H. R. 1495—216 
SEC. 5151. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON. 
The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a 
campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island (also 
known as ‘‘Strawberry Island’’) in Skamania County, Washington. 
SEC. 5152. EROSION CONTROL, PUGET ISLAND, WAHKIAKUM COUNTY, 
WASHINGTON. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Lower Columbia River levees and bank 
protection works authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) is modified with regard to the Wahkiakum 
County diking districts No. 1 and 3, but without regard to any 
cost ceiling authorized before the date of enactment of this Act, 
to direct the Secretary to provide a one-time placement of dredged 
material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget 
Island, Washington, between river miles 38 to 47, and the shoreline 
of Westport Beach, Clatsop County, Oregon, between river miles 
43 to 45, to protect economic and environmental resources in the 
area from further erosion. 
(b) COORDINATION
AND COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—The 
Secretary shall carry out subsection (a)— 
(1) in coordination with appropriate resource agencies; and 
(2) at Federal expense. 
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000. 
SEC. 5153. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON. 
Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2675) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘may construct’’ and 
inserting ‘‘shall construct’’; and 
(2) by inserting ‘‘and ecosystem restoration’’ after ‘‘erosion 
protection’’ each place it appears. 
SEC. 5154. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL. 
(a) CHEAT AND TYGART RIVER BASINS, WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 
581(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 313) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘flood control measures’’ and inserting 
‘‘structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank protec-
tion, stormwater management, and channel clearing and modi-
fication measures’’; and 
(2) by inserting ‘‘with respect to measures that incorporate 
levees or floodwalls’’ before the semicolon. 
(b) PRIORITY
COMMUNITIES.—Section 581(b) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (5); 
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) 
and inserting a semicolon; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and 
‘‘(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty’s Run River 
basin.’’. 
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 581(c) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is 
amended by striking ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$90,000,000’’.
H. R. 1495—217 
SEC. 5155. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA. 
Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
(113 Stat. 371) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘Nicholas,’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘Gilmer,’’; 
(2) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$20,000,000’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may 
include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 
government. 
‘‘(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 
of the amounts appropriated 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. 5156. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 
(a) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Section 340 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is amended 
by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Not more than 10 percent of the 
amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under 
this section at Federal expense.’’. 
(b) SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA DEFINED.—Section 340(f) of such 
Act is amended by inserting ‘‘Nicholas,’’ after ‘‘Greenbrier,’’. 
(c) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Section 340 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 
include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 
government.’’. 
SEC. 5157. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON- 
FEDERAL INTERESTS. 
Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
(33 U.S.C. 701b–13) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(12) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood control, 
Perris, California. 
‘‘(13) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—An 
element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow 
Plan, Illinois. 
‘‘(14) LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.—The project 
for flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana. 
‘‘(15) BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.—A project for flood control, 
Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project 
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act 
of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by section 3a 
of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414). 
‘‘(16) HALLS
BAYOU, TEXAS.—A project for flood control, 
Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project
H. R. 1495—218 
for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, author-
ized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610). 
‘‘(17) MENOMONEE
RIVER
WATERSHED, WISCONSIN.—The 
project for the Menomonee River Watershed, Wisconsin, 
including— 
‘‘(A) the Underwood Creek diversion facility project 
(Milwaukee County Grounds); and 
‘‘(B) the Greater Milwaukee Rivers watershed project.’’. 
SEC. 5158. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS. 
Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334; 113 Stat. 1494; 
114 Stat. 2763A–219; 119 Stat. 2255) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (c)(5) by striking ‘‘a project for the elimi-
nation or control of combined sewer overflows’’ and inserting 
‘‘projects for the design, installation, enhancement, or repair 
of sewer systems’’; 
(2) in subsection (e)(1) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$32,500,000’’; and 
(3) in subsection (f)— 
(A) by striking the undesignated paragraph relating 
to Charleston, South Carolina, and inserting the following: 
‘‘(72) CHARLESTON, 
SOUTH
CAROLINA.—$10,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection sys-
tems, and stormwater system improvements, Charleston, South 
Carolina.’’; 
(B) by redesignating the paragraph (71) relating to 
Placer and El Dorado Counties, California, as paragraph 
(73); 
(C) by redesignating the paragraph (72) relating to 
Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada Counties, Cali-
fornia, as paragraph (74); 
(D) by striking the paragraph (71) relating to Indianap-
olis, Indiana, and inserting the following: 
‘‘(75) INDIANAPOLIS, 
INDIANA.—$6,430,000 for environ-
mental infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.’’; 
(E) by redesignating the paragraph (73) relating to 
St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, as paragraph (76); 
(F) by redesignating paragraph (72), relating to Alpine, 
California, as paragraph (77); and 
(G) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(78) ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ALABAMA.—$5,000,000 for water 
related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama. 
‘‘(79) CRAWFORD
COUNTY, 
ARKANSAS.—$35,000,000 for 
water supply infrastructure, Crawford County, Arkansas. 
‘‘(80) ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.— 
$25,000,000 for recycled water treatment facilities within the 
East Bay Municipal Utility District service area, Alameda and 
Contra Costa Counties, California. 
‘‘(81) 
ALISO
CREEK, 
ORANGE
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Aliso Creek, Orange 
County, California. 
‘‘(82) AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for waste-
water collection and treatment infrastructure, Amador County, 
California.
H. R. 1495—219 
‘‘(83) ARCADIA, SIERRA MADRE, AND UPLAND, CALIFORNIA.— 
$33,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Arcadia, 
Sierra Madre, and Upland, California, including $13,000,000 
for stormwater infrastructure for Upland, California. 
‘‘(84) BIG BEAR AREA REGIONAL WASTEWATER AGENCY, CALI-
FORNIA.—$15,000,000 for water reclamation and distribution 
infrastructure, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, 
California. 
‘‘(85) BRAWLEY COLONIA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 
$1,400,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality 
in the Brawley Colonia Water District, Imperial County, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(86) CALAVERAS
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for 
water supply and wastewater infrastructure improvement 
projects in Calaveras County, California, including wastewater 
reclamation, recycling, and conjunctive use projects. 
‘‘(87) CONTRA
COSTA
WATER
DISTRICT, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$23,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure for the 
Contra Costa Water District, California. 
‘‘(88) EAST BAY, SAN FRANCISCO, AND SANTA CLARA AREAS, 
CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve the 
East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, California. 
‘‘(89) EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for a new 
pump station and stormwater management and drainage 
system, East Palo Alto, California. 
‘‘(90) IMPERIAL
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including a wastewater disinfection 
facility and polishing system, to improve water quality in the 
vicinity of Calexico, California, on the southern New River, 
Imperial County, California. 
‘‘(91) LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 
and water related infrastructure, city of La Habra, California. 
‘‘(92) LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for the planning, 
design, and construction of a stormwater program in La Mirada, 
California. 
‘‘(93) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for 
wastewater and water related infrastructure, Diamond Bar, 
La Habra Heights, and Rowland Heights, Los Angeles County, 
California. 
‘‘(94) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for 
the planning, design, and construction of water related infra-
structure for Santa Monica Bay and the coastal zone of Los 
Angeles County, California. 
‘‘(95) MALIBU, 
CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for municipal 
wastewater and recycled water infrastructure, Malibu Creek 
Watershed Protection Project, Malibu, California. 
‘‘(96) MONTEBELLO, 
CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water 
infrastructure improvements in south Montebello, California. 
‘‘(97) NEW RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure to improve water quality in the New River, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(98) ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for waste-
water and water related infrastructure, Anaheim, Brea, Mission 
Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Yorba Linda, Orange 
County, California.
H. R. 1495—220 
‘‘(99) 
PORT
OF
STOCKTON, 
STOCKTON, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure projects 
for Rough and Ready Island and vicinity, Stockton, California. 
‘‘(100) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for recycled water 
transmission infrastructure, Eastern Municipal Water District, 
Perris, California. 
‘‘(101) SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$9,000,000 
for wastewater and water related infrastructure, Chino and 
Chino Hills, San Bernardino County, California. 
‘‘(102) SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$5,500,000 for 
an advanced recycling water treatment plant in Santa Clara 
County, California. 
‘‘(103) 
SANTA
MONICA, 
CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 
for 
improving water system reliability, Santa Monica, California. 
‘‘(104) SOUTHERN
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 
$15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the ground-
water basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles 
County, California. 
‘‘(105) STOCKTON, 
CALIFORNIA.—$33,000,000 for water 
treatment and distribution infrastructure, Stockton, California. 
‘‘(106) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—$375,000 to improve water quality and remove non-
native aquatic nuisance species from the Sweetwater Reservoir, 
San Diego County, California. 
‘‘(107) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—$8,000,000 for water, waste-
water, and water related infrastructure, Whittier, California. 
‘‘(108) ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT, COLORADO.—$10,000,000 
for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Colorado. 
‘‘(109) BOULDER
COUNTY, 
COLORADO.—$10,000,000 for 
water supply infrastructure, Boulder County, Colorado. 
‘‘(110) MONTEZUMA AND LA PLATA COUNTIES, COLORADO.— 
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure 
for the Ute Mountain project, Montezuma and La Plata Coun-
ties, Colorado. 
‘‘(111) OTERO, BENT, CROWLEY, KIOWA, AND PROWERS COUN-
TIES, COLORADO.—$35,000,000 for water transmission infra-
structure, Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, 
Colorado. 
‘‘(112) 
PUEBLO
AND
OTERO
COUNTIES, 
COLORADO.— 
$34,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, Pueblo and 
Otero Counties, Colorado. 
‘‘(113) ENFIELD, CONNECTICUT.—$1,000,000 for infiltration 
and inflow correction, Enfield, Connecticut. 
‘‘(114) 
LEDYARD
AND
MONTVILLE, 
CONNECTICUT.— 
$7,113,000 for water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, 
Connecticut. 
‘‘(115) 
NEW
HAVEN, 
CONNECTICUT.—$300,000 
for 
stormwater system improvements, New Haven, Connecticut. 
‘‘(116) NORWALK, CONNECTICUT.—$3,000,000 for the Keeler 
Brook Storm Water Improvement Project, Norwalk, Con-
necticut. 
‘‘(117) PLAINVILLE, CONNECTICUT.—$6,280,000 for waste-
water treatment, Plainville, Connecticut. 
‘‘(118) SOUTHINGTON, CONNECTICUT.—$9,420,000 for water 
supply infrastructure, Southington, Connecticut. 
‘‘(119) ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARY-
LAND.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and
H. R. 1495—221 
resource protection and development to enhance water quality 
and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, District 
of Columbia and Maryland. 
‘‘(120) 
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA.—$35,000,000 
for 
implementation of a combined sewer overflow long-term control 
plan in the District of Columbia. 
‘‘(121) CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$3,000,000 for water 
supply infrastructure, Charlotte County, Florida. 
‘‘(122) CHARLOTTE, LEE, AND COLLIER COUNTIES, FLORIDA.— 
$20,000,000 for water supply interconnectivity infrastructure, 
Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, Florida. 
‘‘(123) COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$5,000,000 for water 
infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of the 
Gordon River, Collier County, Florida. 
‘‘(124) HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$6,250,000 for 
water infrastructure and supply enhancement, Hillsborough 
County, Florida. 
‘‘(125) JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.—$25,000,000 for waste-
water related infrastructure, including septic tank replace-
ments, Jacksonville, Florida. 
‘‘(126) SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure in Sarasota County, Florida. 
‘‘(127) SOUTH
SEMINOLE
AND
NORTH
ORANGE
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.—$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the 
South Seminole and North Orange Wastewater Transmission 
Authority, Florida. 
‘‘(128) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$6,250,000 for water 
reuse supply and a water transmission pipeline, Miami-Dade 
County, Florida. 
‘‘(129) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$7,500,000 for water 
infrastructure, Palm Beach County, Florida. 
‘‘(130) ALBANY, GEORGIA.—$4,000,000 for a storm drainage 
system, Albany, Georgia. 
‘‘(131) BANKS
COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water 
infrastructure improvements, Banks County, Georgia. 
‘‘(132) BERRIEN COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water 
infrastructure improvements, Berrien County, Georgia. 
‘‘(133) CHATTOOGA
COUNTY, 
GEORGIA.—$8,000,000 for 
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure improvement, 
Chattooga County, Georgia. 
‘‘(134) 
CHATTOOGA, 
FLOYD, 
GORDON, 
WALKER, 
AND 
WHITIFIELD COUNTIES, GEORGIA.—$10,000,000 for water infra-
structure improvements, Armuchee Valley, Chattooga, Floyd, 
Gordon, Walker, and Whitifield Counties, Georgia. 
‘‘(135) DAHLONEGA, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water infra-
structure improvements, Dahlonega, Georgia. 
‘‘(136) EAST POINT, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water infra-
structure improvements, city of East Point, Georgia. 
‘‘(137) FAYETTEVILLE, GRANTVILLE, LAGRANGE, PINE MOUN-
TAIN
(HARRIS
COUNTY), 
DOUGLASVILLE, 
AND
CARROLLTON, 
GEORGIA.—$24,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, Fayetteville, Grantville, LaGrange, Pine Mountain (Harris 
County), Douglasville, and Carrollton, Georgia. 
‘‘(138) MERIWETHER AND SPALDING COUNTIES, GEORGIA.— 
$7,000,000 
for 
water 
and 
wastewater 
infrastructure, 
Meriwether and Spalding Counties, Georgia.
H. R. 1495—222 
‘‘(139) MOULTRIE, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water supply 
infrastructure, Moultrie, Georgia. 
‘‘(140) STEPHENS
COUNTY/CITY
OF
TOCCOA, GEORGIA.— 
$8,000,000 
water 
infrastructure 
improvements, 
Stephens 
County/city of Toccoa, Georgia. 
‘‘(141) NORTH
VERNON
AND
BUTLERVILLE, 
INDIANA.— 
$1,700,000 for wastewater infrastructure, North Vernon and 
Butlerville, Indiana. 
‘‘(142) SALEM, WASHINGTON COUNTY, INDIANA.—$3,200,000 
for water supply infrastructure, Salem, Washington County, 
Indiana. 
‘‘(143) ATCHISON, KANSAS.—$20,000,000 to address com-
bined sewer overflows, Atchison, Kansas. 
‘‘(144) CENTRAL KENTUCKY.—$10,000,000 for water related 
infrastructure and resource protection and development, Scott, 
Franklin, Woodford, Anderson, Fayette, Mercer, Jessamine, 
Boyle, Lincoln, Garrard, Madison, Estill, Powell, Clark, Mont-
gomery, and Bourbon Counties, Kentucky. 
‘‘(145) LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA.—$1,200,000 for water and 
wastewater improvements, Lafayette, Louisiana. 
‘‘(146) LAFOURCHE
PARISH, 
LOUISIANA.—$2,300,000 for 
measures to prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the fresh-
water system, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 
‘‘(147) LAKE
CHARLES, LOUISIANA.—$1,000,000 for water 
and wastewater improvements, Lake Charles, Louisiana. 
‘‘(148) NORTHWEST LOUISIANA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, 
LOUISIANA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater improve-
ments, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, Lou-
isiana. 
‘‘(149) OUACHITA PARISH, LOUISIANA.—$1,000,000 for water 
and wastewater improvements, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. 
‘‘(150) PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.—$7,000,000 for sanitary 
sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana. 
‘‘(151) RAPIDES AREA PLANNING COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.— 
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Rapides, 
Louisiana. 
‘‘(152) SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.—$20,000,000 for water 
supply infrastructure in Shreveport, Louisiana. 
‘‘(153) SOUTH
CENTRAL
PLANNING
AND
DEVELOPMENT 
COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.—$2,500,000 for water and wastewater 
improvements, South Central Planning and Development 
Commission, Louisiana. 
‘‘(154) UNION-LINCOLN REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, 
LOUISIANA.—$2,000,000 for the Union-Lincoln Regional Water 
Supply project, Louisiana. 
‘‘(155) CHESAPEAKE
BAY
IMPROVEMENTS, MARYLAND, VIR-
GINIA, AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—$30,000,000 for environ-
mental infrastructure projects to benefit the Chesapeake Bay, 
including the nutrient removal project at the Blue Plains Waste-
water Treatment facility in the District of Columbia. 
‘‘(156) CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.— 
$40,000,000 for water pollution control, Chesapeake Bay 
Region, Maryland and Virginia. 
‘‘(157) 
MICHIGAN
COMBINED
SEWER
OVERFLOWS.— 
$35,000,000 for correction of combined sewer overflows, 
Michigan.
H. R. 1495—223 
‘‘(158) CENTRAL IRON RANGE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT, MIN-
NESOTA.—$12,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the 
Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District to serve the cities 
of Hibbing, Chisholm, Buhl, and Kinney, and Balkan and Great 
Scott Townships, Minnesota. 
‘‘(159) CENTRAL
LAKE
REGION
SANITARY
DISTRICT, MIN-
NESOTA.—$2,000,000 for sanitary sewer and wastewater infra-
structure for the Central Lake Region Sanitary District, Min-
nesota, to serve Le Grande and Moe Townships, Minnesota. 
‘‘(160) 
GOODVIEW, 
MINNESOTA.—$3,000,000 
for 
water 
quality infrastructure, Goodview, Minnesota. 
‘‘(161) GRAND RAPIDS, MINNESOTA.—$5,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, Grand Rapids, Minnesota. 
‘‘(162) WILLMAR, MINNESOTA.—$15,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, Willmar, Minnesota. 
‘‘(163) BILOXI, 
MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and 
wastewater related infrastructure, city of Biloxi, Mississippi. 
‘‘(164) CORINTH, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,500,000 for a surface 
water program, city of Corinth, Mississippi. 
‘‘(165) GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and 
wastewater related infrastructure, city of Gulfport, Mississippi. 
‘‘(166) HARRISON
COUNTY, 
MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for 
water and wastewater related infrastructure, Harrison County, 
Mississippi. 
‘‘(167) JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI.—$25,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, Jackson, Mississippi. 
‘‘(168) CLARK
COUNTY, NEVADA.—$30,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada. 
‘‘(169) CLEAN WATER COALITION, NEVADA.—$50,000,000 for 
the Systems Conveyance and Operations Program, Clark 
County, Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, Nevada. 
‘‘(170) GLENDALE
DAM
DIVERSION
STRUCTURE, NEVADA.— 
$10,000,000 for water system improvements to the Glendale 
Dam Diversion Structure for the Truckee Meadows Water 
Authority, Nevada. 
‘‘(171) HENDERSON, NEVADA.—$13,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada. 
‘‘(172) INDIAN SPRINGS, NEVADA.—$12,000,000 for construc-
tion of wastewater system improvements for the Indian Springs 
community, Nevada. 
‘‘(173) RENO, NEVADA.—$13,000,000 for construction of a 
water conservation project for the Highland Canal, Mogul 
Bypass in Reno, Nevada. 
‘‘(174) 
WASHOE
COUNTY, 
NEVADA.—$14,000,000 
for 
construction of water infrastructure improvements to the 
Huffaker Hills Reservoir Conservation Project, Washoe County, 
Nevada. 
‘‘(175) CRANFORD TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$6,000,000 for 
storm sewer improvements, Cranford Township, New Jersey. 
‘‘(176) MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$1,100,000 
for storm sewer improvements, Middletown Township, New 
Jersey. 
‘‘(177) PATERSON, NEW
JERSEY.—$35,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, Paterson, New Jersey. 
‘‘(178) RAHWAY VALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—$25,000,000 for sani-
tary sewer and storm sewer improvements in the service area 
of the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority, New Jersey.
H. R. 1495—224 
‘‘(179) BABYLON, NEW
YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, Town of Babylon, New York. 
‘‘(180) ELLICOTTVILLE, NEW
YORK.—$2,000,000 for water 
supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in Ellicottville, 
New York. 
‘‘(181) ELMIRA, NEW
YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, Elmira, New York. 
‘‘(182) ESSEX HAMLET, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, Essex Hamlet, New York. 
‘‘(183) FLEMING, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking water 
infrastructure, Fleming, New York. 
‘‘(184) KIRYAS JOEL, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking 
water infrastructure, village of Kiryas Joel, New York. 
‘‘(185) NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, Niagara Falls Water Board, New York. 
‘‘(186) PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, village of Patchogue, New York. 
‘‘(187) SENNETT, NEW YORK.—$1,500,000 for water infra-
structure, town of Sennett, New York. 
‘‘(188) SPRINGPORT AND FLEMING, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 
for water related infrastructure, including water mains, pump 
stations, and water storage tanks, Springport and Fleming, 
New York. 
‘‘(189) WELLSVILLE, NEW
YORK.—$2,000,000 for water 
supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in Wellsville, New 
York. 
‘‘(190) YATES COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking 
water infrastructure, Yates County, New York. 
‘‘(191) CABARRUS
COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA.—$4,500,000 
for water related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North Caro-
lina. 
‘‘(192) CARY, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 
for a water reclamation facility, Cary, Wake County, North 
Carolina. 
‘‘(193) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$14,000,000 for the 
Briar Creek Relief Sewer project, city of Charlotte, North Caro-
lina. 
‘‘(194) FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CARO-
LINA.—$6,000,000 for water and sewer upgrades, city of 
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. 
‘‘(195) MOORESVILLE, NORTH
CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements, town of 
Mooresville, North Carolina. 
‘‘(196) NEUSE
REGIONAL
WATER
AND
SEWER
AUTHORITY, 
NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for the Neuse regional drinking 
water facility, Kinston, North Carolina. 
‘‘(197) RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$13,500,000 
for water related infrastructure, Richmond County, North Caro-
lina. 
‘‘(198) UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$6,000,000 for 
water related infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina. 
‘‘(199) WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$1,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, Washington County, 
North Carolina. 
‘‘(200) WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA.—$3,000,000 for 
stormwater upgrades, city of Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
H. R. 1495—225 
‘‘(201) NORTH
DAKOTA.—$15,000,000 for water-related 
infrastructure, North Dakota. 
‘‘(202) DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA.—$15,000,000 for water 
supply infrastructure, Devils Lake, North Dakota. 
‘‘(203) SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.—$20,000,000 
for water related infrastructure, Saipan, Northern Mariana 
Islands. 
‘‘(204) AKRON, OHIO.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastruc-
ture, Akron, Ohio. 
‘‘(205) BURR
OAK
REGIONAL
WATER
DISTRICT, OHIO.— 
$4,000,000 for construction of a water line to extend from 
a well field near Chauncey, Ohio, to a water treatment plant 
near Millfield, Ohio. 
‘‘(206) CINCINNATI, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infra-
structure, Cincinnati, Ohio. 
‘‘(207) CLEVELAND, OHIO.—$2,500,000 for Flats East Bank 
water and wastewater infrastructure, city of Cleveland, Ohio. 
‘‘(208) COLUMBUS, OHIO.—$4,500,000 for wastewater infra-
structure, Columbus, Ohio. 
‘‘(209) DAYTON, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure, Dayton, Ohio. 
‘‘(210) DEFIANCE COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, Defiance County, Ohio. 
‘‘(211) FOSTORIA, OHIO.—$2,000,000 for wastewater infra-
structure, Fostoria, Ohio. 
‘‘(212) FREMONT, OHIO.—$2,000,000 for construction of off- 
stream water supply reservoir, Fremont, Ohio. 
‘‘(213) LAKE
COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,500,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, Lake County, Ohio. 
‘‘(214) LAWRENCE
COUNTY, OHIO.—$5,000,000 for Union 
Rome wastewater infrastructure, Lawrence County, Ohio. 
‘‘(215) MEIGS
COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 to extend the 
Tupper Plains Regional Water District water line to Meigs 
County, Ohio. 
‘‘(216) MENTOR-ON-LAKE, OHIO.—$625,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, Mentor-on-Lake, Ohio. 
‘‘(217) VINTON
COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 to construct 
water lines in Vinton and Brown Townships, Ohio. 
‘‘(218) WILLOWICK, OHIO.—$665,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure, Willowick, Ohio. 
‘‘(219) ADA, OKLAHOMA.—$1,700,000 for sewer improve-
ments and other water infrastructure, city of Ada, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(220) ALVA, OKLAHOMA.—$250,000 for wastewater infra-
structure improvements, city of Alva, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(221) ARDMORE, OKLAHOMA.—$1,900,000 for water and 
sewer infrastructure improvements, city of Ardmore, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(222) BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA.—$2,500,000 for water 
supply infrastructure, city of Bartlesville, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(223) 
BETHANY, 
OKLAHOMA.—$1,500,000 
for 
water 
improvements and water related infrastructure, city of Bethany, 
Oklahoma. 
‘‘(224) CHICKASHA, OKLAHOMA.—$650,000 for industrial 
park sewer infrastructure, city of Chickasha, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(225) DISNEY AND LANGLEY, OKLAHOMA.—$2,500,000 for 
water and sewer improvements and water related infrastruc-
ture, cities of Disney and Langley, Oklahoma.
H. R. 1495—226 
‘‘(226) DURANT, OKLAHOMA.—$3,300,000 for bayou restora-
tion and water related infrastructure, city of Durant, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(227) EASTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, WILBERTON, 
OKLAHOMA.—$1,000,000 for sewer and utility upgrades and 
water related infrastructure, Eastern Oklahoma State Univer-
sity, Wilberton, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(228) GUYMON, OKLAHOMA.—$16,000,000 for water and 
wastewater related infrastructure, city of Guymon, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(229) KONAWA, OKLAHOMA.—$500,000 for water treatment 
infrastructure improvements, city of Konawa, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(230) LUGERT-ALTUS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ALTUS, OKLA-
HOMA.—$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure improve-
ments, Lugert-Altus Irrigation District, Altus, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(231) MIDWEST CITY, OKLAHOMA.—$2,000,000 for improve-
ments to water related infrastructure, the City of Midwest 
City, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(232) 
MUSTANG, 
OKLAHOMA.—$3,325,000 
for 
water 
improvements and water related infrastructure, city of Mus-
tang, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(233) NORMAN, OKLAHOMA.—$10,000,000 for water related 
infrastructure, Norman, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(234) OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE STATE UNIVERSITY, GUYMON, 
OKLAHOMA.—$275,000 for water testing facility and water 
related infrastructure development, Oklahoma Panhandle State 
University, Guymon, Oklahoma. 
‘‘(235) WEATHERFORD, OKLAHOMA.—$500,000 for arsenic 
program and water related infrastructure, city of Weatherford, 
Oklahoma. 
‘‘(236) WOODWARD, 
OKLAHOMA.—$1,500,000 for water 
improvements and water related infrastructure, Woodward, 
Oklahoma. 
‘‘(237) ALBANY, OREGON.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infra-
structure to improve habitat restoration, Albany, Oregon. 
‘‘(238) 
BEAVER
CREEK
RESERVOIR, 
PENNSYLVANIA.— 
$3,000,000 for projects for water supply and related activities, 
Beaver Creek Reservoir, Clarion County, Beaver and Salem 
Townships, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(239) HATFIELD BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—$310,000 for 
wastewater related infrastructure for Hatfield Borough, 
Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(240) LEHIGH
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,000,000 for 
stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, 
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(241) NORTH WALES BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,516,584 
for wastewater related infrastructure for North Wales Borough, 
Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(242) PEN ARGYL, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,250,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(243) 
PHILADELPHIA, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,600,000 
for 
wastewater related infrastructure for Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania. 
‘‘(244) STOCKERTON
BOROUGH, TATAMY
BOROUGH, AND 
PALMER TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$10,000,000 for stormwater 
control measures, particularly to address sinkholes, in the 
vicinity of Stockerton Borough, Tatamy Borough, and Palmer 
Township, Pennsylvania.