H. R. 7776—1389 
SEC. 8313. ST. GEORGE, ALASKA. 
Notwithstanding the terms of the local cooperation agreement 
between the Department of the Army and the City of St. George, 
Alaska, dated December 23, 1988, the Secretary shall waive any 
and all payments due and owing to the United States by the 
City of St. George on or after the date of enactment this Act 
resulting from the judgment filed on November 8, 1993, in the 
United States Court of Federal Claims in J.E. McAmis, Inc. v. 
United States, 90–315C, 91–1194C, and 91–1195C. 
SEC. 8314. UNALASKA (DUTCH HARBOR) CHANNELS, ALASKA. 
Section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2020 (134 Stat. 2734) is amended, in row 3 (relating to the project 
for navigation, Unalaska (Dutch Harbor) Channels, Alaska), by 
striking ‘‘February 7, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘October 2, 2020’’. 
SEC. 8315. STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION AND REDUCTION, COASTAL 
EROSION, AND ICE AND GLACIAL DAMAGE, ALASKA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a program to 
carry out structural and nonstructural projects for storm damage 
prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial dam-
age in the State of Alaska, including— 
(1) relocation of affected communities; and 
(2) construction of replacement facilities. 
(b) COST SHARE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
non-Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under 
this section shall be in accordance with sections 103 and 105 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2213, 2215). 
(2) EXCEPTION.—In the case of a project benefitting an 
economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Sec-
retary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), including economically dis-
advantaged communities located in urban and rural areas, 
the non-Federal share of the cost of such project shall be 
10 percent. 
(c) REPEAL.—Section 116 of the Energy and Water Development 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (123 Stat. 2851), 
is repealed. 
(d) TREATMENT.—The program authorized by subsection (a) 
shall be considered a continuation of the program authorized by 
section 116 of the Energy and Water Development and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (123 Stat. 2851) (as in effect 
on the day before the date of enactment of this Act). 
SEC. 8316. ST. FRANCIS LAKE CONTROL STRUCTURE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall set the ordinary high 
water mark for water impounded behind the St. Francis Lake 
Control Structure, authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 
569, 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 operating such structure in accordance with the 
instructions set forth in the document titled ‘‘St. Francis Lake 
Control Structure Standing Instructions to the Project Manager’’
H. R. 7776—1390 
and published in January 1982 by the Corps of Engineers, Memphis 
District. 
SEC. 8317. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ADAMS AND 
DENVER COUNTIES, COLORADO. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion 
of a written agreement under section 204(d) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(d)) with the non-Federal 
interest for the project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk 
management, South Platte River and Tributaries, Adams and 
Denver Counties, Colorado, authorized by section 401(4) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2739). 
(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—The written agreement described in sub-
section (a) shall provide for reimbursement of the non-Federal 
interest from funds in the allocation for the project described in 
subsection (a) in the detailed spend plan submitted for amounts 
appropriated under the heading ‘‘DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY— 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL—CONSTRUCTION’’ in title III of divi-
sion J of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (135 Stat. 
1359) if the Secretary determines that funds in an amount sufficient 
to reimburse the non-Federal interest are available in such alloca-
tion. 
SEC. 8318. FRUITVALE AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE, ALAMEDA, CALI-
FORNIA. 
Section 4017(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (121 Stat. 1175) is repealed. 
SEC. 8319. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 
a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
interests in Los Angeles County, California. 
(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this sec-
tion may be in the form of design and construction assistance 
for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protec-
tion and development projects in Los Angeles County, California, 
including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, 
water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and 
surface water resource protection and development. 
(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 Secretary 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 agreement for a 
project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 
the following: 
(A) Development by the Secretary, in consultation with 
appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or 
resource protection and development plan, including appro-
priate engineering plans and specifications.
H. R. 7776—1391 
(B) Establishment of such legal and institutional struc-
tures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term 
operation of the project by the non-Federal interest. 
(3) COST SHARING.— 
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 
a project under this section— 
(i) shall be 75 percent; and 
(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 
reimbursements of project costs. 
(B) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 
funding of the Federal share of a project that is the subject 
of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 
interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest 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- 
Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
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 publicly 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 maintenance costs for projects con-
structed with assistance 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. 
(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 admin-
ister projects under this section at Federal expense. 
SEC. 8320. 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 Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 
49 Stat. 1589; 50 Stat. 167; 52 Stat. 1215; 55 Stat. 647; 64 Stat. 
177; 104 Stat. 4611), consisting of the debris basins described in 
subsection (b), is no longer authorized beginning on the date that 
is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 
(b) DEBRIS BASINS DESCRIBED.—The debris basins referred to 
in subsection (a) are the following debris basins operated and main-
tained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, as gen-
erally defined in Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance 
manuals as may be further described in an agreement entered 
into under subsection (c): Auburn Debris Basin, Bailey Debris Basin, 
Big Dalton Debris Basin, Blanchard Canyon Debris Basin, Blue 
Gum Canyon Debris Basin, Brand Canyon Debris Basin, Carter 
Debris Basin, Childs Canyon Debris Basin, Dunsmuir Canyon 
Debris Basin, Eagle Canyon Debris Basin, Eaton Wash Debris 
Basin, Elmwood Canyon Debris Basin, Emerald East Debris Basin, 
Emerald West Debris Retention Inlet, Hay Debris Basin, Hillcrest
H. R. 7776—1392 
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, 
Schoolhouse Canyon Debris Basin, Shields Canyon Debris Basin, 
Sierra Madre Villa Debris Basin, Snover Canyon Debris Basin, 
Stough Canyon Debris Basin, Wilson Canyon Debris Basin, and 
Winery Canyon Debris Basin. 
(c) AGREEMENT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall seek to enter into an 
agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District 
to ensure that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District— 
(1) operates, maintains, repairs, and rehabilitates, and 
replaces as necessary, the debris basins described in subsection 
(b)— 
(A) in perpetuity at no cost to the United States; and 
(B) in a manner that ensures that the quantity and 
concentration of stormwater inflows from such debris 
basins does not reduce the level of flood protection of the 
project described in subsection (a); 
(2) retains public ownership of, and compatible uses for, 
all real property required for the continued functioning of the 
debris basins described in subsection (b), consistent with 
authorized purposes of the project described in subsection (a); 
(3) allows the Corps of Engineers to continue to operate, 
maintain, rehabilitate, repair, and replace appurtenant struc-
tures, such as rain and stream gages, located within the debris 
basins subject to deauthorization under subsection (a) as nec-
essary to ensure the continued functioning of the project 
described in subsection (a); and 
(4) holds and saves the United States harmless from dam-
ages due to overtopping, breach, failure, operation, or mainte-
nance of the debris basins described in subsection (b). 
(d) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Secretary may accept and 
expend funds voluntarily contributed by the Los Angeles County 
Flood Control District to cover the administrative costs incurred 
by the Secretary to— 
(1) enter into an agreement under subsection (c); and 
(2) monitor compliance with such agreement. 
SEC. 8321. 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 recreation, Murrieta Creek, Cali-
fornia), is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘$89,850,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$277,194,000’’; 
(2) by striking ‘‘$57,735,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$180,176,100’’; 
and 
(3) by striking ‘‘$32,115,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$97,017,900’’. 
SEC. 8322. SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 
The portion of the project for flood protection in the Sacramento 
River Basin, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 
(chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 68 Stat. 1264; 110 Stat. 3662; 113 
Stat. 319), 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.
H. R. 7776—1393 
SEC. 8323. 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 convey-
ance 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). 
(2) FUNDING.—The non-Federal sponsor shall provide to 
the Secretary funds sufficient to cover the costs incurred by 
the Secretary to review and approve 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 ASSISTANCE.—Upon 
approval by the Secretary of the revised operation and maintenance 
manual required under subsection (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 considered 
for assistance under section 5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941 
(33 U.S.C. 701n(a)). 
SEC. 8324. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN SANTA CLARA 
BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 
Section 111 of title I of division B of the Miscellaneous Appro-
priations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–554, appendix D, 114 Stat. 
2763A–224 (as enacted by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 2763)); 121 Stat. 1209), is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘and volatile organic 
compounds’’ after ‘‘perchlorates’’; and 
(2) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ‘‘and volatile organic 
compounds’’ after ‘‘perchlorates’’. 
SEC. 8325. 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 shore-
lines’’. 
(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 Development Act of 2020 (as amended by this section), 
the Secretary shall not differentiate between damages related to 
high tide flooding and coastal storm flooding for the purposes of 
determining the Federal interest or cost share. 
SEC. 8326. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except for funds required for a betterment 
or for a locally preferred plan, the Secretary shall not require 
the non-Federal interest for the project for flood risk management,
H. R. 7776—1394 
ecosystem restoration, and recreation, South San Francisco Bay 
Shoreline, California, authorized by section 1401(6) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714), to contribute 
funds under an agreement entered into prior to the date of enact-
ment of this Act in excess of the total cash contribution required 
from the non-Federal interest for the project under section 103 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213). 
(b) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall not, at any time, defer, 
suspend, or terminate construction of the project described in sub-
section (a) solely on the basis of a determination by the Secretary 
that an additional appropriation is required to cover the Federal 
share of the cost to complete construction of the project, if Federal 
funds, in an amount determined by the Secretary to be sufficient 
to continue construction of the project, remain available in the 
allocation for the project under the Long-Term Disaster Recovery 
Investment Plan for amounts appropriated under the heading 
‘‘CORPS
OF
ENGINEERS—CIVIL—DEPARTMENT
OF
THE
ARMY— 
CONSTRUCTION’’ in title IV of subdivision 1 of division B of the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–123; 132 Stat. 
76). 
SEC. 8327. DELAWARE SHORE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION. 
(a) DELAWARE BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL FOR 
THE DELAWARE RIVER, DELAWARE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of the non-Federal interest 
for the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
Delaware Beneficial Use of Dredged Material for the Delaware 
River, Delaware, authorized by section 401(3) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2736) (referred 
to in this subsection as the ‘‘project’’), the Secretary shall imple-
ment the project using borrow sources that are alternatives 
to the Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, project, Dela-
ware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, authorized by the Act of June 
25, 1910 (chapter 382, 36 Stat. 637; 46 Stat. 921; 52 Stat. 
803; 59 Stat. 14; 68 Stat. 1249; 72 Stat. 297). 
(2) INTERIM AUTHORITY.—Until the Secretary implements 
the modification under paragraph (1), the Secretary is author-
ized, at the request of a non-Federal interest, to carry out 
initial construction or periodic nourishments at any site 
included in the project under— 
(A) section 1122 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note); or 
(B) section 204(d) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326(d)). 
(3) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost to construct 
and periodically nourish the project, including the cost of any 
modifications carried out under paragraph (1) and the incre-
mental cost of any placements carried out under paragraph 
(2)(B), shall be 90 percent. 
(b) DELAWARE EMERGENCY SHORE RESTORATION.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to repair 
or restore a federally authorized hurricane and storm damage 
reduction structure or project or a public beach located in 
the State of Delaware pursuant to section 5(a) of the Act 
of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)), if—
H. R. 7776—1395 
(A) the structure, project, or public beach is damaged 
by wind, wave, or water action associated with a Nor’easter; 
and 
(B) the Secretary determines that the damage pre-
vents— 
(i) in the case of a structure or project, the ade-
quate functioning of the structure or project for the 
authorized purposes of the structure or project; or 
(ii) in the case of a public beach, the adequate 
functioning of the beach as a natural barrier to inunda-
tion, wave attack, or erosion coinciding with hurri-
canes, coastal storms, or Nor’easters. 
(2) JUSTIFICATION.—The Secretary may carry out a repair 
or restoration activity under paragraph (1) without the need 
to demonstrate that the activity is justified solely by national 
economic development benefits if— 
(A) the Secretary determines that— 
(i) such activity is necessary to restore the ade-
quate functioning of the structure, project, or public 
beach for the purposes described in paragraph (1)(B), 
as applicable; and 
(ii) such activity is warranted to protect against 
loss to life or property of the community protected 
by the structure, project, or public beach; and 
(B) in the case of a public beach, the non-Federal 
interest agrees to participate in, and comply with, 
applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insur-
ance programs. 
(3) PRIORITIZATION.—Repair or restoration activities carried 
out by the Secretary under paragraph (2) shall be given equal 
budgetary consideration and priority as activities justified solely 
by national economic development benefits. 
(4) LIMITATIONS.—An activity carried out under paragraph 
(1) for a public beach shall not— 
(A) repair or restore the beach beyond its natural pro-
file; or 
(B) be considered initial construction of the hurricane 
and storm damage reduction project. 
(5) SAVINGS PROVISION.—The authority provided by this 
subsection shall be in addition to any authority provided by 
section 5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)) 
to repair or restore federally authorized hurricane or shore 
protective structure or project located in the State of Delaware 
damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other 
than an ordinary nature. 
(6) SUNSET.—The authority of the Secretary to carry out 
an activity under paragraph (1) for a public beach shall expire 
on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act. 
(7) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 
(A) NOR’EASTER.—The term ‘‘Nor’easter’’ means a syn-
optic-scale, extratropical cyclone in the western North 
Atlantic Ocean. 
(B) PUBLIC BEACH.—The term ‘‘public beach’’ means 
a 
beach 
within 
the 
geographic 
boundary 
of 
an 
unconstructed federally authorized hurricane and storm 
damage reduction project that is—
H. R. 7776—1396 
(i) a publicly owned beach; or 
(ii) a privately owned beach that is available for 
public use, including the availability of reasonable 
public access, in accordance with Engineer Regulation 
1165–2–130, published by the Corps of Engineers, 
dated June 15, 1989. 
(c) INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, DELAWARE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out major maintenance of 
the project for navigation, Indian River Inlet and Bay, Dela-
ware, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 
26, 1937 (chapter 832, 50 Stat. 846; 59 Stat. 14), the Secretary 
shall repair, restore, or relocate any non-Federal public recre-
ation facility that has been damaged, in whole or in part, 
by the deterioration or failure of the project. 
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is author-
ized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000. 
(d) INDIAN RIVER INLET SAND BYPASS PLANT, DELAWARE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane-flood protection 
and beach erosion control at Indian River Inlet, Delaware, 
commonly known as the ‘‘Indian River Inlet Sand Bypass 
Plant’’, authorized by section 869 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4182), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary, at the request of a non-Federal 
interest, to provide periodic nourishment through dedicated 
dredging or other means to maintain or restore the functioning 
of such project when— 
(A) the sand bypass plant is inoperative; or 
(B) operation of the sand bypass plant is insufficient 
to maintain the functioning of the project. 
(2) COST
SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost of 
a cycle of periodic nourishment provided pursuant to paragraph 
(1) shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share 
of the cost to operate the sand bypass plant. 
(e) REPROGRAMMING FOR COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT 
PROJECT AT INDIAN RIVER INLET.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year, the Secretary may 
reprogram amounts made available for any coastal storm risk 
management project to use such amounts for the project for 
hurricane-flood protection and beach erosion control at Indian 
River Inlet, Delaware, commonly known as the ‘‘Indian River 
Inlet Sand Bypass Plant’’, authorized by section 869 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4182). 
(2) LIMITATIONS.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out not 
more than 2 reprogramming actions under paragraph (1) 
for each fiscal year. 
(B) AMOUNT.—For each fiscal year, the Secretary may 
reprogram— 
(i) not more than $100,000 per reprogramming 
action; and 
(ii) not more than $200,000 for each fiscal year. 
SEC. 8328. ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN 
FLORIDA. 
The portions of the project for flood control and other purposes, 
Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the
H. R. 7776—1397 
Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), consisting of the southern-
most 3.5-mile reach of the L–73 levee, Section 2, Osceola County 
Florida, are no longer authorized beginning on the date of enact-
ment of this Act. 
SEC. 8329. LITTLE PASS, CLEARWATER BAY, FLORIDA. 
The portion of the project for navigation, Little Pass, Clearwater 
Bay, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481), beginning with the most westerly 1,000 
linear feet of the channel encompassing all of Cut H, to include 
the turning basin, is no longer authorized beginning on the date 
of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 
8330. 
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 ‘‘subparagraph (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-Federal 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 partnership agreement has 
not been executed and for which there is an agreement 
under subparagraph (B)(i)(III), the Secretary— 
‘‘(I) shall consider all expenditures and obliga-
tions incurred by the non-Federal sponsor for land 
and in-kind services for the project in determining 
the amount of any cash contribution required from 
the non-Federal sponsor to satisfy the cost-share 
requirements of this subsection; and 
‘‘(II) may only require any such cash contribu-
tion to be made at the end of each period of 5 
fiscal years under clause (i).’’. 
(b) UPDATE.—The Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall 
revise the Master Agreement for the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan, executed in 2009 pursuant to section 601 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680), 
to reflect the amendment made by subsection (a). 
SEC. 8331. PALM BEACH HARBOR, FLORIDA. 
Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project 
for navigation, Palm Beach Harbor, Florida, for which assumption 
of maintenance was authorized by section 202 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093), is modified 
to deauthorize the portion of the project, known as the Northern
H. R. 7776—1398 
Turning Basin, consisting of an approximate 209,218-square foot 
area (4.803 acres) of the Federal northern turning basin within 
Palm Beach Harbor, starting at a point with coordinates 
N887149.6299, E965813.7673; thence running N46°05’59’’E for 
106.07 
feet 
to 
a 
point 
with 
coordinates 
N887223.1767, 
E965890.1929; thence running S88°54’01’’E for 393.00 feet to a 
point with coordinates N887215.6342, E966283.1205; thence run-
ning S32°48’37’’E for 433.78 feet to a point with coordinates 
N886851.0560, E966518.1668; thence running N88°54’01’’W for 
710.00 
feet 
to 
a 
point 
with 
coordinates 
N886864.6824, 
E965808.2975; thence running N01°05’59’’E for 285.00 feet to the 
point of origin. 
SEC. 8332. PORT EVERGLADES, FLORIDA. 
Section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2016 (130 Stat. 1709) is amended, in row 4 (relating to the project 
for navigation, Port Everglades, Florida)— 
(1) by striking ‘‘$229,770,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$529,700,000’’; 
(2) by striking ‘‘$107,233,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$247,209,000’’; 
and 
(3) by striking ‘‘$337,003,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$776,909,000’’. 
SEC. 8333. SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION TASK FORCE. 
Section 528(f)(1)(J) of the Water Resources Development 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 Environmental Protection and 1 representative of 
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,’’. 
SEC. 8334. NEW SAVANNAH BLUFF LOCK AND DAM, GEORGIA AND 
SOUTH CAROLINA. 
Section 1319(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2016 (130 Stat. 1704) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
inserting the following: 
‘‘(2) COST SHARE.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The costs of construction of a Project 
feature constructed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 
determined in accordance with section 101(a)(1)(B) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2211(a)(1)(B)). 
‘‘(B) SAVINGS
PROVISION.—Any increase in costs for 
the Project due to the construction of a Project feature 
constructed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be included 
in the total project cost for purposes of section 902 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2280).’’. 
SEC. 8335. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO. 
Section 3057 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
(121 Stat. 1120) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘$9,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’; and 
(2) in subsection (b)— 
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(1) PLANNING, DESIGN, AND RECONSTRUCTION COSTS.—The 
Federal share of planning, design, and reconstruction costs
H. R. 7776—1399 
for a project under this section, including any work associated 
with bridges, shall be 90 percent.’’; and 
(B) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) IN-KIND
CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal interest 
may provide and receive credit for in-kind contributions for 
a project carried out under this section, consistent with section 
221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 
5b(a)(4)). 
‘‘(4) CASH CONTRIBUTION NOT APPLICABLE.—The require-
ment under section 103(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)(1)(A)) for a non- 
Federal interest to provide 5 percent of the cost of a project 
carried out under this section shall not apply with respect 
to the project. 
‘‘(5) PAYMENT OPTIONS.—At the request of the non-Federal 
interest for a project carried out under this section and subject 
to available funding, the non-Federal contribution for construc-
tion of the project shall be financed in accordance with the 
provisions of section 103(k) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)) over a period of thirty 
years from the date of completion of the project.’’. 
SEC. 8336. CHICAGO SHORELINE PROTECTION. 
The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline erosion 
protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the 
Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the 
Water Resources Development 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. 8337. GREAT LAKES AND MISSISSIPPI RIVER INTERBASIN 
PROJECT, BRANDON ROAD, WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 402(a)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2742) is amended by striking 
‘‘80 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘90 percent’’. 
(b) LOCAL COOPERATION REQUIREMENTS.—At the request of the 
applicable non-Federal interests for the project for ecosystem res-
toration, Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, 
Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois, authorized by section 401(a)(5) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740), 
the Secretary shall not require such non-Federal interests to be 
jointly and severally liable for all non-Federal obligations in the 
project partnership agreement for the project. 
SEC. 8338. SOUTHEAST DES MOINES, SOUTHWEST PLEASANT HILL, 
IOWA. 
(a) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.—The project for flood control and 
other purposes, Red Rock Dam and Lake, Des Moines River, Iowa 
(referred to in this section as the ‘‘Red Rock Dam Project’’), author-
ized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 
58 Stat. 896), and the project for local flood protection, Des Moines 
Local Flood Protection, Des Moines River, Iowa (referred to in 
this section as ‘‘Flood Protection Project’’), authorized by such sec-
tion, shall be modified as follows, subject to a new or amended
H. R. 7776—1400 
agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest for 
the Flood Protection Project, the City of Des Moines, Iowa (referred 
to in this section as the ‘‘City’’), in accordance with section 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 transferred to the Flood Protection Project. 
(2) The relocated levee improvement constructed by the 
City, from Station 77+43.7W to approximately Station 20+00, 
shall be included in the Flood Protection Project. 
(b) FEDERAL EASEMENT CONVEYANCES.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to convey 
the following easements, acquired by the Federal Government 
for the Red Rock Dam Project, to the City to become part 
of the Flood Protection Project in accordance with subsection 
(a): 
(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 CONVEYANCES AUTHORIZED.—After execu-
tion of a new or amended agreement pursuant to subsection 
(a) and conveyance of the easements under paragraph (1), the 
Secretary is authorized to convey the following easements, by 
quitclaim deed, without consideration, acquired by the Federal 
Government for the Red Rock Dam project, to the City or 
to the Des Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation 
Authority and no longer required for the Red Rock Dam Project 
or for the Des Moines Local Flood Protection Project: 
(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) EASEMENT DISPOSAL PROCESS AND FEES.—All real prop-
erty interests conveyed under this subsection shall be subject 
to the standard release of easement disposal process. All 
administrative fees associated with the transfer of the subject 
easements to the City or to the Des Moines Metropolitan Waste-
water Reclamation Authority will be borne by the transferee. 
SEC. 8339. CITY OF EL DORADO, KANSAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall amend the contract 
described in subsection (b) between the United States and the 
City of El Dorado, Kansas, relating to storage space for water 
supply, to change the method of calculation of the interest charges 
that began accruing on June 30, 1991, on the investment costs 
for the 72,087 acre-feet of future use storage space, from 
compounding interest annually to charging simple interest annually 
on the principal amount, until— 
(1) the City of El Dorado informs the Secretary of the 
desire to convert the future use storage space to present use; 
and 
(2) the principal amount plus the accumulated interest 
becomes payable pursuant to the terms of the contract. 
(b) CONTRACT DESCRIBED.—The contract referred to in sub-
section (a) is the contract between the United States and the
H. R. 7776—1401 
City of El Dorado, Kansas, for the use by the City of El Dorado 
of storage space for water supply in El Dorado Lake, Kansas, 
entered into on June 30, 1972, and titled Contract DACW56–72– 
C–0220. 
SEC. 8340. ALGIERS CANAL LEVEES, LOUISIANA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with section 328 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 304; 121 Stat. 1129), 
the Secretary shall resume operation, maintenance, repair, 
rehabilitation, and replacement of the Algiers Canal Levees, Lou-
isiana, at full Federal expense. 
(b) TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT.—Section 328(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 304; 121 Stat. 1129) 
is amended by inserting ‘‘described in subsection (b)’’ after ‘‘the 
project’’. 
SEC. 8341. MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA. 
The Federal share of the cost of the project for ecosystem 
restoration, Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, authorized 
by section 7013(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (121 Stat. 1281), shall be 100 percent. 
SEC. 8342. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project being carried out under section 
111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for 
the mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for 
navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, is modified as follows: 
(1) The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project shall be $45,000,000. 
(2) The project may include Federal participation in peri-
odic nourishment. 
(3) For purposes of subsection (b) of section 111 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i(b)), the Secretary 
shall determine that the navigation works to which the shore 
damages are attributable were constructed at Federal expense. 
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3085 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1129), and the item 
relating to such section in the table of contents for such Act, 
are repealed. 
SEC. 8343. 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 com-
prehensive study carried out under subsection (a), and any feasi-
bility study carried out under subsection (e), shall be 100 percent.’’. 
SEC. 8344. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PROTECTION. 
Section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 132 Stat. 3812) is amended by adding 
at the end the following: 
‘‘(f) 
LIMITATION.—The 
Secretary 
shall 
not 
recommend 
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.
H. R. 7776—1402 
‘‘(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 prevention and control of invasive species, water 
supply, and recreation as authorized purposes.’’. 
SEC. 8345. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM. 
Section 1103(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘$40,000,000’’ 
and inserting ‘‘$75,000,000’’. 
SEC. 8346. WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI 
RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the operation and maintenance 
of the navigation channel projects on the Upper Mississippi River, 
including all projects authorized for navigation of the Mississippi 
River from the mouth of the Missouri River to Minneapolis, author-
ized by the first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (chapter 847, 
46 Stat. 927; 49 Stat. 1034; 50 Stat. 848; 59 Stat. 19; 72 Stat. 
298; 92 Stat. 1695; 95 Stat. 1634; 100 Stat. 4208; 100 Stat. 4213; 
100 Stat. 4228; 102 Stat. 4027; 104 Stat. 4613; 106 Stat. 4806; 
106 Stat. 4811; 110 Stat. 3716; 121 Stat. 1283; 128 Stat. 1270; 
132 Stat. 3812; 134 Stat. 2704), and as part of the operation 
and maintenance of the navigation channel projects on the Illinois 
River, Illinois (also called the Illinois Waterway), authorized by 
the first section of the Act of January 21, 1927 (chapter 47, 44 
Stat. 1013; 46 Stat. 929; 49 Stat. 1035; 49 Stat. 1036; 52 Stat. 
805; 59 Stat. 19; 60 Stat. 636; 72 Stat. 302; 82 Stat. 735; 100 
Stat. 4208; 106 Stat. 4806; 121 Stat. 1283; 128 Stat. 1351), the 
Secretary is authorized to and shall carry out water level manage-
ment activities to help redress the degrading influences of prolonged 
inundation or sedimentation from such projects, and to improve 
the quality and quantity of habitat available for fish and wildlife. 
(b) CONDITIONS ON DRAWDOWNS.—In carrying out subsection 
(a), the Secretary shall carry out routine and systemic water level 
drawdowns of the pools created by the locks and dams of the 
projects described in subsection (a), including drawdowns during 
the growing season, when— 
(1) hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to carry out 
a drawdown within applicable dam operating plans; or 
(2) hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to carry out 
a drawdown and sufficient funds are available to the Secretary 
to carry out any additional activities that may be required 
to ensure that the drawdown does not adversely affect naviga-
tion. 
(c) COORDINATION AND NOTIFICATION.— 
(1) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall use existing 
coordination and consultation processes to regularly coordinate 
and consult with other relevant Federal agencies and States 
regarding the planning and assessment of water level manage-
ment actions implemented under this section. 
(2) NOTIFICATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT.—Prior 
to carrying out any activity under this section, the Secretary 
shall provide to the public and to navigation interests and 
other interested stakeholders notice and an opportunity for 
comment on such activity. 
(d) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2028, the Secretary 
shall make publicly available (including on a publicly available
H. R. 7776—1403 
website) and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that describes 
any activity carried out under this section and the effects of such 
activity. 
SEC. 8347. MISSISSIPPI DELTA HEADWATERS, MISSISSIPPI. 
As part of the authority of the Secretary to carry out the 
project for flood damage reduction, bank stabilization, and sediment 
and erosion control, Yazoo Basin, Mississippi Delta Headwaters, 
Mississippi, authorized pursuant to the matter under the heading 
‘‘ENHANCEMENT OF WATER RESOURCE BENEFITS AND FOR EMERGENCY 
DISASTER WORK’’ in title I of Public Law 98–8 (97 Stat. 22), the 
Secretary may carry out emergency maintenance activities, as the 
Secretary determines to be necessary, for features of the project 
completed before the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 8348. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO OKATIBBEE LAKE, MIS-
SISSIPPI. 
It is the sense of Congress that— 
(1) there is significant shoreline sloughing and erosion at 
the Okatibbee Lake portion of the project for flood protection, 
Chunky Creek, Chickasawhay and Pascagoula Rivers, Mis-
sissippi, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1962 (76 Stat. 1183), which has the potential to impact 
infrastructure, damage property, and put lives at risk; and 
(2) addressing shoreline sloughing and erosion at a project 
of the Secretary, including at a location leased by non-Federal 
entities such as Okatibbee Lake, is an activity that is eligible 
to be carried out by the Secretary as part of the operation 
and maintenance of such project. 
SEC. 8349. ARGENTINE, EAST BOTTOMS, FAIRFAX-JERSEY CREEK, AND 
NORTH KANSAS LEVEES UNITS, MISSOURI RIVER AND 
TRIBUTARIES AT KANSAS CITIES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Kansas Citys 
on Missouri and Kansas Rivers in Missouri and Kansas, authorized 
by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 Flood Control Act of 
1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1588; 58 Stat. 897; 121 Stat. 1054) 
is modified to direct the Secretary to— 
(1) construct access manholes, or other features, in the 
Fairfax portion of such project to allow for regular inspection 
of project features if the Secretary determines that such work 
is— 
(A) not required as a result of improper operation 
and maintenance of the project by the nonFederal interest; 
and 
(B) technically feasible and environmentally accept-
able; and 
(2) plan, design, and carry out the construction described 
in paragraph (1) as a continuation of the construction of such 
project. 
(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the cost of planning, 
design, and construction of access manholes or other features under 
this section shall be 90 percent.
H. R. 7776—1404 
SEC. 8350. LOWER MISSOURI RIVER STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL 
EVALUATION AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
streambank erosion control evaluation and demonstration projects 
in the Lower Missouri River through contracts with non-Federal 
interests, including projects for streambank protection and stabiliza-
tion. 
(b) AREA.—The Secretary shall carry out demonstration projects 
under this section on the reach of the Missouri River between 
Sioux City, Iowa, and the confluence of the Missouri River and 
the Mississippi River. 
(c) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Sec-
retary shall— 
(1) conduct an evaluation of the extent of streambank ero-
sion on the Lower Missouri River; and 
(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 Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
a report describing 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 con-
tracts under subsection (a) shall expire on the date that is 5 years 
after the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 8351. MISSOURI RIVER INTERCEPTION-REARING COMPLEXES. 
(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 authorized to carry out the 
construction of an interception-rearing complex at each of Plowboy 
Bend A (River Mile: 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 adja-
cent lands and properties, including local levees; 
(B) affect the navigation channel, including 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 construct an inter-
ception-rearing complex under subsection (a) until the Secretary 
successfully mitigates any effects described in paragraph (1) 
with respect to such interception-rearing complex.
H. R. 7776—1405 
(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 Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment 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 pallid stur-
geon 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. 8352. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT, MISSOURI, KANSAS, 
IOWA, AND NEBRASKA. 
(a) USE OF OTHER FUNDS.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—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.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall consult with other 
Federal agencies to determine if lands or interests in lands 
acquired by such other Federal agencies— 
‘‘(A) meet the purposes of the Missouri River Mitigation 
Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, authorized 
by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143; 113 Stat. 306; 121 Stat. 1155); 
and 
‘‘(B) whether such lands are restricted by such other 
Federal agencies from being applied toward the total 
number of acres required under subsection (a). 
‘‘(2) APPLICATION OF LANDS.—Upon making a determination 
under paragraph (1) that lands or interests in lands acquired 
by a Federal agency meet the purposes of the project described 
in paragraph (1)(A) and that such lands are not otherwise 
restricted, the Secretary shall apply the lands or interests 
in lands acquired toward the total number of acres required 
under subsection (a), regardless of the source of the Federal 
funds used to acquire such lands or interests in lands. 
‘‘(3) SAVINGS
PROVISION.—Nothing in this subsection 
authorizes any transfer of administrative jurisdiction over any 
lands or interests in lands acquired by a Federal agency that 
are applied toward the total number of acres required under 
subsection (a) pursuant to this subsection.’’. 
(2) REPORT REQUIRED.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate a report identifying 
the lands or interests in lands acquired with Federal funds 
that the Secretary determines, pursuant to section 344(c)(1) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, meet 
the purposes of the Missouri River Mitigation Project, Mis-
souri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, authorized by section
H. R. 7776—1406 
601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(100 Stat. 4143; 113 Stat. 306; 121 Stat. 1155). 
(B) CONTENTS.—The Secretary shall include in the 
report submitted under subparagraph (A) a justification 
for any lands or interests in lands acquired with Federal 
funding that the Secretary determines will not be applied 
toward the total number of acres required under section 
334(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
(113 Stat. 306). 
(b) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT BENEFITS.—The project for miti-
gation of fish and wildlife losses, Missouri River Bank Stabilization 
and Navigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, 
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143; 113 Stat. 306; 121 Stat. 1155), is 
modified to authorize the Secretary to consider incidental flood 
risk management benefits when acquiring land for the project. 
SEC. 8353. NORTHERN MISSOURI. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 
a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
interests in northern Missouri. 
(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this sec-
tion may be in the form of design and construction assistance 
for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protec-
tion and development projects in northern Missouri, including 
projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water 
supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface 
water resource protection and development. 
(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 Secretary 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 agreement for a 
project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 
the following: 
(A) Development by the Secretary, in consultation with 
appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or 
resource protection and development plan, including appro-
priate engineering plans and specifications. 
(B) Establishment of such legal and institutional struc-
tures 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 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 a partnership agreement under this section, the non-
H. R. 7776—1407 
Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest 
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- 
Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
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 publicly 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 maintenance costs for projects con-
structed with assistance 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. 
(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 admin-
ister projects under this section at Federal expense. 
(f) NORTHERN MISSOURI DEFINED.—In this section, the term 
‘‘northern Missouri’’ means the counties of Buchanan, Marion, 
Platte, and Clay, Missouri. 
SEC. 8354. 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. 8355. 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 Water Resources Development 
Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735), shall be 25 percent. 
SEC. 8356. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, HUDSON–RARITAN ESTUARY, 
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out additional feasi-
bility studies for the project ecosystem restoration, Hudson–Raritan 
Estuary, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 401(5) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2739), 
including an examination of measures and alternatives at Baisley 
Pond Park and the Richmond Terrace Wetlands. 
(b) TREATMENT.—A feasibility study carried out under sub-
section (a) shall be considered a continuation of the study that 
formulated the project for ecosystem restoration, Hudson–Raritan 
Estuary, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 401(5) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740).
H. R. 7776—1408 
SEC. 8357. ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OKLAHOMA. 
Section 3132 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
(121 Stat. 1141) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting 
the following: 
‘‘(b) AUTHORIZED COST.—The Secretary is authorized to carry 
out construction of projects under this section at a total cost of 
$128,400,000, with the cost shared in accordance with section 103 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213). 
‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDIES AUTHORIZED.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry 
out feasibility studies for purposes of recommending to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives additional projects under this 
section. 
‘‘(2) TREATMENT.—An additional feasibility study carried 
out under this subsection shall be considered a continuation 
of the feasibility study that formulated any project carried 
out under subsection (a).’’. 
SEC. 8358. COPAN LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall amend the contract 
described in subsection (c) between the United States and the 
Copan Public Works Authority, relating to the use of storage space 
for water supply in Copan Lake, Oklahoma, to— 
(1) release to the United States all rights of the Copan 
Public Works Authority to utilize 4,750 acre-feet of future use 
water storage space; and 
(2) relieve the Copan Public Works Authority from all 
financial obligations, to include the initial project investment 
costs and the accumulated interest on unpaid project invest-
ment costs, for the volume of water storage space described 
in paragraph (1). 
(b) REQUIREMENT.—During the 2-year period beginning on the 
effective date of the contract amendment under subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall— 
(1) provide the City of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, with the 
right of first refusal to contract for the utilization of storage 
space for water supply for any portion of the storage space 
that was released by the Authority under subsection (a); and 
(2) ensure that the City of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, shall 
not pay more than 110 percent of the initial project investment 
cost per acre-foot of storage for the acre-feet of storage space 
sought under an agreement under paragraph (1). 
(c) CONTRACT DESCRIBED.—The contract referred to in sub-
section (a) is the contract between the United States and the 
Copan Public Works Authority for the use of storage space for 
water supply in Copan Lake, Oklahoma, entered into on June 
22, 1981, and titled Contract DACW56–81–C–0114. 
SEC. 8359. SOUTHWESTERN OREGON. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 
a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
interests in southwestern Oregon. 
(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this sec-
tion may be in the form of design and construction assistance
H. R. 7776—1409 
for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protec-
tion and development projects in southwestern Oregon, including 
projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water 
supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface 
water resource protection and development. 
(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 Secretary 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 agreement for a 
project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 
the following: 
(A) Development by the Secretary, in consultation with 
appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or 
resource protection and development plan, including appro-
priate engineering plans and specifications. 
(B) Establishment of such legal and institutional struc-
tures 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 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 a partnership agreement under this section, the non- 
Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest 
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- 
Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
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 publicly 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 maintenance costs for projects con-
structed with assistance 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. 
(2) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSE.—Not more than 10 per-
cent of the amounts made available to carry out this section
H. R. 7776—1410 
may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to admin-
ister projects under this section at Federal expense. 
(f) SOUTHWESTERN OREGON DEFINED.—In this section, the term 
‘‘southwestern Oregon’’ means the counties of Benton, Coos, Curry, 
Douglas, Lane, Linn, and Josephine, Oregon. 
SEC. 8360. YAQUINA RIVER, OREGON. 
The Secretary shall not require the non-Federal interest for 
the project for navigation, Yaquina River, Oregon, authorized by 
the first section of the Act of March 4, 1913 (chapter 144, 37 
Stat. 819), to— 
(1) provide a floating plant to the United States for use 
in maintaining the project; or 
(2) provide funds in an amount determined by the Secretary 
to be equivalent to the value of the floating plant as a non- 
Federal contribution to the cost of maintaining the project. 
SEC. 8361. LOWER BLACKSTONE RIVER, RHODE ISLAND. 
The project being carried out under section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) for ecosystem 
restoration, Lower Blackstone River, Rhode Island, is modified as 
follows: 
(1) The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project shall be $15,000,000. 
(2) If the Secretary includes in the project a measure on 
Federal land under the jurisdiction of another Federal agency, 
the Secretary may enter into an agreement with such agency 
that grants permission for the Secretary to— 
(A) construct the measure on the land under the juris-
diction of such agency; and 
(B) operate and maintain the measure using funds 
provided to the Secretary by the non-Federal interest for 
the project. 
(3) If the Secretary includes in the project a measure for 
fish passage at a dam licensed for hydropower, the Secretary 
shall include in the project costs all costs for such measure, 
except that those costs that are in excess of the costs to provide 
fish passage at the dam if hydropower improvements were 
not in place shall be at 100 percent non-Federal expense. 
SEC. 8362. CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA. 
The Secretary shall reimburse the non-Federal interest for 
project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, author-
ized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2016 (130 Stat. 1708), for advanced funds provided by the non- 
Federal interest for construction of the project that exceed the 
non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the project as 
soon as practicable after the completion of each individual contract 
for the project. 
SEC. 8363. COLLETON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. 
Notwithstanding subparagraph (C)(i) of section 221(a)(4) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)), the non- 
Federal interest for the project for hurricane and storm damage 
risk reduction, Colleton County, South Carolina, authorized by sec-
tion 1401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 
Stat. 1711), may receive credit under subparagraph (A) of such
H. R. 7776—1411 
section 221(a)(4) for the cost of construction carried out before 
the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 8364. ENSLEY LEVEE, TENNESSEE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 353(b)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2721) is amended by striking 
‘‘and Nonconnah Creek’’ and inserting ‘‘, Nonconnah Creek, and 
Ensley’’. 
(b) RESUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE.—The Secretary shall resume 
operation and maintenance of Ensley levee system portion of the 
project described in the modification made by subsection (a) pursu-
ant to the requirements of section 353(b)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2721). 
SEC. 8365. WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TENNESSEE. 
Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project 
for navigation, Wolf River Harbor, Tennessee, authorized by section 
202 of the National Industrial Recovery Act (48 Stat. 201; 49 
Stat. 1034; 72 Stat. 308), is modified to reduce, in part, the author-
ized dimensions of the project, such that the remaining authorized 
dimensions 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 approximately 5,550 feet to an 
approximate point of 35.160848, -90.050566. 
SEC. 8366. 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 tribu-
taries, Texas, under section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 
(chapter 699, 53 Stat. 1414; 68 Stat. 1258). 
SEC. 8367. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS. 
The project for ecosystem restoration, North Padre Island, Cor-
pus Christi Bay, Texas, authorized under section 556 of the Water 
Resources 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. 8368. NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon receipt of a written request from the 
owner of land subject to a covered easement, the Secretary shall, 
without consideration, release or otherwise convey the covered ease-
ment to the holder of such easement, if the Secretary determines 
that the covered easement is no longer required for purposes of 
navigation.
H. R. 7776—1412 
(b) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage 
and legal description of any covered easements to be released or 
otherwise conveyed under this section shall be determined by a 
survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary. 
(c) COSTS.—An entity to which a release or conveyance is made 
under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and nec-
essary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental 
documentation costs, associated with the release or conveyance. 
(d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may 
require that the release or conveyance of a covered easement under 
this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions 
as the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to protect 
the interests of the United States. 
(e) DEFINITION
OF COVERED EASEMENT.—In this subsection, 
the term ‘‘covered easement’’ means an easement held by the United 
States for purposes of navigation in Nueces County, Texas. 
SEC. 8369. LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL, VERMONT AND NEW YORK. 
Section 5146 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
(121 Stat. 1255) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(c) CLARIFICATIONS.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—At the request of the non-Federal 
interest for the study of the Lake Champlain Canal Aquatic 
Invasive Species Barrier carried out under section 542 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 
121 Stat. 1150; 134 Stat. 2652), the Secretary shall scope the 
phase II portion of such study to satisfy the feasibility deter-
mination under subsection (a). 
‘‘(2) DISPERSAL BARRIER.—A dispersal barrier constructed, 
maintained, or operated under this section may include— 
‘‘(A) physical hydrologic separation; 
‘‘(B) nonstructural measures; 
‘‘(C) deployment of technologies; and 
‘‘(D) buffer zones.’’. 
SEC. 8370. REHABILITATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTED 
DAMS. 
Section 1177 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 
(33 U.S.C. 467f–2 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: 
‘‘(g) SPECIAL RULE.—Notwithstanding subsection (c), the non- 
Federal share of the cost of the project for rehabilitation of Water-
bury Dam, Washington County, Vermont, under this section, 
including the cost of any required study, shall be the same share 
assigned to the non-Federal interest for the cost of initial construc-
tion of the Waterbury Dam.’’. 
SEC. 8371. PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 
WASHINGTON. 
In carrying out the project for ecosystem restoration, Puget 
Sound, Washington, authorized by section 1401(4) 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 the costs of which are shared as construction.
H. R. 7776—1413 
SEC. 8372. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of the project 
for flood control, Milton, West Virginia, authorized by section 580 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 
114 Stat. 2612; 121 Stat. 1154), shall be 90 percent. 
(b) LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—For the project 
described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall include in the cost 
of the project, and credit toward the non-Federal share of that 
cost, the value of land, easements, and rights-of-way provided by 
the non-Federal interest for the project, including the value of 
land, easements, and rights-of-way required for the project that 
are owned or held by the non-Federal interest or other non-Federal 
public body. 
(c) 
ADDITIONAL
ELIGIBILITY.—Unless 
otherwise 
explicitly 
prohibited in an Act making appropriations for the Corps of Engi-
neers, the project described in subsection (a) shall be eligible for 
additional funding appropriated and deposited into the ‘‘CORPS OF 
ENGINEERS—CIVIL—CONSTRUCTION’’ account— 
(1) without a new investment decision; and 
(2) on the same terms as a project that is not the project 
described in subsection (a). 
SEC. 8373. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 571 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371; 121 Stat. 1257; 134 Stat. 2719) 
is amended— 
(1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘CENTRAL’’ and 
inserting ‘‘NORTHERN’’; 
(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.—In this section, 
the term ‘northern West Virginia’ means the counties of Barbour, 
Berkeley, Brooke, Doddridge, Grant, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, 
Harrison, Jefferson, Lewis, Marion, Marshall, Mineral, Morgan, 
Monongalia, Ohio, Pleasants, Preston, Randolph, Ritchie, Taylor, 
Tucker, Tyler, Upshur, Wetzel, and Wood, West Virginia.’’; 
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘central’’ and inserting 
‘‘northern’’; 
(4) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘central’’ and inserting 
‘‘northern’’; and 
(5) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$120,000,000’’. 
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 
1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
269) is amended by striking the item relating to section 571 and 
inserting the following: 
‘‘Sec. 571. Northern West Virginia.’’. 
SEC. 8374. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 340 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended— 
(1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘ENVIRONMENTAL 
RESTORATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION 
DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM’’; 
(2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(f) DEFINITION OF SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.—In this section, 
the term ‘southern West Virginia’ means the counties of Boone,
H. R. 7776—1414 
Braxton, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, Gilmer, Greenbrier, Jack-
son, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, 
Monroe, Nicholas, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, 
Summers, Wayne, Webster, Wirt, and Wyoming, West Virginia.’’; 
and 
(3) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘$120,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$140,000,000’’. 
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 
1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4797) is amended by striking the item relating to section 340 
and inserting the following: 
‘‘Sec. 340. Southern West Virginia.’’. 
SEC. 8375. 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) ALABAMA.—$50,000,000 for water, wastewater, and 
other environmental infrastructure in Alabama. 
‘‘(275) CHANDLER, ARIZONA.—$18,750,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Chandler, Arizona. 
‘‘(276) PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA.—$40,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in Pinal County, Arizona. 
‘‘(277) TEMPE, ARIZONA.—$37,500,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure, including water reclamation and ground-
water recharge, for the City of Tempe, Arizona. 
‘‘(278) ALAMEDA
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for 
environmental infrastructure, in Alameda County, California. 
‘‘(279) BELL GARDENS, CALIFORNIA.—$12,500,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and 
water supply, in the city of Bell Gardens, California. 
‘‘(280) CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA.—$3,500,000 for stormwater 
management and water supply infrastructure, including 
groundwater recharge and water recycling, in the city of 
Calimesa, California. 
‘‘(281) 
COMPTON
CREEK, 
CALIFORNIA.—$6,165,000 
for 
stormwater management infrastructure in the vicinity of 
Compton Creek, city of Compton, California. 
‘‘(282) DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA.—$100,000,000 for water infra-
structure, including water supply, in the city of Downey, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(283) EAST
COUNTY, SAN
DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 
$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water recycling and water supply, in East County, San Diego 
County, California. 
‘‘(284) EASTERN
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$25,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and 
water supply, for the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, 
Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, 
La Verne, Monrovia, San Dimas, and West Covina, and for 
Avocado Heights, Bassett, and Valinda, California. 
‘‘(285) ESCONDIDO
CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—$34,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the vicinity of Escondido Creek, city of Escon-
dido, California.
H. R. 7776—1415 
‘‘(286) FONTANA, CALIFORNIA.—$16,000,000 for stormwater 
management infrastructure in the city of Fontana, California. 
‘‘(287) HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA.—$23,500,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and 
water supply, in the city of Healdsburg, California. 
‘‘(288) INLAND EMPIRE, CALIFORNIA.—$60,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in 
Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California. 
‘‘(289) LOMITA, CALIFORNIA.—$4,716,600 for stormwater 
management infrastructure in the city of Lomita, California. 
‘‘(290) MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$28,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in 
Marin County, California. 
‘‘(291) MAYWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure in the city of Maywood, California. 
‘‘(292) MONTEREY PENINSULA, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, on 
the Monterey Peninsula, California. 
‘‘(293) NORTH
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA.—$45,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including coastal flooding 
resilience measures for such infrastructure, in North Richmond, 
California. 
‘‘(294) ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA.—$40,700,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water 
supply, in the city of Ontario, California. 
‘‘(295) PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater manage-
ment, in the city of Paramount, California. 
‘‘(296) PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.—$13,700,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling, in the 
city of Petaluma, California. 
‘‘(297) PLACER
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.—$21,000,000 for 
environmental infrastructure, in Placer County, California. 
‘‘(298) RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.—$27,500,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure in the city of Rialto, California. 
‘‘(299) RINCON RESERVATION, CALIFORNIA.—$38,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure on the Rincon Band of 
Luisen˜o Indians reservation, California. 
‘‘(300) SACRAMENTO-SAN
JOAQUIN
DELTA, CALIFORNIA.— 
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure (including 
stormwater management), water supply and related facilities, 
environmental 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, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(301) SAN
JOAQUIN
AND
STANISLAUS, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$200,000,000 
for 
water 
and 
wastewater 
infrastructure, 
including stormwater management, and water supply, in San 
Joaquin County and Stanislaus County, California. 
‘‘(302) SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA.—$19,400,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, in the city of Santa Rosa California. 
‘‘(303) SIERRA MADRE, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, including 
earthquake resilience measures for such infrastructure and 
water supply, in the city of Sierra Madre, California.
H. R. 7776—1416 
‘‘(304) SMITH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—$25,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure in Howonquet Village and Resort and 
Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, Smith River, California. 
‘‘(305) SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.—$270,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management and water recycling, at the San Francisco Inter-
national Airport, California. 
‘‘(306) TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA.—$18,000,000 for environ-
mental infrastructure, in the city of Temecula, California. 
‘‘(307) TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA.—$100,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and 
water supply, in the city of Torrance, California. 
‘‘(308) WESTERN
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 
$15,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the cities of 
Pinole, San Pablo, and Richmond, and in El Sobrante, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(309) YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$6,000,000 for environ-
mental infrastructure, in Yolo County, California. 
‘‘(310) HEBRON, CONNECTICUT.—$3,700,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in the town of Hebron, Connecticut. 
‘‘(311) NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT.—$16,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure in the town of Bozrah and the City of 
Norwich, Connecticut. 
‘‘(312) WINDHAM, CONNECTICUT.—$18,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in the town of Windham, Con-
necticut. 
‘‘(313) KENT, DELAWARE.—$35,000,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, water 
storage and treatment systems, and environmental restoration, 
in Kent County, Delaware. 
‘‘(314) NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE.—$35,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, 
water storage and treatment systems, and environmental res-
toration, in New Castle County, Delaware. 
‘‘(315) SUSSEX, DELAWARE.—$35,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, 
water storage and treatment systems, and environmental res-
toration, in Sussex County, Delaware. 
‘‘(316) WASHINGTON, DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA.—$1,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Washington, District of Columbia. 
‘‘(317) LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA.—$12,750,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in the town of Longboat Key, Florida. 
‘‘(318) MARTIN, ST. LUCIE, AND
PALM
BEACH
COUNTIES, 
FLORIDA.—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, 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. 
‘‘(319) POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Polk 
County, Florida. 
‘‘(320) OKEECHOBEE
COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$20,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure in Okeechobee County, Florida. 
‘‘(321) ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$50,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation 
and water supply, in Orange County, Florida.
H. R. 7776—1417 
‘‘(322) GEORGIA.—$75,000,000 for environmental infrastruc-
ture in Baldwin County, Bartow County, Floyd County, 
Haralson County, Jones County, Gilmer County, Towns County, 
Warren County, Lamar County, Lowndes County, Troup 
County, Madison County, Toombs County, Dade County, 
Bulloch County, Gordon County, Walker County, Dooly County, 
Butts County, Clarke County, Crisp County, Newton County, 
Bibb County, Baker County, Barrow County, Oglethorpe 
County, Peach County, Brooks County, Carroll County, Worth 
County, Jenkins County, Wheeler County, Calhoun County, 
Randolph County, Wilcox County, Stewart County, Telfair 
County, Clinch County, Hancock County, Ben Hill County, 
Jeff Davis County, Chattooga County, Lanier County, Brantley 
County, Charlton County, Tattnall County, Emanuel County, 
Mitchell County, Turner County, Bacon County, Terrell County, 
Macon County, Ware County, Bleckley County, Colquitt County, 
Washington County, Berrien County, Coffee County, Pulaski 
County, Cook County, Atkinson County, Candler County, 
Taliaferro County, Evans County, Johnson County, Irwin 
County, Dodge County, Jefferson County, Appling County, 
Taylor County, Wayne County, Clayton County, Decatur 
County, Schley County, Sumter County, Early County, Webster 
County, Clay County, Upson County, Long County, Twiggs 
County, Dougherty County, Quitman County, Meriwether 
County, Stephens County, Wilkinson County, Murray County, 
Wilkes County, Elbert County, McDuffie County, Heard County, 
Marion County, Talbot County, Laurens County, Montgomery 
County, Echols County, Pierce County, Richmond County, Chat-
tahoochee County, Screven County, Habersham County, Lincoln 
County, Burke County, Liberty County, Tift County, Polk 
County, Glascock County, Grady County, Jasper County, Banks 
County, Franklin County, Whitfield County, Treutlen County, 
Crawford County, and Hart County, Georgia. 
‘‘(323) GUAM.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure in Guam. 
‘‘(324) STATE OF HAWAII.—$75,000,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure (including urban stormwater conveyance), 
resource protection and development, water supply, environ-
mental restoration, and surface water protection and develop-
ment, in the State of Hawaii. 
‘‘(325) COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAII.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater manage-
ment, in the County of Hawai‘i, Hawaii. 
‘‘(326) HONOLULU, HAWAII.—$20,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, 
in the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii. 
‘‘(327) KAUA‘I, HAWAII.—$20,000,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the 
County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii. 
‘‘(328) MAUI, HAWAII.—$20,000,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the 
County of Maui, Hawaii. 
‘‘(329) DIXMOOR, ILLINOIS.—$15,000,000 for water and 
water supply infrastructure in the village of Dixmoor, Illinois. 
‘‘(330) FOREST PARK, ILLINOIS.—$10,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the vil-
lage of Forest Park, Illinois.
H. R. 7776—1418 
‘‘(331) LEMONT, ILLINOIS.—$3,135,000 for water infrastruc-
ture in the village of Lemont, Illinois. 
‘‘(332) LOCKPORT, ILLINOIS.—$6,550,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city 
of Lockport, Illinois. 
‘‘(333) MONTGOMERY AND CHRISTIAN COUNTIES, ILLINOIS.— 
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply, in Montgomery County and Christian County, 
Illinois. 
‘‘(334) WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—$30,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, 
in Will County, Illinois. 
‘‘(335) ORLEANS
PARISH, 
LOUISIANA.—$100,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in Orleans Parish, Lou-
isiana. 
‘‘(336) FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater manage-
ment (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Fitch-
burg, Massachusetts. 
‘‘(337) HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater manage-
ment (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Haver-
hill, Massachusetts. 
‘‘(338) LAWRENCE, MASSACHUSETTS.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater manage-
ment (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Law-
rence, Massachusetts. 
‘‘(339) LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater manage-
ment (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of 
Lowell, Massachusetts. 
‘‘(340) METHUEN, MASSACHUSETTS.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater manage-
ment (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of 
Methuen, Massachusetts. 
‘‘(341) MARYLAND.—$100,000,000 for water, wastewater, 
and other environmental infrastructure, Maryland. 
‘‘(342) BOONSBORO, MARYLAND.—$5,000,000 for water infra-
structure, including water supply, in the town of Boonsboro, 
Maryland. 
‘‘(343) BRUNSWICK, MARYLAND.—$15,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Brunswick, Maryland. 
‘‘(344) CASCADE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.—$7,200,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in Cascade Charter 
Township, Michigan. 
‘‘(345) MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—$40,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in 
Macomb County, Michigan. 
‘‘(346) NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA.—$33,450,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Northfield, Min-
nesota. 
‘‘(347) CENTERTOWN, MISSOURI.—$15,900,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in the village of Centertown, Mis-
souri. 
‘‘(348) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—$45,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.
H. R. 7776—1419 
‘‘(349) ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI.—$45,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure in St. Louis County, Missouri. 
‘‘(350) CLINTON, 
MISSISSIPPI.—$13,600,000 for environ-
mental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infra-
structure (including stormwater management), drainage sys-
tems, and water quality enhancement, in the city of Clinton, 
Mississippi. 
‘‘(351) MADISON
COUNTY, 
MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for 
environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater 
infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage 
systems, and water quality enhancement, in Madison County, 
Mississippi. 
‘‘(352) MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for environ-
mental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infra-
structure (including stormwater management), drainage sys-
tems, and water quality enhancement, in the city of Meridian, 
Mississippi. 
‘‘(353) OXFORD, 
MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for environ-
mental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infra-
structure (including stormwater management), drainage sys-
tems, and water quality enhancement, in the City of Oxford, 
Mississippi. 
‘‘(354) 
RANKIN
COUNTY, 
MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 
for 
environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater 
infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage 
systems, and water quality enhancement, in Rankin County, 
Mississippi. 
‘‘(355) MANCHESTER, NEW
HAMPSHIRE.—$20,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city 
of Manchester, New Hampshire. 
‘‘(356) BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.—$825,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management (including 
combined sewer overflows), in the city of Bayonne, New Jersey. 
‘‘(357) CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY.—$119,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city 
of Camden, New Jersey. 
‘‘(358) ESSEX
AND
SUSSEX
COUNTIES, 
NEW
JERSEY.— 
$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
water supply, in Essex County and Sussex County, New Jersey. 
‘‘(359) FLEMINGTON, NEW
JERSEY.—$4,500,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the 
Borough of Flemington, New Jersey. 
‘‘(360) JEFFERSON, NEW
JERSEY.—$90,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Jef-
ferson Township, New Jersey. 
‘‘(361) KEARNY, NEW JERSEY.—$69,900,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management (including 
combined sewer overflows), in the town of Kearny, New Jersey. 
‘‘(362) LONG HILL, NEW JERSEY.—$7,500,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Long Hill 
Township, New Jersey. 
‘‘(363) MORRIS
COUNTY, NEW
JERSEY.—$30,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in Morris County, New 
Jersey.
H. R. 7776—1420 
‘‘(364) PASSAIC, NEW JERSEY.—$1,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Passaic 
County, New Jersey. 
‘‘(365) PHILLIPSBURG, NEW JERSEY.—$2,600,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the 
town of Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 
‘‘(366) RAHWAY, NEW JERSEY.—$3,250,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rahway, New Jersey. 
‘‘(367) ROSELLE, NEW JERSEY.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Bor-
ough of Roselle, New Jersey. 
‘‘(368) SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE, NEW JERSEY.—$7,500,000 
for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the Town-
ship of South Orange Village, New Jersey. 
‘‘(369) SUMMIT, NEW JERSEY.—$1,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city 
of Summit, New Jersey. 
‘‘(370) WARREN, NEW JERSEY.—$4,550,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Warren 
Township, New Jersey. 
‘‘(371) ESPAN˜ OLA, NEW MEXICO.—$21,995,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Espan˜ola, New Mexico. 
‘‘(372) FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO.—$15,500,000 for water 
infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Farm-
ington, New Mexico. 
‘‘(373) MORA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.—$2,874,000 for waste-
water infrastructure in Mora County, New Mexico. 
‘‘(374) SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO.—$20,700,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the 
city of Santa Fe, New Mexico. 
‘‘(375) CLARKSTOWN, NEW YORK.—$14,600,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the 
town of Clarkstown, New York. 
‘‘(376) GENESEE, NEW YORK.—$85,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management 
and water supply, in Genesee County, New York. 
‘‘(377) QUEENS, NEW YORK.—$119,200,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management 
(including combined sewer overflows), in Queens, New York. 
‘‘(378) YORKTOWN, NEW YORK.—$40,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town 
of Yorktown, New York. 
‘‘(379) BRUNSWICK, OHIO.—$4,510,000 for wastewater infra-
structure, including stormwater management, in the city of 
Brunswick, Ohio. 
‘‘(380) BROOKINGS, OREGON.—$2,000,000 for wastewater 
infrastructure in the City of Brookings and the Port of 
Brookings Harbor, Oregon. 
‘‘(381) MONROE, OREGON.—$6,000,000 for water and waste-
water infrastructure in the city of Monroe, Oregon. 
‘‘(382) NEWPORT, OREGON.—$60,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water 
storage, in the city of Newport, Oregon. 
‘‘(383) LANE COUNTY, OREGON.—$25,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, 
distribution, and treatment systems, in Lane County, Oregon.
H. R. 7776—1421 
‘‘(384) PALMYRA, PENNSYLVANIA.—$36,300,000 for waste-
water infrastructure in Palmyra Township, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(385) PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$10,000,000 for water 
and stormwater management infrastructure, including water 
supply, in Pike County, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(386) PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—$20,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the 
city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(387) POCONO, PENNSYLVANIA.—$22,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure in Pocono Township, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(388) WESTFALL, PENNSYLVANIA.—$16,880,000 for waste-
water infrastructure in Westfall Township, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(389) 
WHITEHALL, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—$6,000,000 
for 
stormwater management infrastructure in Whitehall Township 
and South Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(390) 
BEAUFORT, 
SOUTH
CAROLINA.—$7,462,000 
for 
stormwater management infrastructure in Beaufort County, 
South Carolina. 
‘‘(391) CHARLESTON, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—$25,583,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, 
in the city of Charleston, South Carolina. 
‘‘(392) HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$19,000,000 for 
environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, in Horry 
County, South Carolina. 
‘‘(393) MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$7,822,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, 
in the town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. 
‘‘(394) PORTLAND, TENNESSEE.—$1,850,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city 
of Portland, Tennessee. 
‘‘(395) SMITH COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$19,500,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in 
Smith County, Tennessee. 
‘‘(396) TROUSDALE, MACON, AND SUMNER COUNTIES, TEN-
NESSEE.—$178,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure 
in Trousdale County, Macon County, and Sumner County, Ten-
nessee. 
‘‘(397) UNITED
STATES
VIRGIN
ISLANDS.—$1,584,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure in the United States Virgin Islands. 
‘‘(398) BONNEY LAKE, WASHINGTON.—$3,000,000 for water 
and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bonney Lake, 
Washington. 
‘‘(399) BURIEN, WASHINGTON.—$5,000,000 for stormwater 
management infrastructure in the city of Burien, Washington. 
‘‘(400) ELLENSBURG, WASHINGTON.—$3,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the 
city of Ellensburg, Washington. 
‘‘(401) NORTH BEND, WASHINGTON.—$30,000,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the 
city of North Bend, Washington. 
‘‘(402) PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON.—$7,500,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the 
City and Port of Port Angeles, Washington. 
‘‘(403) SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.—$56,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, 
in Snohomish County, Washington.
H. R. 7776—1422 
‘‘(404) WESTERN
WASHINGTON
STATE.—$200,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, water supply, and conservation, in Chelan 
County, King County, Kittitas County, Pierce County, Snoho-
mish County, Skagit County, and Whatcom County, Wash-
ington. 
‘‘(405) MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.—$4,500,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management 
(including combined sewer overflows), and resource protection 
and development, in the Milwaukee metropolitan area, Wis-
consin.’’. 
(b) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.— 
(1) CONSISTENCY WITH REPORTS.—Congress finds that the 
project modifications described in this subsection are in accord-
ance with the reports submitted to Congress by the Secretary 
under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Develop-
ment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled ‘‘Report to Congress 
on Future Water Resources Development’’, or have otherwise 
been reviewed by Congress. 
(2) MODIFICATIONS.— 
(A) 
CALAVERAS
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.—Section 
219(f)(86) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259) is amended 
by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$13,280,000’’. 
(B) SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(23) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840; 134 Stat. 2718) 
is amended by striking ‘‘Suburban’’. 
(C) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 117 Stat. 1840; 121 Stat. 1259) 
is amended by striking paragraph (93) and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(93) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$103,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, Diamond Bar, La Habra Heights, Dominguez 
Channel, Santa Clarity Valley, and Rowland Heights, Los 
Angeles County, California.’’. 
(D) BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO.—Section 219(f)(109) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended 
by striking ‘‘$10,000,000 for water supply infrastructure’’ 
and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure, including stormwater management and water 
supply’’. 
(E) CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Section 219(f)(121) 
of the Water Resources Development 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’’. 
(F) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Section 219(f)(128) 
of the Water Resources Development 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’’. 
(G) ALBANY, GEORGIA.—Section 219(f)(130) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113
H. R. 7776—1423 
Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking 
‘‘$4,000,000 for a storm drainage system,’’ and inserting 
‘‘$109,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management (including combined sewer over-
flows),’’. 
(H) 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’’. 
(I) EAST POINT, GEORGIA.—Section 219(f)(136) of the 
Water Resources Development 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’’. 
(J) COOK COUNTY AND LAKE 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— 
(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ‘‘COOK 
COUNTY’’ and inserting ‘‘COOK
COUNTY
AND
LAKE 
COUNTY’’; 
(ii) by striking ‘‘$35,000,000 for’’ and inserting 
‘‘$100,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, and other’’; and 
(iii) by inserting ‘‘and Lake County’’ after ‘‘Cook 
County’’. 
(K) MADISON AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, ILLINOIS.—Sec-
tion 219(f)(55) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A– 
221; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking ‘‘$45,000,000’’ 
and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’. 
(L) CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.—Section 219(f)(12)(A) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1843; 121 Stat. 1225) 
is amended by striking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$125,000,000’’. 
(M) 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 inserting 
‘‘$90,000,000’’. 
(N) SOUTH
CENTRAL
PLANNING
AND
DEVELOPMENT 
COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.—Section 219(f)(153) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended by striking 
‘‘$2,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$12,500,000’’. 
(O) 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 wastewater infrastructure’’ and 
inserting ‘‘Water supply and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management’’.
H. R. 7776—1424 
(ii) ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST. JAMES, AND ASSUMP-
TION PARISHES, LOUISIANA.—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 ‘‘BAP-
TIST 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
APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 
CONSTRUCTION
ASSISTANCE.—Section 219(e) of the 
Water Resources Development 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 para-
graph (16); 
(II) by striking the period at the end of para-
graph (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).’’. 
(P) MICHIGAN COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.—Section 
219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262) is 
amended— 
(i) by striking ‘‘$35,000,000 for’’ and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$85,000,000 for’’; and 
(ii) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.—Amounts made available 
under subparagraph (A) may be used for design and 
construction projects for water-related environmental infra-
structure and resource protection and development projects 
in Michigan, including for projects for wastewater treat-
ment and related facilities, water supply and related facili-
ties, environmental restoration, and surface water resource 
protection and development.’’. 
(Q) JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(167) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1263) is amended by striking 
‘‘$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$125,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure, including resilience activities for such infrastruc-
ture’’. 
(R) 
ALLEGHENY
COUNTY, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—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 for wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including stormwater management, and other’’. 
(S) LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.— 
Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A– 
220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818; 134
H. R. 7776—1425 
Stat. 2719) is amended by striking ‘‘$110,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$165,000,000’’. 
(T) MYRTLE BEACH AND VICINITY, SOUTH CAROLINA.— 
Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1267) 
is amended by striking paragraph (250) and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(250) MYRTLE BEACH AND VICINITY, SOUTH CAROLINA.— 
$31,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean 
outfalls, Myrtle Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.’’. 
(U) NORTH MYRTLE BEACH AND VICINITY, SOUTH CARO-
LINA.—Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1267) 
is amended by striking paragraph (251) and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(251) NORTH MYRTLE BEACH AND VICINITY, SOUTH CARO-
LINA.—$74,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including 
ocean outfalls, North Myrtle Beach and vicinity, South Caro-
lina.’’. 
(V) EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.—Section 
219(f)(10)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1255) is 
amended— 
(i) 
by 
striking 
‘‘$20,000,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$52,000,000’’; and 
(ii) 
by 
striking 
‘‘Accomac’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘Accomack’’. 
(W) NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 219(f)(272) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1268) is amended— 
(i) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000 for water and waste-
water’’ and inserting the following: 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$20,000,000 for water and waste-
water’’; and 
(ii) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(B) 
LOCAL
COOPERATION
AGREEMENTS.—Notwith-
standing subsection (a), at the request of a non-Federal 
interest for a project or a separable element of a project 
that receives assistance under this paragraph, the Sec-
retary may enter into an agreement developed in accord-
ance with section 571(e) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371) for the project or separable 
element.’’. 
(3) EFFECT ON AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding the oper-
ation 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 Development Act 
of 2016), any project included on a list published by the Sec-
retary pursuant to such section the authorization for which 
is amended by this subsection remains authorized to be carried 
out by the Secretary. 
SEC. 8376. 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
H. R. 7776—1426 
of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future 
Water Resources Development’’, or have otherwise been reviewed 
by Congress. 
(b) PROJECTS.— 
(1) CHESAPEAKE BAY.—Section 510 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202; 128 
Stat. 1317; 134 Stat. 3704) is amended— 
(A) in subsection (a)(2)— 
(i) 
by 
inserting 
‘‘infrastructure 
and’’ 
before 
‘‘resource protection’’; 
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘and 
streambanks’’ after ‘‘shorelines’’; 
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) 
as subparagraphs (H) and (I), respectively; and 
(iv) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(E) wastewater treatment and related facilities; 
‘‘(F) water supply and related facilities; 
‘‘(G) stormwater and drainage systems;’’; and 
(B) in subsection (c)(2)(A), by inserting ‘‘facilities or’’ 
before ‘‘a resource protection and restoration plan’’. 
(2) 
FLORIDA
KEYS
WATER
QUALITY
IMPROVEMENTS, 
FLORIDA.—Section 109(f) of title I of division B of the Miscella-
neous Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–554, appendix 
D, 114 Stat. 2763A–222 (as enacted by section 1(a)(4) of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 2763)); 121 
Stat. 1217) is amended by striking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$200,000,000’’. 
(3) 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’’. 
(4) MISSISSIPPI.—Section 592 of the Water Resources 
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 surface water 
resource protection and development’’ and inserting ‘‘sur-
face 
water 
resource 
protection 
and 
development, 
stormwater management, drainage systems, and water 
quality enhancement’’; and 
(B) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘$200,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$300,000,000’’. 
(5) LAKE TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NEVADA AND CALI-
FORNIA.—Section 108(g) of division C of the Consolidated Appro-
priations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447; 118 Stat. 2942) is 
amended by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’. 
(6) 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’’.
H. R. 7776—1427 
(7) 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, replacement, and construc-
tion assistance’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘treatment, and distribution facilities’’ 
and inserting ‘‘treatment, stormwater management, and 
water distribution facilities’’. 
(8) 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— 
(A) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘$240,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$250,000,000’’; and 
(B) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS.—In addi-
tion to amounts authorized under subsection (h), there is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000, to be 
divided between the States referred to in subsection (a).’’. 
(9) 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 inserting 
‘‘SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND LOWER DELAWARE 
RIVER BASIN.’’; 
(B) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘and the Lower Dela-
ware River Basin’’ after ‘‘southeastern Pennsylvania’’; 
(C) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘southeastern 
Pennsylvania, including projects for waste water treatment 
and related facilities,’’ and inserting ‘‘southeastern Pennsyl-
vania and the Lower Delaware River Basin, including 
projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities 
(including sewer overflow infrastructure improvements and 
other stormwater management),’’; 
(D) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows: 
‘‘(g) AREAS DEFINED.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) LOWER DELAWARE RIVER BASIN.—The term ‘Lower Dela-
ware River Basin’ means the Schuylkill Valley, Upper Estuary, 
Lower Estuary, and Delaware Bay subwatersheds of the Dela-
ware River Basin in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 
the States of New Jersey and Delaware. 
‘‘(2) SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA.—The term ‘south-
eastern Pennsylvania’ means Philadelphia, 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 
assistance under this section to non-Federal interests in 
the Lower Delaware River Basin’’. 
(10) 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’’. 
(11) TEXAS.—Section 5138 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250) is amended—
H. R. 7776—1428 
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘, as identified by 
the Texas Water Development Board’’; 
(B) in subsection (e)(3), by inserting ‘‘and construction’’ 
after ‘‘design work’’; 
(C) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (i); 
(D) by inserting after subsection (f) the following: 
‘‘(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In this section, the term non-Fed-
eral interest has the meaning given such term in section 221(b) 
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)). 
‘‘(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 per-
cent 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.’’; and 
(E) in subsection (i) (as redesignated), by striking 
‘‘$40,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$80,000,000’’. 
(12) LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.—Section 
542 of the Water Resources Development 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 infrastructure planning, design, and 
construction’’; and 
(B) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘$32,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’. 
(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 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. 8377. CONVEYANCES. 
(a) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.— 
(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acre-
age and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed 
under this section shall be determined by a survey that is 
satisfactory 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 convey-
ance is made under this section shall be responsible for all 
reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate trans-
action and environmental documentation costs, associated with 
the conveyance. 
(4) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance is made 
under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 
any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after
H. R. 7776—1429 
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 con-
siders necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of 
the United States. 
(b) CITY OF LEWES, DELAWARE.— 
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary is authorized 
to convey, without consideration, to the City of Lewes, Dela-
ware, all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
and to the real property described in paragraph (2), for the 
purpose of housing a new municipal campus for Lewes City 
Hall, a police station, and a board of public works. 
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed under this 
subsection is the approximately 5.26 acres of land, including 
improvements on that land, located at 1137 Savannah Road, 
Lewes, Delaware. 
(3) REVERSION.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary determines at any 
time that the property conveyed under paragraph (1) is 
not being used in accordance with the purpose specified 
in such paragraph, all right, title, and interest in and 
to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Sec-
retary, to the United States. 
(B) DETERMINATION.—A determination by the Sec-
retary under subparagraph (A) shall be made on the record 
after an opportunity for a hearing. 
(c) ARMY RESERVE FACILITY, BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS.— 
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey 
to the city of Belleville, Illinois, without consideration, all right, 
title, and interest of the United States in and to the real 
property described in paragraph (2). 
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed under this 
subsection is the approximately 5.2 acres of land, including 
improvements on that land, located at 500 South Belt East 
in Belleville, Illinois. 
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under 
this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and condi-
tions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the 
interests of the United States. 
(4) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the prop-
erty conveyed under this subsection is not used for a public 
purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to the property 
shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary, to the United 
States. 
(d) LAKE BARKLEY, KENTUCKY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to convey 
to the Eddyville Riverport and Industrial Development 
Authority all right, title, and interest of the United States 
in and to the approximately 3.3 acres of land in Lyon County, 
Kentucky, including the land identified as Tract 1216–2 and 
a portion of the land identified as Tract 112–2, adjacent to 
the southwestern boundary of the port facilities of the Authority 
at the Barkley Dam and Lake Barkley project, Kentucky,
H. R. 7776—1430 
authorized by the first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 
(chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636). 
(2) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary shall reserve 
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 
continued operation of the project described in paragraph (1). 
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under 
this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and condi-
tions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the 
interests of the United States. 
(4) CONSIDERATION.—The Eddyville Riverport and Indus-
trial Development Authority 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. 
(e) SARDIS LAKE, PANOLA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.— 
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary is authorized 
to convey to the City of Sardis, Mississippi, all right, title, 
and interest of the United States in and to the real property 
described in paragraph (2). 
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is the approxi-
mately 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, Mississippi, and being more particularly described as 
follows: Begin at the southeast corner of said Section 13, run 
thence from said point of beginning, 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 leaving 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, easterly for 100 feet, more or less to 
the northwest corner of the southwest quarter of said Section 
18; thence leaving said south line of said northwest quarter, 
along the east line of said southwest quarter, S 00°06’20’’ 
E, run 2,280 feet, more or less, to the southerly edge of an 
existing power line right-of-way; thence leaving said east line 
of said southwest quarter, along said southerly edge of said 
power line right-of-way, northwesterly, 300 feet, more or less, 
to the easterly edge of the existing 4–H Club Road; thence 
leaving said southerly edge of said power line right-of-way,
H. R. 7776—1431 
along said easterly edge of said road, southeasterly, 420 feet, 
more or less, to the south line of said southwest quarter; 
thence leaving said easterly edge of said road, along said south 
line of southwest quarter, westerly, 2,635 feet, more or less, 
to the point of beginning, LESS AND EXCEPT the following 
prescribed parcel: Beginning at a point N 00°45’48’’ W, 302.15 
feet and west, 130.14 feet from the southeast corner of said 
Section 13, T 8 S, R 6 W, and running thence S 04°35’58’’ 
W, 200.00 feet to a point on the north side of a road; running 
thence with the north side of said road, N 83°51’ W, for 64.84 
feet; thence N 72°26’44’’ W, 59.48 feet; thence N 60°31’37’’ 
W, 61.71 feet; thence N 63°35’08’’ W, 51.07 feet; thence N 
06°47’17’’ W, 142.81 feet to a point; running thence S 85°24’02’’ 
E, 254.37 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.00 acre, 
more or less. 
(3) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.— 
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary shall reserve and 
retain from the conveyance under this subsection such 
easements, rights-of-way, and other interests that the Sec-
retary determines to be necessary and appropriate to 
ensure the continued operation of the Sardis Lake project, 
authorized by section 6 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 
569, 45 Stat. 536). 
(B) FLOODING; LIABILITY.—In addition to any ease-
ments, rights-of-way, and other interests reserved an 
retained under subparagraph (A), the Secretary— 
(i) shall retain the right to flood land for down-
stream 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 
(ii) shall not be liable for any reasonable 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 conditions as the Secretary 
determines appropriate to protect the interests of the 
United States; and 
(B) ensure that such deed includes a permanent restric-
tion 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, Mississippi, shall 
pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the 
fair market value of the property conveyed under this sub-
section, 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— 
(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
H. R. 7776—1432 
(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. 
(f) 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 described 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). 
(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 condi-
tions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the 
interests of the United States. 
(5) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port 
Authority 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) OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGABLE CAPACITY.—A conveyance 
under this subsection shall not affect the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary under section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 
U.S.C. 403) with respect to the property conveyed. 
(g) REGIONAL CORPS OF ENGINEERS OFFICE, CORPUS CHRISTI, 
TEXAS.— 
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—At such time as new facili-
ties 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 para-
graph (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 described as follows: 
(A) TRACT 100.—The 1.89 acres, more or less, as con-
veyed by the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1 
of Nueces County, Texas, to the United States by 
instrument dated October 16, 1928, and recorded at Volume
H. R. 7776—1433 
193, pages 1 and 2, in the Deed Records of Nueces County, 
Texas. 
(B) TRACT 101.—The 0.53 acres as conveyed by the 
City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, to the United 
States by instrument 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), con-
structed January 9, 1974. 
(ii) Garage, vehicle with 5 bays (RPUID AO–C– 
3517), constructed January 9, 1985. 
(iii) Bulkhead, Upper (RPUID AO–C–2658), con-
structed January 1, 1941. 
(iv) Bulkhead, Lower (RPUID AO–C–3520), con-
structed January 1, 1933. 
(v) Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C–3521), con-
structed January 9, 1985. 
(vi) Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C–3522), con-
structed January 9, 1985. 
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under 
this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and condi-
tions 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 not less than the fair 
market value of the property (including improvements) con-
veyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary. 
SEC. 8378. LAND TRANSFER AND TRUST LAND FOR CHOCTAW NATION 
OF OKLAHOMA. 
(a) TRANSFER.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2) and for the 
consideration described in subsection (c), the Secretary shall 
transfer to the Secretary of the Interior the land described 
in subsection (b) to be held in trust for the benefit of the 
Choctaw Nation. 
(2) CONDITIONS.—The land transfer under this subsection 
shall be subject to the following conditions: 
(A) The transfer— 
(i) shall not interfere with the operation by the 
Corps of Engineers of the Sardis Lake Project, author-
ized pursuant to section 203 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1962 (76 Stat. 1187), or any other authorized civil 
works project; and 
(ii) shall be subject to such other terms and condi-
tions as the Secretary determines to be necessary and 
appropriate to ensure the continued operation of the 
Sardis Lake Project or any other authorized civil works 
project. 
(B) The Secretary shall retain the right to inundate 
with water the land transferred to the Choctaw Nation 
under this subsection as necessary to carry out an author-
ized purpose of the Sardis Lake Project or any other civil 
works project. 
(C) No gaming activities may be conducted on the 
land transferred under this subsection.
H. R. 7776—1434 
(b) LAND DESCRIPTION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The land to be transferred under sub-
section (a) is the approximately 247 acres of land located in 
Sections 18 and 19 of T2N R18E, and Sections 5 and 8 of 
T2N R19E, Pushmataha County, Oklahoma, generally depicted 
as ‘‘USACE’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Sardis Lake – Choctaw 
Nation Proposal’’ and dated February 22, 2022. 
(2) SURVEY.—The exact acreage and legal descriptions of 
the land to be transferred under subsection (a) shall be deter-
mined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary and the Sec-
retary of the Interior. 
(c) CONSIDERATION.—The Choctaw Nation shall pay to the Sec-
retary an amount that is equal to the fair market value of the 
land transferred under subsection (a), as determined by the Sec-
retary, which funds may be accepted and expended by the Secretary. 
(d) COSTS OF TRANSFER.—The Choctaw Nation shall be respon-
sible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate 
transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with 
the transfer of land under subsection (a). 
SEC. 8379. 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, regulation, 
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. 8380. 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 generates seismic safety bene-
fits in regions’’ and inserting ‘‘a flood risk management or coastal 
storm risk management project in a region’’. 
SEC. 8381. DEBRIS REMOVAL. 
Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), is 
amended by striking ‘‘or recreation’’ and inserting ‘‘ecosystem res-
toration, or recreation’’. 
SEC. 8382. GENERAL REAUTHORIZATIONS. 
(a) REHABILITATION OF EXISTING LEVEES.—Section 3017(e) of 
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 
U.S.C. 3303a note) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘this section’’; 
and 
(2) by striking ‘‘the date that is 10 years after the date 
of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2028’’. 
(b) INVASIVE SPECIES IN ALPINE LAKES PILOT PROJECT.—Section 
507(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (16 U.S.C. 
4701 note) is amended by striking ‘‘2024’’ and inserting ‘‘2028’’. 
(c) ENVIRONMENTAL BANKS.—Section 309(e) of the Coastal Wet-
lands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 3957(e)) 
is amended by striking ‘‘10’’ and inserting ‘‘12’’.
H. R. 7776—1435 
SEC. 8383. 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 (a), by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) STUDIES AND PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE NON-FEDERAL 
INTERESTS.—A credit described in paragraph (1) for a study 
or project with multiple non-Federal interests may be applied 
to the required non-Federal cost share for a study or project 
of any such non-Federal interest, if each such non-Federal 
interest agrees in writing to such application.’’; 
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF EXCESS CREDIT.—Notwith-
standing paragraph (2)(A)(ii), the Secretary may approve credit 
in excess of the non-Federal share for a study or project prior 
to the identification of each authorized study or project to 
which the excess credit will be applied, subject to the condition 
that the non-Federal interest agrees to submit for approval 
by the Secretary an amendment to the comprehensive plan 
prepared under paragraph (2) that identifies each authorized 
study or project in advance of execution of the feasibility cost- 
sharing agreement or project partnership agreement for that 
authorized study or project.’’; 
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘10 years after the date 
of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘on December 31, 2028’’; 
and 
(4) in subsection (e)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘10 years after the 
date of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 
2028’’. 
SEC. 8384. TREATMENT OF CREDIT BETWEEN PROJECTS. 
Section 7007(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (121 Stat. 1277; 128 Stat. 1226) is amended by inserting 
‘‘, or may be applied to reduce the amounts required to be paid 
by the non-Federal interest under the terms of the deferred payment 
agreements entered into between the Secretary and the non-Federal 
interest for the projects authorized by section 7012(a)(1)’’ before 
the period at the end. 
SEC. 8385. NON-FEDERAL PAYMENT FLEXIBILITY. 
Section 103(l) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(33 U.S.C. 2213(l)) is amended— 
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ‘‘INITIAL’’; 
(2) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘At the request of’’ 
and inserting the following: 
‘‘(1) INITIAL PAYMENT.—At the request of’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(2) INTEREST.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of any non-Federal 
interest, the Secretary may waive the accrual of interest 
on any non-Federal cash contribution under this section 
or section 101 for a project for a period of not more than 
1 year if the Secretary determines that— 
‘‘(i) the waiver will contribute to the ability of 
the non-Federal interest to make future contributions; 
and 
‘‘(ii) the non-Federal interest is in good standing 
under terms agreed to under subsection (k)(1).
H. R. 7776—1436 
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS.—The Secretary may grant not more 
than 1 waiver under subparagraph (A) for the same 
project.’’. 
SEC. 8386. COASTAL COMMUNITY FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PUR-
POSES. 
Section 103(k)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)(4)) is amended— 
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
(i) and (ii), respectively, and adjusting the margins appro-
priately; 
(2) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so redesignated), 
by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ and inserting the following: 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding’’; 
(3) in clause (i) (as so redesignated)— 
(A) 
by 
striking 
‘‘$200 
million’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$200,000,000’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 
(4) in clause (ii) (as so redesignated)— 
(A) by inserting ‘‘an amount equal to 2⁄3 of’’ after 
‘‘repays’’; and 
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting 
‘‘; and’’; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(iii) the non-Federal interest repays the bal-
ance of remaining principal by June 1, 2032.’’; 
and 
(5) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(B) REPAYMENT OPTIONS.—Repayment of a non-Fed-
eral contribution under subparagraph (A)(iii) may be satis-
fied through the provision by the non-Federal interest of 
fish and wildlife mitigation for one or more projects or 
separable elements, if the Secretary determines that— 
‘‘(i) the non-Federal interest has incurred costs 
for the provision of mitigation that— 
‘‘(I) equal or exceed the amount of the required 
repayment; and 
‘‘(II) are in excess of any required non-Federal 
contribution for the project or separable element 
for which the mitigation is provided; and 
‘‘(ii) the mitigation is integral to the project for 
which it is provided.’’. 
SEC. 8387. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM. 
(a) DEFINITION OF REHABILITATION.—Section 9002(13) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3301(13)) 
is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘The term’’ and inserting the following: 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term’’; 
(2) by inserting ‘‘, increase resiliency to extreme weather 
events,’’ after ‘‘flood risk’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘rehabilitation’ includes 
improvements to a levee in conjunction with any repair, 
replacement, reconstruction, or reconfiguration.’’. 
(b) LEVEE SAFETY INITIATIVE.—Section 9005(g)(2)(E)(i) of the 
Water 
Resources 
Development 
Act 
of 
2007 
(33 
U.S.C.
H. R. 7776—1437 
3303a(g)(2)(E)(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘2023’’ and inserting 
‘‘2028’’. 
(c) LEVEE
REHABILITATION
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.—Section 
9005(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 
3303a(h)) is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and levee rehabilitation’’ 
after ‘‘mitigation’’; 
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$25,000,000’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(11) PRIORITIZATION.—To the maximum extent practicable, 
the Secretary shall prioritize the provision of assistance under 
this subsection to economically disadvantaged communities (as 
defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), 
including economically disadvantaged communities located in 
urban and rural areas.’’. 
SEC. 8388. SURPLUS WATER CONTRACTS AND WATER STORAGE AGREE-
MENTS. 
Section 1046(c) of the Water Resources Reform and Develop-
ment Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1254; 132 Stat. 3784; 134 Stat. 2715) 
is amended— 
(1) by striking paragraph (3); and 
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3). 
SEC. 8389. WATER SUPPLY STORAGE REPAIR, REHABILITATION, AND 
REPLACEMENT COSTS. 
Section 301(b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 
390b(b)) is amended, in the fourth proviso, by striking the second 
sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘For Corps of Engineers 
projects, all annual operation and maintenance costs for municipal 
and industrial water supply storage under this section shall be 
reimbursed from State or local interests on an annual basis, and 
all repair, rehabilitation, and replacement costs for municipal and 
industrial water supply storage under this section shall be 
reimbursed from State or local interests (1) without interest, during 
construction of the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement, (2) with 
interest, in lump sum on the completion of the repair, rehabilitation, 
or replacement, or (3) at the request of the State or local interest, 
with interest, over a period of not more than 25 years beginning 
on the date of completion of the repair, rehabilitation, or replace-
ment, with repayment contracts providing for recalculation of the 
interest rate at 5-year intervals. At the request of the State or 
local interest, the Secretary of the Army shall amend a repayment 
contract entered into under this section on or before the date 
of enactment of this sentence for the purpose of incorporating 
the terms and conditions described in paragraph (3) of the preceding 
sentence.’’. 
SEC. 8390. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION. 
Section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
(33 U.S.C. 2336) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘, on land held in trust 
by the Secretary of the Interior on behalf of, and for the 
benefit of, an Indian Tribe, or on restricted land of any Indian 
Tribe,’’ after ‘‘land owned by the United States’’; and 
(2) in subsection (e)—
H. R. 7776—1438 
(A) by striking ‘‘Rehabilitation’’ and inserting ‘‘Restora-
tion’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘Sacramento’’ and inserting ‘‘Albu-
querque’’; and 
(3) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$50,000,000’’. 
SEC. 8391. ASIAN CARP PREVENTION AND CONTROL PILOT PROGRAM. 
Section 509(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended— 
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or Tennessee River 
Watershed’’ and inserting ‘‘, Tennessee River Watershed, or 
Tombigbee River Watershed’’; and 
(2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by inserting ‘‘, of which not 
fewer than 1 shall be carried out on the Tennessee–Tombigbee 
Waterway’’ before the period at the end. 
SEC. 8392. ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 
The Secretary shall fully implement opportunities for enhanced 
development at lakes located primarily in the State of Oklahoma 
under the authorities provided in section 3134 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1142; 130 Stat. 
1671) and section 164 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2020 (134 Stat. 2668). 
SEC. 8393. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AT CERTAIN PROJECTS. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) COVERED PROJECT.—The term ‘‘covered project’’ means 
any of the following projects of the Corps of Engineers: 
(A) Ball Mountain Lake, Vermont, authorized by sec-
tion 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1257). 
(B) Townshend Lake, Vermont, authorized by section 
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1257). 
(2) RECREATION.—The term ‘‘recreation’’ includes down-
stream whitewater recreation that is dependent on operations, 
recreational fishing, and boating at a covered project. 
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that 
the Secretary should— 
(1) ensure that, to the extent compatible with other project 
purposes, each covered project is operated in such a manner 
as to protect and enhance recreation associated with the covered 
project; and 
(2) manage land at each covered project to improve 
opportunities for recreation at the covered project. 
(c) MODIFICATION OF WATER CONTROL PLANS.—The Secretary 
may modify, or undertake temporary deviations from, the water 
control plan for a covered project in order to enhance recreation, 
if the Secretary determines the modifications or deviations— 
(1) will not adversely affect other authorized purposes of 
the covered project; and 
(2) will not result in significant adverse impacts to the 
environment. 
SEC. 8394. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE. 
Section 1328(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2018 (132 Stat. 3826) is amended by striking ‘‘4 years’’ and inserting 
‘‘8 years’’.
H. R. 7776—1439 
SEC. 8395. MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAT SINKING UNIT. 
The Secretary shall expedite the replacement of the Mississippi 
River mat sinking unit. 
SEC. 8396. 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 (Recre-
ation 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. 8397. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF PROJECTS AND STUDIES. 
(a) AUTHORIZED PROJECTS AND STUDIES.—The Secretary shall, 
to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the 
following projects and studies: 
(1) PROJECTS.— 
(A) Project for Juneau and Auke Bay, Floating Wave 
Attenuator, Alaska, authorized pursuant to section 204 
of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1181). 
(B) Project for flood risk management, Little Colorado 
River at Winslow, Navajo County, Arizona, authorized by 
section 401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735). 
(C) Project for flood damage reduction, Rio de Flag, 
Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576). 
(D) Project for navigation, including maintenance and 
channel 
deepening, 
McClellan–Kerr 
Arkansas 
River, 
authorized under the comprehensive plan for the Arkansas 
River Basin by section 3 of the Act of June 28, 1938 
(chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218; 60 Stat. 634; 60 Stat. 647; 
101 Stat. 1329–112; 117 Stat. 1842). 
(E) Project for environmental restoration, Hamilton 
Airfield, California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279; 
121 Stat. 1110). 
(F) Project for flood damage reduction and environ-
mental restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County, California, 
authorized by section 1001(11) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1051). 
(G) The San Francisco Bay Beneficial Use Pilot Project, 
California, being carried out under section 1122 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1645). 
(H) Project for flood risk management, ecosystem res-
toration, and recreation, South San Francisco Bay Shore-
line, California, authorized by section 1401(6) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714). 
(I) Projects for ecosystem restoration included in the 
comprehensive Chesapeake Bay restoration plan developed 
under the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and 
Protection Program, authorized by section 510 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 
Stat. 1202; 128 Stat. 1317). 
(J) Maintenance dredging and other authorized activi-
ties to address the impacts of shoaling affecting the project
H. R. 7776—1440 
for navigation, Branford Harbor and Branford River, Bran-
ford, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the 
Act of June 13, 1902 (chapter 1079, 32 Stat. 333). 
(K) Maintenance dredging and other authorized activi-
ties to address the impacts of shoaling affecting the project 
for navigation, Guilford Harbor and Sluice Channel, Con-
necticut, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 
1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 13). 
(L) Maintenance dredging and other authorized activi-
ties to address the impacts of shoaling affecting the project 
for navigation, Milford Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by 
the first section of the Act of June 23, 1874 (chapter 457, 
18 Stat. 241). 
(M) Project for ecosystem restoration at Bay Point 
dredge hole, Tampa Bay, Florida. 
(N) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and 
Southern Florida, Everglades Agricultural Area, authorized 
by section 1308 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2018 (132 Stat. 3819; 134 Stat. 2709). 
(O) An update to the water control manual for Melvin 
Price Locks and Dam, Illinois, authorized by section 102 
of Public Law 95–502 (92 Stat. 1695; 95 Stat. 1634). 
(P) Projects for the restoration of the Illinois River 
Basin, carried out pursuant to section 519 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2653; 121 
Stat. 1221). 
(Q) Projects for ecosystem restoration, Upper Mis-
sissippi River and Illinois Waterway System, authorized 
pursuant to title VIII of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 652 note). 
(R) Project for navigation, Kentucky Lock Addition, 
Kentucky, authorized by section 101(a)(13) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664). 
(S) Project for flood damage reduction, Lower Jefferson 
Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section 7016 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1282). 
(T) The portion of the project for flood control and 
other purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, consisting of the 
restoration of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, 
authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 
6881, 49 Stat. 1574; 113 Stat. 375). 
(U) Project for flood control, Ecorse Creek, Wayne 
County, Michigan, authorized by section 101(a)(14) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607). 
(V) Projects for ecosystem restoration, Salt River Marsh 
Coastal Habitat, Lake St. Clair, Michigan, authorized 
pursuant to section 506 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–22). 
(W) Assistance for ecosystem restoration, Lower 
Yellowstone Intake Diversion Dam, Montana, authorized 
pursuant to section 3109 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1135). 
(X) Maintenance dredging and other authorized activi-
ties to address the impacts of shoaling affecting the project 
for navigation, Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, 
Maine and New Hampshire, authorized by section 101 
of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173).
H. R. 7776—1441 
(Y) Project for flood risk management, Tulsa and West– 
Tulsa Levee System, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, authorized 
by section 401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735). 
(Z) Project for flood risk management, Rio Guayanilla, 
Puerto Rico, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2736). 
(AA) Projects for critical restoration, Missouri River 
Restoration, South Dakota, included in the plan developed 
under section 905(e) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2707). 
(BB) Project for water quality control, Red River Basin 
Chloride Control Area VIII, Texas, authorized pursuant 
to section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 
1420). 
(CC) Dredging for projects at Port of Galveston for 
Turning Basin 2 project, Royal Terminal, Galveston Bay, 
Galveston, Texas, authorized pursuant to section 1401(1) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 
Stat. 3836). 
(DD) Project for dam safety modifications, Bluestone 
Dam, West Virginia, authorized pursuant to section 5 of 
the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1586). 
(EE) The development and implementation of a sedi-
ment management plan at Big Horn Lake, Wyoming, 
pursuant to section 1179(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1675). 
(FF) Projects authorized by section 219 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992. 
(2) STUDIES.— 
(A) Feasibility study of modifications to the portion 
of the project for flood control, water conservation, and 
related purposes, Russian River Basin, California, con-
sisting of the Coyote Valley Dam, authorized by section 
204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 177; 130 
Stat. 1682), to add environmental restoration as a project 
purpose and to increase water supply and improve reservoir 
operations. 
(B) Feasibility study of modifications to the portion 
of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, 
California, consisting of Seven Oaks Dam, California, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101 Stat. 1329– 
111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat. 1115), to 
include water conservation as an authorized purpose. 
(C) Feasibility study of modifications to the project 
for flood control, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112). 
(D) The update of hydrological modeling of the Fox 
River Basin, Illinois. 
(E) Feasibility study of modifications to the channel 
depths and dimensions pursuant to section 5 of the Act 
of March 4, 1915 (33 U.S.C. 562) for the project for naviga-
tion, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, authorized by section 
101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 
Stat. 4606).
H. R. 7776—1442 
(F) A comprehensive 50-year review of the Kaskaskia 
River Navigation Project, Illinois, pursuant to section 216 
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a). 
(G) Feasibility study for the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries project, to include the portion of the Ouachita 
River Levee System at and below Monroe, Louisiana to 
Caldwell Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section 204(b) 
of the Water Resources and Development Act of 2020 (134 
Stat. 2678). 
(H) Feasibility study for the project for ecosystem res-
toration and flood risk management at Coldwater Creek, 
Missouri, authorized pursuant to section 1202(b) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3803). 
(I) Feasibility study for the project for ecosystem res-
toration and flood risk management at Maline Creek, Mis-
souri, authorized pursuant to section 1202(b) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3803). 
(J) Feasibility study for the project for flood protection 
at the Truman Lake Visitor Center, Warsaw, Missouri, 
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 
(68 Stat. 1262; 84 Stat. 265). 
(K) Feasibility study for an updated hydrologic analysis 
for the town of Estancia, Torrance County, New Mexico. 
(L) Feasibility study for water supply to reduce water 
consumption from the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer, Okla-
homa, utilizing reserved municipal water supply within 
the Corps of Engineers-owned lakes, pursuant to section 
838 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4174). 
(b) CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall, 
to the maximum extent practicable, expedite completion of the 
following projects and studies: 
(1) Projects for flood control under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) for the following areas: 
(A) Lower Santa Cruz River, Arizona. 
(B) McCormick Wash, Arizona. 
(C) Rose and Palm Garden Washes, Arizona. 
(D) The Santa Rosa Canal Alternative Conveyance 
Project, Arizona. 
(E) Southern Maricopa County, in the vicinity of the 
Ak-Chin Reservation, Arizona. 
(F) Nancy Creek, Georgia. 
(G) Peachtree Creek, Georgia. 
(H) Sugar Creek, Georgia. 
(I) South River Basin, Georgia. 
(J) Passaic River, New Jersey. 
(K) Salt River Marsh Coastal Habitat, Lake St. Clair, 
Michigan. 
(L) Blind Brook, Rye, New York. 
(M) Aibonito Creek and vicinity, Puerto Rico. 
(N) Cano´vanas River, Puerto Rico. 
(O) Municipality of Orocovis, Puerto Rico. 
(P) Municipality of San Sebastian, Puerto Rico. 
(Q) Municipality of Villalba, Puerto Rico. 
(R) Rı´o Inabo´n, Ponce, Puerto Rico. 
(S) Yauco River and Berrenchin Stream, Puerto Rico.
H. R. 7776—1443 
(2) Projects for navigation under section 107 of the River 
and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) for the following areas: 
(A) Sebewaing River, Port Sanilac Harbor, Lexington 
Harbor, and Harbor Beach Harbor, Michigan. 
(B) Portsmouth Back Channels and Sagamore Creek, 
Portsmouth, New Castle, and Rye, New Hampshire. 
(C) Sturgeon Point Marina, New York. 
(D) Davis Creek and Mobjack Bay, Mathews County, 
Virginia. 
(3) Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration under section 
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 
2330) for the following areas: 
(A) El Corazon, Arizona. 
(B) San Pedro River, Cochise County and vicinity, 
Arizona, including review of recharge facilities that pre-
serve water flows and habitats. 
(4) Project modifications for improvement of the environ-
ment under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for the towns of Quincy and 
Braintree, Massachusetts, for fish passage on the Smelt Brook. 
(5) Project for the removal of obstructions and clearing 
channels for flood control under section 2 of the Act of August 
28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g) for the Passaic River, New Jersey. 
(6) Project for shoreline erosion protection of public works 
under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
701r) and for beach erosion and storm damage reduction under 
section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g) for 
Buffalo, New York. 
(7) Project for beach erosion and storm damage reduction 
under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
426g) for West Haven, Connecticut. 
Subtitle D—Water Resources 
Infrastructure 
SEC. 8401. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 
The following projects for water resources development and 
conservation and other purposes, as identified in the reports titled 
‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development’’ sub-
mitted to Congress pursuant to section 7001 of the Water Resources 
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise 
reviewed 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.—
H. R. 7776—1444 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engi-
neers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. AK 
Elim Subsist-
ence Harbor 
Study, Elim 
March 12, 
2021 
Federal: $99,057,000 
Non-Federal: $2,517,000 
Total: $101,574,000 
2. CA 
Port of Long 
Beach Deep 
Draft Navi-
gation, Los 
Angeles 
County 
October 
14, 2021 
and 
May 31, 
2022 
Federal: $87,063,000 
Non-Federal: 
$88,724,000 
Total: $175,787,000 
3. GA 
Brunswick 
Harbor 
Modifica-
tions, Glynn 
County 
March 11, 
2022 
Federal: $10,555,500 
Non-Federal: $5,680,500 
Total: $16,236,000 
4. NY, 
NJ 
New York — 
New Jersey 
Harbor 
Deepening 
Channel Im-
provements 
June 3, 
2022 
Federal: $2,408,268,000 
Non-Federal: 
$3,929,279,000 
Total: $6,337,547,000 
5. WA 
Tacoma Har-
bor Naviga-
tion Im-
provement 
Project 
May 26, 
2022 
Federal: $140,022,000 
Non-Federal: 
$203,561,000 
Total: $343,583,000 
(2) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.—
H. R. 7776—1445 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engi-
neers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. AL 
Selma Flood 
Risk Man-
agement and 
Bank Sta-
bilization 
October 7, 
2021 
Federal: $16,978,000 
Non-Federal: $9,142,000 
Total: $26,120,000 
2. AL 
Valley Creek 
Flood Risk 
Manage-
ment, Bes-
semer and 
Birmingham 
October 
29, 2021 
Federal: $21,993,000 
Non-Federal: 
$11,906,000 
Total: $33,899,000 
3. CA 
Lower Cache 
Creek, Yolo 
County, 
Woodland 
and Vicinity 
June 21, 
2021 
Federal: $238,151,550 
Non-Federal: 
$128,235,450 
Total: $366,387,000 
4. NE 
Papillion 
Creek and 
Tributaries 
Lakes 
January 
24, 2022 
Federal: $100,618,000 
Non-Federal: 
$57,359,000 
Total: $157,977,000 
5. OR 
Portland Metro 
Levee Sys-
tem 
August 20, 
2021 
Federal: $89,708,000 
Non-Federal: 
$48,304,000 
Total: $138,012,000 
6. PR 
Rio Guanajibo 
Flood Risk 
Manage-
ment, Maya-
guez, 
Hormiguero-
s, and San 
German 
May 24, 
2022 
Federal: $184,778,000 
Non-Federal: $0 
Total: $184,778,000 
(3) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—
H. R. 7776—1446 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engi-
neers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. CT 
Fairfield and 
New Haven 
Counties 
Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
January 
19, 2021 
Federal: $107,350,000 
Non-Federal: 
$57,804,000 
Total: $165,154,000 
2. FL 
Florida Keys, 
Monroe 
County, 
Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
September 
24, 2021 
Federal: $1,774,631,000 
Non-Federal: 
$955,570,000 
Total: $2,730,201,000 
3. FL 
Miami-Dade 
County, 
Main Seg-
ment, Coast-
al Storm 
Risk Man-
agement 
September 
26, 2022 
Initial Federal: 
$25,091,000 
Initial Non-Federal: 
$18,470,000 
Total: $43,561,000 
Renourishment Federal: 
$143,874,000 
Renourishment Non- 
Federal: $180,898,000 
Renourishment Total: 
$324,772,000 
4. FL 
Okaloosa 
County, 
Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
October 7, 
2021 
Initial Federal: 
$21,274,025 
Initial Non-Federal: 
$12,379,975 
Total: $33,654,000 
Renourishment Federal: 
$76,345,000 
Renourishment Non- 
Federal: $79,292,000 
Renourishment Total: 
$155,637,000
H. R. 7776—1447 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engi-
neers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
5. FL 
Pinellas Coun-
ty, Treasure 
Island and 
Long Key 
Segments, 
Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
October 
29, 2021 
Initial Federal: 
$6,097,000 
Initial Non-Federal: 
$9,864,000 
Total: $15,961,000 
Renourishment Federal: 
$115,551,000 
Renourishment Non- 
Federal: $104,540,000 
Renourishment Total: 
$220,091,000 
6. LA 
South Central 
Coast, Lou-
isiana Hurri-
cane and 
Storm Dam-
age Risk Re-
duction 
June 23, 
2022 
Federal: $809,297,450 
Non-Federal: 
$435,775,550 
Total: $1,245,073,000 
7. LA 
Upper 
Barataria 
Basin Hurri-
cane and 
Storm Dam-
age Risk Re-
duction 
January 
28, 2022 
Federal: $1,184,472,250 
Non-Federal: 
$637,792,750 
Total: $1,822,265,000 
8. NY 
South Shore of 
Staten Is-
land, Fort 
Wadsworth 
to Oakwood 
Beach, 
Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
October 
27, 2016 
Federal: $1,086,000,000 
Non-Federal: 
$585,000,000 
Total: $1,671,000,000
H. R. 7776—1448 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engi-
neers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
9. PR 
San Juan Met-
ropolitan 
Area Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
September 
16, 2021 
Federal: $288,294,000 
Non-Federal: 
$155,235,000 
Total: $443,529,000 
10. SC 
Charleston Pe-
ninsula, 
Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
June 10, 
2022 
Federal: $828,657,050 
Non-Federal: 
$446,199,950 
Total: $1,274,857,000 
11. SC 
Folly Beach, 
Coastal 
Storm Risk 
Management 
October 
26, 2021 
Initial Federal: 
$49,919,000 
Initial Non-Federal: 
$5,546,000 
Total: $55,465,000 
Renourishment Federal: 
$180,433,000 
Renourishment Non- 
Federal: $29,373,000 
Renourishment Total: 
$209,806,000 
(4) FLOOD
RISK
MANAGEMENT
AND
ECOSYSTEM
RESTORA-
TION.— 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engi-
neers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. TX 
Coastal Texas 
Protection 
and Restora-
tion 
September 
16, 2021 
Federal: 
$21,380,214,000 
Non-Federal: 
$12,999,708,000 
Total: $34,379,922,000 
(5) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—
H. R. 7776—1449 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engi-
neers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. CA 
Prado Basin 
Ecosystem 
Restoration, 
San 
Bernardino, 
Riverside 
and Orange 
Counties 
April 22, 
2021 
Federal: $35,265,100 
Non-Federal: 
$22,373,900 
Total: $57,639,000 
2. KY 
Three Forks of 
Beargrass 
Creek Eco-
system Res-
toration, 
Louisville 
May 24, 
2022 
Federal: $77,352,671 
Non-Federal: 
$52,539,940 
Total: $129,892,611 
(6) MODIFICATIONS AND OTHER PROJECTS.— 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Decision 
Docu-
ment 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. DC 
Washington, 
D.C. and Vi-
cinity Flood 
Risk Man-
agement 
July 22, 
2021 
Federal: $19,830,000 
Non-Federal: $0 
Total: $19,830,000 
2. FL 
Central and 
Southern 
Florida, In-
dian River 
Lagoon 
June 30, 
2022 
Federal: $2,707,950,500 
Non-Federal: 
$2,707,950,500 
Total: $5,415,901,000 
3. LA 
Lake Pont-
chartrain 
and Vicinity 
December 
16, 2021 
Federal: $950,303,250 
Non-Federal: 
$511,701,750 
Total: $1,462,005,000
H. R. 7776—1450 
A. 
State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Decision 
Docu-
ment 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
4. LA 
West Bank and 
Vicinity 
December 
17, 2021 
Federal: $508,337,700 
Non-Federal: 
$273,720,300 
Total: $782,058,000 
5. MI 
New Soo Lock 
Construction 
Project, 
Sault Ste. 
Marie, Chip-
pewa County 
June 6, 
2022 
Federal: $3,218,944,000 
Non-Federal: $0 
Total: $3,218,944,000 
6. WA 
Howard A. 
Hanson 
Dam, Water 
Supply and 
Ecosystem 
Restoration 
May 19, 
2022 
Federal: $878,530,000 
Non-Federal: 
$43,085,000 
Total: $921,615,000 
SEC. 8402. SPECIAL RULES. 
(a) SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK.—The Federal 
share of any portion of the cost to design and construct the project 
for coastal storm risk management, South Shore of Staten Island, 
Fort Wadsworth to Oakwood Beach, New York, authorized by this 
Act, that exceeds the estimated total project cost specified in the 
project partnership agreement for the project, signed by the Sec-
retary on February 15, 2019, shall be 90 percent. 
(b) CHARLESTON PENINSULA, SOUTH CAROLINA.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the last 
day of the covered period, 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 request for deauthorization of 
the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina, authorized by this Act, 
if the non-Federal interest has not entered into a project part-
nership agreement for the project, or a separable element of 
the project, prior to such last day. 
(2) DEFINITION OF COVERED PERIOD.—In this subsection, 
the term ‘‘covered period’’ means the period beginning on the 
date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date that 
is— 
(A) 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act; 
or 
(B) 10 years after the date on which a design agree-
ment for the project described in paragraph (1) is executed,
H. R. 7776—1451 
if such design agreement is executed prior to the date 
that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 8403. FACILITY INVESTMENT. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), using amounts 
available in the revolving fund established by the first section 
of the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 576), 
and not otherwise obligated, the Secretary may— 
(1) design and construct the lab and office facility for a 
Mandatory Center of Expertise in Branson, Missouri, described 
in the prospectus submitted to the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
on June 10, 2022, pursuant to subsection (c) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 576(c)), substantially in accordance with such pro-
spectus; and 
(2) carry out such construction and infrastructure improve-
ments as are required to support such lab and office facility, 
including any necessary demolition of the existing infrastruc-
ture. 
(b) REQUIREMENT.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall ensure that the revolving fund established by the first section 
of the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 576) 
is appropriately reimbursed from funds appropriated for Corps of 
Engineers programs that benefit from the lab and office facility 
constructed under this section. 
TITLE LXXXV—CLEAN WATER 
Sec. 8501. Regional water programs. 
Sec. 8502. Nonpoint source management programs. 
Sec. 8503. Wastewater assistance to colonias. 
SEC. 8501. REGIONAL WATER PROGRAMS. 
(a) SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM.—Title 
I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘SEC. 125. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM. 
‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘Estuary Partner-
ship’ means the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, designated 
as the management conference for the San Francisco Bay under 
section 320. 
‘‘(2) SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN.—The term ‘San Francisco 
Bay Plan’ means— 
‘‘(A) until the date of the completion of the plan devel-
oped by the Director under subsection (d), the comprehen-
sive conservation and management plan approved under 
section 320 for the San Francisco Bay estuary; and 
‘‘(B) on and after the date of the completion of the 
plan developed by the Director under subsection (d), the 
plan developed by the Director under subsection (d). 
‘‘(b) PROGRAM OFFICE.— 
‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator shall establish 
in the Environmental Protection Agency a San Francisco Bay 
Program Office. The Office shall be located at the headquarters 
of Region 9 of the Environmental Protection Agency.
H. R. 7776—1452 
‘‘(2) APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR.—The Administrator shall 
appoint a Director of the Office, who shall have management 
experience and technical expertise relating to the San Francisco 
Bay and be highly qualified to direct the development and 
implementation of projects, activities, and studies necessary 
to implement the San Francisco Bay Plan. 
‘‘(3) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY; STAFFING.—The Adminis-
trator shall delegate to the Director such authority and provide 
such staff as may be necessary to carry out this section. 
‘‘(c) ANNUAL PRIORITY LIST.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—After providing public notice, the 
Director shall annually compile a priority list, consistent with 
the San Francisco Bay Plan, identifying and prioritizing the 
projects, activities, and studies to be carried out with amounts 
made available under subsection (e). 
‘‘(2) INCLUSIONS.—The annual priority list compiled under 
paragraph (1) shall include the following: 
‘‘(A) Projects, activities, and studies, including restora-
tion projects and habitat improvement for fish, waterfowl, 
and wildlife, that advance the goals and objectives of the 
San Francisco Bay Plan, for— 
‘‘(i) water quality improvement, including the 
reduction of marine litter; 
‘‘(ii) wetland, riverine, and estuary restoration and 
protection; 
‘‘(iii) nearshore and endangered species recovery; 
and 
‘‘(iv) adaptation to climate change. 
‘‘(B) Information on the projects, activities, and studies 
specified under subparagraph (A), including— 
‘‘(i) the identity of each entity receiving assistance 
pursuant to subsection (e); and 
‘‘(ii) a description of the communities to be served. 
‘‘(C) The criteria and methods established by the 
Director for identification of projects, activities, and studies 
to be included on the annual priority list. 
‘‘(3) CONSULTATION.—In compiling the annual priority list 
under paragraph (1), the Director shall consult with, and con-
sider the recommendations of— 
‘‘(A) the Estuary Partnership; 
‘‘(B) the State of California and affected local govern-
ments in the San Francisco Bay estuary watershed; 
‘‘(C) the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority; and 
‘‘(D) any other relevant stakeholder involved with the 
protection and restoration of the San Francisco Bay estuary 
that the Director determines to be appropriate. 
‘‘(d) SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the date 
of enactment of this section, the Director, in conjunction with 
the Estuary Partnership, shall review and revise the com-
prehensive conservation and management plan approved under 
section 320 for the San Francisco Bay estuary to develop a 
plan to guide the projects, activities, and studies of the Office 
to address the restoration and protection of the San Francisco 
Bay. 
‘‘(2) REVISION OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN.—Not less often 
than once every 5 years after the date of the completion of
H. R. 7776—1453 
the plan described in paragraph (1), the Director shall review, 
and revise as appropriate, the San Francisco Bay Plan. 
‘‘(3) OUTREACH.—In carrying out this subsection, the 
Director shall consult with the Estuary Partnership and Indian 
tribes and solicit input from other non-Federal stakeholders. 
‘‘(e) GRANT PROGRAM.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Director may provide funding 
through cooperative agreements, grants, or other means to 
State and local agencies, special districts, and public or non-
profit agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the 
Estuary Partnership, for projects, activities, and studies identi-
fied on the annual priority list compiled under subsection (c). 
‘‘(2) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANTS; NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— 
‘‘(A) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANTS.—Amounts provided 
to any entity under this section for a fiscal year shall 
not exceed an amount equal to 75 percent of the total 
cost of any projects, activities, and studies that are to 
be carried out using those amounts. 
‘‘(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Not less than 25 percent 
of the cost of any project, activity, or study carried out 
using amounts provided under this section shall be pro-
vided from non-Federal sources. 
‘‘(f) FUNDING.— 
‘‘(1) ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES.—Of the amount made 
available to carry out this section for a fiscal year, the Director 
may not use more than 5 percent to pay administrative 
expenses incurred in carrying out this section. 
‘‘(2) PROHIBITION.—No amounts made available under this 
section may be used for the administration of a management 
conference under section 320.’’. 
(b) PUGET SOUND COORDINATED RECOVERY.—Title I of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is further 
amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘SEC. 126. PUGET SOUND. 
‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM.— 
The term ‘Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program’ means 
the State of Washington’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 
Program approved under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone 
Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. 
‘‘(2) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘Director’ means the Director 
of the Program Office. 
‘‘(3) FEDERAL ACTION PLAN.—The term ‘Federal Action Plan’ 
means the plan developed under subsection (c)(3)(B). 
‘‘(4) INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION.—The term ‘Inter-
national Joint Commission’ means the International Joint 
Commission established by the Treaty relating to the boundary 
waters and questions arising along the boundary between the 
United States and Canada, signed at Washington January 11, 
1909, and entered into force May 5, 1910 (36 Stat. 2448; TS 
548; 12 Bevans 319). 
‘‘(5) PACIFIC
SALMON
COMMISSION.—The term ‘Pacific 
Salmon Commission’ means the Pacific Salmon Commission 
established by the United States and Canada under the Treaty 
concerning Pacific salmon, with annexes and memorandum of 
understanding, signed at Ottawa January 28, 1985, and entered
H. R. 7776—1454 
into force March 18, 1985 (TIAS 11091; 1469 UNTS 357) (com-
monly known as the ‘Pacific Salmon Treaty’). 
‘‘(6) PROGRAM OFFICE.—The term ‘Program Office’ means 
the Puget Sound Recovery National Program Office established 
by subsection (b). 
‘‘(7) PUGET SOUND ACTION AGENDA; ACTION AGENDA.—The 
term ‘Puget Sound Action Agenda’ or ‘Action Agenda’ means 
the most recent plan developed by the Puget Sound National 
Estuary Program Management Conference, in consultation with 
the Puget Sound Tribal Management Conference, and approved 
by the Administrator as the comprehensive conservation and 
management plan for the Puget Sound under section 320. 
‘‘(8) PUGET SOUND FEDERAL LEADERSHIP TASK FORCE.—The 
term ‘Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force’ means the 
Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force established under 
subsection (c). 
‘‘(9) PUGET SOUND FEDERAL TASK FORCE.—The term ‘Puget 
Sound Federal Task Force’ means the Puget Sound Federal 
Task Force established in 2016 under a memorandum of under-
standing among 9 Federal agencies. 
‘‘(10) PUGET SOUND NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM MANAGE-
MENT CONFERENCE.—The term ‘Puget Sound National Estuary 
Program Management Conference’ means the management con-
ference for the Puget Sound convened pursuant to section 320. 
‘‘(11) PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘Puget Sound 
Partnership’ means the State agency created under the laws 
of the State of Washington (section 90.71.210 of the Revised 
Code of Washington), or its successor agency that has been 
designated by the Administrator as the lead entity to support 
the Puget Sound National Estuary Program Management Con-
ference. 
‘‘(12) PUGET SOUND REGION.— 
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—The term ‘Puget Sound region’ 
means the land and waters in the northwest corner of 
the State of Washington from the Canadian border to the 
north to the Pacific Ocean on the west, including Hood 
Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 
‘‘(B) INCLUSION.—The term ‘Puget Sound region’ 
includes all watersheds that drain into the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(13) PUGET SOUND TRIBAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.— 
The term ‘Puget Sound Tribal Management Conference’ means 
the 20 treaty Indian tribes of western Washington and the 
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 
‘‘(14) SALISH SEA.—The term ‘Salish Sea’ means the net-
work of coastal waterways on the west coast of North America 
that includes the Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and 
the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 
‘‘(15) 
SALMON
RECOVERY
PLANS.—The 
term 
‘Salmon 
Recovery Plans’ means the recovery plans for salmon and 
steelhead species approved by the Secretary of the Interior 
under section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that 
are applicable to the Puget Sound region. 
‘‘(16) STATE
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.—The term ‘State 
Advisory Committee’ means the advisory committee established 
by subsection (d). 
‘‘(17) TREATY RIGHTS AT RISK INITIATIVE.—The term ‘Treaty 
Rights at Risk Initiative’ means the report from the treaty
H. R. 7776—1455 
Indian tribes of western Washington entitled ‘Treaty Rights 
At Risk: Ongoing Habitat Loss, the Decline of the Salmon 
Resource, and Recommendations for Change’ and dated July 
14, 2011, or its successor report that outlines issues and offers 
solutions for the protection of Tribal treaty rights, recovery 
of salmon habitat, and management of sustainable treaty and 
nontreaty salmon fisheries, including through Tribal salmon 
hatchery programs. 
‘‘(b) PUGET SOUND RECOVERY NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE.— 
‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Environ-
mental Protection Agency a Puget Sound Recovery National 
Program Office, to be located in the State of Washington. 
‘‘(2) DIRECTOR.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—There shall be a Director of the 
Program Office, who shall have leadership and project 
management experience and shall be highly qualified to— 
‘‘(i) direct the integration of multiple project plan-
ning efforts and programs from different agencies and 
jurisdictions; and 
‘‘(ii) align numerous, and possibly competing, prior-
ities to accomplish visible and measurable outcomes 
under the Action Agenda. 
‘‘(B) POSITION.—The position of Director of the Program 
Office shall be a career reserved position, as such term 
is defined in section 3132 of title 5, United States Code. 
‘‘(3) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY; STAFFING.—Using amounts 
made available to carry out this section, the Administrator 
shall delegate to the Director such authority and provide such 
staff as may be necessary to carry out this section. 
‘‘(4) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 
‘‘(A) coordinate and manage the timely execution of 
the requirements of this section, including the formation 
and meetings of the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task 
Force; 
‘‘(B) coordinate activities related to the restoration and 
protection of the Puget Sound across the Environmental 
Protection Agency; 
‘‘(C) coordinate and align the activities of the Adminis-
trator with the Action Agenda, Salmon Recovery Plans, 
the Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, and the Coastal 
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; 
‘‘(D) promote the efficient use of Environmental Protec-
tion Agency resources in pursuit of the restoration and 
protection of the Puget Sound; 
‘‘(E) serve on the Puget Sound Federal Leadership 
Task Force and collaborate with, help coordinate, and 
implement activities with other Federal agencies that have 
responsibilities involving the restoration and protection of 
the Puget Sound; 
‘‘(F) provide or procure such other advice, technical 
assistance, research, assessments, monitoring, or other sup-
port as is determined by the Director to be necessary 
or prudent to most efficiently and effectively fulfill the 
objectives and priorities of the Action Agenda, the Salmon 
Recovery Plans, the Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, and 
the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, consistent
H. R. 7776—1456 
with the best available science, to ensure the health of 
the Puget Sound ecosystem; 
‘‘(G) track the progress of the Environmental Protection 
Agency toward meeting the agency’s specified objectives 
and priorities within the Action Agenda and the Federal 
Action Plan; 
‘‘(H) implement the recommendations of the Comp-
troller General set forth in the report entitled ‘Puget Sound 
Restoration: Additional Actions Could Improve Assess-
ments of Progress’ and dated July 19, 2018; 
‘‘(I) serve as liaison and coordinate activities for the 
restoration and protection of the Salish Sea with Canadian 
authorities, the Pacific Salmon Commission, and the Inter-
national Joint Commission; and 
‘‘(J) carry out such additional duties as the Director 
determines necessary and appropriate. 
‘‘(c) PUGET SOUND FEDERAL LEADERSHIP TASK FORCE.— 
‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force. 
‘‘(2) MEMBERSHIP.— 
‘‘(A) COMPOSITION.—The Puget Sound Federal Leader-
ship Task Force shall be composed of the following mem-
bers: 
‘‘(i) The following individuals appointed by the Sec-
retary of Agriculture: 
‘‘(I) A representative of the National Forest 
Service. 
‘‘(II) A representative of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service. 
‘‘(ii) A representative of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration appointed by the Sec-
retary of Commerce. 
‘‘(iii) The following individuals appointed by the 
Secretary of Defense: 
‘‘(I) A representative of the Corps of Engineers. 
‘‘(II) A representative of the Joint Base Lewis- 
McChord. 
‘‘(III) A representative of the Commander, 
Navy Region Northwest. 
‘‘(iv) The Director of the Program Office. 
‘‘(v) The following individuals appointed by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security: 
‘‘(I) A representative of the Coast Guard. 
‘‘(II) A representative of the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency. 
‘‘(vi) The following individuals appointed by the 
Secretary of the Interior: 
‘‘(I) A representative of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. 
‘‘(II) A representative of the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service. 
‘‘(III) A representative of the United States 
Geological Survey. 
‘‘(IV) A representative of the National Park 
Service. 
‘‘(vii) The following individuals appointed by the 
Secretary of Transportation:
H. R. 7776—1457 
‘‘(I) A representative of the Federal Highway 
Administration. 
‘‘(II) A representative of the Federal Transit 
Administration. 
‘‘(viii) Representatives of such other Federal agen-
cies, programs, and initiatives as the other members 
of the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force 
determines necessary. 
‘‘(B) QUALIFICATIONS.—Members appointed under this 
paragraph shall have experience and expertise in matters 
of restoration and protection of large watersheds and bodies 
of water, or related experience that will benefit the restora-
tion and protection of the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(C) CO-CHAIRS.— 
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The following members of the 
Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force shall 
serve as Co-Chairs of the Puget Sound Federal Leader-
ship Task Force: 
‘‘(I) The representative of the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration. 
‘‘(II) The Director of the Program Office. 
‘‘(III) The representative of the Corps of Engi-
neers. 
‘‘(ii) LEADERSHIP.—The Co-Chairs shall ensure the 
Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force completes 
its duties through robust discussion of all relevant 
issues. The Co-Chairs shall share leadership respon-
sibilities equally. 
‘‘(3) DUTIES.— 
‘‘(A) GENERAL
DUTIES.—The Puget Sound Federal 
Leadership Task Force shall— 
‘‘(i) uphold Federal trust responsibilities to restore 
and protect resources crucial to Tribal treaty rights, 
including by carrying out government-to-government 
consultation with Indian tribes when requested by such 
tribes; 
‘‘(ii) provide a venue for dialogue and coordination 
across all Federal agencies represented by a member 
of the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force 
to align Federal resources for the purposes of carrying 
out the requirements of this section and all other Fed-
eral laws that contribute to the restoration and protec-
tion of the Puget Sound, including by— 
‘‘(I) enabling and encouraging such agencies 
to act consistently with the objectives and prior-
ities of the Action Agenda, the Salmon Recovery 
Plans, the Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, and 
the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; 
‘‘(II) facilitating the coordination of Federal 
activities that impact such restoration and protec-
tion; 
‘‘(III) facilitating the delivery of feedback given 
by such agencies to the Puget Sound Partnership 
during the development of the Action Agenda; 
‘‘(IV) facilitating the resolution of interagency 
conflicts associated with such restoration and 
protection among such agencies;
H. R. 7776—1458 
‘‘(V) providing a forum for exchanging informa-
tion among such agencies regarding activities 
being conducted, including obstacles or efficiencies 
found, during restoration and protection activities; 
and 
‘‘(VI) promoting the efficient use of government 
resources in pursuit of such restoration and protec-
tion 
through 
coordination 
and 
collaboration, 
including by ensuring that the Federal efforts 
relating to the science necessary for such restora-
tion and protection are consistent, and not duplica-
tive, across the Federal Government; 
‘‘(iii) catalyze public leaders at all levels to work 
together toward shared goals by demonstrating inter-
agency best practices coming from such agencies; 
‘‘(iv) provide advice and support on scientific and 
technical issues and act as a forum for the exchange 
of scientific information about the Puget Sound; 
‘‘(v) identify and inventory Federal environmental 
research and monitoring programs related to the Puget 
Sound, and provide such inventory to the Puget Sound 
National Estuary Program Management Conference; 
‘‘(vi) ensure that Puget Sound restoration and 
protection activities are as consistent as practicable 
with ongoing restoration and protection and related 
efforts in the Salish Sea that are being conducted 
by Canadian authorities, the Pacific Salmon Commis-
sion, and the International Joint Commission; 
‘‘(vii) ensure that Puget Sound restoration and 
protection activities are consistent with national secu-
rity interests; 
‘‘(viii) establish any working groups or committees 
necessary to assist the Puget Sound Federal Leader-
ship Task Force in its duties, including relating to 
public policy and scientific issues; and 
‘‘(ix) raise national awareness of the significance 
of the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(B) PUGET SOUND FEDERAL ACTION PLAN.— 
‘‘(i) IN
GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after 
the date of enactment of this section, the Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force shall develop and 
approve a Federal Action Plan that leverages Federal 
programs across agencies and serves to coordinate 
diverse programs and priorities for the restoration and 
protection of the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(ii) REVISION OF PUGET SOUND FEDERAL ACTION 
PLAN.—Not less often than once every 5 years after 
the date of approval of the Federal Action Plan under 
clause (i), the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task 
Force shall review, and revise as appropriate, the Fed-
eral Action Plan. 
‘‘(C) FEEDBACK BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.—In facilitating 
feedback under subparagraph (A)(ii)(III), the Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force shall request Federal agen-
cies to consider, at a minimum, possible Federal actions 
within the Puget Sound region designed to—
H. R. 7776—1459 
‘‘(i) further the goals, targets, and actions of the 
Action Agenda, the Salmon Recovery Plans, the Treaty 
Rights at Risk Initiative, and the Coastal Nonpoint 
Pollution Control Program; 
‘‘(ii) as applicable, implement and enforce this Act, 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and all other 
Federal laws that contribute to the restoration and 
protection of the Puget Sound, including those that 
protect Tribal treaty rights; 
‘‘(iii) prevent the introduction and spread of 
invasive species; 
‘‘(iv) protect marine and wildlife habitats; 
‘‘(v) protect, restore, and conserve forests, wet-
lands, riparian zones, and nearshore waters; 
‘‘(vi) promote resilience to climate change and 
ocean acidification effects; 
‘‘(vii) restore fisheries so that they are sustainable 
and productive; 
‘‘(viii) preserve biodiversity; 
‘‘(ix) restore and protect ecosystem services that 
provide clean water, filter toxic chemicals, and increase 
ecosystem resilience; and 
‘‘(x) improve water quality, including by preventing 
and managing stormwater runoff, incorporating erosion 
control techniques and trash capture devices, using 
sustainable stormwater practices, and mitigating and 
minimizing nonpoint source pollution, including marine 
litter. 
‘‘(4) PARTICIPATION
OF
STATE
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
AND 
PUGET SOUND TRIBAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.—The Puget 
Sound Federal Leadership Task Force shall carry out its duties 
with input from, and in collaboration with, the State Advisory 
Committee and the Puget Sound Tribal Management Con-
ference, including by seeking advice and recommendations on 
the actions, progress, and issues pertaining to the restoration 
and protection of the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(5) MEETINGS.— 
‘‘(A) INITIAL
MEETING.—The Puget Sound Federal 
Leadership Task Force shall meet not later than 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this section— 
‘‘(i) to determine if all Federal agencies are prop-
erly represented; 
‘‘(ii) to establish the bylaws of the Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force; 
‘‘(iii) to establish necessary working groups or 
committees; and 
‘‘(iv) to determine subsequent meeting times, dates, 
and logistics. 
‘‘(B) SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS.—After the initial meeting, 
the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force shall meet, 
at a minimum, twice per year to carry out the duties 
of the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force. 
‘‘(C) WORKING
GROUP
MEETINGS.—A meeting of any 
established working group or committee of the Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force shall not be considered 
a biannual meeting for purposes of subparagraph (B).
H. R. 7776—1460 
‘‘(D) JOINT
MEETINGS.—The Puget Sound Federal 
Leadership Task Force— 
‘‘(i) shall offer to meet jointly with the Puget Sound 
National Estuary Program Management Conference 
and the Puget Sound Tribal Management Conference, 
at a minimum, once per year; and 
‘‘(ii) may consider such a joint meeting to be a 
biannual meeting of the Puget Sound Federal Leader-
ship Task Force for purposes of subparagraph (B). 
‘‘(E) QUORUM.—A simple majority of the members of 
the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force shall con-
stitute a quorum. 
‘‘(F) VOTING.—For the Puget Sound Federal Leadership 
Task Force to take an official action, a quorum shall be 
present, and at least a two-thirds majority of the members 
present shall vote in the affirmative. 
‘‘(6) PUGET SOUND FEDERAL LEADERSHIP TASK FORCE PROCE-
DURES AND ADVICE.— 
‘‘(A) ADVISORS.—The Puget Sound Federal Leadership 
Task Force may seek advice and input from any interested, 
knowledgeable, or affected party as the Puget Sound Fed-
eral Leadership Task Force determines necessary to per-
form its duties. 
‘‘(B) COMPENSATION.—A member of the Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force shall receive no additional 
compensation for service as a member on the Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force. 
‘‘(C) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Travel expenses incurred by 
a member of the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task 
Force in the performance of service on the Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force may be paid by the agency 
that the member represents. 
‘‘(7) PUGET SOUND FEDERAL TASK FORCE.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—On the date of enactment of this 
section, the 2016 memorandum of understanding estab-
lishing the Puget Sound Federal Task Force shall cease 
to be effective. 
‘‘(B) USE OF PREVIOUS WORK.—The Puget Sound Fed-
eral Leadership Task Force shall, to the extent practicable, 
use the work product produced, relied upon, and analyzed 
by the Puget Sound Federal Task Force in order to avoid 
duplicating the efforts of the Puget Sound Federal Task 
Force. 
‘‘(d) STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.— 
‘‘(1) 
ESTABLISHMENT.—There 
is 
established 
a 
State 
Advisory Committee. 
‘‘(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The State Advisory Committee shall 
consist of up to seven members designated by the governing 
body of the Puget Sound Partnership, in consultation with 
the Governor of Washington, who will represent Washington 
State agencies that have significant roles and responsibilities 
related to the restoration and protection of the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(e) PUGET SOUND FEDERAL LEADERSHIP TASK FORCE BIENNIAL 
REPORT ON PUGET SOUND RESTORATION AND PROTECTION ACTIVI-
TIES.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date 
of enactment of this section, and biennially thereafter, the
H. R. 7776—1461 
Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force, in collaboration 
with the Puget Sound Tribal Management Conference and the 
State Advisory Committee, shall submit to the President, Con-
gress, the Governor of Washington, and the governing body 
of the Puget Sound Partnership a report that summarizes the 
progress, challenges, and milestones of the Puget Sound Federal 
Leadership Task Force relating to the restoration and protection 
of the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—The report submitted under paragraph 
(1) shall include a description of the following: 
‘‘(A) The roles and progress of each State, local govern-
ment entity, and Federal agency that has jurisdiction in 
the Puget Sound region relating to meeting the identified 
objectives and priorities of the Action Agenda, the Salmon 
Recovery Plans, the Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, and 
the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. 
‘‘(B) If available, the roles and progress of Tribal 
governments that have jurisdiction in the Puget Sound 
region relating to meeting the identified objectives and 
priorities of the Action Agenda, the Salmon Recovery Plans, 
the Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, and the Coastal 
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. 
‘‘(C) A summary of specific recommendations con-
cerning implementation of the Action Agenda and the Fed-
eral Action Plan, including challenges, barriers, and antici-
pated milestones, targets, and timelines. 
‘‘(D) A summary of progress made by Federal agencies 
toward the priorities identified in the Federal Action Plan. 
‘‘(f) TRIBAL RIGHTS AND CONSULTATION.— 
‘‘(1) PRESERVATION OF TRIBAL TREATY RIGHTS.—Nothing in 
this section affects, or is intended to affect, any right reserved 
by treaty between the United States and one or more Indian 
tribes. 
‘‘(2) CONSULTATION.—Nothing in this section affects any 
authorization or obligation of a Federal agency to consult with 
an Indian tribe under any other provision of law. 
‘‘(g) CONSISTENCY.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—Actions authorized or implemented 
under this section shall be consistent with— 
‘‘(A) the Salmon Recovery Plans; 
‘‘(B) the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; 
and 
‘‘(C) the water quality standards of the State of Wash-
ington approved by the Administrator under section 303. 
‘‘(2) FEDERAL ACTIONS.—All Federal agencies represented 
on the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force shall act 
consistently with the protection of Tribal, treaty-reserved rights 
and, to the greatest extent practicable given such agencies’ 
existing obligations under Federal law, act consistently with 
the objectives and priorities of the Action Agenda, the Salmon 
Recovery Plans, the Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, and the 
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, when— 
‘‘(A) conducting Federal agency activities within or out-
side the Puget Sound that affect any land or water use 
or natural resources of the Puget Sound region, including 
activities performed by a contractor for the benefit of a 
Federal agency;