activities over a 5-, 
10-, 20-, and 50-year period. 
(3) UPDATE.—In conjunction with the study 
under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall 
review and update the findings and recommenda-
tions, including a review of Federal agency compli-
ance with such recommendations, in the report of 
the Comptroller General entitled, ‘‘Corps of Engi-
neers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Ap-
proach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is 
Occurring’’ and dated September 2005 (GAO–05– 
898).
124 
SEC. 235. GAO STUDY ON WATERBORNE STATISTICS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 
of the United States shall carry out a review of the Water-
borne Commerce Statistics Center of the Corps of Engi-
neers that includes— 
(1) an assessment of ways in which the Water-
borne Commerce Statistics Center can improve the 
collection of information relating to all commercial 
maritime activity within the jurisdiction of a port, 
including the collection and reporting of records of 
fishery landings and aquaculture harvest; and 
(2) recommendations to improve the collection 
of such information from non-Federal entities, tak-
ing into consideration— 
(A) the cost, efficiency, and accuracy of 
collecting such information; and 
(B) the protection of proprietary informa-
tion. 
(b) REPORT.—Upon completion of the review carried 
out under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall 
submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
a report containing the results of such review.
125 
SEC. 236. GAO STUDY ON THE INTEGRATION OF INFORMA-
TION INTO THE NATIONAL LEVEE DATABASE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 
of the United States shall submit to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on the Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of a 
study on the sharing of levee information and the integra-
tion of information into the National Levee Database by 
the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency in accordance with section 9004 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 
3303). 
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the study under 
subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall— 
(1) investigate the information sharing proto-
cols and procedures between the Corps of Engineers 
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency re-
garding the construction of new Federal flood pro-
tection projects; 
(2) analyze the timeliness of the integration of 
information relating to newly constructed flood pro-
tection projects into the National Levee Database; 
(3) identify any delays between the construction 
of a new Federal flood protection project and when
126 
a policyholder of the National Flood Insurance Pro-
gram would realize a premium discount due to the 
construction of a new Federal flood protection 
project; and 
(4) determine whether current information 
sharing protocols are adversely impacting the ability 
of the Secretary to perform accurate benefit-cost 
analysis for future flood risk management activities. 
TITLE III—DEAUTHORIZATIONS 
AND MODIFICATIONS 
SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS. 
(a) PURPOSES; PROPOSED DEAUTHORIZATION LIST; 
SUBMISSION OF FINAL LIST.—Section 301 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 579–2) 
is amended by striking subsections (a) through (c) and 
inserting the following: 
‘‘(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 
‘‘(1) to identify water resources development 
projects, and separable elements of projects, author-
ized by Congress that are no longer viable for con-
struction due to— 
‘‘(A) a lack of local support; 
‘‘(B) a lack of available Federal or non- 
Federal resources; or
127 
‘‘(C) an authorizing purpose that is no 
longer relevant or feasible; 
‘‘(2) to create an expedited and definitive proc-
ess for Congress to deauthorize water resources de-
velopment projects and separable elements that are 
no longer viable for construction; and 
‘‘(3) to allow the continued authorization of 
water resources development projects and separable 
elements that are viable for construction. 
‘‘(b) PROPOSED DEAUTHORIZATION LIST.— 
‘‘(1) PRELIMINARY LIST OF PROJECTS.— 
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 
develop a preliminary list of each water re-
sources development project, or separable ele-
ment of a project, authorized for construction 
before November 8, 2007, for which— 
‘‘(i) planning, design, or construction 
was not initiated before the date of enact-
ment of this Act; or 
‘‘(ii) planning, design, or construction 
was initiated before the date of enactment 
of this Act, but for which no funds, Fed-
eral or non-Federal, were obligated for 
planning, design, or construction of the 
project or separable element of the project
128 
during the current fiscal year or any of the 
10 preceding fiscal years. 
‘‘(B) USE OF COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUC-
TION BACKLOG AND OPERATION AND MAINTE-
NANCE
REPORT.—The Secretary may develop 
the preliminary list from the comprehensive 
construction backlog and operation and mainte-
nance reports developed pursuant to section 
1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a). 
‘‘(2) PREPARATION OF PROPOSED DEAUTHOR-
IZATION LIST.— 
‘‘(A) PROPOSED LIST AND ESTIMATED DE-
AUTHORIZATION
AMOUNT.—The 
Secretary 
shall— 
‘‘(i) prepare a proposed list of projects 
for deauthorization comprised of a subset 
of projects and separable elements identi-
fied on the preliminary list developed 
under paragraph (1) that are projects or 
separable elements described in subsection 
(a)(1), as determined by the Secretary; 
and
129 
‘‘(ii) include with such proposed list 
an estimate, in the aggregate, of the Fed-
eral cost to complete such projects. 
‘‘(B) DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL COST 
TO COMPLETE.—For purposes of subparagraph 
(A), the Federal cost to complete shall take into 
account any allowances authorized by section 
902 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280), as applied to the 
most recent project schedule and cost estimate. 
‘‘(3) PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSULTATION.— 
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 
solicit comments from the public and the Gov-
ernors of each applicable State on the proposed 
deauthorization list prepared under paragraph 
(2)(A). 
‘‘(B) COMMENT PERIOD.—The public com-
ment period shall be 90 days. 
‘‘(4) PREPARATION
OF
FINAL
DEAUTHORIZA-
TION LIST.— 
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 
prepare a final deauthorization list by— 
‘‘(i) considering any comments re-
ceived under paragraph (3); and
130 
‘‘(ii) revising the proposed deauthor-
ization list prepared under paragraph 
(2)(A) as the Secretary determines nec-
essary to respond to such comments. 
‘‘(B) APPENDIX.—The Secretary shall in-
clude as part of the final deauthorization list an 
appendix that— 
‘‘(i) identifies each project or sepa-
rable element on the proposed deauthoriza-
tion list that is not included on the final 
deauthorization list; and 
‘‘(ii) describes the reasons why the 
project or separable element is not in-
cluded on the final deauthorization list. 
‘‘(c) SUBMISSION OF FINAL DEAUTHORIZATION LIST 
TO CONGRESS FOR CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW; PUBLICA-
TION.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days 
after the date of the close of the comment period 
under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall— 
‘‘(A) submit the final deauthorization list 
and appendix prepared under subsection (b)(4) 
to the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and
131 
the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate; and 
‘‘(B) publish the final deauthorization list 
and appendix in the Federal Register. 
‘‘(2) EXCLUSIONS.—The Secretary shall not in-
clude in the final deauthorization list submitted 
under paragraph (1) any project or separable ele-
ment with respect to which Federal funds for plan-
ning, design, or construction are obligated after the 
development of the preliminary list under subsection 
(b)(1)(A) but prior to the submission of the final de-
authorization list under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
subsection.’’. 
(b) REPEAL.—Section 301(d) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 579–2(d)) is re-
pealed. 
SEC. 302. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS. 
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)— 
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 
the end; 
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the pe-
riod at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following:
132 
‘‘(7) sea level rise; 
‘‘(8) coastal storm damage reduction; and 
‘‘(9) streambank and shoreline protection.’’; 
and 
(2) in subsection (d)— 
(A) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 
the end; 
(B) in paragraph (10), by striking the pe-
riod at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(11) New York-New Jersey Watershed Basin, 
which encompasses all the watersheds that flow into 
the New York-New Jersey Harbor and their associ-
ated estuaries, including the Hudson, Mohawk, Rari-
tan, Passaic, Hackensack, and Bronx River Water-
sheds and the Hudson River Estuary; 
‘‘(12) Mississippi River Watershed; and 
‘‘(13) Chattahoochee River Basin, Alabama, 
Florida, and Georgia.’’. 
SEC. 303. FORECAST-INFORMED RESERVOIR OPERATIONS. 
(a) ADDITIONAL UTILIZATION
OF FORECAST-IN-
FORMED RESERVOIR OPERATIONS.—Section 1222(c) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 
3811; 134 Stat. 2661) is amended—
133 
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘the Upper 
Missouri River Basin and the North Platte River 
Basin’’ and inserting ‘‘the Upper Missouri River 
Basin, the North Platte River Basin, and the Apa-
lachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin’’; and 
(2) in paragraph (2)— 
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘the 
Upper Missouri River Basin or the North 
Platte River Basin’’ and inserting ‘‘the Upper 
Missouri River Basin, the North Platte River 
Basin, or the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint 
River Basin’’; and 
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘the 
Upper Missouri River Basin or the North 
Platte River Basin’’ and inserting ‘‘the Upper 
Missouri River Basin, the North Platte River 
Basin, or the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint 
River Basin’’. 
(b) COMPLETION OF REPORTS.—The Secretary shall 
expedite completion of the reports authorized by section 
1222 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 
(132 Stat. 3811; 134 Stat. 2661). 
SEC. 304. LAKES PROGRAM. 
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 104 Stat. 4646; 110 Stat.
134 
3758; 113 Stat. 295; 121 Stat. 1076; 134 Stat. 2703) 
is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (29), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 
end; 
(2) in paragraph (30), by striking the period at 
the end and inserting a semicolon; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(31) Salisbury Pond, Worcester, Massachu-
setts; 
‘‘(32) Baisley Pond, New York; 
‘‘(33) Legacy Park, Decatur, Georgia; and 
‘‘(34) White Rock Lake, Dallas, Texas.’’. 
SEC. 305. INVASIVE SPECIES. 
(a) AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES RESEARCH.—Sec-
tion 1108(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2018 (33 U.S.C. 2263a(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, 
hydrilla’’ after ‘‘elodea’’. 
(b) HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM DEMONSTRATION PRO-
GRAM.—Section 128(c) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended to 
read as follows: 
‘‘(c) FOCUS AREAS.—In carrying out the demonstra-
tion program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall un-
dertake program activities related to harmful algal blooms 
in—
135 
‘‘(1) the Great Lakes; 
‘‘(2) the tidal and inland waters of the State of 
New Jersey, including Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey; 
‘‘(3) the coastal and tidal waters of the State 
of Louisiana; 
‘‘(4) the waterways of the counties that com-
prise the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California; 
‘‘(5) the Allegheny Reservoir Watershed, New 
York; 
‘‘(6) Lake Okeechobee, Florida; 
‘‘(7) the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers, 
Florida; 
‘‘(8) Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia; 
‘‘(9) Rio Grande River Basin, Colorado, New 
Mexico, and Texas; 
‘‘(10) lakes and reservoirs in the State of Ohio; 
‘‘(11) Detroit Lake, Oregon; and 
‘‘(12) Ten Mile Lake, Oregon.’’. 
(c) UPDATE ON INVASIVE SPECIES POLICY GUID-
ANCE.—Section 501(b) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 
end; 
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 
the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
136 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Cali-
fornia.’’. 
SEC. 306. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS. 
(a) NEW YORK HARBOR, NEW YORK AND NEW JER-
SEY.—The New York Harbor collection and removal of 
drift project authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 
4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1051; 88 Stat. 39; 104 Stat. 4615), 
and deauthorized pursuant to section 6001 of the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 
Stat. 1345), is authorized to be carried out by the Sec-
retary. 
(b) GUANAJIBO RIVER, PUERTO RICO.—The project 
for flood control, Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico, author-
ized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), and deauthorized pursuant 
to section 6001 of the Water Resources Reform and Devel-
opment Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1345), is authorized to 
be carried out by the Secretary. 
(c) RIO
NIGUA, SALINAS, PUERTO
RICO.—The 
project for flood control, Rio Nigua, Salinas, Puerto Rico, 
authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), and deauthorized 
pursuant to section 6001 of the Water Resources Reform
137 
and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1345), is author-
ized to be carried out by the Secretary. 
(d) RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PUERTO RICO.—The 
project for flood control, Rio Grande De Loiza, Puerto 
Rico, authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), and deauthor-
ized pursuant to section 6001 of the Water Resources Re-
form and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1345), is 
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. 
SEC. 307. ST. FRANCIS LAKE CONTROL STRUCTURE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall set the ordi-
nary high water mark for water impounded behind the St. 
Francis Lake Control Structure, authorized by the Act of 
May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 538; 79 Stat. 1077), at 208 feet 
mean sea level. 
(b) OPERATION BY PROJECT MANAGER.—In setting 
the ordinary high water mark under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall ensure that the project manager for the 
St. Francis Lake Control Structure may continue oper-
ating such structure in accordance with the instructions 
set forth in the document titled ‘‘St. Francis Lake Control 
Structure Standing Instructions to the Project Manager’’ 
and published in January 1982 by the Corps of Engineers, 
Memphis District.
138 
SEC. 308. FRUITVALE AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE, ALA-
MEDA, CALIFORNIA. 
Section 4017(d) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1175) is repealed. 
SEC. 309. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary 
may establish a program to provide environmental assist-
ance to non-Federal interests in Los Angeles County, Cali-
fornia. 
(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 Los Angeles County, California, 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
139 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest 
with respect to the project to be carried out with 
such assistance. 
(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
140 
shall receive credit for reasonable interest in-
curred in providing the non-Federal share of 
the project cost. 
(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), but 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 $50,000,000 to carry out this section.
141 
(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 Corps 
of Engineers district offices to administer projects 
under this section at Federal expense. 
SEC. 310. DEAUTHORIZATION OF DESIGNATED PORTIONS 
OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE 
AREA, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for 
flood risk management, Los Angeles County Drainage 
Area, California, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1589; 50 Stat. 167; 52 Stat. 
1215; 55 Stat. 647; 64 Stat. 177), consisting of the debris 
basins described in subsection (b), is no longer authorized 
beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of en-
actment of this Act. 
(b) DEBRIS BASINS DESCRIBED.—The debris basins 
referred to in subsection (a) are the following debris basins 
operated and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood 
Control District: Auburn Debris Basin, Bailey Debris 
Basin, Big Dalton Debris Basin, Blanchard Canyon De-
bris Basin, Blue Gum Canyon Debris Basin, Brand Can-
yon Debris Basin, Carter Debris Basin, Childs Canyon 
Debris Basin, Dunsmuir Canyon Debris Basin, Eagle 
Canyon Debris Basin, Eaton Walsh Debris Basin, Elm-
142 
wood Canyon Debris Basin, Emerald East Debris Basin, 
Emerald West Debris Retention Inlet, Hay Debris Basin, 
Hillcrest Debris Basin, La Tuna Canyon Debris Basin, 
Little Dalton Debris Basin, Live Oak Debris Retention 
Inlet, Lopez Debris Retention Inlet, Lower Sunset Canyon 
Debris Basin, Marshall Canyon Debris Retention Inlet, 
Santa Anita Debris Basin, Sawpit Debris Basin, School-
house Canyon Debris Basin, Shields Canyon Debris 
Basin, Sierra Madre Villa Debris Basin, Snover Canyon 
Debris Basin, Stough Canyon Debris Basin, Wilson Can-
yon Debris Basin, and Winery Canyon Debris Basin. 
SEC. 311. MURRIETA CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 
Section 103 of title I of appendix B of Public Law 
106–377 (114 Stat. 1441A–65) (relating to the project 
for flood control, environmental restoration, and recre-
ation, Murrieta Creek, California), is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘$89,850,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$252,438,000’’; 
(2) by striking ‘‘$57,735,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$162,511,500’’; and 
(3) by striking ‘‘$32,115,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$89,926,500’’. 
SEC. 312. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 
The portion of the project for flood protection on the 
Sacramento River, authorized by section 2 of the Act of
143 
March 1, 1917 (chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 45 Stat. 539; 
50 Stat. 849; 55 Stat. 647; 80 Stat. 1422), consisting of 
the portion of the American River North Levee, upstream 
of Arden Way, from G.P.S. coordinate 38.600948N 
121.330599W to 38.592261N 121.334155W, is no longer 
authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 313. SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, SAN DIEGO 
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control and 
navigation, San Diego River and Mission Bay, San Diego 
County, California, authorized by the Act of July 24, 1946 
(chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636; 134 Stat. 2705), is modified 
to change the authorized conveyance capacity of the 
project to a level determined appropriate by the Secretary 
based on the actual capacity of the project, which level 
may be further modified by the Secretary as necessary to 
account for sea level rise. 
(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal sponsor for 
the project described in subsection (a) shall prepare 
for review and approval by the Secretary a revised 
operation and maintenance manual for the project to 
implement the modification described in subsection 
(a).
144 
(2) FUNDING.—The non-Federal sponsor shall 
provide to the Secretary funds sufficient to cover the 
costs incurred by the Secretary to review and ap-
prove the manual described in paragraph (1), and 
the Secretary may accept and expend such funds in 
the performance of such review and approval. 
(c) EMERGENCY REPAIR AND RESTORATION ASSIST-
ANCE.—Upon approval by the Secretary of the revised op-
eration and maintenance manual required under sub-
section (b), and subject to compliance by the non-Federal 
sponsor with the requirements of such manual and with 
any other eligibility requirement established by the Sec-
retary, the project described in subsection (a) shall be con-
sidered for assistance under section 5(a) of the Act of Au-
gust 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)). 
SEC. 314. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 203(a)(1)(A) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 
Stat. 2675) is amended by striking ‘‘ocean shoreline’’ and 
inserting ‘‘bay and ocean shorelines’’. 
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—In carrying out a study 
under section 142 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930; 100 Stat. 4158), pursuant 
to section 203(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2020 (as amended by this section), the Sec-
145 
retary shall not differentiate between damages related to 
high tide flooding and coastal storm flooding for the pur-
poses of determining the Federal interest or cost share. 
SEC. 315. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN. 
(a) STUDY OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIVI-
TIES.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Using funds made available 
to carry out this section, the Secretary is authorized, 
at Federal expense, to carry out a study to deter-
mine the feasibility of a project for flood risk man-
agement and related purposes in the Columbia River 
Basin and to report to the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of Represent-
atives and the Committee on Environment and Pub-
lic Works of the Senate with recommendations 
thereon, including recommendations for a project to 
potentially reduce the reliance on Canada for flood 
risk management in the basin. 
(2) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall carry 
out the activities described in this subsection in co-
ordination with other Federal and State agencies 
and Indian Tribes. 
(b) FUNDS FOR COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY OBLIGA-
TIONS.—
146 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized 
to expend funds appropriated for the purpose of sat-
isfying United States obligations under the Colum-
bia River Treaty to compensate Canada for oper-
ating Canadian storage on behalf of the United 
States under such treaty. 
(2) NOTIFICATION.—If the U.S. entity calls 
upon Canada to operate Canadian reservoir storage 
for flood risk management on behalf of the United 
States, which operation may incur an obligation to 
compensate Canada under the Columbia River Trea-
ty— 
(A) the Secretary shall submit to the Com-
mittees on Transportation and Infrastructure 
and Appropriations of the House of Representa-
tives and the Committees on Environment and 
Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate, 
by not later than 30 days after the initiation of 
the call, a written notice of the action and a 
justification, including a description of the cir-
cumstances necessitating the call; 
(B) upon a determination by the United 
States of the amount of compensation that shall 
be paid to Canada, the Secretary shall submit 
to the Committees on Transportation and In-
147 
frastructure and Appropriations of the House 
of Representatives and the Committees on En-
vironment and Public Works and Appropria-
tions of the Senate a written notice specifying 
such amount and an explanation of how such 
amount was derived, which notification shall 
not delay or impede the flood risk management 
mission of the U.S. entity; and 
(C) the Secretary shall make no payment 
to Canada for the call under the Columbia 
River Treaty until such time as funds appro-
priated for the purpose of compensating Can-
ada under such treaty are available. 
(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(A) COLUMBIA
RIVER
BASIN.—The term 
‘‘Columbia River Basin’’ means the entire 
United States portion of the Columbia River 
watershed. 
(B) COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY.—The term 
‘‘Columbia River Treaty’’ means the treaty re-
lating to cooperative development of the water 
resources of the Columbia River Basin, signed 
at Washington January 17, 1961, and entered 
into force September 16, 1964.
148 
(C) U.S. ENTITY.—The term ‘‘U.S. entity’’ 
means the entity designated by the United 
States under Article XIV of the Columbia River 
Treaty. 
SEC. 316. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION 
PLAN, FLORIDA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 601(e)(5) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2685; 121 
Stat. 1269; 132 Stat. 3786) is amended— 
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘subpara-
graph (D)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (E)’’; and 
(2) in subparagraph (E)— 
(A) in clause (i), in the matter preceding 
subclause (I), by striking ‘‘during each 5-year 
period, beginning with commencement of design 
of the Plan’’ and inserting ‘‘during each period 
of 5 fiscal years, beginning on October 1, 
2022’’; 
(B) in clause (ii), by inserting ‘‘for each 
project in the Plan’’ before the period at the 
end; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(iii) ACCOUNTING.—Not later than 
90 days after the end of each fiscal year, 
the Secretary shall provide to the non-Fed-
149 
eral sponsor a financial accounting of non- 
Federal contributions under clause (i)(I) 
for such fiscal year. 
‘‘(iv) LIMITATION.—In the case of an 
authorized project for which a project part-
nership agreement has not been executed 
and for which there is an agreement under 
subparagraph (B)(i)(III), the Secretary— 
‘‘(I) shall consider all expendi-
tures and obligations incurred by the 
non-Federal sponsor for land and in- 
kind services for the project in deter-
mining the amount of any cash con-
tribution required from the non-Fed-
eral sponsor to satisfy the cost-share 
requirements of this subsection; and 
‘‘(II) may only require any such 
cash contribution to be made at the 
end of each period of 5 fiscal years 
under clause (i).’’. 
(b) UPDATE.—The Secretary and the non-Federal in-
terest shall revise the Master Agreement for the Com-
prehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, executed in 2009 
pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Develop-
150 
ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680), to reflect the amend-
ment made by subsection (a). 
SEC. 317. PORT EVERGLADES, FLORIDA. 
Section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1709) is amended, in row 4 (relat-
ing to the project for navigation, Port Everglades, Flor-
ida)— 
(1) by striking ‘‘$229,770,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$561,455,000’’; 
(2) by striking ‘‘$107,233,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$361,302,000’’; and 
(3) by striking ‘‘$337,003,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$922,757,000’’. 
SEC. 318. SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION TASK 
FORCE. 
Section 528(f)(1)(J) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3771) is amended by striking 
‘‘2 representatives of the State of Florida,’’ and inserting 
‘‘3 representatives of the State of Florida, including at 
least 1 representative of the Florida Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection and 1 representative of the Florida 
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,’’.
151 
SEC. 319. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO. 
Section 3057(a)(2) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1120) is amended by striking 
‘‘$9,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’. 
SEC. 320. CHICAGO SHORELINE PROTECTION. 
The project for storm damage reduction and shore-
line erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from 
Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, au-
thorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to provide 65 percent of the cost 
of the locally preferred plan, as described in the Report 
of the Chief of Engineers dated April 14, 1994, for the 
construction of the following segments of the project: 
(1) Shoreline revetment at Morgan Shoal. 
(2) Shoreline revetment at Promontory Point. 
SEC. 
321. 
GREAT 
LAKES 
AND 
MISSISSIPPI 
RIVER 
INTERBASIN 
PROJECT, 
BRANDON 
ROAD, 
WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. 
Section 402(a)(1) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2742) is amended by striking 
‘‘80 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘90 percent’’. 
SEC. 322. SOUTHEAST DES MOINES LEVEE SYSTEM, IOWA. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) CITY.—The term ‘‘City’’ means the city of 
Des Moines, Iowa.
152 
(2) FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT.—The term 
‘‘Flood Protection Project’’ means the project on the 
Des Moines River for local flood protection of Des 
Moines, Iowa, authorized by the Act of December 
22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896). 
(3) RED ROCK DAM PROJECT.—The term ‘‘Red 
Rock Dam Project’’ means the project for the Red 
Rock Dam on the Des Moines River for flood control 
and other purposes, authorized by the Act of Decem-
ber 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896). 
(b) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.—The Red Rock Dam 
Project and the Flood Protection Project shall be modified 
as follows, subject to a new or amended agreement be-
tween the Secretary and the City, in accordance with sec-
tion 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
1962d–5b): 
(1) That portion of the Red Rock Dam Project 
consisting of the segment of levee from Station 
15+88.8W to Station 77+43.7W shall be trans-
ferred to the Flood Protection Project. 
(2) The relocated levee improvement con-
structed by the City, from Station 77+43.7W to ap-
proximately Station 20+00, shall be included in the 
Flood Protection Project. 
(c) FEDERAL EASEMENT CONVEYANCES.—
153 
(1) FLOOD
PROTECTION
EASEMENTS.—The 
Secretary is authorized to convey, without consider-
ation, to the City the following easements to become 
part of the Flood Protection Project in accordance 
with subsection (b): 
(A) 
Easements 
identified 
as 
Tracts 
3215E–1, 3235E, and 3227E. 
(B) Easements identified as Partial Tracts 
3216E–2, 3216E–3, 3217E–1, and 3217E–2. 
(2) ADDITIONAL
EASEMENTS.—The Secretary 
is authorized to convey, without consideration, to the 
City or to the Des Moines Metropolitan Wastewater 
Reclamation Authority the following easements: 
(A) Easements identified as Tracts 3200E, 
3202E–1, 
3202E–2, 
3202E–4, 
3203E–2, 
3215E–3, 3216E–1, and 3216E–5. 
(B) Easements identified as Partial Tracts 
3216E–2, 3216E–3, 3217E–1, and 3217E–2. 
(3) COSTS.—An entity to which a conveyance is 
made under this subsection shall be responsible for 
all administrative costs associated with the convey-
ance.
154 
SEC. 323. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE 
MANAGEMENT STUDY. 
Section 213 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2020 (134 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the 
end the following: 
‘‘(j) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of 
the comprehensive study carried out under subsection (a), 
and any feasibility study carried out under subsection (e), 
shall be 100 percent.’’. 
SEC. 324. LOWER MISSOURI RIVER STREAMBANK EROSION 
CONTROL EVALUATION AND DEMONSTRA-
TION PROJECTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to 
carry out streambank erosion control evaluation and dem-
onstration projects in the Lower Missouri River through 
contracts with non-Federal interests, including projects 
for streambank protection and stabilization. 
(b) AREA.—The Secretary shall carry out demonstra-
tion projects under this section on the reach of the Mis-
souri River between Sioux City, Iowa, and the confluence 
of the Missouri River and the Mississippi River. 
(c) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall— 
(1) conduct an evaluation of the extent of 
streambank erosion on the Lower Missouri River; 
and
155 
(2) develop new methods and techniques for 
streambank protection, research soil stability, and 
identify the causes of erosion. 
(d) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works of the Senate a report describ-
ing the results of the demonstration projects carried out 
under this section, including any recommendations for 
methods to prevent and correct streambank erosion. 
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$15,000,000, to remain available until expended. 
(f) SUNSET.—The authority of the Secretary to enter 
into contracts under subsection (a) shall expire on the date 
that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 325. MISSOURI RIVER INTERCEPTION-REARING COM-
PLEXES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 129 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 
2643), and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary is au-
thorized to carry out the construction of an interception- 
rearing complex at each of Plowboy Bend A (River Mile:
156 
174.5 to 173.2) and Pelican Bend B (River Mile: 15.8 
to 13.4) on the Missouri River. 
(b) ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION OF RISK.— 
(1) ANALYSIS.—Prior to construction of the 
interception-rearing complexes under subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall perform an analysis to identify 
whether the interception-rearing complexes will— 
(A) contribute to an increased risk of 
flooding to adjacent lands and properties, in-
cluding local levees; 
(B) affect the navigation channel, includ-
ing crossflows, velocity, channel depth, and 
channel width; 
(C) affect the harvesting of sand; 
(D) affect ports and harbors; or 
(E) contribute to bank erosion on adjacent 
private lands. 
(2) MITIGATION.—The Secretary may not con-
struct an interception-rearing complex under sub-
section (a) until the Secretary successfully mitigates 
any effects described in paragraph (1) with respect 
to such interception-rearing complex. 
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after completion 
of the construction of the interception-rearing complexes 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the
157 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing 
the extent to which the construction of such interception- 
rearing complexes affected the population recovery of pal-
lid sturgeon in the Missouri River. 
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 129(b) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 
2643) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and 
(3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively, and inserting 
after paragraph (1) the following: 
‘‘(2) submits the report required by section 
318(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2022;’’. 
SEC. 326. ARGENTINE, EAST BOTTOMS, FAIRFAX-JERSEY 
CREEK, AND NORTH KANSAS LEVEES UNITS, 
MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES AT KAN-
SAS CITIES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS. 
Notwithstanding section 103 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), the Federal 
share of the cost of the portion of the project for flood 
damage reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jer-
sey Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River 
and tributaries at Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas, 
authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Devel-
158 
opment Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1054), relating to the 
Fairfax-Jersey Creek Levee unit, shall be 80 percent. 
SEC. 327. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT, MIS-
SOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA. 
Section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 306) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: 
‘‘(c) USE OF OTHER FUNDS.—Any acres acquired 
using Federal funds for purposes described in subsection 
(a) shall be considered toward the total number of acres 
required under such subsection, regardless of the source 
of the Federal funds.’’. 
SEC. 328. NORTHERN MISSOURI. 
(a) NORTHERN MISSOURI DEFINED.—In this sec-
tion, the term ‘‘Northern Missouri’’ means the counties 
of Buchanan, Marion, Platte, and Clay, Missouri. 
(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary 
may establish a program to provide environmental assist-
ance to non-Federal interests in Northern Missouri. 
(c) 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 Northern Missouri, including projects for 
wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply
159 
and related facilities, environmental restoration, and sur-
face water resource protection and development. 
(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may 
provide assistance for a project under this section only if 
the project is publicly owned. 
(e) 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. 
(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.
160 
(3) COST SHARING.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of 
the cost of a project carried out under this sec-
tion— 
(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 a partnership 
agreement under this section, the non-Federal 
interest shall receive credit for reasonable inter-
est incurred in providing the non-Federal share 
of the project cost. 
(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), but such credit
161 
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. 
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be 
appropriated $50,000,000 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 Corps 
of Engineers district offices to administer projects 
under this section at Federal expense. 
SEC. 329. ISRAEL RIVER, LANCASTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
The project for flood control, Israel River, Lancaster, 
New Hampshire, carried out under section 205 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is no longer 
authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 330. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, 
BERNALILLO TO BELEN, NEW MEXICO. 
The non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
flood risk management, Middle Rio Grande, Bernalillo to 
Belen, New Mexico, authorized by section 401(2) of the
162 
Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 
2735), shall be 25 percent. 
SEC. 331. SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN COASTAL STORM 
RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a water resources 
development project described in subsection (b), the Sec-
retary shall— 
(1) fund, at full Federal expense, any incre-
mental increase in cost to the project that results 
from a legal requirement to use a borrow source de-
termined by the Secretary to be other than the least 
cost option; and 
(2) exclude the cost described in paragraph (1) 
from the cost-benefit analysis for the project. 
(b) WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 
DESCRIBED.—A water resources development project re-
ferred to in subsection (a) is any of the following: 
(1) The project for hurricane-flood protection 
and beach erosion control, Carolina Beach and vicin-
ity, North Carolina, authorized by section 203 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182; 134 Stat. 
2741). 
(2) The project for hurricane-flood protection 
and beach erosion control, Wrightsville Beach, North 
Carolina, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
163 
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182; 134 Stat. 
2741). 
SEC. 332. SOUTHWESTERN OREGON. 
(a) SOUTHWESTERN OREGON DEFINED.—In this 
section, the term ‘‘Southwestern Oregon’’ means the coun-
ties of Benton, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Linn, and Jo-
sephine, Oregon. 
(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary 
may establish a program to provide environmental assist-
ance to non-Federal interests in Southwestern Oregon. 
(c) 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 Southwestern Oregon, including projects for 
wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply 
and related facilities, environmental restoration, and sur-
face water resource protection and development. 
(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may 
provide assistance for a project under this section only if 
the project is publicly owned. 
(e) 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
164 
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. 
(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 carried out under this sec-
tion— 
(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
165 
project that is the subject of a partnership 
agreement under this section, the non-Federal 
interest shall receive credit for reasonable inter-
est incurred in providing the non-Federal share 
of the project cost. 
(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), but such 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. 
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
166 
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be 
appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section. 
(2) CORPS
OF
ENGINEERS
EXPENSE.—Not 
more than 10 percent of the amounts made available 
to carry out this section may be used by the Corps 
of Engineers district offices to administer projects 
under this section at Federal expense. 
SEC. 333. JOHN P. MURTHA LOCKS AND DAM. 
(a) DESIGNATION.—Locks and Dam 4, Monongahela 
River, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(18) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4803), and commonly known as the ‘‘Charleroi Locks and 
Dam’’, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John P. 
Murtha Locks and Dam’’. 
(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg-
ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
States to the locks and dam referred to in subsection (a) 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John P. Murtha 
Locks and Dam’’. 
SEC. 334. WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TENNESSEE. 
Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
project for navigation, Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee, au-
thorized by section 202 of the National Industrial Recov-
ery Act (48 Stat. 201; 49 Stat. 1034; 72 Stat. 308), is 
modified to reduce, in part, the authorized dimensions of
167 
the project, such that the remaining authorized dimen-
sions are as follows: 
(1) A 250-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with 
a center line beginning at an approximate point of 
35.139634, -90.062343 and extending approximately 
1,300 feet to an approximate point of 35.142077, 
-90.059107. 
(2) A 200-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with 
a center line beginning at an approximate point of 
35.142077, -90.059107 and extending approximately 
1,800 feet to an approximate point of 35.1467861, 
-90.057003. 
(3) A 250-foot-wide, 9-foot-depth channel with 
a center line beginning at an approximate point of 
35.1467861, -90.057003 and extending approxi-
mately 5,550 feet to an approximate point of 
35.160848, -90.050566. 
SEC. 335. ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS, TEXAS. 
The Secretary is authorized to provide, pursuant to 
section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
709a), information and advice to non-Federal interests on 
the removal of sediment obstructing inflow channels to the 
Addicks and Barker Reservoirs, authorized pursuant to 
the project for Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, Texas,
168 
under section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (chapter 
699, 53 Stat. 1414; 68 Stat. 1258). 
SEC. 336. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, 
TEXAS. 
The project for ecosystem restoration and storm dam-
age reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, 
Texas, authorized under section 556 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), shall 
not be eligible for repair and restoration assistance under 
section 5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 
701n(a)). 
SEC. 337. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA. 
Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 371) is amended by striking subsection 
(a) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.—In 
this section, the term ‘central West Virginia’ means the 
counties of Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, Hardy, Hampshire, 
Morgan, Berkeley, Jefferson, Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, 
Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, 
Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Min-
eral, Grant, Brooke, and Ritchie, West Virginia.’’. 
SEC. 338. PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON. 
In carrying out the project for ecosystem restoration, 
Puget Sound, Washington, authorized by section 1401(4)
169 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 
Stat. 1713), the Secretary shall consider the removal and 
replacement of the Highway 101 causeway and bridges at 
the Duckabush River Estuary site to be a project feature, 
and not a relocation, and the Federal share of the costs 
of such removal and replacement shall be 65 percent. 
SEC. 339. WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT ON 
THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS 
WATERWAY SYSTEM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a 
pilot project on water level management, as part of the 
operations and maintenance of the 9-foot channel projects 
of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Sys-
tem, to help redress the degrading influences of prolonged 
inundation or sedimentation on such projects, and to im-
prove the quality and quantity of habitat available for fish 
and wildlife. 
(b) CONDITIONS ON DRAWDOWNS.—In carrying out 
the pilot project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
carry out routine and systemic water level drawdowns of 
the pools created by the Upper Mississippi River and Illi-
nois Waterway System locks and dams, including 
drawdowns during the growing season, when—
170 
(1) hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to 
carry out a drawdown within applicable dam oper-
ating plans; or 
(2) hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to 
carry out a drawdown and sufficient funds are avail-
able to the Secretary to carry out any additional ac-
tivities that may be required to ensure that the 
drawdown does not adversely affect navigation. 
(c) COORDINATION AND NOTIFICATION.— 
(1) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall use 
existing coordination and consultation processes to 
regularly consult with other relevant Federal agen-
cies and States regarding the planning and assess-
ment of water level management actions imple-
mented under this section. 
(2) NOTIFICATION.—Prior to carrying out any 
water level management plan pursuant to this sec-
tion, the Secretary shall provide notice to the public 
and to navigation interests and other interested 
stakeholders. 
(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Upper 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System’’ has the 
meaning given that term in section 8001 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 652 note).
171 
SEC. 340. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PROTECTION. 
Section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and De-
velopment Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 132 Stat. 3812) 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(f) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not rec-
ommend deauthorization of the Upper St. Anthony Falls 
Lock and Dam pursuant to the disposition study carried 
out under subsection (d) unless the Secretary identifies 
a willing and capable non-Federal public entity to assume 
ownership of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. 
‘‘(g) MODIFICATION.—The Secretary is authorized to 
investigate 
the 
feasibility 
of 
modifying, 
prior 
to 
deauthorizing, the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and 
Dam to add ecosystem restoration, including the preven-
tion and control of invasive species, water supply, and 
recreation as authorized purposes.’’. 
SEC. 341. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN BENEFITS AND COSTS. 
Section 152(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2213a(a)) is amended by striking 
‘‘a flood risk management project that incidentally gen-
erates seismic safety benefits in regions’’ and inserting ‘‘a 
flood risk management or coastal storm risk management 
project in a region’’.
172 
SEC. 342. DEBRIS REMOVAL. 
Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 
603a), is amended by striking ‘‘or recreation’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘ecosystem restoration, or recreation’’. 
SEC. 343. GENERAL REAUTHORIZATIONS. 
(a) 
LEVEE
SAFETY
INITIATIVE.—Section 
9005(g)(2)(E)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a(g)(2)(E)(i)) is amended by 
striking ‘‘2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2026’’. 
(b) TRANSFER OF EXCESS CREDIT.—Section 1020 
of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 
2014 (33 U.S.C. 2223) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘10 years 
after the date of enactment of this Act’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘on December 31, 2026’’; and 
(2) in subsection (e)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘10 
years after the date of enactment of this Act’’ and 
inserting ‘‘December 31, 2026’’. 
(c) REHABILITATION OF EXISTING LEVEES.—Sec-
tion 3017(e) of the Water Resources Reform and Develop-
ment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3303a note) is amended by 
striking ‘‘the date that is 10 years after the date of enact-
ment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2026’’. 
(d) INVASIVE SPECIES
IN ALPINE LAKES PILOT 
PROJECT.—Section 507(c) of the Water Resources Devel-
173 
opment Act of 2020 (16 U.S.C. 4701 note) is amended 
by striking ‘‘2024’’ and inserting ‘‘2026’’. 
(e) ENVIRONMENTAL BANKS.—Section 309(e) of the 
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration 
Act (16 U.S.C. 3957(e)) is amended by striking ‘‘10’’ and 
inserting ‘‘12’’. 
SEC. 344. CONVEYANCES. 
(a) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.— 
(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.— 
The exact acreage and the legal description of any 
real property or easement to be conveyed under this 
section shall be determined by a survey that is satis-
factory to the Secretary. 
(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING 
PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United 
States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance 
under this section. 
(3) COSTS
OF
CONVEYANCE.—An entity to 
which a conveyance is made under this section shall 
be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, 
including real estate transaction and environmental 
documentation costs, associated with the conveyance. 
(4) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a convey-
ance is made under this section shall hold the 
United States harmless from any liability with re-
174 
spect to activities carried out, on or after the date 
of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. 
The United States shall remain responsible for any 
liability with respect to activities carried out, before 
such date, on the real property conveyed. 
(5) ADDITIONAL
TERMS
AND
CONDITIONS.— 
The Secretary may require that any conveyance 
under this section be subject to such additional 
terms and conditions as the Secretary considers nec-
essary and appropriate to protect the interests of the 
United States. 
(b) SARDIS LAKE, PANOLA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.— 
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary 
is authorized to convey to the City of Sardis, Mis-
sissippi, all right, title, and interest of the United 
States in and to the real property described in para-
graph (2). 
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is 
the approximately 1,064 acres of lying in the eastern 
half of Sections 12 and 13, T 8 S, R 6 W and the 
western half of Section 18 and the western half of 
Section 7, T 8 S, R 5 W, in Panola County, Mis-
sissippi, and being more particularly described as 
follows: Begin at the southeast corner of said Sec-
tion 13, run thence from said point of beginning,
175 
along the south line of said Section 13, run westerly, 
2,723 feet; thence run N 27°39’53’’ W, for 1,898 
feet; thence run north 2,434 feet; thence run east, 
1,006 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly 
edge of Mississippi State Highway No. 315; thence 
run along said easterly edge of highway, northerly, 
for 633 feet; thence leaving said easterly edge of 
highway, run N 62°00’ E, for 200 feet; thence N 
07°00’ E, for 1,350 feet; thence N 07°00’ W, for 
800 feet; thence N 37°30’W for 800 feet; thence N 
10°00’ W for 350 feet; thence N 11°00’ E, for 350 
feet; thence N 43°30’ E for 250 feet; thence N 
88°00’ E for 200 feet; thence S 64°00’ E for 350 
feet; thence S 25°30’ E, for 650 feet, more or less, 
to the intersection of the east line of the western 
half of the eastern half of the northwest quarter of 
the southeast quarter of the aforesaid Section 12, T 
8 S, R 6 W and the 235-foot contour; thence run 
along said 235-foot contour, 6,392 feet; thence leav-
ing said 235-foot contour, southerly 1,762 feet, more 
or less, to a point on the south line of Section 7; 
thence S 00°28’49’’ E, 2,664.97 feet, more or less, 
to a point on the south line of the northwest quarter 
of said Section 18; thence along said south line, eas-
terly for 100 feet, more or less to the northwest cor-
177 
06°47’17’’ W, 142.81 feet to a point; running thence 
S 85°24’02’’ E, 254.37 feet to the point of begin-
ning, containing 1.00 acre, more or less. 
(3) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall re-
serve and retain from the conveyance under this 
subsection such easements, rights-of-way, and 
other interests that the Secretary determines to 
be necessary and appropriate to ensure the con-
tinued operation of the Sardis Lake project, au-
thorized by section 6 of the Act of May 15, 
1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 536). 
(B) FLOODING; LIABILITY.—In addition to 
any easements, rights-of-way, and other inter-
ests reserved an retained under subparagraph 
(A), the Secretary— 
(i) shall retain the right to flood land 
for downstream flood control purposes 
on— 
(I) the land located east of 
Blackjack Road and below 301.0 feet 
above sea level; and 
(II) the land located west of 
Blackjack Road and below 224.0 feet 
above sea level; and
178 
(ii) shall not be liable for any reason-
able damage resulting from any flooding of 
land pursuant to clause (i). 
(4) DEED.—The Secretary shall— 
(A) convey the property under this section 
by quitclaim deed under such terms and condi-
tions as the Secretary determines appropriate 
to protect the interests of the United States; 
and 
(B) ensure that such deed includes a per-
manent restriction that all future building of 
above-ground structures on the land conveyed 
under this subsection shall be restricted to 
areas lying at or above 301.0 feet above sea 
level. 
(5) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Sardis, Mis-
sissippi, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that 
is not less than the fair market value of the property 
conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the 
Secretary. 
(6) NOTICE AND REPORTING.—After conveying 
property under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
submit to the City of Sardis, Mississippi— 
(A) weekly reports describing—
179 
(i) the water level of Sardis Lake, as 
in effect on the date of submission of the 
report; 
(ii) any applicable forecasts of that 
water level; and 
(iii) any other information that may 
affect land conveyed under this subsection; 
and 
(B) a timely notice of any anticipated 
flooding of a portion of the land conveyed under 
this subsection. 
(c) ROGERS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.— 
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary 
is authorized to convey to the City of Tulsa-Rogers 
County Port Authority, all right, title, and interest 
of the United States in and to the real property de-
scribed in paragraph (2). 
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed 
under this subsection is the approximately 176 acres 
of Federal land located on the following 3 parcels in 
Rogers County, Oklahoma: 
(A) Parcel 1 consists of U.S. tract 119 
(partial), U.S. tract 123, U.S. tract 120, U.S. 
tract 125, and U.S. tract 118 (partial).
180 
(B) Parcel 2 consists of U.S. tract 124 
(partial) and U.S. tract 128 (partial). 
(C) Parcel 3 consists of U.S. tract 128 
(partial). 
(3) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary 
shall reserve and retain from any conveyance under 
this subsection such easements, rights-of-way, and 
other interests that the Secretary determines to be 
necessary and appropriate to ensure the continued 
operation of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
navigation project (including Newt Graham Lock 
and Dam 18) authorized under the comprehensive 
plan for the Arkansas River Basin by the Act of 
June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218; 60 
Stat. 634; 60 Stat. 647; 101 Stat. 1329–112; 117 
Stat. 1842). 
(4) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the 
property under this subsection by quitclaim deed 
under such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
determines appropriate to protect the interests of 
the United States. 
(5) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Tulsa-Rog-
ers County Port Authority shall pay to the Secretary 
an amount that is not less than the fair market
181 
value of the property conveyed under this subsection, 
as determined by the Secretary. 
(d) REGIONAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS OFFICE, COR-
PUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.— 
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—At such time 
as new facilities are available to be used as the office 
for the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers, 
the Secretary shall convey to the Port of Corpus 
Christi, all right, title, and interest of the United 
States in and to the property described in paragraph 
(2). 
(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The property 
referred to in paragraph (1) is the land known as 
Tract 100 and Tract 101, including improvements 
on that land, in Corpus Christi, Texas, and de-
scribed as follows: 
(A) TRACT 100.—The 1.89 acres, more or 
less, as conveyed by the Nueces County Naviga-
tion District No. 1 of Nueces County, Texas, to 
the United States by instrument dated October 
16, 1928, and recorded at Volume 193, pages 
1 and 2, in the Deed Records of Nueces Coun-
ty, Texas. 
(B) TRACT 101.—The 0.53 acres as con-
veyed by the City of Corpus Christi, Nueces
182 
County, Texas, to the United States by instru-
ment dated September 24, 1971, and recorded 
at Volume 318, pages 523 and 524, in the 
Deed Records of Nueces County, Texas. 
(C) IMPROVEMENTS.— 
(i) Main Building (RPUID AO–C– 
3516), constructed January 9, 1974. 
(ii) Garage, vehicle with 5 bays 
(RPUID AO–C–3517), constructed Janu-
ary 9, 1985. 
(iii) Bulkhead, Upper (RPUID AO– 
C–2658), constructed January 1, 1941. 
(iv) Bulkhead, Lower (RPUID AO– 
C–3520), constructed January 1, 1933. 
(v) Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C– 
3521), constructed January 9, 1985. 
(vi) Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C– 
3522), constructed January 9, 1985. 
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the 
property under this subsection by quitclaim deed 
under such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
determines appropriate to protect the interests of 
the United States. 
(4) CONSIDERATION.—The Port of Corpus 
Christi shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is
183 
not less than the fair market value of the property 
(including improvements) conveyed under this sub-
section, as determined by the Secretary. 
SEC. 345. 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) is amended by adding at the 
end the following: 
‘‘(274) CHANDLER, ARIZONA.—$18,750,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of 
Chandler, Arizona. 
‘‘(275) PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA.—$40,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pinal 
County, Arizona. 
‘‘(276) TEMPE, 
ARIZONA.—$37,500,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water reclamation and groundwater recharge, for the 
City of Tempe, Arizona. 
‘‘(277) 
BELL
GARDENS, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$12,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water recycling and water supply, in 
the city of Bell Gardens, California. 
‘‘(278) CALIMESA, 
CALIFORNIA.—$3,500,000 
for stormwater management and water supply infra-
185 
and for Avocado Heights, Bassett, and Valinda, 
California. 
‘‘(284) ESCONDIDO
CREEK, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$34,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, in the vi-
cinity of Escondido Creek, city of Escondido, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(285) FONTANA, CALIFORNIA.—$16,000,000 
for stormwater management infrastructure in the 
city of Fontana, California. 
‘‘(286) 
HEALDSBURG, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$23,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water recycling and water supply, in 
the city of Healdsburg, California. 
‘‘(287) 
INLAND
EMPIRE, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply, in Riverside County 
and San Bernardino County, California. 
‘‘(288) 
MARIN
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply, in Marin County, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(289) MAYWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure in the city of May-
wood, California.
186 
‘‘(290) MONTEREY PENINSULA, CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, and water supply, on the Monterey Peninsula, 
California. 
‘‘(291) 
NORTH
RICHMOND, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including coastal flooding resilience measures 
for such infrastructure, in North Richmond, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(292) ONTARIO, 
CALIFORNIA.—$40,700,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water recycling and water supply, in the city of On-
tario, California. 
‘‘(293) 
PARAMOUNT, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, in the city 
of Paramount, California. 
‘‘(294) PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.—$13,700,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water recycling, in the city of Petaluma, California. 
‘‘(295) RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.—$27,500,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rialto, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(296) RINCON RESERVATION, CALIFORNIA.— 
$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
187 
ture on the Rincon Band of Luisen˜o Indians res-
ervation, California. 
‘‘(297) SACRAMENTO-SAN
JOAQUIN
DELTA, 
CALIFORNIA.—$50,000,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure (including stormwater manage-
ment), water supply and related facilities, environ-
mental restoration, and surface water protection and 
development, including flooding resilience measures 
for such infrastructure, in Contra Costa County, 
San Joaquin County, Solano County, Sacramento 
County, and Yolo County, California. 
‘‘(298) SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.— 
$270,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management and water 
recycling, at the San Francisco International Air-
port, California. 
‘‘(299) SAN JOAQUIN AND STANISLAUS, CALI-
FORNIA.—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, 
and water supply, in San Joaquin County and 
Stanislaus County, California. 
‘‘(300) 
SANTA
ROSA, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$19,400,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, in the city of Santa Rosa California.
188 
‘‘(301) 
SIERRA
MADRE, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, and water supply, including earthquake resil-
ience measures for such infrastructure and water 
supply, in the city of Sierra Madre, California. 
‘‘(302) 
SMITH
RIVER, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$25,000,000 
for 
wastewater 
infrastructure 
in 
Howonquet Village and Resort and Tolowa Dee-ni’ 
Nation, Smith River, California. 
‘‘(303) 
TORRANCE, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including groundwater recharge and water sup-
ply, in the city of Torrance, California. 
‘‘(304) WESTERN
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for wastewater infra-
structure in the cities of Pinole, San Pablo, and 
Richmond, and in El Sobrante, California. 
‘‘(305) HEBRON, CONNECTICUT.—$3,700,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town 
of Hebron, Connecticut. 
‘‘(306) 
NEW
LONDON, 
CONNECTICUT.— 
$16,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the 
town of Bozrah and the City of Norwich, Con-
necticut.
189 
‘‘(307) 
WINDHAM, 
CONNECTICUT.— 
$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture in the town of Windham, Connecticut. 
‘‘(308) 
NEW
CASTLE, 
DELAWARE.— 
$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, in New 
Castle County, Delaware. 
‘‘(309) WASHINGTON, DISTRICT
OF
COLUM-
BIA.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure, including stormwater management, in 
Washington, District of Columbia. 
‘‘(310) 
LONGBOAT
KEY, 
FLORIDA.— 
$12,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture in the town of Longboat Key, Florida. 
‘‘(311) MARTIN, ST. LUCIE, AND PALM BEACH 
COUNTIES, FLORIDA.—$100,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, to improve water quality in the St. 
Lucie River, Indian River Lagoon, and Lake Worth 
Lagoon in Martin County, St. Lucie County, and 
Palm Beach County, Florida. 
‘‘(312) POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Polk County, Florida.
190 
‘‘(313) OKEECHOBEE
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.— 
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Okee-
chobee County, Florida. 
‘‘(314) 
ORANGE
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.— 
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water reclamation and water supply, 
in Orange County, Florida. 
‘‘(315) GUAM.—$10,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in Guam. 
‘‘(316) 
COUNTY
OF
HAWAI‘I, 
HAWAII.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, in the 
County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii. 
‘‘(317) HONOLULU, HAWAII.—$20,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the City and County of 
Honolulu, Hawaii. 
‘‘(318) 
KAUA‘I, 
HAWAII.—$20,000,000 
for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the County of Kaua‘i, 
Hawaii. 
‘‘(319) MAUI, HAWAII.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the County of Maui, Hawaii.
191 
‘‘(320) DIXMOOR, ILLINOIS.—$15,000,000 for 
water and water supply infrastructure in the village 
of Dixmoor, Illinois. 
‘‘(321) FOREST PARK, ILLINOIS.—$10,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the village of Forest Park, Illinois. 
‘‘(322) LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—$10,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Lake County, Illinois. 
‘‘(323) LEMONT, 
ILLINOIS.—$3,135,000 for 
water infrastructure in the village of Lemont, Illi-
nois. 
‘‘(324) LOCKPORT, ILLINOIS.—$6,550,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the city of Lockport, Illinois. 
‘‘(325) MONTGOMERY
AND
CHRISTIAN
COUN-
TIES, ILLINOIS.—$30,000,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure, including water supply, in 
Montgomery County and Christian County, Illinois. 
‘‘(326) WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—$30,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in Will County, Illinois. 
‘‘(327) 
ORLEANS
PARISH, 
LOUISIANA.— 
$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture in Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
192 
‘‘(328) 
FITCHBURG, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management (including 
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Fitchburg, 
Massachusetts. 
‘‘(329) 
HAVERHILL, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management (including 
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Haverhill, 
Massachusetts. 
‘‘(330) 
LAWRENCE, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management (including 
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lawrence, 
Massachusetts. 
‘‘(331) 
LOWELL, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management (including 
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Lowell, 
Massachusetts. 
‘‘(332) 
METHUEN, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management (including 
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Methuen, 
Massachusetts.
193 
‘‘(333) BOONSBORO, MARYLAND.—$5,000,000 
for water infrastructure, including water supply, in 
the town of Boonsboro, Maryland. 
‘‘(334) BRUNSWICK, MARYLAND.—$15,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city 
of Brunswick, Maryland. 
‘‘(335) CASCADE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, MICHI-
GAN.—$7,200,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure in Cascade Charter Township, Michigan. 
‘‘(336) 
MACOMB
COUNTY, 
MICHIGAN.— 
$40,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in Macomb County, Michi-
gan. 
‘‘(337) 
NORTHFIELD, 
MINNESOTA.— 
$33,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture in the city of Northfield, Minnesota. 
‘‘(338) CENTERTOWN, MISSOURI.—$15,900,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the vil-
lage of Centertown, Missouri. 
‘‘(339) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—$45,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of 
St. Louis, Missouri. 
‘‘(340) 
ST. 
LOUIS
COUNTY, 
MISSOURI.— 
$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture in St. Louis County, Missouri.
194 
‘‘(341) MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of Meridian, 
Mississippi. 
‘‘(342) OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the City of Oxford, Mis-
sissippi. 
‘‘(343) 
MANCHESTER, 
NEW
HAMPSHIRE.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management (including 
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Man-
chester, New Hampshire. 
‘‘(344) BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.—$825,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management (including combined sewer overflows), 
in the city of Bayonne, New Jersey. 
‘‘(345) CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY.—$119,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the city of Camden, New Jersey. 
‘‘(346) ESSEX
AND
SUSSEX
COUNTIES, NEW 
JERSEY.—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater in-
frastructure, including water supply, in Essex Coun-
ty and Sussex County, New Jersey.
195 
‘‘(347) 
FLEMINGTON, 
NEW
JERSEY.— 
$4,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
including 
water 
supply, 
in 
the 
Borough 
of 
Flemington, New Jersey. 
‘‘(348) 
JEFFERSON, 
NEW
JERSEY.— 
$90,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in Jefferson Township, 
New Jersey. 
‘‘(349) KEARNY, NEW
JERSEY.—$69,900,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management (including combined sewer overflows), 
in the town of Kearny, New Jersey. 
‘‘(350) LONG HILL, NEW JERSEY.—$7,500,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Long Hill Township, New Jersey. 
‘‘(351) MORRIS
COUNTY, 
NEW
JERSEY.— 
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture in Morris County, New Jersey. 
‘‘(352) PASSAIC, NEW JERSEY.—$1,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Passaic County, New Jersey. 
‘‘(353) 
PHILLIPSBURG, 
NEW
JERSEY.— 
$2,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the town of Phillips-
burg, New Jersey.
196 
‘‘(354) RAHWAY, NEW
JERSEY.—$3,250,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city 
of Rahway, New Jersey. 
‘‘(355) ROSELLE, NEW
JERSEY.—$5,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the Borough of Roselle, New Jer-
sey. 
‘‘(356) SOUTH
ORANGE
VILLAGE, NEW
JER-
SEY.—$7,500,000 for water infrastructure, including 
water supply, in the Township of South Orange Vil-
lage, New Jersey. 
‘‘(357) SUMMIT, NEW JERSEY.—$1,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the city of Summit, New Jersey. 
‘‘(358) WARREN, NEW
JERSEY.—$4,550,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Warren Township, New Jersey. 
‘‘(359) ESPAN˜OLA, NEW MEXICO.—$21,995,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city 
of Espan˜ola, New Mexico. 
‘‘(360) 
FARMINGTON, 
NEW
MEXICO.— 
$15,500,000 for water infrastructure, including 
water supply, in the city of Farmington, New Mex-
ico.
197 
‘‘(361) 
MORA
COUNTY, 
NEW
MEXICO.— 
$2,874,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Mora 
County, New Mexico. 
‘‘(362) SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO.—$20,700,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water reclamation, in the city of Santa Fe, New 
Mexico. 
‘‘(363) 
CLARKSTOWN, 
NEW
YORK.— 
$14,600,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the town of Clarkstown, 
New York. 
‘‘(364) GENESEE, NEW
YORK.—$85,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management and water supply, in Gen-
esee County, New York. 
‘‘(365) QUEENS, NEW
YORK.—$119,200,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management (including combined sewer 
overflows), in Queens, New York. 
‘‘(366) YORKTOWN, NEW YORK.—$40,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the town of Yorktown, New York. 
‘‘(367) BRUNSWICK, 
OHIO.—$4,510,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the city of Brunswick, Ohio.
198 
‘‘(368) BROOKINGS, OREGON.—$2,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure in the City of Brookings 
and the Port of Brookings Harbor, Oregon. 
‘‘(369) MONROE, 
OREGON.—$6,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of 
Monroe, Oregon. 
‘‘(370) NEWPORT, OREGON.—$60,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply and water storage, in the city of New-
port, Oregon. 
‘‘(371) LANE COUNTY, OREGON.—$25,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply and storage, distribution, and treat-
ment systems, in Lane County, Oregon. 
‘‘(372) 
PALMYRA, 
PENNSYLVANIA.— 
$36,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Pal-
myra Township, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(373) 
PIKE
COUNTY, 
PENNSYLVANIA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and stormwater management 
infrastructure, including water supply, in Pike Coun-
ty, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(374) 
PITTSBURGH, 
PENNSYLVANIA.— 
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania.
199 
‘‘(375) POCONO, PENNSYLVANIA.—$22,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pocono 
Township, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(376) 
WESTFALL, 
PENNSYLVANIA.— 
$16,880,000 
for 
wastewater 
infrastructure 
in 
Westfall Township, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(377) 
WHITEHALL, 
PENNSYLVANIA.— 
$6,000,000 for stormwater management infrastruc-
ture in Whitehall Township and South Whitehall 
Township, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(378) 
BEAUFORT, 
SOUTH
CAROLINA.— 
$7,462,000 for stormwater management infrastruc-
ture in Beaufort County, South Carolina. 
‘‘(379) 
CHARLESTON, 
SOUTH
CAROLINA.— 
$25,583,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of Charleston, 
South Carolina. 
‘‘(380) MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA.— 
$7,822,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the town of Mount 
Pleasant, South Carolina. 
‘‘(381) PORTLAND, TENNESSEE.—$1,850,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply, in the city of Portland, Tennessee.
200 
‘‘(382) 
SMITH
COUNTY, 
TENNESSEE.— 
$19,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in Smith County, Ten-
nessee. 
‘‘(383) TROUSDALE, 
MACON, 
AND
SUMNER 
COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.—$178,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure in Trousdale County, 
Macon County, and Sumner County, Tennessee. 
‘‘(384) 
VIRGIN
ISLANDS.—$1,584,000 
for 
wastewater infrastructure in the United States Vir-
gin Islands. 
‘‘(385) 
BONNEY
LAKE, 
WASHINGTON.— 
$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure 
in the city of Bonney Lake, Washington. 
‘‘(386) BURIEN, WASHINGTON.—$5,000,000 for 
stormwater management infrastructure in the city of 
Burien, Washington. 
‘‘(387) 
ELLENSBURG, 
WASHINGTON.— 
$3,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of Ellensburg, 
Washington. 
‘‘(388) 
NORTH
BEND, 
WASHINGTON.— 
$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of North Bend, 
Washington.
201 
‘‘(389) 
PORT
ANGELES, 
WASHINGTON.— 
$7,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the City and Port of 
Port Angeles, Washington. 
‘‘(390) SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.— 
$56,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply, in Snohomish County, 
Washington. 
‘‘(391) 
WESTERN
WASHINGTON
STATE.— 
$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, water sup-
ply, and conservation, in Chelan County, King Coun-
ty, Kittitas County, Pierce County, Snohomish 
County, Skagit County, and Whatcom County, 
Washington. 
‘‘(392) MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.—$4,500,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management (including combined sewer overflows), 
in the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.’’. 
(b) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.— 
(1) CONSISTENCY
WITH
REPORTS.—Congress 
finds that the project modifications described in this 
subsection are in accordance with the reports sub-
mitted to Congress by the Secretary under section 
7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Develop-
202 
ment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled ‘‘Report 
to Congress on Future Water Resources Develop-
ment’’, or have otherwise been reviewed by Congress. 
(2) MODIFICATIONS.— 
(A) SACRAMENTO
AREA, CALIFORNIA.— 
Section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840; 134 Stat. 2718) is 
amended by striking ‘‘Suburban’’. 
(B) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 
Section 219(f)(93) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840; 121 Stat. 1259) is 
amended— 
(i) by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ and in-
serting ‘‘$103,000,000’’; 
(ii) by striking ‘‘wastewater and water 
related 
infrastructure,’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘water and wastewater infrastructure, in-
cluding stormwater management,’’; and 
(iii) by inserting ‘‘Dominguez Chan-
nel, Santa Clarita Valley,’’ after ‘‘La 
Habra Heights,’’. 
(C) BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO.—Sec-
tion 219(f)(109) of the Water Resources Devel-
203 
opment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
334; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by 
striking ‘‘$10,000,000 for water supply infra-
structure’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management and water supply’’. 
(D) CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Sec-
tion 219(f)(121) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking 
‘‘$3,000,000 for’’ and inserting ‘‘$33,000,000 
for wastewater and’’. 
(E) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Sec-
tion 219(f)(128) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking 
‘‘$6,250,000 for’’ and inserting ‘‘$190,250,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including’’. 
(F) 
ALBANY, 
GEORGIA.—Section 
219(f)(130) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking 
‘‘$4,000,000 for a storm drainage system,’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$109,000,000 for wastewater infra-
204 
structure, including stormwater management 
(including combined sewer overflows),’’. 
(G) 
ATLANTA, 
GEORGIA.—Section 
219(e)(5) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 
113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking 
‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$75,000,000’’. 
(H) 
EAST
POINT, 
GEORGIA.—Section 
219(f)(136) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking 
‘‘$5,000,000 for’’ and inserting ‘‘$15,000,000 
for stormwater management and other’’. 
(I) COOK
COUNTY, 
ILLINOIS.—Section 
219(f)(54) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 
114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by striking 
‘‘$35,000,000 
for’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$100,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, 
including stormwater management, and other’’. 
(J) CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.—Section 
219(f)(12)(A) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
336; 117 Stat. 1843; 121 Stat. 1225) is
205 
amended by striking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and in-
serting ‘‘$125,000,000’’. 
(K) BATON
ROUGE, LOUISIANA.—Section 
219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 
114 Stat. 2763A–220; 121 Stat. 1226) is 
amended by striking ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘$90,000,000’’. 
(L) SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNING AND DE-
VELOPMENT COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.—Section 
219(f)(153) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
336; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended by striking 
‘‘$2,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$12,500,000’’. 
(M) 
ST. 
CHARLES, 
ST. 
BERNARD, 
PLAQUEMINES, ST. JOHN
THE
BAPTIST, ST. 
JAMES, 
AND
ASSUMPTION
PARISHES, 
LOU-
ISIANA.— 
(i) ST. CHARLES, ST. BERNARD, AND 
PLAQUEMINES
PARISHES, 
LOUISIANA.— 
Section 219(c)(33) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is 
amended by striking ‘‘Water and waste-
water 
infrastructure’’ 
and 
inserting
206 
‘‘Water supply and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater infrastructure’’. 
(ii) ST. 
JOHN
THE
BAPTIST, 
ST. 
JAMES, AND ASSUMPTION PARISHES, LOU-
ISIANA.—Section 219(c)(34) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 
2763A–219) is amended— 
(I) in the paragraph heading, by 
striking ‘‘BAPTIST
AND
ST. JAMES’’ 
and inserting ‘‘BAPTIST, ST. JAMES, 
AND ASSUMPTION’’; and 
(II) by striking ‘‘Baptist and St. 
James’’ and inserting ‘‘Baptist, St. 
James, and Assumption’’. 
(iii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-
TIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.— 
Section 219(e) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 
1192) is amended— 
(I) by striking the ‘‘and’’ at the 
end of paragraph (16);
207 
(II) by striking the period at the 
end of paragraph (17) and inserting a 
semicolon; and 
(III) by adding at the end the 
following: 
‘‘(18) $70,000,000 for the project described in 
subsection (c)(33); and 
‘‘(19) $36,000,000 for the project described in 
subsection (c)(34).’’. 
(N) MICHIGAN
COMBINED
SEWER
OVER-
FLOWS.—Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262) is 
amended by striking ‘‘correction of combined 
sewer overflows’’ and inserting ‘‘water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management (including correction of combined 
sewer overflows)’’. 
(O) 
ALLEGHENY
COUNTY, 
PENNSYL-
VANIA.—Section 219(f)(66)(A) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–221; 
121 Stat. 1240) is amended by striking 
‘‘$20,000,000 for’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000
209 
SEC. 
346. 
ADDITIONAL 
ASSISTANCE 
FOR 
CRITICAL 
PROJECTS. 
(a) CONSISTENCY WITH REPORTS.—Congress finds 
that the project modifications described in this section are 
in accordance with the reports submitted to Congress by 
the Secretary under section 7001 of the Water Resources 
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), 
titled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water Resources 
Development’’, or have otherwise been reviewed by Con-
gress. 
(b) PROJECTS.— 
(1) CHESAPEAKE
BAY.—Section 510(a)(2) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202; 128 Stat. 1317) is 
amended— 
(A) by inserting ‘‘infrastructure and’’ be-
fore ‘‘resource protection’’; 
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) 
and (F) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respec-
tively; and 
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) 
the following: 
‘‘(E) wastewater treatment and related fa-
cilities; 
‘‘(F) water supply and related facilities;’’.
210 
(2) NEW
YORK
CITY
WATERSHED.—Section 
552(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3780) is amended— 
(A) by striking ‘‘design and construction 
assistance’’ and inserting ‘‘design, repair, re-
placement, and construction assistance’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘treatment, and distribu-
tion 
facilities’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘treatment, 
stormwater management, and water distribution 
facilities’’. 
(3) SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 
566 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (110 Stat. 3786; 113 Stat. 352) is amended— 
(A) by striking the section heading and in-
serting 
‘‘SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA 
AND LOWER DELAWARE RIVER BASIN.’’; 
(B) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘and 
the Lower Delaware River Basin’’ after ‘‘south-
eastern Pennsylvania’’; 
(C) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘south-
eastern Pennsylvania, including projects for 
waste water treatment and related facilities,’’ 
and inserting ‘‘southeastern Pennsylvania and 
the Lower Delaware River Basin, including 
projects for wastewater treatment and related
211 
facilities (including sewer overflow infrastruc-
ture improvements and other stormwater man-
agement),’’; 
(D) by amending subsection (g) to read as 
follows: 
‘‘(g) AREAS DEFINED.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) LOWER
DELAWARE
RIVER
BASIN.—The 
term ‘Lower Delaware River Basin’ means the 
Schuylkill Valley, Upper Estuary, Lower Estuary, 
and Delaware Bay subwatersheds of the Delaware 
River Basin in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
and the States of New Jersey and Delaware. 
‘‘(2) 
SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA.—The 
term ‘southeastern Pennsylvania’ means Philadel-
phia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery 
Counties, Pennsylvania.’’; and 
(E) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘to carry 
out this section $25,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$50,000,000 to provide assistance under this 
section to non-Federal interests in southeastern 
Pennsylvania, and $20,000,000 to provide as-
sistance under this section to non-Federal inter-
ests in the Lower Delaware River Basin’’. 
(4) FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVE-
MENTS, FLORIDA.—Section 109 of division B of the
212 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 
106–554, appendix D, 114 Stat. 2763A–222; 121 
Stat. 1217) is amended, in subsection (f), by strik-
ing ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$200,000,000’’. 
(5) 
NORTHEASTERN
MINNESOTA.—Section 
569(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 (113 Stat. 368; 121 Stat. 1232) is amended 
by 
striking 
‘‘$54,000,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$80,000,000’’. 
(6) MISSISSIPPI.—Section 592 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 379; 
117 Stat. 1837; 121 Stat. 1233; 123 Stat. 2851) is 
amended— 
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘and sur-
face water resource protection and develop-
ment’’ and inserting ‘‘surface water resource 
protection and development, stormwater man-
agement, and drainage systems’’; and 
(B) 
in 
subsection 
(g), 
by 
striking 
‘‘$200,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$300,000,000’’. 
(7) LAKE TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NEVADA 
AND CALIFORNIA.—Section 108(g) of division C of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public 
Law 108–447; 118 Stat. 2942) is amended by strik-
ing ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’.
213 
(8) CENTRAL
NEW
MEXICO.—Section 593 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 380; 119 Stat. 2255) is amended— 
(A) 
in 
subsection 
(a), 
by 
inserting 
‘‘Colfax,’’ before ‘‘Sandoval’’; 
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘water 
reuse,’’ after ‘‘conservation,’’; and 
(C) 
in 
subsection 
(h), 
by 
striking 
‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’. 
(9) SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 
313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 
3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat. 1146; 
134 
Stat. 
2719) 
is 
amended 
by 
striking 
‘‘$400,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$410,000,000’’. 
(10) OHIO AND NORTH DAKOTA.—Section 594 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
(113 Stat. 381; 119 Stat. 2261; 121 Stat. 1140; 
121 Stat. 1944) is amended in subsection (h), by 
striking 
‘‘$240,000,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$250,000,000’’. 
(11) TEXAS.—Section 5138 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250) 
is 
amended, 
in 
subsection 
(g), 
by 
striking 
‘‘$40,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$80,000,000’’.
214 
(12) LAKE
CHAMPLAIN, VERMONT
AND
NEW 
YORK.—Section 542 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 
1150; 134 Stat. 2652) is amended— 
(A) in subsection (b)(2)(C), by striking 
‘‘planning’’ and inserting ‘‘clean water infra-
structure planning, design, and construction’’; 
and 
(B) 
in 
subsection 
(g), 
by 
striking 
‘‘$32,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’. 
(13) WESTERN RURAL WATER.—Section 595 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 
1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 1219; 123 Stat. 
2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681; 134 Stat. 
2719) is amended— 
(A) in subsection (i)(1), by striking 
‘‘$435,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$800,000,000’’; 
and 
(B) in subsection (i)(2), by striking 
‘‘$150,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$200,000,000’’. 
(c) EFFECT ON AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding 
the operation of section 6001(e) of the Water Resources 
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (as in effect on the 
day before the date of enactment of the Water Resources
215 
Development Act of 2016), any project included on a list 
published by the Secretary pursuant to such section the 
authorization for which is amended by this section remains 
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary. 
SEC. 347. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LEASE AGREEMENT. 
It is the sense of Congress that the lease agreement 
for land and water areas within the Prado Flood Control 
Basin Project Area entered into between the Secretary 
and the City of Corona, California, for operations of the 
Corona 
Municipal 
Airport 
(Recreation 
Lease 
No. 
DACW09–1–67–60), is a valid lease of land at a water 
resources development project under section 4 of the Act 
of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d). 
SEC. 348. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES. 
Section 103(k)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)(4)(B)) is amend-
ed by striking ‘‘2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2032’’. 
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-
216 
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.— 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. AK 
Elim Subsistence 
Harbor Study, 
Elim 
March 12, 
2021 
Federal: $74,905,000 
Non-Federal: $1,896,000 
Total: $76,801,000 
2. CA 
Port of Long 
Beach Deep 
Draft Naviga-
tion, Los Ange-
les County 
October 14, 
2021 and 
May 31, 
2022 
Federal: $73,533,500 
Non-Federal: $74,995,500 
Total: $148,529,000 
3. GA 
Brunswick Harbor 
Modifications, 
Glynn County 
March 11, 
2022 
Federal: $10,774,500 
Non-Federal: $3,594,500 
Total: $14,369,000 
4. WA 
Tacoma Harbor 
Navigation Im-
provement 
Project 
May 26, 
2022 
Federal: $120,701,000 
Non-Federal: $174,627,000 
Total: $295,328,000 
(2) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.— 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. AL 
Selma Flood Risk 
Management 
and Bank Sta-
bilization 
October 7, 
2021 
Federal: $15,533,100 
Non-Federal: $8,363,900 
Total: $23,897,000
220 
TITLE V—COLUMBIA RIVER 
BASIN RESTORATION 
SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS. 
In this title: 
(1) CONTINUING
AUTHORITY
PROGRAM.—The 
term ‘‘continuing authority program’’ has the mean-
ing given that term in section 7001(c)(1)(D)(iii) of 
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act 
of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d(c)(1)(D)(iii)). 
(2) COVERED
STATE.—The term ‘‘covered 
State’’ means the State of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, 
or Washington. 
(3) COVERED
TRIBE.—The term ‘‘covered 
Tribe’’ means an Indian Tribe that has treaty land 
or treaty rights in relationship to the Columbia 
River Basin in a covered State. 
(4) LOWER
SNAKE
RIVER
DAMS.—The term 
‘‘Lower Snake River Dams’’ means the dams on the 
Lower Snake River authorized by section 2 of the 
Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 21). 
(5) TASK
FORCE.—The term ‘‘Task Force’’ 
means the Columbia River Basin Task Force estab-
lished under section 503.
221 
(6) TRUST.—The term ‘‘Trust’’ means the Co-
lumbia River Basin Trust established under section 
502. 
SEC. 502. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN TRUST. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 60 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall es-
tablish a committee to be known as the Columbia River 
Basin Trust. 
(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Trust shall be composed of 
the following: 
(1) 8 members appointed by the Secretary, 
which shall represent equally the various interests of 
the public in the Columbia River Basin, including 
representatives of— 
(A) agriculture groups; 
(B) environmental or conservation organi-
zations; 
(C) the hydroelectric power industry; 
(D) recreation user groups; 
(E) marine transportation groups; and 
(F) other appropriate interests, as deter-
mined by the Secretary. 
(2) 4 representatives of each covered State, in-
cluding at least 1 member of each applicable State 
government, appointed by the Secretary on the rec-
222 
ommendation of the Governor of the applicable 
State. 
(3) 1 representative of each covered Tribe, ap-
pointed by the Secretary on the recommendation of 
the applicable Tribe. 
SEC. 503. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN TASK FORCE. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 60 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall es-
tablish a task force, to be known as the Columbia River 
Basin Task Force. 
(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Task Force shall be com-
posed of— 
(1) a representative of the Corps of Engineers, 
who shall serve as Chairperson; 
(2) a representative of the Department of Agri-
culture; 
(3) a representative of the Bureau of Reclama-
tion; 
(4) a representative of the Bureau of Indian Af-
fairs; 
(5) a representative of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service; 
(6) a representative of the Bonneville Power 
Administration; and 
(7) each member of the Trust.
223 
(c) DUTIES.—The Task Force shall— 
(1) meet not less frequently than 4 times each 
year; 
(2) establish procedures for the preparation and 
approval of the restoration plan under subsection 
(e), which shall include a requirement that any final 
restoration plan be approved by at least 2/3 of the 
members of the Task Force; and 
(3) prepare the restoration plan in accordance 
with subsection (e), including— 
(A) reviewing restoration projects that may 
be included in the restoration plan; and 
(B) developing recommendations to be in-
cluded in the restoration plan. 
(d) ASSESSMENT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 months 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary shall transmit to the Task Force a report 
containing the results of an assessment, carried out 
at full Federal expense, of water resources needs in 
the Columbia River Basin, including an assessment 
of— 
(A) the effects of the Lower Snake River 
Dams on the Federal, State, and regional 
economies;
224 
(B) the effects in the Columbia River 
Basin of the Lower Snake River Dams on— 
(i) recreation; 
(ii) hydropower generation and associ-
ated carbon emissions reductions; 
(iii) water supplies; 
(iv) flood control; 
(v) marine transportation; 
(vi) fish and wildlife, particularly 
anadromous salmonids and other species 
listed as threatened or endangered under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 
(vii) down-river water quality, includ-
ing temperature, sedimentation, and dis-
solved oxygen; and 
(viii) Tribal treaty rights and cul-
turally or historically significant Tribal 
lands; 
(C) non-breaching alternatives for increas-
ing fish passage and salmon recovery; and 
(D) other issues, as requested by the Task 
Force.
225 
(2) CONSULTATION.—In preparing the report 
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult 
with— 
(A) the Task Force; 
(B) the Governor of each covered State; 
and 
(C) the government of each covered Tribe. 
(e) RESTORATION PLAN.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after 
the date on which the Secretary transmits the report 
under subsection (d), the Task Force shall prepare, 
at full Federal expense, a restoration plan for the 
Columbia River Basin, based on the results of the 
assessment contained in the report. 
(2) CONTENTS
OF
PLAN.—The Task Force 
shall include in the restoration plan— 
(A) a description of the overall goals of the 
restoration plan; 
(B) 
recommendations 
for 
restoration 
projects in the Columbia River Basin, which 
may address any of— 
(i) salmon recovery in the Columbia 
River Basin;
226 
(ii) water quality and water supply 
improvements along the Snake River Sys-
tem; 
(iii) low-carbon emission transpor-
tation and shipping routes; 
(iv) Tribal treaty rights, and the pro-
tection of Tribal historical and cultural re-
sources throughout the Columbia River 
Basin; 
(v) Federal, State, and regional econo-
mies; 
(vi) recreation and tourism; 
(vii) hydropower generation and asso-
ciated carbon emissions reductions; and 
(viii) flood control; and 
(C) recommendations for any other appro-
priate actions that may help achieve the goals 
of the restoration plan. 
(3) REVISION OF PLAN.—The Task Force may, 
on an annual basis, revise the restoration plan. 
(4) PUBLIC COMMENT.—Before finalizing the 
restoration plan, including any revision of the res-
toration plan, the Task Force shall make a proposed 
restoration plan available for public review and com-
ment.
227 
(5) TRANSMITTAL OF PLAN TO CONGRESS.— 
The Secretary shall transmit the final restoration 
plan, including any finalized revision of the restora-
tion plan, to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate, and to each Member of Congress from 
a covered State. 
(f) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordina-
tion with the Task Force, shall identify critical res-
toration projects included in the final restoration 
plan transmitted under subsection (e)(5) that may 
be carried out in accordance with the criteria for 
projects carried out under a continuing authority 
program. 
(2) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary may carry 
out a critical restoration project identified under 
paragraph (1) after entering into an agreement with 
an appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance 
with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) and this section. 
(3) TRIBAL PROJECTS.—To the maximum ex-
tent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that not 
less than 30 percent of the funds made available for
228 
critical restoration projects identified under para-
graph (1) shall be used exclusively for projects that 
are— 
(A) within the boundary of an Indian res-
ervation; or 
(B) administered by an Indian Tribe. 
(4) COST SHARING.— 
(A) IN
GENERAL.—A non-Federal cost 
share shall be required to carry out any project 
under this subsection that does not primarily 
benefit the Federal Government, as determined 
by the Task Force. 
(B) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share 
of the cost of carrying out a project under this 
subsection for which the Task Force requires a 
non-Federal cost share under subparagraph (A) 
shall be 65 percent, except that such Federal 
share shall not exceed $10,000,000 for any 
project. 
(C) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— 
(i) IN GENERAL.—Not more than 50 
percent of the non-Federal share of the 
cost of carrying out a project described in 
subparagraph (B) may be provided in the
229 
form of services, materials, or other in- 
kind contributions. 
(ii) REQUIRED
NON-FEDERAL
CON-
TRIBUTIONS.—For any project described in 
subparagraph (B), the non-Federal interest 
shall— 
(I) provide all land, easements, 
rights-of-way, dredged material dis-
posal areas, and relocations; 
(II) pay all operation, mainte-
nance, replacement, repair, and reha-
bilitation costs; and 
(III) hold the United States 
harmless from all claims arising from 
the construction, operation, and main-
tenance of the project. 
(iii) CREDIT.—For purposes of clause 
(i), the Secretary shall credit the non-Fed-
eral interest for contributions provided 
under clause (ii)(I). 
(g) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section au-
thorizes the Secretary to modify, deauthorize, or remove 
any of the Lower Snake River Dams. 
SEC. 504. ADMINISTRATION. 
Nothing in this title diminishes or affects—
230 
(1) any water right of an Indian Tribe; 
(2) any fishing right of an Indian Tribe; 
(3) any other right of an Indian Tribe; 
(4) any treaty right that is in effect on the date 
of enactment of this Act; 
(5) any external boundary of an Indian reserva-
tion of an Indian Tribe; 
(6) any authority of the State that relates to 
the protection, regulation, or management of fish, 
terrestrial wildlife, and cultural and archaeological 
resources; or 
(7) any authority of the Secretary, the Sec-
retary of the Interior, or the head of any other Fed-
eral agency under a law in effect on the date of en-
actment of this Act, including— 
(A) division A of subtitle III of title 54, 
United States Code (formerly known as the 
‘‘National Historic Preservation Act’’ (16 
U.S.C. 470 et seq.)); 
(B) the Archaeological Resources Protec-
tion Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.); 
(C) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 
(16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.);
231 
(D) the Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the pro-
tection of the bald eagle’’, approved June 8, 
1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.); 
(E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 
U.S.C. 703 et seq.); 
(F) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 
(G) the Native American Graves Protec-
tion and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et 
seq.); 
(H) the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); 
(I) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
U.S.C. 300f et seq.); 
(J) the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and 
(K) the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). 
TITLE VI—DETERMINATION OF 
BUDGETARY EFFECTS 
SEC. 601. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 
shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 
titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this
232 
Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro-
vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
vote on passage. 
Passed the House of Representatives June 8, 2022. 
Attest: 
Clerk.
117TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 7776 
AN ACT 
To provide for improvements to the rivers and har-
bors of the United States, to provide for the con-
servation and development of water and related 
resources, and for other purposes.