3201 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(b) DEBRIS BASINS DESCRIBED.—The debris basins re-
ferred to in subsection (a) are the following debris basins op-
erated and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood 
Control District, as generally defined in Corps of Engineers 
operations and maintenance manuals as may be further de-
scribed in an agreement entered into under subsection (c): 
Auburn Debris Basin, Bailey Debris Basin, Big Dalton De-
bris Basin, Blanchard Canyon Debris Basin, Blue Gum Can-
yon Debris Basin, Brand Canyon Debris Basin, Carter De-
bris Basin, Childs Canyon Debris Basin, Dunsmuir Canyon 
Debris Basin, Eagle Canyon Debris Basin, Eaton Wash De-
bris Basin, Elmwood Canyon Debris Basin, Emerald East 
Debris Basin, Emerald West Debris Retention Inlet, Hay De-
bris Basin, Hillcrest Debris Basin, La Tuna Canyon Debris 
Basin, Little Dalton Debris Basin, Live Oak Debris Reten-
tion Inlet, Lopez Debris Retention Inlet, Lower Sunset Can-
yon 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 Con-
3202 
•HRES 1512 EH 
trol 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 pro-
tection of the project described in subsection (a); 
(2) retains public ownership of, and compatible uses 
for, all real property required for the continued func-
tioning of the debris basins described in subsection (b), 
consistent with authorized purposes of the project de-
scribed in subsection (a); 
(3) allows the Corps of Engineers to continue to op-
erate, maintain, rehabilitate, repair, and replace appur-
tenant structures, such as rain and stream gages, lo-
cated within the debris basins subject to deauthorization 
under subsection (a) as necessary to ensure the contin-
ued functioning of the project described in subsection 
(a); and 
(4) holds and saves the United States harmless 
from damages due to overtopping, breach, failure, oper-
3203 
•HRES 1512 EH 
ation, or maintenance 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, California), 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
3204 
•HRES 1512 EH 
the American River North Levee, upstream of Arden Way, 
from G.P.S. coordinate 38.600948N 121.330599W to 
38.592261N 121.334155W, is no longer authorized beginning 
on the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 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 conveyance capacity of the project to 
a level determined appropriate by the Secretary based on the 
actual capacity of the project, which level may be further 
modified by the Secretary as necessary to account for sea 
level rise. 
(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal sponsor for the 
project described in subsection (a) shall prepare for re-
view 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 pro-
vide 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
3205 
•HRES 1512 EH 
may accept and expend such funds in the performance 
of such review and approval. 
(c) EMERGENCY REPAIR
AND RESTORATION ASSIST-
ANCE.—Upon approval by the Secretary of the revised oper-
ation 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 eligi-
bility requirement established by the Secretary, 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 
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–554, appendix D, 
114 Stat. 2763A–224 (as enacted by section 1(a)(4) of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 2763)); 
121 Stat. 1209), is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘and volatile or-
ganic 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.
3206 
•HRES 1512 EH 
2675) is amended by striking ‘‘ocean shoreline’’ and inserting 
‘‘bay and ocean shorelines’’. 
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—In carrying out a study under 
section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 
(90 Stat. 2930; 100 Stat. 4158), pursuant to section 
203(a)(1)(A) of the Water Resources 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, CALI-
FORNIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except for funds required for a bet-
terment or for a locally preferred plan, the Secretary shall 
not require the non-Federal interest for the project for flood 
risk management, 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 agree-
ment entered into prior to the date of enactment 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
3207 
•HRES 1512 EH 
described in subsection (a) solely on the basis of a determina-
tion by the Secretary that an additional appropriation is re-
quired to cover the Federal share of the cost to complete con-
struction of the project, if Federal funds, in an amount deter-
mined by the Secretary to be sufficient to continue construc-
tion 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—CON-
STRUCTION’’ 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 MATE-
RIAL FOR THE DELAWARE RIVER, DELAWARE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of the non-Fed-
eral interest for the project for hurricane and storm 
damage risk reduction, Delaware Beneficial Use of 
Dredged Material for the Delaware River, Delaware, au-
thorized by section 401(3) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2736) (referred to in 
this subsection as the ‘‘project’’), the Secretary shall im-
plement the project using borrow sources that are alter-
natives to the Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea, 
project, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, authorized
3208 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 im-
plements the modification under paragraph (1), the Sec-
retary is authorized, at the request of a non-Federal in-
terest, to carry out initial construction or periodic nour-
ishments at any site included in the project under— 
(A) section 1122 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note); or 
(B) section 204(d) of the Water Resources De-
velopment 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 para-
graph (1) and the incremental 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 sec-
tion 5(a) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 
701n(a)), if—
3209 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 
prevents— 
(i) in the case of a structure or project, 
the adequate 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 ade-
quate functioning of the beach as a natural 
barrier to inundation, wave attack, or erosion 
coinciding with hurricanes, 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 jus-
tified solely by national economic development benefits 
if— 
(A) the Secretary determines that— 
(i) such activity is necessary to restore the 
adequate functioning of the structure, project, 
or public beach for the purposes described in 
paragraph (1)(B), as applicable; and
3210 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(ii) such activity is warranted to protect 
against loss to life or property of the commu-
nity protected by the structure, project, or pub-
lic beach; and 
(B) in the case of a public beach, the non-Fed-
eral interest agrees to participate in, and comply 
with, applicable Federal floodplain management and 
flood insurance programs. 
(3) PRIORITIZATION.—Repair or restoration activi-
ties carried out by the Secretary under paragraph (2) 
shall be given equal budgetary consideration and priority 
as activities justified solely by national economic develop-
ment benefits. 
(4) LIMITATIONS.—An activity carried out under 
paragraph (1) for a public beach shall not— 
(A) repair or restore the beach beyond its nat-
ural profile; 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 au-
thorized hurricane or shore protective structure or 
project located in the State of Delaware damaged or de-
3211 
•HRES 1512 EH 
stroyed 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 synoptic-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— 
(i) a publicly owned beach; or 
(ii) a privately owned beach that is avail-
able 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 mainte-
nance of the project for navigation, Indian River Inlet 
and Bay, Delaware, authorized by the first section of the
3212 
•HRES 1512 EH 
Act of August 26, 1937 (chapter 832, 50 Stat. 846; 59 
Stat. 14), the Secretary shall repair, restore, or relocate 
any non-Federal public recreation facility that has been 
damaged, in whole or in part, by the deterioration or 
failure of the project. 
(2) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—There 
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sub-
section $10,000,000. 
(d) INDIAN RIVER INLET SAND BYPASS PLANT, DELA-
WARE.— 
(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 insuf-
ficient to maintain the functioning of the project. 
(2) COST SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 
cost of a cycle of periodic nourishment provided pursu-
3213 
•HRES 1512 EH 
ant 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 MAN-
AGEMENT PROJECT AT INDIAN RIVER INLET.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year, the Sec-
retary 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, Dela-
ware, 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 Sec-
retary may reprogram— 
(i) not more than $100,000 per re-
programming action; and 
(ii) not more than $200,000 for each fis-
cal year.
3214 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 sec-
tion 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), 
consisting of the southernmost 3.5-mile reach of the L–73 
levee, Section 2, Osceola County Florida, are no longer au-
thorized beginning on the date of enactment 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 encom-
passing 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 Re-
sources 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 sub-
clause (I), by striking ‘‘during each 5-year period,
3215 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 Sec-
retary shall provide to the non-Federal sponsor 
a financial accounting of non-Federal contribu-
tions under clause (i)(I) for such fiscal year. 
‘‘(iv) LIMITATION.—In the case of an au-
thorized 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 obligations incurred by the non-Fed-
eral 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
3216 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(II) may only require any such cash 
contribution to be made at the end of each 
period of 5 fiscal years under clause (i).’’. 
(b) UPDATE.—The Secretary and the non-Federal inter-
est 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 sub-
section (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 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 running 
S32°48’37’’E for 433.78 feet to a point with coordinates 
N886851.0560, 
E966518.1668; 
thence 
running
3217 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3771) is amended by striking 
‘‘2 representatives of the State of Florida,’’ and inserting ‘‘3 
representatives of the State of Florida, including at least 1 
representative of the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection and 1 representative of the Florida Fish and Wild-
life Conservation Commission,’’.
3218 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 para-
graph (2) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(2) COST SHARE.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The costs of construction 
of a Project feature constructed pursuant to para-
graph (1) shall be determined in accordance with 
section 101(a)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment 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 De-
velopment 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 
following:
3219 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(1) PLANNING, DESIGN, AND
RECONSTRUCTION 
COSTS.—The Federal share of planning, design, and re-
construction costs for a project under this section, in-
cluding 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 con-
tributions 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 
requirement 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 construction of the project shall be fi-
nanced in accordance with the provisions of section 
103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(33 U.S.C. 2213(k)) over a period of thirty years from 
the date of completion of the project.’’.
3220 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 8336. CHICAGO SHORELINE PROTECTION. 
The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Il-
linois, 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, ILLI-
NOIS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 402(a)(1) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2742) is amend-
ed by striking ‘‘80 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘90 percent’’. 
(b) LOCAL COOPERATION REQUIREMENTS.—At the re-
quest of the applicable non-Federal interests for the project 
for ecosystem restoration, Great Lakes and Mississippi River 
Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois, au-
thorized by section 401(a)(5) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740), the Secretary shall not 
require such non-Federal interests to be jointly and severally
3221 
•HRES 1512 EH 
liable for all non-Federal obligations in the project partner-
ship 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’’), authorized 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 sec-
tion as ‘‘Flood Protection Project’’), authorized by such sec-
tion, shall be modified as follows, subject to a new or amend-
ed agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal in-
terest 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 con-
sisting 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 Sta-
3222 
•HRES 1512 EH 
tion 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 ac-
cordance 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 execution of a new or amended agreement pursu-
ant to subsection (a) and conveyance of the easements 
under paragraph (1), the Secretary is authorized to con-
vey 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.
3223 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(B) Easements identified as Partial Tracts 
3216E–2, 3216E–3, 3217E–1, and 3217E–2. 
(3) EASEMENT DISPOSAL PROCESS AND FEES.—All 
real property interests conveyed under this subsection 
shall be subject to the standard release of easement dis-
posal process. All administrative fees associated with the 
transfer of the subject easements to the City or to the 
Des Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation Au-
thority will be borne by the transferee. 
SEC. 8339. CITY OF EL DORADO, KANSAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall amend the con-
tract 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 charg-
ing 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 in-
terest becomes payable pursuant to the terms of the con-
tract.
3224 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(b) CONTRACT DESCRIBED.—The contract referred to in 
subsection (a) is the contract between the United States and 
the 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, main-
tenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Algiers 
Canal Levees, Louisiana, 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 sub-
section (b)’’ after ‘‘the project’’. 
SEC. 8341. MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA. 
The Federal share of the cost of the project for eco-
system restoration, Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana, 
authorized by section 7013(a)(4) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1281), shall be 100 per-
cent. 
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.
3225 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 periodic 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 con-
structed 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 MAN-
AGEMENT STUDY. 
Section 213 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2020 (134 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: 
‘‘(j) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the 
comprehensive study carried out under subsection (a), and 
any feasibility study carried out under subsection (e), shall be 
100 percent.’’.
3226 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 8344. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PROTECTION. 
Section 2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Devel-
opment 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 sub-
section (d) unless the Secretary identifies a willing and capa-
ble non-Federal public entity to assume ownership of the 
Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. 
‘‘(g) MODIFICATION.—The Secretary is authorized to in-
vestigate the feasibility of modifying, prior to deauthorizing, 
the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam to add eco-
system 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 MIS-
SISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the operation and mainte-
nance of the navigation channel projects on the Upper Mis-
sissippi River, including all projects authorized for navigation 
of the Mississippi River from the mouth of the Missouri River
3227 
•HRES 1512 EH 
to Minneapolis, authorized 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 management activities to help re-
dress 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 sub-
section (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—
3228 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 navigation. 
(c) COORDINATION AND NOTIFICATION.— 
(1) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall use exist-
ing coordination and consultation processes to regularly 
coordinate and consult with other relevant Federal agen-
cies and States regarding the planning and assessment 
of water level management actions implemented under 
this section. 
(2) NOTIFICATION
AND
OPPORTUNITY
FOR
COM-
MENT.—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 pub-
licly available website) and submit to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
3229 
•HRES 1512 EH 
Works of the Senate a report that describes any activity car-
ried 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 RE-
SOURCE 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 Sec-
retary 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, MISSISSIPPI. 
It is the sense of Congress that— 
(1) there is significant shoreline sloughing and ero-
sion at the Okatibbee Lake portion of the project for 
flood protection, Chunky Creek, Chickasawhay and 
Pascagoula Rivers, Mississippi, 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
3230 
•HRES 1512 EH 
non-Federal entities such as Okatibbee Lake, is an activ-
ity 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, MIS-
SOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES AT KANSAS CIT-
IES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Kansas 
Citys on Missouri and Kansas Rivers in Missouri and Kan-
sas, 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 oper-
ation and maintenance of the project by the non-
Federal interest; and 
(B) technically feasible and environmentally ac-
ceptable; and 
(2) plan, design, and carry out the construction de-
scribed in paragraph (1) as a continuation of the con-
struction of such project.
3231 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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. 
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 pro-
tection and stabilization. 
(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 
Secretary shall— 
(1) conduct an evaluation of the extent of 
streambank erosion on the Lower Missouri River; and 
(2) develop new methods and techniques for 
streambank protection, research soil stability, and iden-
tify 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 Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
3232 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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, in-
cluding any recommendations for methods to prevent and cor-
rect streambank erosion. 
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is au-
thorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$15,000,000, to remain available until expended. 
(f) SUNSET.—The authority of the Secretary to enter 
into contracts under subsection (a) shall expire on the date 
that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 8351. MISSOURI RIVER INTERCEPTION-REARING COM-
PLEXES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 129 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2643), 
and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary is 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 inter-
ception-rearing complexes under subsection (a), the Sec-
retary shall perform an analysis to identify whether the 
interception-rearing complexes will—
3233 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(A) contribute to an increased risk of flooding 
to adjacent lands and properties, including local lev-
ees; 
(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 pri-
vate lands. 
(2) MITIGATION.—The Secretary may not construct 
an interception-rearing complex under subsection (a) 
until the Secretary successfully mitigates any effects de-
scribed in paragraph (1) with respect to such intercep-
tion-rearing complex. 
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after completion of 
the construction of the interception-rearing complexes under 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate a report describing the extent to which 
the construction of such interception-rearing complexes af-
fected the population recovery of pallid sturgeon in the Mis-
souri River.
3234 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 para-
graphs (3) and (4), respectively, and inserting after para-
graph (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 Re-
sources 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 in-
terests in lands acquired by such other Federal agen-
cies— 
‘‘(A) meet the purposes of the Missouri River 
Mitigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Ne-
braska, 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
3235 
•HRES 1512 EH 
the total number of acres required under subsection 
(a). 
‘‘(2) APPLICATION OF LANDS.—Upon making a de-
termination 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 to-
ward the total number of acres required under sub-
section (a), regardless of the source of the Federal funds 
used to acquire such lands or interests in lands. 
‘‘(3) SAVINGS
PROVISION.—Nothing in this sub-
section authorizes any transfer of administrative juris-
diction over any lands or interests in lands acquired by 
a Federal agency that are applied toward the total num-
ber 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 In-
frastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
of the Senate a report identifying the lands or inter-
ests in lands acquired with Federal funds that the
3236 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, au-
thorized by section 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 ac-
quired with Federal funding that the Secretary de-
termines will not be applied toward the total num-
ber 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 mitigation 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 Re-
sources 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.
3237 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 section may be in the form of design and construction 
assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and 
resource protection and development projects in northern 
Missouri, including projects for wastewater treatment and re-
lated facilities, water supply and related facilities, environ-
mental 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 Sec-
retary shall enter into a partnership agreement under 
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to 
the project to be carried out with such assistance. 
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement 
for a project entered into under this subsection shall 
provide for the following:
3238 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(A) Development by the Secretary, in consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State officials, of 
a facilities or resource protection and development 
plan, including appropriate engineering plans and 
specifications. 
(B) Establishment of such legal and institu-
tional structures as are necessary to ensure the ef-
fective 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 agree-
ment 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
3239 
•HRES 1512 EH 
U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(G)), the non-Federal inter-
est 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, operation, 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 constructed with assistance pro-
vided under this section shall be 100 percent. 
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro-
priated $50,000,000 to carry out this section. 
(2) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more 
than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry 
out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers 
district offices to administer projects under this section 
at Federal expense. 
(f) NORTHERN MISSOURI DEFINED.—In this section, 
the term ‘‘northern Missouri’’ means the counties of 
Buchanan, Marion, Platte, and Clay, Missouri.
3240 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 author-
ized 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 ESTU-
ARY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out addi-
tional feasibility studies for the project ecosystem restoration, 
Hudson–Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey, au-
thorized by section 401(5) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment 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 
subsection (a) shall be considered a continuation of the study 
that formulated the project for ecosystem restoration, Hud-
son–Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey, authorized
3241 
•HRES 1512 EH 
by section 401(5) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740). 
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 accord-
ance with section 103 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213). 
‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL
FEASIBILITY
STUDIES
AUTHOR-
IZED.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to 
carry out feasibility studies for purposes of recom-
mending to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives 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).’’.
3242 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 8358. COPAN LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall amend the con-
tract 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 in-
vestment costs and the accumulated interest on unpaid 
project investment 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 sub-
section (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
3243 
•HRES 1512 EH 
of storage space sought under an agreement under para-
graph (1). 
(c) CONTRACT DESCRIBED.—The contract referred to in 
subsection (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 section may be in the form of design and construction 
assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and 
resource protection and development projects in southwestern 
Oregon, including projects for wastewater treatment and re-
lated facilities, water supply and related facilities, environ-
mental 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.—
3244 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Before providing assistance 
under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Sec-
retary shall enter into a partnership agreement under 
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to 
the project to be carried out with such assistance. 
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement 
for a project entered into under this subsection shall 
provide for the following: 
(A) Development by the Secretary, in consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State officials, of 
a facilities or resource protection and development 
plan, including appropriate engineering plans and 
specifications. 
(B) Establishment of such legal and institu-
tional structures as are necessary to ensure the ef-
fective 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.
3245 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 agree-
ment 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 inter-
est 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, operation, 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 constructed with assistance pro-
vided under this section shall be 100 percent. 
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
3246 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro-
priated $50,000,000 to carry out this section. 
(2) CORPS
OF
ENGINEERS
EXPENSE.—Not more 
than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry 
out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers 
district offices to administer projects under this section 
at Federal expense. 
(f) SOUTHWESTERN OREGON DEFINED.—In this sec-
tion, 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, au-
thorized 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 main-
taining 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)
3247 
•HRES 1512 EH 
for ecosystem restoration, Lower Blackstone River, Rhode Is-
land, 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 meas-
ure on Federal land under the jurisdiction of another 
Federal agency, the Secretary may enter into an agree-
ment with such agency that grants permission for the 
Secretary to— 
(A) construct the measure on the land under 
the jurisdiction 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 meas-
ure 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 ex-
cess 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 Caro-
lina, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources
3248 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 section 1401(3) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1711), may 
receive credit under subparagraph (A) of such 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 Re-
sources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2721) is amend-
ed 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 sys-
tem portion of the project described in the modification made 
by subsection (a) pursuant to the requirements of section
3249 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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, author-
ized 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 authorized 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.
3250 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 8366. ADDICKS AND BARKER RESERVOIRS, TEXAS. 
The Secretary is authorized to provide, pursuant to sec-
tion 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a), 
information and advice to non-Federal interests on the re-
moval of sediment obstructing inflow channels to the Addicks 
and Barker Reservoirs, authorized pursuant to the project for 
Buffalo Bayou and its tributaries, 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 Is-
land, Corpus 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 as-
sistance 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 easement to the holder of such easement, 
if the Secretary determines that the covered easement is no 
longer required for purposes of navigation. 
(b) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The 
exact acreage and legal description of any covered easements
3251 
•HRES 1512 EH 
to be released or otherwise conveyed under this section shall 
be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Sec-
retary. 
(c) COSTS.—An entity to which a release or conveyance 
is made under this section shall be responsible for all reason-
able and necessary costs, including real estate transaction 
and environmental documentation costs, associated with the 
release or conveyance. 
(d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Sec-
retary may require that the release or conveyance of a cov-
ered 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 sub-
section, 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-Fed-
eral interest for the study of the Lake Champlain Canal 
Aquatic Invasive Species Barrier carried out under sec-
3252 
•HRES 1512 EH 
tion 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 determination under sub-
section (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 CON-
STRUCTED 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 rehabilita-
tion of Waterbury 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 construction of the Waterbury Dam.’’.
3253 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 8371. PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORA-
TION, 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 replace-
ment 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. 
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 re-
quired for the project that are owned or held by the non-Fed-
eral interest or other non-Federal public body. 
(c) ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY.—Unless otherwise explic-
itly prohibited in an Act making appropriations for the Corps 
of Engineers, the project described in subsection (a) shall be
3254 
•HRES 1512 EH 
eligible for additional funding appropriated and deposited 
into the ‘‘CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL—CONSTRUCTION’’ ac-
count— 
(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 
Development 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 fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(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, Pleas-
ants, Preston, Randolph, Ritchie, Taylor, Tucker, Tyler, 
Upshur, Wetzel, and Wood, West Virginia.’’; 
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘central’’ and in-
serting ‘‘northern’’; 
(4) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘central’’ and in-
serting ‘‘northern’’; and
3255 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 relat-
ing 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 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended— 
(1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘ENVIRON-
MENTAL RESTORATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND RE-
SOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT PILOT PRO-
GRAM’’; 
(2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(f) DEFINITION OF SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.—In 
this section, the term ‘southern West Virginia’ means the 
counties of Boone, Braxton, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, 
Gilmer, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan, 
Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Nicholas, Pen-
dleton, 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’’.
3256 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 relat-
ing 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 Re-
sources 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, waste-
water, and other environmental infrastructure in Ala-
bama. 
‘‘(275) CHANDLER, 
ARIZONA.—$18,750,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Chan-
dler, 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 wastewater infrastructure, including water reclama-
tion and groundwater recharge, for the City of Tempe, 
Arizona. 
‘‘(278) 
ALAMEDA
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, in Ala-
meda County, California.
3257 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(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 infrastruc-
ture, including groundwater recharge and water recy-
cling, 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, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(282) DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA.—$100,000,000 for 
water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city 
of Downey, California. 
‘‘(283) EAST COUNTY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure, including water recycling and water supply, in 
East County, San Diego County, California. 
‘‘(284) EASTERN
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—$25,000,000 for the planning, design, and 
construction of water and wastewater infrastructure, in-
cluding water recycling and water supply, for the cities 
of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, 
Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne,
3258 
•HRES 1512 EH 
Monrovia, San Dimas, and West Covina, and for Avo-
cado Heights, Bassett, and Valinda, California. 
‘‘(285) 
ESCONDIDO
CREEK, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$34,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
including stormwater management, in the vicinity of Es-
condido Creek, city of Escondido, California. 
‘‘(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.
3259 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(291) MAYWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Maywood, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(292) MONTEREY
PENINSULA, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
and water supply, on the Monterey Peninsula, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(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 re-
cycling and water supply, in the city of Ontario, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(295) PARAMOUNT, 
CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of Paramount, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(296) PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.—$13,700,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including water re-
cycling, in the city of Petaluma, California. 
‘‘(297) 
PLACER
COUNTY, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$21,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, in Placer 
County, California.
3260 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(298) RIALTO, 
CALIFORNIA.—$27,500,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rialto, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(299) 
RINCON
RESERVATION, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure on 
the Rincon Band of Luisen˜o Indians reservation, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(300) SACRAMENTO-SAN
JOAQUIN
DELTA, CALI-
FORNIA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure (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, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
structure, 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.
3261 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(303) SIERRA MADRE, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, and water sup-
ply, including earthquake resilience measures for such 
infrastructure and water supply, in the city of Sierra 
Madre, California. 
‘‘(304) SMITH
RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—$25,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure in Howonquet Village and 
Resort and Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, Smith River, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(305) SOUTH
SAN
FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.— 
$270,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
including stormwater management and water recycling, 
at the San Francisco International Airport, California. 
‘‘(306) TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA.—$18,000,000 for 
environmental infrastructure, in the city of Temecula, 
California. 
‘‘(307) TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA.—$100,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including ground-
water recharge and water supply, in the city of Tor-
rance, California. 
‘‘(308) WESTERN
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—$15,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in 
the cities of Pinole, San Pablo, and Richmond, and in 
El Sobrante, California.
3262 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(309) YOLO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$6,000,000 
for environmental infrastructure, in Yolo County, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(310) HEBRON, CONNECTICUT.—$3,700,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of He-
bron, Connecticut. 
‘‘(311) 
NEW
LONDON, 
CONNECTICUT.— 
$16,000,000 for wastewater 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, Connecticut. 
‘‘(313) KENT, DELAWARE.—$35,000,000 for water 
and wastewater 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 restoration, in New Castle 
County, Delaware. 
‘‘(315) 
SUSSEX, 
DELAWARE.—$35,000,000 
for 
water 
and 
wastewater 
infrastructure, 
including 
stormwater management, water storage and treatment
3263 
•HRES 1512 EH 
systems, and environmental restoration, in Sussex Coun-
ty, Delaware. 
‘‘(316) WASHINGTON, DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA.— 
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in-
cluding stormwater management, in Washington, Dis-
trict 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 infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, 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 man-
agement, in Polk County, Florida. 
‘‘(320) 
OKEECHOBEE
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.— 
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in Okee-
chobee County, Florida. 
‘‘(321) ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$50,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water
3264 
•HRES 1512 EH 
reclamation and water supply, in Orange County, Flor-
ida. 
‘‘(322) GEORGIA.—$75,000,000 for environmental 
infrastructure in Baldwin County, Bartow County, Floyd 
County, Haralson County, Jones County, Gilmer Coun-
ty, 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, Cal-
houn County, Randolph County, Wilcox County, Stewart 
County, Telfair County, Clinch County, Hancock Coun-
ty, 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,
3265 
•HRES 1512 EH 
Clayton County, Decatur County, Schley County, Sum-
ter County, Early County, Webster County, Clay Coun-
ty, Upson County, Long County, Twiggs County, 
Dougherty County, Quitman County, Meriwether Coun-
ty, Stephens County, Wilkinson County, Murray County, 
Wilkes County, Elbert County, McDuffie County, Heard 
County, Marion County, Talbot County, Laurens Coun-
ty, Montgomery County, Echols County, Pierce County, 
Richmond County, Chattahoochee 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 waste-
water infrastructure in Guam. 
‘‘(324) STATE OF HAWAII.—$75,000,000 for water 
and 
wastewater 
infrastructure 
(including 
urban 
stormwater conveyance), resource protection and devel-
opment, water supply, environmental restoration, and 
surface water protection and development, in the State 
of Hawaii. 
‘‘(325) COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAII.—$20,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including
3266 
•HRES 1512 EH 
stormwater management, in the County of Hawai‘i, Ha-
waii. 
‘‘(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 wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii. 
‘‘(328) MAUI, HAWAII.—$20,000,000 for water and 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, 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 man-
agement, in the village of Forest Park, Illinois. 
‘‘(331) LEMONT, ILLINOIS.—$3,135,000 for water 
infrastructure in the village of Lemont, Illinois. 
‘‘(332) 
LOCKPORT, 
ILLINOIS.—$6,550,000 
for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, in the city of Lockport, Illinois. 
‘‘(333) MONTGOMERY AND CHRISTIAN COUNTIES, 
ILLINOIS.—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infra-
3267 
•HRES 1512 EH 
structure, including water supply, in Montgomery Coun-
ty 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, Louisiana. 
‘‘(336) 
FITCHBURG, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
including stormwater management (including combined 
sewer overflows), in the city of Fitchburg, Massachu-
setts. 
‘‘(337) 
HAVERHILL, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
including stormwater management (including combined 
sewer overflows), in the city of Haverhill, Massachusetts. 
‘‘(338) 
LAWRENCE, 
MASSACHUSETTS.— 
$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
including stormwater management (including combined 
sewer overflows), in the city of Lawrence, Massachusetts. 
‘‘(339) LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS.—$20,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management (including combined sewer 
overflows), in the city of Lowell, Massachusetts.
3268 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(340) METHUEN, MASSACHUSETTS.—$20,000,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management (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 infrastructure, 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, 
MICHI-
GAN.—$7,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture in Cascade Charter Township, Michigan. 
‘‘(345) MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—$40,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Macomb County, Michigan. 
‘‘(346) NORTHFIELD, 
MINNESOTA.—$33,450,000 
for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of 
Northfield, Minnesota. 
‘‘(347) CENTERTOWN, MISSOURI.—$15,900,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in the village of 
Centertown, Missouri.
3269 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(348) 
CITY
OF
ST. 
LOUIS, 
MISSOURI.— 
$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in 
the city of St. Louis, Missouri. 
‘‘(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 
environmental infrastructure, including water and waste-
water infrastructure (including stormwater manage-
ment), drainage systems, and water quality enhance-
ment, 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 
environmental infrastructure, including water and waste-
water infrastructure (including stormwater manage-
ment), drainage systems, and water quality enhance-
ment, in the city of Meridian, Mississippi. 
‘‘(353) OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for en-
vironmental infrastructure, including water and waste-
water infrastructure (including stormwater manage-
3270 
•HRES 1512 EH 
ment), drainage systems, and water quality enhance-
ment, 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 Hamp-
shire. 
‘‘(356) BAYONNE, NEW
JERSEY.—$825,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement (including combined sewer overflows), in the 
city of Bayonne, New Jersey. 
‘‘(357) CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY.—$119,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, in the city of Camden, New Jersey. 
‘‘(358) ESSEX AND SUSSEX COUNTIES, NEW JER-
SEY.—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture, including water supply, in Essex County and Sus-
sex County, New Jersey.
3271 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(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 wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Jefferson Township, New Jersey. 
‘‘(361) KEARNY, NEW
JERSEY.—$69,900,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement (including combined sewer overflows), in the 
town of Kearny, New Jersey. 
‘‘(362) LONG HILL, NEW JERSEY.—$7,500,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, in Long Hill Township, New Jersey. 
‘‘(363) 
MORRIS
COUNTY, 
NEW
JERSEY.— 
$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in 
Morris County, New Jersey. 
‘‘(364) PASSAIC, NEW
JERSEY.—$1,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, in Passaic County, New Jersey. 
‘‘(365) PHILLIPSBURG, NEW JERSEY.—$2,600,000 
for wastewater 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 Rah-
way, New Jersey.
3272 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(367) ROSELLE, NEW
JERSEY.—$5,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, in the Borough of Roselle, New Jersey. 
‘‘(368) SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE, NEW JERSEY.— 
$7,500,000 for water infrastructure, including water 
supply, in the Township of South Orange Village, New 
Jersey. 
‘‘(369) SUMMIT, NEW
JERSEY.—$1,000,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, in the city of Summit, New Jersey. 
‘‘(370) WARREN, NEW
JERSEY.—$4,550,000 for 
wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater man-
agement, 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 Farmington, New Mexico. 
‘‘(373) MORA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.—$2,874,000 
for wastewater 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.
3273 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(375) CLARKSTOWN, NEW
YORK.—$14,600,000 
for wastewater 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 man-
agement, in the town of Yorktown, New York. 
‘‘(379) BRUNSWICK, OHIO.—$4,510,000 for waste-
water infrastructure, 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 wastewater infrastructure in the city of Monroe, Or-
egon. 
‘‘(382) 
NEWPORT, 
OREGON.—$60,000,000 
for 
water and wastewater infrastructure, including water
3274 
•HRES 1512 EH 
supply and water storage, in the city of Newport, Or-
egon. 
‘‘(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. 
‘‘(384) PALMYRA, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—$36,300,000 
for wastewater infrastructure in Palmyra Township, 
Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(385) 
PIKE
COUNTY, 
PENNSYLVANIA.— 
$10,000,000 for water and stormwater management in-
frastructure, including water supply, in Pike County, 
Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(386) 
PITTSBURGH, 
PENNSYLVANIA.— 
$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including 
stormwater management, in the city of Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(387) POCONO, PENNSYLVANIA.—$22,000,000 for 
water and wastewater infrastructure in Pocono Town-
ship, Pennsylvania. 
‘‘(388) WESTFALL, PENNSYLVANIA.—$16,880,000 
for wastewater infrastructure in Westfall Township, 
Pennsylvania.
3275 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(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 Pleas-
ant, 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 wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in Smith County, Tennessee. 
‘‘(396) TROUSDALE, MACON, AND SUMNER COUN-
TIES, TENNESSEE.—$178,000,000 for water and waste-
3276 
•HRES 1512 EH 
water infrastructure in Trousdale County, Macon Coun-
ty, and Sumner County, Tennessee. 
‘‘(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 wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the city of Ellensburg, Washington. 
‘‘(401) NORTH BEND, WASHINGTON.—$30,000,000 
for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater 
management, in the city of North Bend, Washington. 
‘‘(402) PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON.—$7,500,000 
for wastewater 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, Wash-
ington.
3277 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(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, Snohomish County, Skagit 
County, and Whatcom County, Washington. 
‘‘(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, Wisconsin.’’. 
(b) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.— 
(1) CONSISTENCY WITH REPORTS.—Congress finds 
that the project modifications described in this sub-
section are in accordance with the reports submitted to 
Congress by the Secretary under section 7001 of the 
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 
(33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled ‘‘Report to Congress on Fu-
ture Water Resources Development’’, or have otherwise 
been reviewed by Congress. 
(2) MODIFICATIONS.— 
(A) CALAVERAS
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Sec-
tion 219(f)(86) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334;
3278 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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.—Sec-
tion 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 Val-
ley, and Rowland Heights, Los Angeles County, Cali-
fornia.’’. 
(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
3279 
•HRES 1512 EH 
infrastructure, 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 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
3280 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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, ILLI-
NOIS.—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 in-
serting ‘‘$100,000,000 for wastewater infra-
structure, including stormwater management, 
and other’’; and 
(iii) by inserting ‘‘and Lake County’’ after 
‘‘Cook County’’. 
(K) MADISON AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, ILLI-
NOIS.—Section 219(f)(55) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–221; 134 Stat. 2718)
3281 
•HRES 1512 EH 
is amended by striking ‘‘$45,000,000’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘$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 DEVEL-
OPMENT
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, LOUISIANA.— 
(i) ST. CHARLES, ST. BERNARD, AND 
PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LOUISIANA.—Section 
219(c)(33) of the Water Resources Develop-
3282 
•HRES 1512 EH 
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
334; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended by 
striking ‘‘Water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture’’ and inserting ‘‘Water supply and waste-
water infrastructure, including stormwater 
management’’. 
(ii) ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST. JAMES, 
AND ASSUMPTION PARISHES, LOUISIANA.—Sec-
tion 219(c)(34) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 
Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amend-
ed— 
(I) in the paragraph heading, by 
striking ‘‘BAPTIST AND ST. JAMES’’ and 
inserting ‘‘BAPTIST, ST. JAMES, AND AS-
SUMPTION’’; 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—
3283 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(I) by striking the ‘‘and’’ at the end 
of paragraph (16); 
(II) by striking the period at the end 
of paragraph (17) and inserting a semi-
colon; and 
(III) by adding at the end the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(18) $70,000,000 for the project described in sub-
section (c)(33); and 
‘‘(19) $36,000,000 for the project described in sub-
section (c)(34).’’. 
(P) 
MICHIGAN
COMBINED
SEWER
OVER-
FLOWS.—Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended— 
(i) by striking ‘‘$35,000,000 for’’ and in-
serting 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 infrastructure and resource protec-
tion and development projects in Michigan, includ-
ing for projects for wastewater treatment and re-
3284 
•HRES 1512 EH 
lated facilities, water supply and related facilities, 
environmental restoration, and surface water re-
source 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 in-
serting ‘‘$125,000,000 for water and wastewater in-
frastructure, including resilience activities for such 
infrastructure’’. 
(R) ALLEGHENY
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.— 
Section 219(f)(66)(A) of the Water Resources De-
velopment 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 insert-
ing ‘‘$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, in-
cluding stormwater management, and other’’. 
(S) LAKES
MARION
AND
MOULTRIE, SOUTH 
CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 
1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818; 134 Stat. 
2719) is amended by striking ‘‘$110,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$165,000,000’’.
3285 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 infrastruc-
ture, including ocean outfalls, Myrtle Beach and vicinity, 
South Carolina.’’. 
(U) NORTH
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 (251) and inserting the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(251) NORTH
MYRTLE
BEACH
AND
VICINITY, 
SOUTH CAROLINA.—$74,000,000 for environmental in-
frastructure, including ocean outfalls, North Myrtle 
Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.’’. 
(V) EASTERN
SHORE
AND
SOUTHWEST
VIR-
GINIA.—Section 219(f)(10)(A) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 
113 Stat. 335; 121 Stat. 1255) is amended— 
(i) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘$52,000,000’’; and
3286 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 wastewater’’ and inserting the following: 
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—$20,000,000 for water 
and wastewater’’; and 
(ii) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(B) LOCAL
COOPERATION
AGREEMENTS.— 
Notwithstanding 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 Secretary may enter into an 
agreement developed in accordance with section 
571(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 (113 Stat. 371) for the project or separable 
element.’’. 
(3) 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 Re-
sources Development Act of 2016), any project included
3287 
•HRES 1512 EH 
on a list published by the Secretary 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 ac-
cordance with the reports submitted to Congress by the Sec-
retary under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform 
and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled ‘‘Re-
port 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’’ be-
fore ‘‘resource protection’’; 
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting 
‘‘and streambanks’’ after ‘‘shorelines’’; 
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) 
and (F) as subparagraphs (H) and (I), respec-
tively; and
3288 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(iv) by inserting after subparagraph (D) 
the following: 
‘‘(E) wastewater treatment and related facili-
ties; 
‘‘(F) water supply and related facilities; 
‘‘(G) stormwater and drainage systems;’’; and 
(B) in subsection (c)(2)(A), by inserting ‘‘fa-
cilities or’’ before ‘‘a resource protection and res-
toration plan’’. 
(2) FLORIDA
KEYS
WATER
QUALITY
IMPROVE-
MENTS, FLORIDA.—Section 109(f) of title I of division B 
of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public 
Law 106–554, appendix D, 114 Stat. 2763A–222 (as 
enacted by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated Appro-
priations 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 Re-
sources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 379; 117 
Stat. 1837; 121 Stat. 1233; 123 Stat. 2851) is amend-
ed—
3289 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘and surface 
water resource protection and development’’ and in-
serting ‘‘surface water resource protection and de-
velopment, stormwater management, drainage sys-
tems, 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 CALIFORNIA.—Section 108(g) of division C of the 
Consolidated Appropriations 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’’. 
(7) 
NEW
YORK
CITY
WATERSHED.—Section 
552(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (110 Stat. 3780) is amended—
3290 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(A) by striking ‘‘design and construction as-
sistance’’ and inserting ‘‘design, repair, replace-
ment, and construction 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
APPROPRIA-
TIONS.—In addition 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 re-
ferred 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 insert-
ing 
‘‘SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA
AND 
LOWER DELAWARE RIVER BASIN.’’;
3291 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(B) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘and the 
Lower Delaware 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 Pennsylvania and the Lower Dela-
ware 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 fol-
lows: 
‘‘(g) AREAS DEFINED.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) LOWER DELAWARE RIVER BASIN.—The term 
‘Lower Delaware River Basin’ means the Schuylkill Val-
ley, Upper Estuary, Lower Estuary, and Delaware Bay 
subwatersheds of the Delaware River Basin in the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jer-
sey and Delaware. 
‘‘(2) SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA.—The term 
‘southeastern Pennsylvania’ means Philadelphia, Bucks, 
Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties, Pennsyl-
vania.’’; and
3292 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(E) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘to carry out 
this 
section 
$25,000,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$50,000,000 to provide assistance under this sec-
tion to non-Federal interests in southeastern Penn-
sylvania, 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 in-
serting ‘‘$410,000,000’’. 
(11) TEXAS.—Section 5138 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250) is amend-
ed— 
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘, as identi-
fied by the Texas Water Development Board’’; 
(B) in subsection (e)(3), by inserting ‘‘and con-
struction’’ after ‘‘design work’’; 
(C) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub-
section (i); 
(D) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol-
lowing:
3293 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In this section, the term 
non-Federal interest has the meaning given such term in sec-
tion 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 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this 
section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices 
to administer projects under this section at Federal ex-
pense.’’; 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 Develop-
ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 1150; 134 
Stat. 2652) is amended— 
(A) in subsection (b)(2)(C), by striking ‘‘plan-
ning’’ 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
3294 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 acreage and the legal description of any real prop-
erty to be conveyed under this section shall be deter-
mined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary. 
(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PRO-
VISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, 
shall not apply to any conveyance under this section. 
(3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—An entity to which a 
conveyance is made under this section shall be respon-
3295 
•HRES 1512 EH 
sible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including 
real estate transaction and environmental documentation 
costs, associated with the conveyance. 
(4) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance is 
made under this section shall hold the United States 
harmless from any liability with respect to activities car-
ried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the 
real property conveyed. The United States shall remain 
responsible for any liability with respect to activities car-
ried 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 condi-
tions as the Secretary considers necessary and appro-
priate 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, Delaware, 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 munic-
ipal 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,
3296 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 para-
graph (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 Secretary, to the United 
States. 
(B) DETERMINATION.—A determination by the 
Secretary under subparagraph (A) shall be made on 
the record after an opportunity for a hearing. 
(c) ARMY
RESERVE
FACILITY, BELLEVILLE, ILLI-
NOIS.— 
(1) CONVEYANCE
AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary 
shall convey to the city of Belleville, Illinois, without con-
sideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
States in and to the real property described in para-
graph (2). 
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed 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.
3297 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the prop-
erty under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such 
terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appro-
priate to protect the interests of the United States. 
(4) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that 
the property 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 Sec-
retary, to the United States. 
(d) LAKE BARKLEY, KENTUCKY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to 
convey to the Eddyville Riverport and Industrial Devel-
opment 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 iden-
tified as Tract 1216–2 and a portion of the land identi-
fied 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, au-
thorized 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 sub-
section such easements, rights-of-way, and other inter-
ests that the Secretary determines to be necessary and
3298 
•HRES 1512 EH 
appropriate to ensure the continued operation of the 
project described in paragraph (1). 
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the prop-
erty under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such 
terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appro-
priate to protect the interests of the United States. 
(4) CONSIDERATION.—The Eddyville Riverport and 
Industrial Development Authority shall pay to the Sec-
retary 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 
approximately 1,064 acres of lying in the eastern half of 
Sections 12 and 13, T 8 S, R 6 W and the western half 
of Section 18 and the western half of Section 7, T 8 S, 
R 5 W, in Panola County, 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
3299 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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
3300 
•HRES 1512 EH 
or less, to the southerly edge of an existing power line 
right-of-way; thence leaving said east line of said south-
west 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, 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 pre-
scribed 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, con-
taining 1.00 acre, more or less. 
(3) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—
3301 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall reserve 
and retain from the conveyance under this sub-
section such easements, rights-of-way, and other in-
terests that the Secretary determines to be nec-
essary and appropriate to ensure the continued op-
eration 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 
easements, rights-of-way, and other interests re-
served an retained under subparagraph (A), the 
Secretary— 
(i) shall retain the right to flood land for 
downstream flood control purposes on— 
(I) the land located east of Blackjack 
Road and below 301.0 feet above sea level; 
and 
(II) the land located west of Black-
jack 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—
3302 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 perma-
nent restriction that all future building of above- 
ground structures on the land conveyed under this 
subsection shall be restricted to areas lying at or 
above 301.0 feet above sea level. 
(5) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Sardis, Mis-
sissippi, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not 
less than the fair market value of the property conveyed 
under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary. 
(6) NOTICE
AND
REPORTING.—After conveying 
property under this subsection, the Secretary shall sub-
mit 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 
(iii) any other information that may affect 
land conveyed under this subsection; and
3303 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(B) a timely notice of any anticipated flooding 
of a portion of the land conveyed under this sub-
section. 
(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 para-
graph (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 Coun-
ty, Oklahoma: 
(A) Parcel 1 consists of U.S. tract 119 (par-
tial), 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 (par-
tial) and U.S. tract 128 (partial). 
(C) Parcel 3 consists of U.S. tract 128 (par-
tial). 
(3) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary shall 
reserve and retain from any conveyance under this sub-
section such easements, rights-of-way, and other inter-
ests that the Secretary determines to be necessary and 
appropriate to ensure the continued operation of the
3304 
•HRES 1512 EH 
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project (in-
cluding 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 prop-
erty under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such 
terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appro-
priate 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 ju-
risdiction 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 facilities are available to be used as the office for 
the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers, the
3305 
•HRES 1512 EH 
Secretary shall convey to the Port of Corpus Christi, all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
the property described in paragraph (2). 
(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The property re-
ferred 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 conveyed by the Nueces County Navigation Dis-
trict No. 1 of Nueces County, Texas, to the United 
States by instrument dated October 16, 1928, and 
recorded at Volume 193, pages 1 and 2, in the 
Deed Records of Nueces 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), 
constructed January 9, 1974. 
(ii) Garage, vehicle with 5 bays (RPUID 
AO–C–3517), constructed January 9, 1985.
3306 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(iii) Bulkhead, Upper (RPUID AO–C– 
2658), constructed January 1, 1941. 
(iv) Bulkhead, Lower (RPUID AO–C– 
3520), constructed January 1, 1933. 
(v) Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C– 
3521), constructed January 9, 1985. 
(vi) Bulkhead Fence (RPUID AO–C– 
3522), constructed January 9, 1985. 
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the prop-
erty under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such 
terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appro-
priate 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 im-
provements) conveyed under this subsection, as deter-
mined 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 Sec-
retary 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.
3307 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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, authorized 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 conditions 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 in-
undate with water the land transferred to the Choc-
taw Nation under this subsection as necessary to 
carry out an authorized 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. 
(b) LAND DESCRIPTION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The land to be transferred under 
subsection (a) is the approximately 247 acres of land lo-
cated in Sections 18 and 19 of T2N R18E, and Sections 
5 and 8 of T2N R19E, Pushmataha County, Oklahoma,
3308 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 descrip-
tions of the land to be transferred under subsection (a) 
shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Sec-
retary and the Secretary of the Interior. 
(c) CONSIDERATION.—The Choctaw Nation shall pay to 
the Secretary an amount that is equal to the fair market 
value of the land transferred under subsection (a), as deter-
mined by the Secretary, which funds may be accepted and ex-
pended by the Secretary. 
(d) COSTS OF TRANSFER.—The Choctaw Nation shall be 
responsible 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’’.
3309 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regula-
tion, 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 benefits 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 ‘‘eco-
system restoration, 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’’.
3310 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(b) INVASIVE
SPECIES
IN
ALPINE
LAKES
PILOT 
PROJECT.—Section 507(c) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment 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 Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 
(16 U.S.C. 3957(e)) is amended by striking ‘‘10’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘12’’. 
SEC. 8383. TRANSFER OF EXCESS CREDIT. 
Section 1020 of the Water Resources Reform and Devel-
opment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2223) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(3) STUDIES AND PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE NON- 
FEDERAL INTERESTS.—A credit described in paragraph 
(1) for a study or project with multiple non-Federal in-
terests may be applied to the required non-Federal cost 
share for a study or project of any such non-Federal in-
terest, if each such non-Federal interest agrees in writ-
ing to such application.’’; 
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(3) CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL
OF
EXCESS
CRED-
IT.—Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(A)(ii), the Sec-
retary may approve credit in excess of the non-Federal
3311 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 au-
thorized 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 De-
cember 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 re-
quired 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 au-
thorized by section 7012(a)(1)’’ before the period at the end.
3312 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 ‘‘INI-
TIAL’’; 
(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 ac-
crual of interest on any non-Federal cash contribu-
tion under this section or section 101 for a project 
for a period of not more than 1 year if the Sec-
retary determines that— 
‘‘(i) the waiver will contribute to the abil-
ity of the non-Federal interest to make future 
contributions; and 
‘‘(ii) the non-Federal interest is in good 
standing under terms agreed to under sub-
section (k)(1). 
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS.—The Secretary may grant 
not more than 1 waiver under subparagraph (A) for 
the same project.’’.
3313 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 8386. COASTAL COMMUNITY FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER 
PURPOSES. 
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 mar-
gins appropriately; 
(2) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so redesig-
nated), 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 in-
serting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(iii) the non-Federal interest repays 
the balance of remaining principal by 
June 1, 2032.’’; and 
(5) by adding at the end the following:
3314 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(B) REPAYMENT OPTIONS.—Repayment of a 
non-Federal 
contribution 
under 
subparagraph 
(A)(iii) may be satisfied through the provision by 
the non-Federal interest of fish and wildlife mitiga-
tion 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 mitiga-
tion 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 fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term’’; 
(2) by inserting ‘‘, increase resiliency to extreme 
weather events,’’ after ‘‘flood risk’’; and
3315 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 re-
configuration.’’. 
(b) 
LEVEE
SAFETY
INITIATIVE.—Section 
9005(g)(2)(E)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a(g)(2)(E)(i)) is amended by striking 
‘‘2023’’ and inserting ‘‘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 reha-
bilitation’’ 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 dis-
advantaged communities (as defined by the Secretary 
under section 160 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), including economi-
cally disadvantaged communities located in urban and 
rural areas.’’.
3316 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 8388. SURPLUS WATER CONTRACTS AND WATER STORAGE 
AGREEMENTS. 
Section 1046(c) of the Water Resources Reform and De-
velopment 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 strik-
ing the second sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘For 
Corps of Engineers projects, all annual operation and mainte-
nance costs for municipal and industrial water supply storage 
under this section shall be reimbursed from State or local in-
terests 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 inter-
est, with interest, over a period of not more than 25 years 
beginning on the date of completion of the repair, rehabilita-
tion, or replacement, with repayment contracts providing for
3317 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 sen-
tence for the purpose of incorporating the terms and condi-
tions described in paragraph (3) of the preceding sentence.’’. 
SEC. 8390. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RES-
TORATION. 
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)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘Rehabilitation’’ and inserting 
‘‘Restoration’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘Sacramento’’ and inserting 
‘‘Albuquerque’’; and 
(3) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’ 
and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’.
3318 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 8391. ASIAN CARP PREVENTION AND CONTROL PILOT PRO-
GRAM. 
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 Wa-
tershed, 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 en-
hanced 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 Re-
sources 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 section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 
(68 Stat. 1257).
3319 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(B) Townshend Lake, Vermont, authorized by 
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 
Stat. 1257). 
(2) RECREATION.—The term ‘‘recreation’’ includes 
downstream 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 as-
sociated 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 modi-
fications or deviations— 
(1) will not adversely affect other authorized pur-
poses of the covered project; and 
(2) will not result in significant adverse impacts to 
the environment.
3320 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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’’. 
SEC. 8395. MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAT SINKING UNIT. 
The Secretary shall expedite the replacement of the Mis-
sissippi 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 (Recreation Lease No. DACW09–1–67–60), is a valid 
lease of land at a water resources development project under 
section 4 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d). 
SEC. 8397. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF PROJECTS AND STUD-
IES. 
(a) AUTHORIZED PROJECTS AND STUDIES.—The Sec-
retary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expedite 
completion of the following projects and studies: 
(1) PROJECTS.— 
(A) Project for Juneau and Auke Bay, Float-
ing Wave Attenuator, Alaska, authorized pursuant 
to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 
Stat. 1181).
3321 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(B) Project for flood risk management, Little 
Colorado River at Winslow, Navajo County, Ari-
zona, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water Re-
sources 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 mainte-
nance and channel deepening, McClellan–Kerr Ar-
kansas 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 en-
vironmental restoration, Middle Creek, Lake Coun-
ty, California, authorized by section 1001(11) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1051).
3322 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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, eco-
system restoration, and recreation, South San 
Francisco Bay Shoreline, California, authorized by 
section 1401(6) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714). 
(I) Projects for ecosystem restoration included 
in the comprehensive Chesapeake Bay restoration 
plan developed under the Chesapeake Bay Environ-
mental Restoration and Protection Program, au-
thorized by section 510 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 
1202; 128 Stat. 1317). 
(J) Maintenance dredging and other authorized 
activities to address the impacts of shoaling affect-
ing the project for navigation, Branford Harbor and 
Branford River, Branford, Connecticut, authorized 
by the first section of the Act of June 13, 1902 
(chapter 1079, 32 Stat. 333). 
(K) Maintenance dredging and other author-
ized activities to address the impacts of shoaling af-
fecting the project for navigation, Guilford Harbor
3323 
•HRES 1512 EH 
and Sluice Channel, Connecticut, authorized by sec-
tion 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 
Stat. 13). 
(L) Maintenance dredging and other author-
ized activities to address the impacts of shoaling af-
fecting 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 Re-
sources 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 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, au-
3324 
•HRES 1512 EH 
thorized pursuant to title VIII of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 652 
note). 
(R) Project for navigation, Kentucky Lock Ad-
dition, 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, con-
sisting 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
3325 
•HRES 1512 EH 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 
U.S.C. 1962d–22). 
(W) Assistance for ecosystem restoration, 
Lower Yellowstone Intake Diversion Dam, Mon-
tana, authorized pursuant to section 3109 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1135). 
(X) Maintenance dredging and other author-
ized activities to address the impacts of shoaling af-
fecting the project for navigation, Portsmouth Har-
bor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New Hamp-
shire, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173). 
(Y) Project for flood risk management, Tulsa 
and West–Tulsa Levee System, Tulsa County, Okla-
homa, 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
3326 
•HRES 1512 EH 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
2707). 
(BB) Project for water quality control, Red 
River Basin Chloride Control Area VIII, Texas, au-
thorized pursuant to section 203 of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420). 
(CC) Dredging for projects at Port of Gal-
veston for Turning Basin 2 project, Royal Ter-
minal, 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 sediment 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 con-
3327 
•HRES 1512 EH 
servation, and related purposes, Russian River 
Basin, California, consisting of the Coyote Valley 
Dam, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Con-
trol 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
3328 
•HRES 1512 EH 
the project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, 
Florida, authorized by section 101 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606). 
(F) A comprehensive 50-year review of the 
Kaskaskia River Navigation Project, Illinois, pursu-
ant 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 Re-
sources and Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 
2678). 
(H) Feasibility study for the project for eco-
system restoration and flood risk management at 
Coldwater Creek, Missouri, authorized pursuant to 
section 1202(b) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3803). 
(I) Feasibility study for the project for eco-
system restoration and flood risk management at 
Maline Creek, Missouri, authorized pursuant to sec-
tion 1202(b) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3803).
3329 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 re-
duce water consumption from the Arbuckle Simpson 
Aquifer, Oklahoma, utilizing reserved municipal 
water supply within the Corps of Engineers-owned 
lakes, pursuant to section 838 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4174). 
(b) CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAMS.—The Sec-
retary 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 Convey-
ance Project, Arizona.
3330 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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, Puer-
to Rico. 
(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.
3331 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 vi-
cinity, Arizona, including review of recharge facili-
ties that preserve water flows and habitats. 
(4) Project modifications for improvement of the 
environment 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 Pas-
saic 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 dam-
3332 
•HRES 1512 EH 
age 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 re-
duction 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 re-
ports 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 Con-
gress, are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary sub-
stantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the 
conditions, described in the respective reports or decision doc-
uments designated in this section: 
(1) NAVIGATION.— 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. AK 
Elim Subsistence 
Harbor Study, 
Elim 
March 12, 
2021 
Federal: $99,057,000 
Non-Federal: $2,517,000 
Total: $101,574,000
3333 
•HRES 1512 EH 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
2. CA 
Port of Long Beach 
Deep Draft Navi-
gation, Los An-
geles 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 
Modifications, 
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 Chan-
nel Improve-
ments 
June 3, 2022 
Federal: $2,408,268,000 
Non-Federal: $3,929,279,000 
Total: $6,337,547,000 
5. WA 
Tacoma Harbor 
Navigation Im-
provement 
Project 
May 26, 2022 
Federal: $140,022,000 
Non-Federal: $203,561,000 
Total: $343,583,000 
(2) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.— 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. AL 
Selma Flood Risk 
Management and 
Bank Stabiliza-
tion 
October 7, 
2021 
Federal: $16,978,000 
Non-Federal: $9,142,000 
Total: $26,120,000 
2. AL 
Valley Creek Flood 
Risk Manage-
ment, Bessemer 
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
3334 
•HRES 1512 EH 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
5. OR 
Portland Metro 
Levee System 
August 20, 
2021 
Federal: $89,708,000 
Non-Federal: $48,304,000 
Total: $138,012,000 
6. PR 
Rio Guanajibo 
Flood Risk Man-
agement, Maya-
guez, 
Hormigueros, 
and San German 
May 24, 2022 
Federal: $184,778,000 
Non-Federal: $0 
Total: $184,778,000 
(3) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUC-
TION.— 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. CT 
Fairfield and New 
Haven Counties 
Coastal Storm 
Risk Manage-
ment 
January 19, 
2021 
Federal: $107,350,000 
Non-Federal: $57,804,000 
Total: $165,154,000 
2. FL 
Florida Keys, Mon-
roe County, 
Coastal Storm 
Risk Manage-
ment 
September 
24, 2021 
Federal: $1,774,631,000 
Non-Federal: $955,570,000 
Total: $2,730,201,000 
3. FL 
Miami-Dade Coun-
ty, Main Seg-
ment, Coastal 
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
3335 
•HRES 1512 EH 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
4. FL 
Okaloosa County, 
Coastal Storm 
Risk Manage-
ment 
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 
5. FL 
Pinellas County, 
Treasure Island 
and Long Key 
Segments, Coast-
al 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, Louisiana 
Hurricane and 
Storm Damage 
Risk Reduction 
June 23, 
2022 
Federal: $809,297,450 
Non-Federal: $435,775,550 
Total: $1,245,073,000 
7. LA 
Upper Barataria 
Basin Hurricane 
and Storm Dam-
age Risk Reduc-
tion 
January 28, 
2022 
Federal: $1,184,472,250 
Non-Federal: $637,792,750 
Total: $1,822,265,000 
8. NY 
South Shore of 
Staten Island, 
Fort Wadsworth 
to Oakwood 
Beach, Coastal 
Storm Risk Man-
agement 
October 27, 
2016 
Federal: $1,086,000,000 
Non-Federal: $585,000,000 
Total: $1,671,000,000 
9. PR 
San Juan Metro-
politan Area 
Coastal Storm 
Risk Manage-
ment 
September 
16, 2021 
Federal: $288,294,000 
Non-Federal: $155,235,000 
Total: $443,529,000
3336 
•HRES 1512 EH 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
10. SC 
Charleston Penin-
sula, Coastal 
Storm Risk Man-
agement 
June 10, 
2022 
Federal: $828,657,050 
Non-Federal: $446,199,950 
Total: $1,274,857,000 
11. SC 
Folly Beach, Coast-
al 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 
RESTORATION.— 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. TX 
Coastal Texas Pro-
tection and Res-
toration 
September 
16, 2021 
Federal: $21,380,214,000 
Non-Federal: $12,999,708,000 
Total: $34,379,922,000 
(5) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.— 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. CA 
Prado Basin Eco-
system Restora-
tion, San 
Bernardino, Riv-
erside and Or-
ange Counties 
April 22, 
2021 
Federal: $35,265,100 
Non-Federal: $22,373,900 
Total: $57,639,000
3337 
•HRES 1512 EH 
A. State 
B. 
Name 
C. 
Date of 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
2. KY 
Three Forks of 
Beargrass Creek 
Ecosystem Res-
toration, Louis-
ville 
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 
Document 
D. 
Estimated 
Costs 
1. DC 
Washington, D.C. 
and Vicinity 
Flood Risk Man-
agement 
July 22, 2021 
Federal: $19,830,000 
Non-Federal: $0 
Total: $19,830,000 
2. FL 
Central and South-
ern Florida, In-
dian River La-
goon 
June 30, 
2022 
Federal: $2,707,950,500 
Non-Federal: $2,707,950,500 
Total: $5,415,901,000 
3. LA 
Lake Pontchartrain 
and Vicinity 
December 16, 
2021 
Federal: $950,303,250 
Non-Federal: $511,701,750 
Total: $1,462,005,000 
4. LA 
West Bank and Vi-
cinity 
December 17, 
2021 
Federal: $508,337,700 
Non-Federal: $273,720,300 
Total: $782,058,000 
5. MI 
New Soo Lock Con-
struction Project, 
Sault Ste. Marie, 
Chippewa 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 Eco-
system Restora-
tion 
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
3338 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 partner-
ship agreement for the project, signed by the Secretary 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-Fed-
eral interest has not entered into a project partnership 
agreement for the project, or a separable element of the 
project, prior to such last day. 
(2) DEFINITION OF COVERED PERIOD.—In this sub-
section, the term ‘‘covered period’’ means the period be-
ginning 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
3339 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(B) 10 years after the date on which a design 
agreement for the project described in paragraph 
(1) is executed, if such design agreement is exe-
cuted 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, Mis-
souri, described in the prospectus submitted to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Envi-
ronment 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 
improvements as are required to support such lab and 
office facility, including any necessary demolition of the 
existing infrastructure.
3340 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(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 PRO-
GRAM.—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 PRO-
GRAM. 
‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘Estuary 
Partnership’ means the San Francisco Estuary Partner-
ship, 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 developed by the Director under subsection 
(d), the comprehensive conservation and manage-
3341 
•HRES 1512 EH 
ment 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 sub-
section (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 lo-
cated at the headquarters of Region 9 of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. 
‘‘(2) APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR.—The Adminis-
trator shall appoint a Director of the Office, who shall 
have management experience and technical expertise re-
lating 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 
Administrator shall delegate to the Director such author-
ity and provide such staff as may be necessary to carry 
out this section. 
‘‘(c) ANNUAL PRIORITY LIST.—
3342 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—After providing public notice, 
the Director shall annually compile a priority list, con-
sistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan, identifying and 
prioritizing the projects, activities, and studies to be car-
ried out with amounts made available under subsection 
(e). 
‘‘(2) INCLUSIONS.—The annual priority list com-
piled under paragraph (1) shall include the following: 
‘‘(A) Projects, activities, and studies, including 
restoration 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 res-
toration 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), in-
cluding— 
‘‘(i) the identity of each entity receiving 
assistance pursuant to subsection (e); and
3343 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(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 pri-
ority list under paragraph (1), the Director shall consult 
with, and consider the recommendations of— 
‘‘(A) the Estuary Partnership; 
‘‘(B) the State of California and affected local 
governments in the San Francisco Bay estuary wa-
tershed; 
‘‘(C) the San Francisco Bay Restoration Au-
thority; 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 comprehensive conservation and manage-
ment plan approved under section 320 for the San Fran-
3344 
•HRES 1512 EH 
cisco Bay estuary to develop a plan to guide the projects, 
activities, and studies of the Office to address the res-
toration 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 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-Fed-
eral 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 nonprofit agencies, institutions, and orga-
nizations, including the Estuary Partnership, for 
projects, activities, and studies identified 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
3345 
•HRES 1512 EH 
to 75 percent of the total cost of any projects, ac-
tivities, 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 sec-
tion shall be provided 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 ad-
ministrative expenses incurred in carrying out this sec-
tion. 
‘‘(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 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘SEC. 126. PUGET SOUND. 
‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
‘‘(1) COASTAL
NONPOINT
POLLUTION
CONTROL 
PROGRAM.—The term ‘Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Con-
trol Program’ means the State of Washington’s Coastal
3346 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 ‘International Joint Commission’ means the Inter-
national Joint Commission established by the Treaty re-
lating to the boundary waters and questions arising 
along the boundary between the United States and Can-
ada, signed at Washington January 11, 1909, and en-
tered into force May 5, 1910 (36 Stat. 2448; TS 548; 
12 Bevans 319). 
‘‘(5) PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION.—The term ‘Pa-
cific Salmon Commission’ means the Pacific Salmon 
Commission established by the United States and Can-
ada under the Treaty concerning Pacific salmon, with 
annexes and memorandum of understanding, signed at 
Ottawa January 28, 1985, and entered into force March 
18, 1985 (TIAS 11091; 1469 UNTS 357) (commonly 
known as the ‘Pacific Salmon Treaty’).
3347 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(6) PROGRAM OFFICE.—The term ‘Program Of-
fice’ means the Puget Sound Recovery National Pro-
gram Office established by subsection (b). 
‘‘(7) PUGET SOUND ACTION AGENDA; ACTION AGEN-
DA.—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 Adminis-
trator as the comprehensive conservation and manage-
ment 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 understanding among 9 Fed-
eral agencies. 
‘‘(10) PUGET SOUND NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.—The term ‘Puget Sound 
National Estuary Program Management Conference’ 
means the management conference for the Puget Sound 
convened pursuant to section 320.
3348 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(11) PUGET
SOUND
PARTNERSHIP.—The term 
‘Puget Sound Partnership’ means the State agency cre-
ated 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 Ad-
ministrator 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 Cana-
dian 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 re-
gion’ includes all watersheds that drain into the 
Puget Sound. 
‘‘(13) PUGET SOUND TRIBAL MANAGEMENT CON-
FERENCE.—The term ‘Puget Sound Tribal Management 
Conference’ means the 20 treaty Indian tribes of western 
Washington and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Com-
mission. 
‘‘(14) SALISH SEA.—The term ‘Salish Sea’ means 
the network of coastal waterways on the west coast of
3349 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 com-
mittee established by subsection (d). 
‘‘(17) TREATY RIGHTS AT RISK INITIATIVE.—The 
term ‘Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative’ means the report 
from the treaty Indian tribes of western Washington en-
titled ‘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 non-
treaty salmon fisheries, including through Tribal salmon 
hatchery programs. 
‘‘(b) PUGET SOUND RECOVERY NATIONAL PROGRAM 
OFFICE.—
3350 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the 
Environmental Protection Agency a Puget Sound Recov-
ery 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 planning efforts and programs from 
different agencies and jurisdictions; and 
‘‘(ii) align numerous, and possibly com-
peting, priorities 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 posi-
tion, 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 au-
thority and provide such staff as may be necessary to 
carry out this section. 
‘‘(4) DUTIES.—The Director shall—
3351 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(A) coordinate and manage the timely execu-
tion 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 res-
toration and protection of the Puget Sound across 
the Environmental Protection Agency; 
‘‘(C) coordinate and align the activities of the 
Administrator with the Action Agenda, Salmon Re-
covery Plans, the Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, 
and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Pro-
gram; 
‘‘(D) promote the efficient use of Environ-
mental Protection Agency resources in pursuit of 
the restoration and protection of the Puget Sound; 
‘‘(E) serve on the Puget Sound Federal Lead-
ership Task Force and collaborate with, help coordi-
nate, and implement activities with other Federal 
agencies that have responsibilities involving the res-
toration and protection of the Puget Sound; 
‘‘(F) provide or procure such other advice, 
technical assistance, research, assessments, moni-
toring, or other support as is determined by the Di-
rector to be necessary or prudent to most efficiently 
and effectively fulfill the objectives and priorities of
3352 
•HRES 1512 EH 
the Action Agenda, the Salmon Recovery Plans, the 
Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative, and the Coastal 
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, consistent 
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 
Comptroller General set forth in the report entitled 
‘Puget Sound Restoration: Additional Actions Could 
Improve Assessments 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 Com-
mission, and the International 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.
3353 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(2) MEMBERSHIP.— 
‘‘(A) COMPOSITION.—The Puget Sound Fed-
eral Leadership Task Force shall be composed of 
the following members: 
‘‘(i) The following individuals appointed 
by the Secretary 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 Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration ap-
pointed by the Secretary 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 Com-
mander, Navy Region Northwest. 
‘‘(iv) The Director of the Program Office. 
‘‘(v) The following individuals appointed 
by the Secretary of Homeland Security:
3354 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(I) A representative of the Coast 
Guard. 
‘‘(II) A representative of the Federal 
Emergency 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 Na-
tional Park Service. 
‘‘(vii) The following individuals appointed 
by the Secretary of Transportation: 
‘‘(I) A representative of the Federal 
Highway Administration. 
‘‘(II) A representative of the Federal 
Transit Administration. 
‘‘(viii) Representatives of such other Fed-
eral agencies, programs, and initiatives as the 
other members of the Puget Sound Federal 
Leadership Task Force determines necessary.
3355 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(B) QUALIFICATIONS.—Members appointed 
under this paragraph shall have experience and ex-
pertise in matters of restoration and protection of 
large watersheds and bodies of water, or related ex-
perience that will benefit the restoration and protec-
tion of the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(C) CO-CHAIRS.— 
‘‘(i) IN
GENERAL.—The following mem-
bers of the Puget Sound Federal Leadership 
Task Force shall serve as Co-Chairs of the 
Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force: 
‘‘(I) The representative of the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. 
‘‘(II) The Director of the Program 
Office. 
‘‘(III) The representative of the 
Corps of Engineers. 
‘‘(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 responsibilities equally. 
‘‘(3) DUTIES.—
3356 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(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 co-
ordination across all Federal agencies rep-
resented by a member of the Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force to align Fed-
eral resources for the purposes of carrying out 
the requirements of this section and all other 
Federal laws that contribute to the restoration 
and protection of the Puget Sound, including 
by— 
‘‘(I) enabling and encouraging such 
agencies to act consistently with the objec-
tives and priorities 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 res-
toration and protection;
3357 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(III) facilitating the delivery of feed-
back given by such agencies to the Puget 
Sound Partnership during the develop-
ment of the Action Agenda; 
‘‘(IV) facilitating the resolution of 
interagency conflicts associated with such 
restoration and protection among such 
agencies; 
‘‘(V) providing a forum for exchang-
ing information among such agencies re-
garding activities being conducted, includ-
ing obstacles or efficiencies found, during 
restoration and protection activities; and 
‘‘(VI) promoting the efficient use of 
government resources in pursuit of such 
restoration and protection through coordi-
nation and collaboration, including by en-
suring that the Federal efforts relating to 
the science necessary for such restoration 
and protection are consistent, and not du-
plicative, across the Federal Government; 
‘‘(iii) catalyze public leaders at all levels to 
work together toward shared goals by dem-
onstrating interagency best practices coming 
from such agencies;
3358 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(iv) provide advice and support on sci-
entific and technical issues and act as a forum 
for the exchange of scientific information about 
the Puget Sound; 
‘‘(v) identify and inventory Federal envi-
ronmental research and monitoring programs 
related to the Puget Sound, and provide such 
inventory to the Puget Sound National Estu-
ary Program Management Conference; 
‘‘(vi) ensure that Puget Sound restoration 
and protection activities are as consistent as 
practicable with ongoing restoration and pro-
tection and related efforts in the Salish Sea 
that are being conducted by Canadian authori-
ties, the Pacific Salmon Commission, and the 
International Joint Commission; 
‘‘(vii) ensure that Puget Sound restoration 
and protection activities are consistent with na-
tional security interests; 
‘‘(viii) establish any working groups or 
committees necessary to assist the Puget 
Sound Federal Leadership Task Force in its 
duties, including relating to public policy and 
scientific issues; and
3359 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(ix) raise national awareness of the sig-
nificance 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 pro-
grams and priorities for the restoration and 
protection of the Puget Sound. 
‘‘(ii) REVISION
OF
PUGET
SOUND
FED-
ERAL 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 
Federal 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 agencies to con-
sider, at a minimum, possible Federal actions with-
in the Puget Sound region designed to—
3360 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(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, 
wetlands, 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 serv-
ices that provide clean water, filter toxic chemi-
cals, and increase ecosystem resilience; and
3361 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(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 mini-
mizing nonpoint source pollution, including 
marine litter. 
‘‘(4) PARTICIPATION
OF
STATE
ADVISORY
COM-
MITTEE AND PUGET SOUND TRIBAL MANAGEMENT CON-
FERENCE.—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 Conference, includ-
ing by seeking advice and recommendations on the ac-
tions, 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 properly represented; 
‘‘(ii) to establish the bylaws of the Puget 
Sound Federal Leadership Task Force;
3362 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(iii) to establish necessary working 
groups or committees; and 
‘‘(iv) to determine subsequent meeting 
times, dates, and logistics. 
‘‘(B) SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS.—After the ini-
tial 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 pur-
poses of subparagraph (B). 
‘‘(D) JOINT
MEETINGS.—The Puget Sound 
Federal Leadership Task Force— 
‘‘(i) shall offer to meet jointly with the 
Puget Sound National Estuary Program Man-
agement 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 Leadership Task Force for purposes of 
subparagraph (B).
3363 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(E) QUORUM.—A simple majority of the 
members of the Puget Sound Federal Leadership 
Task Force shall constitute 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 PROCEDURES 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 Federal Leadership Task 
Force determines necessary to perform 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 in-
curred by a member of the Puget Sound Federal 
Leadership Task Force in the performance of serv-
ice on the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task
3364 
•HRES 1512 EH 
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 under-
standing establishing the Puget Sound Federal 
Task Force shall cease to be effective. 
‘‘(B) USE
OF
PREVIOUS
WORK.—The Puget 
Sound Federal Leadership Task Force shall, to the 
extent practicable, use the work product produced, 
relied upon, and analyzed by the Puget Sound Fed-
eral Task Force in order to avoid duplicating the ef-
forts 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 Com-
mittee 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 sig-
nificant roles and responsibilities related to the restora-
tion and protection of the Puget Sound.
3365 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(e) PUGET
SOUND
FEDERAL
LEADERSHIP
TASK 
FORCE BIENNIAL REPORT ON PUGET SOUND RESTORATION 
AND PROTECTION ACTIVITIES.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 
date of enactment of this section, and biennially there-
after, the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force, 
in collaboration with the Puget Sound Tribal Manage-
ment Conference and the State Advisory Committee, 
shall submit to the President, Congress, the Governor of 
Washington, and the governing body of the Puget Sound 
Partnership a report that summarizes the progress, chal-
lenges, 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 fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(A) The roles and progress of each State, 
local government 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.
3366 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(B) If available, the roles and progress of 
Tribal governments that have jurisdiction in the 
Puget Sound region relating to meeting the identi-
fied 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 
concerning implementation of the Action Agenda 
and the Federal Action Plan, including challenges, 
barriers, and anticipated milestones, targets, and 
timelines. 
‘‘(D) A summary of progress made by Federal 
agencies toward the priorities identified in the Fed-
eral 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 af-
fects any authorization or obligation of a Federal agency 
to consult with an Indian tribe under any other provision 
of law. 
‘‘(g) CONSISTENCY.—
3367 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—Actions authorized or imple-
mented 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 Washington approved by the Administrator 
under section 303. 
‘‘(2) FEDERAL ACTIONS.—All Federal agencies rep-
resented on the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task 
Force shall act consistently with the protection of Tribal, 
treaty-reserved rights and, to the greatest extent prac-
ticable given such agencies’ existing obligations under 
Federal law, act consistently with the objectives and pri-
orities 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 with-
in or outside 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; 
‘‘(B) interpreting and enforcing regulations 
that impact the restoration and protection of the 
Puget Sound;
3368 
•HRES 1512 EH 
‘‘(C) issuing Federal licenses or permits that 
impact the restoration and protection of the Puget 
Sound; and 
‘‘(D) granting Federal assistance to State, 
local, and Tribal governments for activities related 
to the restoration and protection of the Puget 
Sound.’’. 
(c) LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN RESTORATION PRO-
GRAM.— 
(1) REVIEW
OF
COMPREHENSIVE
MANAGEMENT 
PLAN.—Section 121 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1273) is amended— 
(A) in subsection (c)— 
(i) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 
and inserting a semicolon; 
(ii) in paragraph (6), by striking the pe-
riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(iii) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(7) ensure that the comprehensive conservation 
and management plan approved for the Basin under sec-
tion 320 is reviewed and revised in accordance with sec-
tion 320 not less often than once every 5 years, begin-
ning on the date of enactment of this paragraph.’’; and 
(B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘rec-
ommended by a management conference convened
3369 
•HRES 1512 EH 
for the Basin under section 320’’ and inserting 
‘‘identified in the comprehensive conservation and 
management plan approved for the Basin under 
section 320’’. 
(2) DEFINITIONS.—Section 121(e)(1) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1273(e)(1)) 
is amended by striking ‘‘, a 5,000 square mile’’ and in-
serting ‘‘, a 10,000 square mile’’. 
(3) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Section 121(f) of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1273(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Not more than 
5 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this 
section may be used for administrative expenses.’’. 
SEC. 8502. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. 
Section 319(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1329(j)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsections 
(h) and (i) not to exceed’’ and all that follows through ‘‘fiscal 
year 1991’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (h) and (i) 
$200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027’’. 
SEC. 8503. WASTEWATER ASSISTANCE TO COLONIAS. 
Section 307 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amend-
ments of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 1281 note) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)—
3370 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as 
paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and 
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(2) COVERED ENTITY.—The term ‘covered entity’ 
means each of the following: 
‘‘(A) A border State. 
‘‘(B) A local government with jurisdiction over 
an eligible community.’’; 
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘border State’’ 
and inserting ‘‘covered entity’’; 
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘shall not exceed 
50 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘may not be less than 80 per-
cent’’; and 
(4) in subsection (e)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting 
‘‘$100,000,000’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘1997 through 1999’’ and in-
serting ‘‘2023 through 2027’’. 
DIVISION I—DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE AUTHORIZATIONS 
SEC. 9001. SHORT TITLE. 
This division may be cited as the ‘‘Department of State 
Authorization Act of 2022’’.
3371 
•HRES 1512 EH 
SEC. 9002. DEFINITIONS. 
In this division: 
(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ 
means the Administrator of USAID. 
(2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.— 
The term ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’ means 
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Rep-
resentatives. 
(3) DEPARTMENT.—Unless otherwise specified, the 
term ‘‘Department’’ means the Department of State. 
(4) SECRETARY.—Unless otherwise specified, the 
term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of State. 
(5) USAID.—The term ‘‘USAID’’ means the 
United States Agency for International Development. 
TITLE 
XCI—ORGANIZATION 
AND 
OPERATIONS OF THE DEPART-
MENT OF STATE 
SEC. 9101. MODERNIZING THE BUREAU OF ARMS CONTROL, 
VERIFICATION, AND COMPLIANCE AND THE BU-
REAU OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND NON-
PROLIFERATION. 
It is the sense of Congress that— 
(1) the Secretary should take steps to address staff-
ing shortfalls in the chemical, biological, and nuclear 
weapons issue areas in the Bureau of Arms Control,
3372 
•HRES 1512 EH 
Verification and Compliance and in the Bureau of Inter-
national Security and Nonproliferation; 
(2) maintaining a fully staffed and resourced Bu-
reau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance and 
Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation is 
necessary to effectively confront the threat of increased 
global proliferation; and 
(3) the Secretary, acting through the Bureau of 
Arms Control, Verification and Compliance and the Bu-
reau of International Security and Nonproliferation, 
should increase efforts and dedicate resources to combat 
the dangers posed by the People’s Republic of China’s 
conventional and nuclear build-up, the Russian Federa-
tion’s tactical nuclear weapons and new types of nuclear 
weapons, bioweapons proliferation, dual use of life 
sciences research, and chemical weapons. 
SEC. 9102. NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS FOR UNITED STATES 
NATIONALS UNLAWFULLY OR WRONGFULLY DE-
TAINED ABROAD. 
Section 302 of the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery 
and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 1741) is 
amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding para-
graph (1), by inserting ‘‘, as expeditiously as possible,’’ 
after ‘‘review’’; and
3373 
•HRES 1512 EH 
(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows: 
‘‘(b) REFERRALS TO SPECIAL ENVOY; NOTIFICATION TO 
CONGRESS.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon a determination by the 
Secretary of State, based on the totality of the cir-
cumstances, that there is credible information that the 
detention of a United States national abroad is unlawful 
or wrongful, and regardless of whether the detention is 
by a foreign government or a nongovernmental actor, the 
Secretary shall— 
‘‘(A) expeditiously transfer responsibility for 
such case from the Bureau of Consular Affairs of 
the Department of State to the Special Presidential 
Envoy for Hostage Affairs; and 
‘‘(B) not later than 14 days after such deter-
mination, notify the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions of the Senate, the Select Committee on Intel-
ligence of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs of the House of Representatives, and the Per-
manent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
House of Representatives of such determination and 
provide such committees with a summary of the 
facts that led to such determination. 
‘‘(2) FORM.—The notification described in para-
graph (1)(B) may be classified, if necessary.’’.