H. R. 133—1484 
(1) affects the responsibility of the Secretary for the oper-
ations and maintenance of the inland waterway system, as 
of the day before the date of enactment of this Act, including 
the responsibility of the Secretary for the operations and 
maintenance costs for any covered project after the moderniza-
tion activities are completed pursuant to this section; 
(2) prohibits or prevents the use of Federal funds for oper-
ations and maintenance of the inland waterway system or 
any authorized project within the inland waterway system; 
or 
(3) prohibits or prevents the use of Federal funds for 
construction or major rehabilitation activities within the inland 
waterway system or for any authorized project within the inland 
waterway system. 
(g) NOTIFICATION.—If a non-Federal interest notifies the Sec-
retary that the non-Federal interest intends to carry out moderniza-
tion activities for an authorized project, or separable element 
thereof, pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall provide written 
notice to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
of the House of Representatives concerning the intent of the non- 
Federal interest. 
(h) SUNSET.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The authority of the Secretary to enter 
into an agreement under this section shall terminate on the 
date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 
(2) REIMBURSEMENT
ELIGIBILITY.—The termination of 
authority under paragraph (1) shall not extinguish the eligi-
bility of a non-Federal interest to seek reimbursement under 
subsection (e). 
SEC. 160. DEFINITION OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMU-
NITY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance defining 
the term ‘‘economically disadvantaged community’’ for the purposes 
of this Act and the amendments made by this Act. 
(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In defining the term ‘‘economically dis-
advantaged community’’ under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, 
to the maximum extent practicable, utilize the criteria under para-
graph (1) or (2) of section 301(a) of the Public Works and Economic 
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3161), to the extent that 
such criteria are applicable in relation to the development of water 
resources development projects. 
(c) PUBLIC COMMENT.—In developing the guidance under sub-
section (a), the Secretary shall provide notice and an opportunity 
for public comment. 
SEC. 161. STUDIES OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 
BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)— 
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, or, upon the writ-
ten approval of the Secretary that the modifications are 
consistent with the authorized purposes of the project, 
undertake a feasibility study on modifications to a water 
resources development project constructed by the Corps
H. R. 133—1485 
of Engineers,’’ after ‘‘water resources development project’’; 
and 
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘for feasibility studies’’ 
and all that follows through the period at the end and 
inserting ‘‘for the formulation of feasibility studies of water 
resources development projects undertaken by non-Federal 
interests to— 
‘‘(A) ensure that any feasibility study with respect to 
which the Secretary submits an assessment to Congress 
under subsection (c) complies with all of the requirements 
that would apply to a feasibility study undertaken by the 
Secretary; and 
‘‘(B) provide sufficient information for the formulation 
of the studies, including processes and procedures related 
to reviews and assistance under subsection (e).’’; 
(2) in subsection (b)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and 
(B) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(2) TIMING.—The Secretary may not submit to Congress 
an assessment of a feasibility study under this section until 
such time as the Secretary— 
‘‘(A) determines that the feasibility study complies with 
all of the requirements that would apply to a feasibility 
study undertaken by the Secretary; and 
‘‘(B) completes all of the Federal analyses, reviews, 
and compliance processes under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), that 
would be required with respect to the proposed project 
if the Secretary had undertaken the feasibility study. 
‘‘(3) INITIATION OF REVIEW.— 
‘‘(A) REQUEST.— 
‘‘(i) SUBMISSION.—The non-Federal interest may 
submit to the Secretary a request that the Secretary 
initiate the analyses, reviews, and compliance proc-
esses described in paragraph (2)(B) with respect to 
the proposed project prior to the non-Federal interest’s 
submission of a feasibility study under subsection 
(a)(1). 
‘‘(ii) EFFECT.—Receipt by the Secretary of a request 
submitted under clause (i) shall be considered the 
receipt of a proposal or application that will lead to 
a major Federal action that is subject to the require-
ments of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) that 
would be required if the Secretary were to undertake 
the feasibility study. 
‘‘(B) DEADLINE.—Not later than 10 days after the Sec-
retary receives a request under this paragraph, the Sec-
retary shall begin the required analyses, reviews, and 
compliance processes. 
‘‘(4) NOTIFICATION.—Upon receipt of a request under para-
graph (3), the Secretary shall notify the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works
H. R. 133—1486 
of the Senate of the request and a timeline for completion 
of the required analyses, reviews, and compliance processes. 
‘‘(5) STATUS
UPDATES.—Not later than 30 days after 
receiving a request under paragraph (3), and every 30 days 
thereafter until the Secretary submits an assessment under 
subsection (c) for the applicable feasibility study, the Secretary 
shall notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the non- 
Federal interest of the status of the Secretary’s required anal-
yses, reviews, and compliance processes.’’; and 
(3) in subsection (c)(1), in the matter preceding subpara-
graph (A)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘after the date of receipt of a feasibility 
study of a project under subsection (a)(1)’’ and insert ‘‘after 
the completion of review of a feasibility study under sub-
section (b)’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘a report’’ and inserting ‘‘an assess-
ment’’. 
(b) DEADLINE.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enact-
ment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue revised guidelines under 
section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2231) to implement the amendments made by this section. 
(c) HOLD HARMLESS.— 
(1) ONE-YEAR WINDOW.—The amendments made by this 
section shall not apply to any feasibility study submitted to 
the Secretary under section 203 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) during the one- 
year period prior to the date of enactment of this section. 
(2) 2020 PROJECTS.—The amendments made by this section 
shall not apply to any project authorized by section 403 of 
this Act. 
SEC. 162. LEVERAGING FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR INCREASED 
WATER SUPPLY. 
Section 1118(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2016 (43 U.S.C. 390b-2(i)) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary may’’ and inserting the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(1) CONTRIBUTED FUNDS FOR CORPS PROJECTS.—The Sec-
retary may’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(2) CONTRIBUTED FUNDS FOR OTHER FEDERAL RESERVOIR 
PROJECTS.—The Secretary is authorized to receive and expend 
funds from a non-Federal interest to formulate, review, or 
revise operational documents, pursuant to a proposal submitted 
in accordance subsection (a), for any reservoir for which the 
Secretary is authorized to prescribe regulations for the use 
of storage allocated for flood control or navigation pursuant 
to section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709).’’. 
SEC. 163. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REMOVAL OF UNAUTHORIZED, MAN-
MADE, FLAMMABLE MATERIALS ON CORPS PROPERTY. 
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should, using 
existing authorities, prioritize the removal, from facilities and lands 
of the Corps of Engineers in regions that are urban and arid, 
of materials that are manmade, flammable, unauthorized to be
H. R. 133—1487 
present, and determined by the Secretary to pose a fire risk that 
is a threat to public safety. 
SEC. 164. ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall review the master plan 
and shoreline management plan for any lake described in section 
3134 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 
1142; 130 Stat. 1671) for the purpose of identifying structures 
or other improvements that are owned by the Secretary and are 
suitable for enhanced development, if— 
(1) the master plan and shoreline management plan of 
the lake have been updated since January 1, 2013; and 
(2) the applicable district office of the Corps of Engineers 
has received a written request for such a review from any 
entity. 
(b) DEFINITION OF ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT.—In this section, 
the term ‘‘enhanced development’’ means the use, for non-water- 
dependent commercial or hospitality industry purposes or for resi-
dential or recreational purposes, of an existing structure or other 
improvement. 
(c) DIVESTMENT AUTHORITY.—Not later than 1 year after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall— 
(1) submit to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report 
that identifies— 
(A) any structure or other improvement owned by the 
Secretary that— 
(i) has been identified as suitable for enhanced 
development pursuant to subsection (a); 
(ii) the Secretary determines the divestment of 
which would not adversely affect the Corps of Engi-
neers operation of the lake at which the structure 
or other improvement is located; and 
(iii) a non-Federal interest has offered to purchase 
from the Secretary; and 
(B) the fair market value of any structure or other 
improvement identified under subparagraph (A); and 
(2) develop a plan to divest any structure or other improve-
ment identified under paragraph (1)(A), at fair market value, 
to the applicable non-Federal interest. 
SEC. 165. CONTINUING AUTHORITY PROGRAMS. 
(a) PILOT PROGRAM FOR CONTINUING AUTHORITY PROJECTS IN 
SMALL OR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a 
pilot program, in accordance with this subsection, for carrying 
out a project under a continuing authority program for an 
economically disadvantaged community. 
(2) PARTICIPATION
IN
PILOT
PROGRAM.—In carrying out 
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall— 
(A) publish a notice in the Federal Register that 
requests non-Federal interest proposals for a project under 
a continuing authority program for an economically dis-
advantaged community; and
H. R. 133—1488 
(B) review such proposals and select a total of 10 
projects, taking into consideration geographic diversity 
among the selected projects. 
(3) COST SHARE.—Notwithstanding the cost share author-
ized for the applicable continuing authority program, the Fed-
eral share of the cost of a project selected under paragraph 
(2) shall be 100 percent. 
(4) SUNSET.—The authority to commence pursuant to this 
subsection a project selected under paragraph (2) shall termi-
nate on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act. 
(5) CONTINUING
AUTHORITY
PROGRAM
DEFINED.—In this 
subsection, the term ‘‘continuing authority program’’ has the 
meaning given that term in section 7001(c)(1)(D) of Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
2282d). 
(b) AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 
(1) EMERGENCY
STREAMBANK
AND
SHORELINE
PROTEC-
TION.—Notwithstanding section 14 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), there is authorized to be appropriated 
to carry out such section $25,500,000 for each of fiscal years 
2021 through 2024. 
(2) STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT MINI-
MIZATION PROGRAM.—Notwithstanding section 3(c) of the Act 
of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g(c)), there is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out such section $38,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2021 through 2024. 
(3) SMALL RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.— 
Notwithstanding section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), there is authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out such section $63,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2021 through 2024. 
(4) REGIONAL
SEDIMENT
MANAGEMENT.—Notwithstanding 
section 204(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(33 U.S.C. 2326(g)), there is authorized to be appropriated 
to carry out such section $63,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
2021 through 2024. 
(5) SMALL
FLOOD
CONTROL
PROJECTS.—Notwithstanding 
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), 
there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out such section 
$69,250,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2024. 
(6) AQUATIC
ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION.—Notwithstanding 
section 206(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
(33 U.S.C. 2330(f)), there is authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out such section $63,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
2021 through 2024. 
(7) REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS; CLEARING CHANNELS.—Not-
withstanding section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 
701g), there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out such 
section $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2024. 
(8) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRON-
MENT.—Notwithstanding 
section 
1135(h) 
of 
the 
Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(h)), there 
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out such section 
$50,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2024.
H. R. 133—1489 
TITLE II—STUDIES AND REPORTS 
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to conduct a 
feasibility study for 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’’ submitted 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: 
(1) SULPHUR RIVER, ARKANSAS AND TEXAS.—Project for eco-
system restoration, Sulphur River, Arkansas and Texas. 
(2) CABLE
CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk 
management, water supply, and related benefits, Cable Creek, 
California. 
(3) OROVILLE
DAM, CALIFORNIA.—Project for dam safety 
improvements, Oroville Dam, California. 
(4) RIO
HONDO
CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.—Project for eco-
system restoration, Rio Hondo Channel, San Gabriel River, 
California. 
(5) SHINGLE
CREEK
AND
KISSIMMEE
RIVER, FLORIDA.— 
Project for ecosystem restoration and water storage, Shingle 
Creek and Kissimmee River, Osceola County, Florida. 
(6) ST. JOHN’S RIVER AND LAKE JESUP, FLORIDA.—Project 
for ecosystem restoration, St. John’s River and Lake Jesup, 
Florida. 
(7) CHICAGO AREA WATERWAYS SYSTEM, ILLINOIS.—Project 
for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and other purposes, 
Illinois River, Chicago River, Calumet River, Grand Calumet 
River, Little Calumet River, and other waterways in the vicinity 
of Chicago, Illinois. 
(8) FOX RIVER, ILLINOIS.—Project for flood risk manage-
ment, Fox River, Illinois. 
(9) LOWER MISSOURI RIVER, KANSAS.—Project for bank sta-
bilization and navigation, Lower Missouri River, Sioux City, 
Kansas. 
(10) TANGIPAHOA PARISH, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk 
management, Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. 
(11) NEWBURY
AND
NEWBURYPORT, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
Project for coastal storm risk management, Newbury and 
Newburyport, Massachusetts. 
(12) ESCATAWPA RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for flood 
risk management and ecosystem restoration, Escatawpa River, 
Jackson County, Mississippi. 
(13) LONG BEACH, BAY ST. LOUIS AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND, 
MISSISSIPPI.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk 
reduction and flood risk management, Long Beach, Bay St. 
Louis and Mississippi Sound, Mississippi. 
(14) TALLAHOMA
AND
TALLAHALA
CREEKS, MISSISSIPPI.— 
Project for flood risk management, Leaf River, Jones County, 
Mississippi. 
(15) LOWER MISSOURI RIVER, MISSOURI.—Project for naviga-
tion, Lower Missouri River, Missouri. 
(16) LOWER OSAGE RIVER BASIN, MISSOURI.—Project for eco-
system restoration, Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri.
H. R. 133—1490 
(17) WYATT, MISSOURI.—Project for flood risk management, 
P. Fields Pump Station, Wyatt, Missouri. 
(18) UPPER BASIN AND STONY BROOK (GREEN BROOK SUB- 
BASIN), RARITAN
RIVER
BASIN, NEW
JERSEY.—Reevaluation of 
the Upper Basin and Stony Brook portions of the project for 
flood control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, 
New Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119), including the evalua-
tion of nonstructural measures to achieve the project purpose. 
(19) WADING RIVER CREEK, NEW YORK.—Project for hurri-
cane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, 
navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Wading River Creek, 
New York. 
(20) LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
BASIN
(TURNING
BASIN), 
OREGON AND WASHINGTON.—Project to improve and add turning 
basins for the project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, 
Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280). 
(21) WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood risk 
management and levee rehabilitation, greater Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania. 
(22) CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project for 
tidal- and inland-related flood risk management, Charleston, 
South Carolina. 
(23) CHOCOLATE
BAYOU, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk 
management, Chocolate Bayou, Texas. 
(24) HOUSTON-GALVESTON, TEXAS.—Project for navigation, 
Houston-Galveston, Texas. 
(25) PORT ARTHUR AND ORANGE COUNTY, TEXAS.—Project 
for flood risk management, Port Arthur and Orange County, 
Texas, including construction of improvements to interior drain-
age. 
(26) PORT
OF
VICTORIA, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk 
management, Port of Victoria, Texas. 
(27) VIRGINIA BEACH AND VICINITY, VIRGINIA AND NORTH 
CAROLINA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, Virginia 
Beach and vicinity, Virginia and North Carolina. 
(b) SPECIAL RULE.—The Secretary shall consider any study 
carried out by the Secretary to formulate the project for flood 
risk management, Port Arthur and Orange County, Texas, identified 
in subsection (a)(25) to be a continuation of the study carried 
out for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas, authorized by a 
resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
of the Senate, approved June 23, 2004, and funded by title IV 
of division B of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, under the 
heading ‘‘CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL—DEPARTMENT OF 
THE ARMY—CONSTRUCTION’’ (Public Law 115–123; 132 Stat. 
76). 
SEC. 202. EXPEDITED COMPLETIONS. 
(a) FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—The Secretary shall expedite the 
completion of a feasibility study for each of the following projects, 
and if the Secretary determines that the project is justified in 
a completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction plan-
ning, engineering, and design of the project: 
(1) Project for navigation, Florence, Alabama.
H. R. 133—1491 
(2) Project to modify the project for navigation, Tennessee- 
Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and 
Tennessee. 
(3) Project for shoreline stabilization, Aunu‘u Harbor, 
American Samoa. 
(4) Project for shoreline stabilization, Tutuila Island, Amer-
ican Samoa. 
(5) Project for flood risk management, Lower Santa Cruz 
River, Arizona. 
(6) Project for flood risk management, Rio de Flag, Arizona. 
(7) Project for flood risk management, Tonto Creek, Gila 
River, Arizona. 
(8) Project for flood control, water conservation, and related 
purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, California. 
(9) Project for shoreline stabilization, Del Mar Bluffs, San 
Diego County, California, carried out pursuant to the resolution 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives adopted on April 22, 1999 (docket 
number 2598). 
(10) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem res-
toration, Del Rosa Channel, city of San Bernardino, California. 
(11) Project for flood risk management, Lower Cache Creek, 
California. 
(12) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem res-
toration, Mission-Zanja Channel, cities of San Bernardino and 
Redlands, California. 
(13) Project for flood risk management, Napa, California. 
(14) Project for shoreline protection, Oceanside, California, 
authorized pursuant to section 414 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636; 121 Stat. 1176). 
(15) Project for ecosystem restoration and water conserva-
tion, Prado Basin, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino coun-
ties, California. 
(16) Project for water conservation and water supply, 
Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California. 
(17) Project for coastal storm damage reduction, San Diego 
County shoreline, California. 
(18) Project to modify the project for navigation, San Fran-
cisco Bay to Stockton, California. 
(19) Project for flood risk management, San Francisquito 
Creek, California. 
(20) Project to modify the Seven Oaks Dam, California, 
portion of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River 
Mainstem, 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. 
(21) Project for coastal storm damage reduction, Southern 
California. 
(22) Project for water storage, Halligan Dam, Colorado. 
(23) Project for flood risk management, East Hartford Levee 
System, Connecticut. 
(24) Project for flood risk management, Fairfield and New 
Haven Counties, Connecticut. 
(25) Project for navigation, Guilford Harbor and Sluice 
Channel, Connecticut.
H. R. 133—1492 
(26) Project for flood risk management, Hartford Levee 
System, Connecticut. 
(27) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and 
Southern Florida Project Canal 111 (C–111), South Dade 
County, Florida. 
(28) Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Okeechobee, 
Florida. 
(29) Project for ecosystem restoration, Western Everglades, 
Florida. 
(30) Project for flood risk management, Hanapepe River, 
Kauai, Hawaii. 
(31) Project for flood risk management, Wailupe Stream, 
Oahu, Hawaii. 
(32) Project for flood risk management, Waimea River, 
Kauai, Hawaii, being carried out under section 205 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 
(33) Project for comprehensive hurricane and storm damage 
risk reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Chicago, 
Illinois, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664; 113 Stat. 302). 
(34) Project for flood risk management, Wheaton, DuPage 
County, Illinois. 
(35) Project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restora-
tion, and recreation, Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Kansas, 
carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives adopted on September 24, 2008 (docket number 2803). 
(36) Project for flood control, Amite River and Tributaries 
east of the Mississippi River, Louisiana. 
(37) Project for coastal storm risk management, Upper 
Barataria Basin, Louisiana. 
(38) Project for navigation, Kent Narrows and Chester 
River, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. 
(39) Project to replace the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges, 
Cape Cod, Massachusetts. 
(40) Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restora-
tion, and recreation, Lower St. Croix River, Minnesota, carried 
out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 
adopted on September 25, 2002 (docket number 2705). 
(41) Project to deepen the project for navigation, Gulfport 
Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094). 
(42) Project for navigation, Shark River, New Jersey. 
(43) Project for navigation, Goldsmith Inlet, New York. 
(44) Project for navigation, Lake Montauk Harbor, New 
York. 
(45) Project for rehabilitation of Lock E–32, Erie Canal, 
Pittsford, New York. 
(46) Project for navigation and shoreline stabilization, Reel 
Point Preserve, New York, carried out pursuant to the resolu-
tion of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
of the House of Representatives adopted on May 2, 2007 (docket 
number 2775). 
(47) Project for flood risk management, Rondout Creek- 
Wallkill River Watershed, New York, carried out pursuant to
H. R. 133—1493 
the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives adopted on May 
2, 2007 (docket number 2776). 
(48) Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and 
storm damage risk reduction, Spring Creek South (Howard 
Beach), Queens, New York. 
(49) Project for ecosystem restoration, Hood River at the 
confluence with the Columbia River, Oregon. 
(50) Project to resolve increased silting and shoaling adja-
cent to the Federal channel, Port of Bandon, Coquille River, 
Oregon. 
(51) Project for flood control, 42nd Street Levee, Springfield, 
Oregon, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 
(52) Project for construction of Tribal housing authorized 
by title IV of Public Law 100–581 (102 Stat. 2944), Oregon 
and Washington. 
(53) Project for flood risk management, Dorchester County, 
South Carolina. 
(54) Project for navigation, Georgetown Harbor, South 
Carolina. 
(55) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 
(56) Project to modify the projects for navigation and other 
purposes, Old Hickory Lock and Dam and the Cordell Hull 
Dam and Reservoir, Cumberland River, Tennessee, authorized 
by the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636), to 
add flood risk management as an authorized purpose. 
(57) Project for flood risk management, Buffalo Bayou, 
Texas. 
(58) Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restora-
tion, water supply, and related purposes, Lower Rio Grande 
River, Cameron County, Texas, carried out pursuant to the 
resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of Representatives adopted on May 21, 2003 
(docket number 2710). 
(59) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction 
and shoreline erosion protection, Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, 
United States Virgin Islands. 
(60) Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, 
Howard Hanson Dam, Washington. 
(61) Project for ecosystem restoration, Puget Sound, Wash-
ington. 
(62) Project for navigation, Seattle Harbor, Washington. 
(63) Project for navigation, Tacoma Harbor, Washington. 
(64) Project for dam safety remediation, Bluestone Dam, 
West Virginia. 
(65) Project to modify the project for navigation, Milwaukee 
Harbor, Wisconsin. 
(b) POST-AUTHORIZATION
CHANGE
REPORTS.—The Secretary 
shall expedite completion of a post-authorization change report 
for the following projects: 
(1) Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona. 
(2) Project for flood risk management, Des Moines Levee 
System, including Birdland Park Levee, Des Moines and Rac-
coon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa.
H. R. 133—1494 
(c) WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.—The Secretary 
shall expedite the completion of an assessment under section 729 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a) 
for the following: 
(1) Kansas River Basin, Kansas. 
(2) Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts. 
(3) Pascagoula River Basin, Mississippi. 
(4) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 
(5) Lower Fox River Basin, Wisconsin. 
(6) Upper Fox River Basin and Wolf River Basin, Wisconsin. 
(d) DISPOSITION STUDIES.—The Secretary shall expedite the 
completion of a disposition study, carried out under section 216 
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), for the project 
for Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), California. 
(e) REALLOCATION STUDIES.—The Secretary shall expedite the 
completion of a study for the reallocation of water supply storage, 
carried out in accordance with section 301 of the Water Supply 
Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), for the following: 
(1) Aquilla Lake, Texas. 
(2) Lake Whitney, Texas. 
(f) ECONOMIC REEVALUATION REPORT.—The Secretary shall 
expedite the completion of the economic reevaluation report for 
the navigation and sustainability program carried out pursuant 
to title VIII of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
(33 U.S.C. 652 note). 
SEC. 203. EXPEDITED MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING FEASIBILITY 
STUDIES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion 
of the following feasibility studies, as modified by this section, 
and if the Secretary determines that a project that is the subject 
of the feasibility study is justified in a completed report, may 
proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and 
design of the project: 
(1) SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CALIFORNIA.—The study for flood 
risk reduction authorized by section 142 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to— 
(A) investigate the ocean shoreline of San Mateo, San 
Francisco, and Marin Counties for the purposes of providing 
flood protection against tidal and fluvial flooding; 
(B) with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines of 
San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, investigate 
measures to adapt to rising sea levels; and 
(C) with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines, and 
streams running to the bay and ocean shorelines, of San 
Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, investigate the 
effects of proposed flood protection and other measures 
or improvements on— 
(i) the local economy; 
(ii) habitat restoration, enhancement, or expansion 
efforts or opportunities; 
(iii) public infrastructure protection and improve-
ment; 
(iv) stormwater runoff capacity and control meas-
ures, including those that may mitigate flooding; 
(v) erosion of beaches and coasts; and
H. R. 133—1495 
(vi) any other measures or improvements relevant 
to adapting to rising sea levels. 
(2) SACRAMENTO RIVER, SOUTHERN SUTTER COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—The study for flood control and allied purposes for 
the Sacramento River Basin, authorized by section 209 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to conduct a study for flood risk 
management, southern Sutter County between the Sacramento 
River and Sutter Bypass, California. 
(3) SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA.—In carrying out the program 
to implement projects to restore the Salton Sea, California, 
authorized by section 3032 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1113; 130 Stat. 1677), the Secretary 
is authorized to carry out a study for the construction of a 
perimeter lake, or a northern or southern subset thereof, for 
the Salton Sea, California. 
(4) NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR AND TRIBUTARIES, 
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.—The study for flood and storm 
damage reduction for the New York and New Jersey Harbor 
and Tributaries project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 
1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132), and being carried out pursuant 
to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 
113–2), is modified to require the Secretary to— 
(A) evaluate and address the impacts of low-frequency 
precipitation and sea-level rise on the study area; 
(B) consult with affected communities; and 
(C) ensure the study is carried out in accordance with 
section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Develop-
ment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c). 
(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—Where appropriate, the Secretary may 
use the authority provided by section 216 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a) to carry out this section. 
SEC. 204. ASSISTANCE TO NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS; FEASIBILITY 
ANALYSIS. 
(a) ASSISTANCE TO NON-FEDERAL SPONSORS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropria-
tions, during the period during which a non-Federal interest 
may submit a proposal to be considered for inclusion in an 
annual report pursuant to section 7001(b) of the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
2282d(b)), the Secretary is authorized to provide assistance 
in accordance with section 1104(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2282d note) to the non- 
Federal interest of a project proposal described in paragraph 
(2). 
(2) PROJECT
PROPOSALS
DESCRIBED.—A project proposal 
referred to in paragraph (1) is a proposal for any of the fol-
lowing: 
(A) A feasibility study for a fish passage for ecosystem 
restoration, Lower Alabama River, Alabama. 
(B) A feasibility study for dredged material disposal 
management activities, Port of Florence, Alabama. 
(C) A feasibility study for a project for flood risk 
management, Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Bridgeport, Con-
necticut.
H. R. 133—1496 
(D) A feasibility study for a project to design and 
construct the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail, a multiuse 
trail on Federal land between Torrington and Derby, Con-
necticut. 
(E) A feasibility study for a project for coastal and 
flood risk management, Stratford, Connecticut. 
(F) A feasibility study for projects for flood risk 
management, Woodbridge, Connecticut. 
(G) The project for flood risk management, Bloom-
ington, Indiana. 
(H) The project for flood risk management, Gary, 
Indiana. 
(I) Modification of the project for beach erosion and 
hurricane protection, Grand Isle, Louisiana, to include peri-
odic beach nourishment. 
(J) A feasibility study for a project for flood risk 
management, Cataouatche Subbasin area of the west bank 
of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 
(K) A feasibility study for projects for flood risk 
management and storm damage reduction in the Hoey’s 
Basin area of the east bank of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 
including a study of the ‘‘pump to the river’’ concept. 
(L) A feasibility study for a project for flood risk 
management, Hoosic River, Massachusetts. 
(M) Modification of the project for navigation, River 
Rouge, Michigan. 
(N) A project to extend dredging of the South Haven 
Harbor, Michigan, to include the former turning basin. 
(O) Modification of the project for flood risk manage-
ment, Upper Rouge River, Wayne County, Michigan. 
(P) A project for aquatic and riparian ecosystem res-
toration, Line Creek, Riverside, Missouri. 
(Q) A feasibility study for projects for ecosystem res-
toration, Bangert Island, St. Charles, Missouri, related to 
channels and aquatic habitats. 
(R) A study of the resiliency of the Allegheny Reservoir, 
New York, in consultation with the Seneca Nation. 
(S) A feasibility study for the rehabilitation of the 
tainter gates and guard gate, Caughdenoy Dam, New York, 
including an evaluation of the rehabilitation work nec-
essary to extend the service life of those structures, such 
as— 
(i) improvements to the hydraulic efficiency of the 
gate systems; 
(ii) improvements to the concrete foundation and 
gate support structures; and 
(iii) any other improvements the Secretary deter-
mines to be necessary. 
(T) A project for repairs to the West Pier and West 
Barrier Bar, Little Sodus Bay Harbor, Cayuga County, 
New York. 
(U) A project for repair of a sheet pile wall and east 
breakwater, Great Sodus Bay, New York. 
(V) A feasibility study for the project for navigation, 
Port of Oswego, New York. 
(W) A feasibility study for potential projects for the 
rehabilitation of the Glens Falls Feeder Canal, which
H. R. 133—1497 
begins at the Feeder Dam intersection with the Hudson 
River in Queensbury, New York, and runs to the confluence 
of the Old Champlain Canal in Kingsbury, New York. 
(X) A feasibility study to determine whether the pur-
chase of additional flood easements, changes in lake level 
management, 
additional 
levee 
infrastructure, 
or 
implementation of other flood risk management or contain-
ment mechanisms in the Arkansas River Basin, Oklahoma, 
would benefit local communities by reducing flood risks 
around water resources development projects of the Corps 
of Engineers in a range of different flood scenarios. 
(Y) A feasibility study on increasing the frequency 
and depth of dredging assistance from the Corps of Engi-
neers at the Port of Astoria, located at the mouth of the 
Columbia River, Oregon. 
(b) FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropria-
tions, the Secretary is authorized to review a project proposal 
described in paragraph (2) and issue a report to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives on whether a modification to the project that 
is the subject of the proposal is necessary and recommended 
to carry out the authorized purposes of such project. 
(2) PROJECT
PROPOSALS
DESCRIBED.—A project proposal 
referred to in paragraph (1) is a proposal to modify any of 
the following: 
(A) The project for environmental infrastructure, City 
of Sheffield, Alabama, authorized pursuant to section 
219(f)(78) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1258; 130 Stat. 
1687). 
(B) The project for environmental infrastructure, 
Calaveras County, California, under section 219(f)(86) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1259). 
(C) The project for environmental infrastructure, Char-
lotte County, Florida, authorized by section 219(f)(121) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1261). 
(D) The Mississippi River and Tributaries project 
authorized by the first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 
(33 U.S.C. 702a), to include the portion of the Ouachita 
River Levee System at and below Monroe, Louisiana, to 
Caldwell Parish, Louisiana. 
(E) The project for environmental infrastructure, Cen-
tral New Mexico, authorized by section 593 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 380; 119 
Stat. 2255). 
(F) The project for environmental infrastructure, Vil-
lage of Whitehall, New York, authorized pursuant to section 
542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 1150). 
(G) The project for environmental infrastructure, Ohio 
and North Dakota, authorized by section 594 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 121 
Stat. 1140; 121 Stat. 1944).
H. R. 133—1498 
(H) The project for flood risk management and water 
supply, Tenkiller Ferry Lake, Arkansas River Basin, Okla-
homa, authorized by section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 
(chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218), to modify water storage to 
provide for a sufficient quantity of water supply storage 
space in the inactive pool storage to support the fishery 
downstream from Tenkiller Reservoir. 
(I) The project for environmental infrastructure, 
Athens, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(254) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(J) The project for environmental infrastructure, 
Blaine, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(255) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(K) The project for environmental infrastructure, Clai-
borne County, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(256) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(L) The project for environmental infrastructure, Giles 
County, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(257) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(M) The project for environmental infrastructure, 
Grainger 
County, 
Tennessee, 
authorized 
by 
section 
219(f)(258) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(N) The project for environmental infrastructure, Ham-
ilton County, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(259) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(O) The project for environmental infrastructure, Har-
rogate, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(260) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(P) The project for environmental infrastructure, John-
son County, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(261) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(Q) The project for environmental infrastructure, Knox-
ville, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(262) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(R) The project for environmental infrastructure, 
Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee, author-
ized by section 219(f)(264) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 
Stat. 1268). 
(S) The project for environmental infrastructure, Nash-
ville, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(263) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1267). 
(T) The project for environmental infrastructure, Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee, authorized by section 219(f)(265) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1268).
H. R. 133—1499 
(U) The project for environmental infrastructure, Pla-
teau Utility District, Morgan County, Tennessee, author-
ized by section 219(f)(266) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 
Stat. 1268). 
(V) The authorized funding level for critical restoration 
projects, Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New 
York, authorized by section 542 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 1150). 
(W) The project for environmental infrastructure, 
Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia, authorized by sec-
tion 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1255). 
SEC. 205. SELMA, ALABAMA. 
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report 
that— 
(1) provides an update on the study for flood risk manage-
ment and riverbank stabilization, Selma, Alabama, authorized 
by resolutions of the Committees on Public Works and Rivers 
and Harbors of the House of Representatives on June 7, 1961, 
and April 28, 1936, respectively, the completion of which the 
Secretary was required to expedite by section 1203 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3803); and 
(2) identifies project alternatives necessary to— 
(A) assure the preservation of cultural and historic 
values associated with national historic landmarks within 
the study area; and 
(B) provide flood risk management for economically 
disadvantaged communities within the study area. 
SEC. 
206. 
REPORT 
ON 
CORPS 
OF 
ENGINEERS 
FACILITIES 
IN 
APPALACHIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in collaboration with the 
Appalachian Regional Commission established by section 14301(a) 
of title 40, United States Code, shall submit to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives a report that identifies each Corps of Engineers facility that— 
(1) is located within a distressed county or an at-risk county 
(as designated by the Appalachian Regional Commission pursu-
ant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 14526(a)(1), of title 
40, United States Code), including in counties that are experi-
encing high unemployment or job loss; and 
(2) could be improved for purposes of economic develop-
ment, recreation, or other uses. 
(b) HYDROPOWER FACILITIES.— 
(1) IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL HYDROPOWER DEVELOP-
MENT.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted 
under subsection (a) the identification of any existing nonpow-
ered dams, located within a distressed county or an at-risk 
county, with the potential to be used to test, evaluate, pilot, 
demonstrate, or deploy hydropower or energy storage tech-
nologies.
H. R. 133—1500 
(2) INFORMATION.—In carrying out this subsection, the Sec-
retary may use any information developed pursuant to section 
1206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 
Stat. 3806). 
(3) COORDINATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Sec-
retary shall coordinate with any relevant National Laboratories. 
SEC. 207. ADDITIONAL STUDIES UNDER NORTH ATLANTIC COAST COM-
PREHENSIVE STUDY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a study to 
determine the feasibility of a project for hurricane and storm dam-
age risk reduction for any major metropolitan area located in the 
study area for the comprehensive study authorized under the 
heading ‘‘Department of the Army—Corps of Engineers—Civil— 
Investigations’’ under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 
(Public Law 113–2) that was not included in a high-risk focus 
area identified in the study. 
(b) TREATMENT.—A study carried out under subsection (a) shall 
be considered to be a continuation of the comprehensive study 
described in that subsection. 
SEC. 208. SOUTH ATLANTIC COASTAL STUDY. 
Section 1204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 
(130 Stat. 1685) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(d) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than 180 days after the enact-
ment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, and not 
less frequently than annually thereafter until 2025, the Secretary 
shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of Representatives a report on the status of 
the study under subsection (a), on a State-by-State basis, including 
information on the engagement of the Corps of Engineers with 
non-Federal interests, including detailed lists of all meetings and 
decision outcomes associated with those engagements.’’. 
SEC. 209. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER, YOLO 
BYPASS, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a 
comprehensive study of the Sacramento River in the vicinity of 
the Yolo Bypass System, California, to identify actions to be under-
taken by the Secretary for the comprehensive management of the 
Yolo Bypass System for the purposes of flood risk management, 
ecosystem restoration, water supply, hydropower, and recreation. 
(b) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTING DATA.— 
(1) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the comprehensive 
study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with 
the Governor of the State of California, applicable Federal, 
State, and local agencies, non-Federal interests, the Yolo 
Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership, and other stakeholders. 
(2) USE OF EXISTING DATA AND PRIOR STUDIES.—To the 
maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, the Sec-
retary may— 
(A) make use of existing data provided to the Secretary 
by the entities identified in paragraph (1); and 
(B) incorporate— 
(i) relevant information from prior studies and 
projects carried out by the Secretary within the study 
area; and
H. R. 133—1501 
(ii) the latest technical data and scientific 
approaches to changing hydrologic and climatic condi-
tions. 
(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—In conducting the comprehensive study 
under subsection (a), the Secretary may develop a recommenda-
tion to Congress for— 
(A) the construction of a water resources development 
project; 
(B) the structural or operational modification of an 
existing water resources development project; 
(C) additional monitoring of, or adaptive management 
measures to carry out with respect to, existing water 
resources development projects, to respond to changing 
hydrologic and climatic conditions; or 
(D) geographic areas within the Yolo Bypass System 
for additional study by the Secretary. 
(2) ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasibility study 
carried out pursuant to a recommendation under paragraph 
(1)(D) shall be considered to be a continuation of the comprehen-
sive study authorized under subsection (a). 
(d) COMPLETION OF STUDY; REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later 
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Sec-
retary shall 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 detailing— 
(1) the results of the comprehensive study conducted under 
subsection (a), including any recommendations developed under 
subsection (c); 
(2) any additional, site-specific areas within the Yolo 
Bypass System where additional study for flood risk manage-
ment or ecosystem restoration projects is recommended by the 
Secretary; and 
(3) any interim actions relating to existing water resources 
development projects undertaken by the Secretary during the 
study period. 
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) YOLO BYPASS SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘Yolo Bypass System’’ 
means the system of weirs, levees, bypass structures, and other 
water resources development projects in California’s Sac-
ramento River Valley, extending from the Fremont Weir near 
Woodland, California, to the Sacramento River near Rio Vista, 
California, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 
1, 1917 (chapter 144; 39 Stat. 949). 
(2) YOLO BYPASS AND CACHE SLOUGH PARTNERSHIP.—The 
term ‘‘Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership’’ means the 
group of parties to the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Memo-
randum of Understanding, effective May 2016, regarding 
collaboration and cooperation in the Yolo Bypass and Cache 
Slough region. 
SEC. 210. LAKE OKEECHOBEE REGULATION SCHEDULE, FLORIDA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the review of the Lake Okee-
chobee regulation schedule pursuant to section 1106 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3773), the Secretary 
shall—
H. R. 133—1502 
(1) evaluate the implications of prohibiting releases from 
Lake Okeechobee through the S–308 and S–80 lock and dam 
structures, and evaluate separately the implications of prohib-
iting high volume releases through the S–77, S–78, and S– 
79 lock and dam structures, on the operation of the lake in 
accordance with authorized purposes and seek to minimize 
unnecessary releases to coastal estuaries; and 
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate with 
the ongoing efforts of Federal and State agencies responsible 
for monitoring, forecasting, and notification of cyanobacteria 
levels in Lake Okeechobee. 
(b) MONTHLY REPORT.—Each month, the Secretary shall make 
public a report, which may be based on the Water Management 
Daily Operational Reports, disclosing the volumes of water deliv-
eries to or discharges from Lake Okeechobee & Vicinity, Water 
Conservation Area I, Water Conservation Area II, Water Conserva-
tion Area III, East Coast Canals, and the South Dade Conveyance. 
Such report shall be aggregated and reported in a format designed 
for the general public, using maps or other widely understood 
communication tools. 
(c) EFFECT.—In carrying out the evaluation under subsection 
(a)(1), nothing shall be construed to authorize any new purpose 
for the management of Lake Okeechobee or authorize the Secretary 
to affect any existing authorized purpose, including flood protection 
and management of Lake Okeechobee to provide water supply for 
all authorized users. 
SEC. 211. GREAT LAKES COASTAL RESILIENCY STUDY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the comprehensive assess-
ment of water resources needs for the Great Lakes System under 
section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2267a), as required by section 1219 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811), the Secretary shall— 
(1) taking into account recent high lake levels within the 
Great Lakes, assess and make recommendations to Congress 
on— 
(A) coastal storm and flood risk management measures, 
including measures that use natural features and nature- 
based features, as those terms are defined in section 1184 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 
2289a); 
(B) operation and maintenance of the Great Lakes 
Navigation System, as such term is defined in section 210 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2238); 
(C) ecosystem protection and restoration; 
(D) the prevention and control of invasive species and 
the effects of invasive species; and 
(E) recreation associated with water resources develop-
ment projects; 
(2) prioritize actions necessary to protect critical public 
infrastructure, communities, and critical natural or cultural 
resources; and 
(3) to the maximum extent practicable and where appro-
priate, utilize existing data provided to the Secretary by Federal 
and State agencies, Indian Tribes, and other stakeholders, 
including data obtained through other Federal programs.