(1) PILOT PROGRAM PROJECTS.—Section 1122 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 
(33 U.S.C. 2326 note) is amended— 
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘20’’ 
and inserting ‘‘30’’; and 
(B) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘20’’ and 
inserting ‘‘30’’. 
(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of 
Congress that the Secretary, in selecting projects for 
the beneficial reuse of dredged materials under sec-
tion 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note), should ensure the 
thorough evaluation of project submissions from 
rural, small, and economically disadvantaged com-
munities. 
(c) FIVE-YEAR
REGIONAL
DREDGED
MATERIAL 
MANAGEMENT PLANS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this Act, and annually 
thereafter, the District Commander of each district 
of the Corps of Engineers that obtains dredged ma-
terial through the construction or operation and 
maintenance of a water resources development 
project shall, at Federal expense, develop and submit 
to the Secretary a 5-year dredged material manage-
ment plan in coordination with relevant State agen-
cies and stakeholders. 
(2) SCOPE.—Each plan developed under this 
subsection shall include— 
(A) a dredged material budget for each 
watershed or littoral system within the district; 
(B) an estimate of the amount of dredged 
material likely to be obtained through the con-
struction or operation and maintenance of all 
water resources development projects projected 
to be carried out within the district during the 
5-year period following submission of the plan, 
and the estimated timing for obtaining such 
dredged material; 
(C) an identification of potential water re-
sources development projects projected to be 
carried out within the district during such 5- 
year period that are suitable for, or that re-
quire, the placement of dredged material, and 
an estimate of the amount of dredged material 
placement capacity of such projects; 
(D) an evaluation of— 
(i) the suitability of the dredged mate-
rial for a full range of beneficial uses; and
(ii) the economic and environmental 
benefits, efficiencies, and impacts (includ-
ing the effects on living coral) of using the 
dredged material for beneficial uses, in-
cluding, in the case of beneficial reuse ac-
tivities that involve more than one water 
resources development project, the benefits, 
efficiencies, and impacts that result from 
the combined activities; and 
(E) the district-wide goals for beneficial 
reuse of the dredged material, including any ex-
pected cost savings from aligning and coordi-
nating multiple projects (including projects 
across Corps districts) in the reuse of the 
dredged material. 
(3) PUBLIC
COMMENT.—In developing each 
plan under this subsection, each District Com-
mander shall provide notice and an opportunity for 
public comment. 
(4) PUBLIC
AVAILABILITY.—Upon submission 
of each plan to the Secretary under this subsection, 
each District Commander shall make the plan pub-
licly available, including on a publicly available 
website. 
(d) DREDGE PILOT PROGRAM.—
(1) REVISIONS.—Section 1111 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 
2326 note) is amended— 
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘for the 
operation and maintenance of harbors and in-
land harbors’’ and all that follows through the 
period at the end and inserting the following: 
‘‘for the operation and maintenance of— 
‘‘(1) harbors and inland harbors referred to in 
section 210(a)(2) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(a)(2)); or 
‘‘(2) inland and intracoastal waterways of the 
United States described in section 206 of the Inland 
Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 
1804).’’; and 
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘or in-
land harbors’’ and inserting ‘‘, inland harbors, 
or inland or intracoastal waterways’’. 
(2) COORDINATION WITH EXISTING AUTHORI-
TIES.—The Secretary may carry out the dredge pilot 
program authorized by section 1111 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 
2326 note) in coordination with Federal regional 
dredge demonstration programs in effect on the date 
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 126. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FOR ANAD-
ROMOUS FISH. 
(a) ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT AND PASSAGE.— 
Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the 
following: 
‘‘(3) ANADROMOUS
FISH
HABITAT
AND
PAS-
SAGE.— 
‘‘(A) MEASURES.—A project under this 
section may include measures to improve habi-
tat or passage for anadromous fish, including— 
‘‘(i) installing fish bypass structures 
on small water diversions; 
‘‘(ii) modifying tide gates; and 
‘‘(iii) 
restoring 
or 
reconnecting 
floodplains and wetlands that are impor-
tant for anadromous fish habitat or pas-
sage. 
‘‘(B) BENEFITS.—A project that includes 
measures under this paragraph shall be formu-
lated to maximize benefits for the anadromous 
fish species benefitted by the project.’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(g) PRIORITIZATION.—The Secretary shall give 
projects that include measures described in subsection
(a)(3) equal priority for implementation as other projects 
under this section.’’. 
SEC. 127. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS. 
Section 7001(c)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Re-
form and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
2282d(c)(4)(B)) is amended— 
(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 
(2) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); 
and 
(3) by inserting after clause (i) the following: 
‘‘(ii) the Secretary shall not include 
proposals in the appendix of the annual re-
port that otherwise meet the criteria for 
inclusion in the annual report solely on the 
basis that the proposals are for the pur-
poses of navigation, flood risk manage-
ment, ecosystem restoration, or municipal 
or agricultural water supply; and’’. 
SEC. 128. HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM DEMONSTRATION PRO-
GRAM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a 
demonstration program to determine the causes of, and 
implement measures to effectively detect, prevent, treat, 
and eliminate, harmful algal blooms associated with water 
resources development projects.
(b) CONSULTATION; USE OF EXISTING DATA AND 
PROGRAM AUTHORITIES.—In carrying out the demonstra-
tion program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall— 
(1) consult with the heads of appropriate Fed-
eral and State agencies; and 
(2) make maximum use of existing Federal and 
State data and ongoing programs and activities of 
Federal and State agencies, including the activities 
of the Secretary carried out through the Engineer 
Research and Development Center pursuant to sec-
tion 1109 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 610 note). 
(c) FOCUS AREAS.—In carrying out the demonstra-
tion program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall un-
dertake program activities related to harmful algal blooms 
in the Great Lakes, the tidal and inland waters of the 
State of New Jersey, the coastal and tidal waters of the 
State of Louisiana, the waterways of the counties that 
comprise the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, 
and Lake Okeechobee, Florida. 
SEC. 129. UPDATE ON INVASIVE SPECIES POLICY GUID-
ANCE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall periodically 
update the Invasive Species Policy Guidance, developed 
under section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
(33 U.S.C. 610) and the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et 
seq.), in accordance with the most recent National 
Invasive Species Council Management Plan developed pur-
suant to Executive Order 13112. 
(b) INCLUSION.—The Secretary may include in the 
updated guidance invasive species specific efforts at feder-
ally authorized water resources development projects lo-
cated in— 
(1) high-altitude lakes; and 
(2) the Tennessee and Cumberland River ba-
sins. 
SEC. 130. REPORT ON DEBRIS REMOVAL. 
Section 1210 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3808) is amended to read as fol-
lows: 
‘‘SEC. 1210. REPORT ON DEBRIS REMOVAL. 
‘‘Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, the Sec-
retary shall submit to Congress and make publicly avail-
able a report that describes— 
‘‘(1) the extent to which, during the 10 fiscal 
years prior to such date of enactment, the Secretary 
has carried out section 3 of the Act of March 2, 
1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a);
‘‘(2) how the Secretary has evaluated potential 
work to be carried out under that section; and 
‘‘(3) the extent to which the Secretary plans to 
start, continue, or complete debris removal activities 
in the 3 years following submission of the report.’’. 
SEC. 131. MISSOURI RIVER INTERCEPTION-REARING COM-
PLEX CONSTRUCTION. 
(a) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 
of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Sec-
retary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
Senate a report on the effects of any interception-rearing 
complex constructed on the Missouri River on— 
(1) flood risk management and navigation; and 
(2) the population recovery of the pallid stur-
geon, including baseline population counts. 
(b) NO ADDITIONAL IRC CONSTRUCTION.—The Sec-
retary may not authorize construction of an interception- 
rearing complex on the Missouri River until the Sec-
retary— 
(1) submits the report required by subsection 
(a); 
(2) acting through the Engineer Research and 
Development Center, conducts further research on
interception-rearing complex design, including any 
effects on existing flows, flood risk management, and 
navigation; and 
(3) develops a plan— 
(A) to repair dikes and revetments that are 
affecting flood risk and bank erosion; and 
(B) to establish, repair, or improve water 
control structures at the headworks of con-
structed shallow water habitat side-channels. 
(c) FUTURE IRC CONSTRUCTION.— 
(1) PUBLIC
COMMENT.—The Secretary shall 
provide an opportunity for comment from the public 
and the Governor of each affected State on any pro-
posals to construct an interception-rearing complex 
after the date of enactment of this Act. 
(2) PERIOD.—The public comment period re-
quired by paragraph (1) shall be not less than 90 
days for each proposal to construct an interception- 
rearing complex on the Missouri River. 
SEC. 132. COST AND BENEFIT FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5(a)(2)(B) of the Act of 
August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(a)(2)(B)) is amended— 
(1) in clause (i)(I), by inserting ‘‘, or provide 
contributions equal to,’’ after ‘‘pay’’; and 
(2) in clause (ii)—
(A) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘AND CON-
TRIBUTIONS’’ after ‘‘OF PAYMENTS’’; 
(B) by inserting ‘‘or contributions’’ after 
‘‘Non-Federal payments’’; and 
(C) by inserting ‘‘or contributions’’ after 
‘‘non-Federal payments’’. 
(b) CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY.—Section 1161(b) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 
701n note) is amended— 
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)— 
(A) by striking the ‘‘three fiscal years pre-
ceding’’ and inserting ‘‘five fiscal years pre-
ceding’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘last day of the third fiscal 
year’’ and inserting ‘‘last day of the fifth fiscal 
year’’; 
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, or provide 
contributions equal to,’’ before ‘‘an amount suffi-
cient’’; and 
(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(2) the Secretary determines that the damage 
to the structure was not as a result of negligent op-
eration or maintenance.’’.
SEC. 133. MATERIALS, SERVICES, AND FUNDS FOR REPAIR, 
RESTORATION, 
OR 
REHABILITATION 
OF 
PROJECTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In any area covered by an emer-
gency or major disaster declaration declared under the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist-
ance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Secretary is au-
thorized to accept and use materials, services, and funds, 
during the period the declaration is in effect, from a non- 
Federal interest or private entity to repair, restore, or re-
habilitate a federally authorized water resources develop-
ment project, and to provide reimbursement to such non- 
Federal interest or private entity for such materials, serv-
ices, and funds, in the Secretary’s sole discretion, and sub-
ject to the availability of appropriations, if the Secretary 
determines that reimbursement is in the public interest. 
(b) ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary 
may only reimburse for the use of materials or services 
accepted under this section if such materials or services 
meet the Secretary’s specifications and comply with all ap-
plicable laws and regulations that would apply if such ma-
terials and services were acquired by the Secretary, includ-
ing sections 3141 through 3148 and 3701 through 3708 
of title 40, United States Code, section 8302 of title 41, 
United States Code, and the National Environmental Pol-
icy Act of 1969.
(c) AGREEMENTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Prior to the acceptance of 
materials, services, or funds under this section, the 
Secretary and the non-Federal interest or private 
entity shall enter into an agreement that specifies— 
(A) the non-Federal interest or private en-
tity shall hold and save the United States free 
from any and all damages that arise from use 
of materials or services of the non-Federal in-
terest or private entity, except for damages due 
to the fault or negligence of the United States 
or its contractors; 
(B) the non-Federal interest or private en-
tity shall certify that the materials or services 
comply with all applicable laws and regulations 
under subsection (b); and 
(C) any other term or condition required 
by the Secretary. 
(2) EXCEPTION.—If an agreement under para-
graph (1) was not entered prior to materials or serv-
ices being contributed, a non-Federal interest or pri-
vate entity shall enter into an agreement with the 
Secretary that—
(A) specifies the value, as determined by 
the Secretary, of those materials or services 
contributed and eligible for reimbursement; and 
(B) ensures that the materials or services 
comply with subsection (b) and paragraph (1). 
SEC. 134. LEVEE SAFETY. 
Section 9004 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303) is amended by adding at 
the end the following: 
‘‘(d) IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCIES.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For each levee included in 
an inventory established under subsection (b) or for 
which the Secretary has conducted a review under 
subsection (c), the Secretary shall— 
‘‘(A) identify the specific engineering and 
maintenance deficiencies, if any; and 
‘‘(B) describe the recommended remedies 
to correct each deficiency identified under sub-
paragraph (A), and, if requested by owner of a 
non-Federal levee, the associated costs of those 
remedies. 
‘‘(2) 
CONSULTATION.—In 
identifying 
defi-
ciencies and describing remedies for a levee under 
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with rel-
evant non-Federal interests, including by providing
an opportunity for comment by those non-Federal 
interests.’’. 
SEC. 135. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 2 of the National Dam 
Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467) is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (4)— 
(A) in subparagraph (A)— 
(i) by striking clause (iii) and insert-
ing the following: 
‘‘(iii) has an emergency action plan 
that— 
‘‘(I) is approved by the relevant 
State dam safety agency; or 
‘‘(II) is in conformance with 
State law and pending approval by the 
relevant State dam safety agency;’’; 
and 
(ii) by striking clause (iv) and insert-
ing the following: 
‘‘(iv) fails to meet minimum dam safe-
ty standards of the State in which the dam 
is located, as determined by the State; and 
‘‘(v) poses an unacceptable risk to the 
public, as determined by the Adminis-
trator, in consultation with the Board.’’; 
and 
(B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting 
‘‘under a hydropower project with an authorized 
installed 
capacity 
of 
greater 
than 
1.5 
megawatts’’ after ‘‘dam’’; and 
(2) in paragraph (10)— 
(A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘NON-FED-
ERAL SPONSOR’’ and inserting ‘‘ELIGIBLE SUB-
RECIPIENT’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘The term ‘non-Federal 
sponsor’ ’’ and inserting ‘‘The term ‘eligible 
subrecipient’ ’’. 
(b) REHABILITATION OF HIGH HAZARD POTENTIAL 
DAMS.— 
(1) ESTABLISHMENT
OF
PROGRAM.—Section 
8A(a) of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 
U.S.C. 467f–2(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘to non- 
Federal sponsors’’ and inserting ‘‘to States with 
dam safety programs’’. 
(2) ELIGIBLE
ACTIVITIES.—Section 8A(b) of 
the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 
467f–2(b)) is amended, in the matter preceding 
paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘for a project may be 
used for’’ and inserting ‘‘to a State may be used by
the State to award grants to eligible subrecipients 
for’’. 
(3) AWARD OF GRANTS.—Section 8A(c) of the 
National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 
467f–2(c)) is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘non- 
Federal sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘State’’; and 
(B) in paragraph (2)— 
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking 
‘‘an eligible high hazard potential dam to 
a non-Federal sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘eli-
gible high hazard potential dams to a 
State’’; 
(ii) in subparagraph (B)— 
(I) in the subparagraph heading, 
by striking ‘‘PROJECT GRANT’’ and in-
serting ‘‘GRANT’’; 
(II) by striking ‘‘project grant 
agreement with the non-Federal spon-
sor’’ and inserting ‘‘grant agreement 
with the State’’; and 
(III) by striking ‘‘project,’’ and 
inserting ‘‘projects for which the 
grant is awarded,’’;
(iii) by amending subparagraph (C) to 
read as follows: 
‘‘(C) GRANT
ASSURANCE.—As part of a 
grant agreement under subparagraph (B), the 
Administrator shall require that each eligible 
subrecipient to which the State awards a grant 
under this section provides an assurance, with 
respect to the dam to be rehabilitated by the el-
igible subrecipient, that the dam owner will 
carry out a plan for maintenance of the dam 
during the expected life of the dam.’’; and 
(iv) in subparagraph (D), by striking 
‘‘A grant provided under this section shall 
not exceed’’ and inserting ‘‘A State may 
not award a grant to an eligible sub-
recipient under this section that exceeds, 
for any 1 dam,’’. 
(4) REQUIREMENTS.—Section 8A(d) of the Na-
tional Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f– 
2(d)) is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘to an 
eligible subrecipient’’ after ‘‘this section’’; 
(B) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in the paragraph heading, by strik-
ing ‘‘NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘ELIGIBLE SUBRECIPIENT’’; 
(ii) in the matter preceding subpara-
graph (A), by striking ‘‘the non-Federal 
sponsor shall’’ and inserting ‘‘an eligible 
subrecipient shall, with respect to the dam 
to be rehabilitated by the eligible sub-
recipient’’; 
(iii) by amending subparagraph (A) to 
read as follows: 
‘‘(A) demonstrate that the community in 
which the dam is located participates in, and 
complies with, all applicable Federal flood in-
surance programs, including demonstrating that 
such community is participating in the National 
Flood Insurance Program, and is not on proba-
tion, suspended, or withdrawn from such Pro-
gram;’’; 
(iv) in subparagraph (B), by striking 
‘‘have’’ and inserting ‘‘beginning not later 
than 2 years after the date on which the 
Administrator publishes criteria for hazard 
mitigation plans under paragraph (3), 
demonstrate that the Tribal or local gov-
ernment with jurisdiction over the area in 
which the dam is located has’’; and 
(v) in subparagraph (C), by striking 
‘‘50-year period’’ and inserting ‘‘expected 
life of the dam’’; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) HAZARD
MITIGATION
PLAN
CRITERIA.— 
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this paragraph, the Administrator, in consultation 
with the Board, shall publish criteria for hazard 
mitigation plans required under paragraph (2)(B).’’. 
(5) FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT
PLANS.—Sec-
tion 8A(e) of the National Dam Safety Program Act 
(33 U.S.C. 467f–2(e)) is amended— 
(A) in paragraph (1)— 
(i) in the matter preceding subpara-
graph (A), by striking ‘‘the non-Federal 
sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘an eligible sub-
recipient’’; and 
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking 
‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘2 years’’ each 
place it appears; and 
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and insert-
ing the following:
‘‘(3) PLAN
CRITERIA
AND
TECHNICAL
SUP-
PORT.—The Administrator, in consultation with the 
Board, shall provide criteria, and may provide tech-
nical support, for the development and implementa-
tion of floodplain management plans prepared under 
this subsection.’’. 
(6) CONTRACTUAL
REQUIREMENTS.—Section 
8A(i)(1) of the National Dam Safety Program Act 
(33 U.S.C. 467f–2(i)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘a 
non-Federal sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘an eligible sub-
recipient’’. 
SEC. 136. REHABILITATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CON-
STRUCTED PUMP STATIONS. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) ELIGIBLE PUMP STATION.—The term ‘‘eli-
gible pump station’’ means a pump station— 
(A) constructed, in whole or in part, by the 
Corps of Engineers for flood risk management 
purposes; 
(B) that the Secretary has identified as 
having a major deficiency; and 
(C) the failure of which the Secretary has 
determined would impair the function of a flood 
risk management project constructed by the 
Corps of Engineers.
(2) REHABILITATION.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘rehabilita-
tion’’, with respect to an eligible pump station, 
means to address a major deficiency of the eli-
gible pump station caused by long-term deg-
radation of the foundation, construction mate-
rials, or engineering systems or components of 
the eligible pump station. 
(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘rehabilita-
tion’’, with respect to an eligible pump station, 
includes— 
(i) the incorporation into the eligible 
pump station of— 
(I) current design standards; 
(II) efficiency improvements; and 
(III) associated drainage; and 
(ii) increasing the capacity of the eli-
gible pump station, subject to the condition 
that the increase shall— 
(I) significantly decrease the risk 
of loss of life and property damage; or 
(II) decrease total lifecycle reha-
bilitation costs for the eligible pump 
station.
(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary may carry out 
rehabilitation of an eligible pump station, if the Secretary 
determines that the rehabilitation is feasible. 
(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal interest for 
the eligible pump station shall— 
(1) provide 35 percent of the cost of rehabilita-
tion of an eligible pump station carried out under 
this section; and 
(2) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, 
and necessary relocations associated with the reha-
bilitation described in subparagraph (A), at no cost 
to the Federal Government. 
(d) AGREEMENT REQUIRED.—The rehabilitation of 
an eligible pump station pursuant to this section shall be 
initiated only after a non-Federal interest has entered into 
a binding agreement with the Secretary— 
(1) to pay the non-Federal share of the costs of 
rehabilitation under subsection (c); and 
(2) to pay 100 percent of the operation and 
maintenance costs of the rehabilitated eligible pump 
station, in accordance with regulations promulgated 
by the Secretary. 
(e) TREATMENT.—The rehabilitation of an eligible 
pump station pursuant to this section shall not be consid-
ered to be a separable element of the associated flood risk
management project constructed by the Corps of Engi-
neers. 
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$60,000,000, to remain available until expended. 
SEC. 
137. 
NON-FEDERAL 
PROJECT 
IMPLEMENTATION 
PILOT PROGRAM. 
Section 1043(b) of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is 
amended— 
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘the date that 
is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act’’ 
and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2026’’; 
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘2023’’ and 
inserting ‘‘2026’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(9) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE.— 
‘‘(A) IN
GENERAL.—Not later than 120 
days after the date of enactment of this para-
graph, the Secretary shall issue guidance for 
the implementation of the pilot program that, 
to the extent practicable, identifies— 
‘‘(i) the metrics for measuring the 
success of the pilot program;
‘‘(ii) a process for identifying future 
projects to participate in the pilot pro-
gram; 
‘‘(iii) measures to address the risks of 
a 
non-Federal 
interest 
constructing 
projects under the pilot program, including 
which entity bears the risk for projects 
that fail to meet the Corps of Engineers 
standards for design or quality; 
‘‘(iv) the laws and regulations that a 
non-Federal interest must follow in car-
rying out a project under the pilot pro-
gram; and 
‘‘(v) which entity bears the risk in the 
event that a project carried out under the 
pilot program fails to be carried out in ac-
cordance with the project authorization or 
this subsection. 
‘‘(B) NEW PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREE-
MENTS.—The Secretary may not enter into a 
project partnership agreement under this sub-
section during the period beginning on the date 
of enactment of this paragraph and ending on 
the date on which the Secretary issues the guid-
ance under subparagraph (A).’’.
SEC. 138. DEFINITION OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED 
COMMUNITY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue 
guidance defining the term ‘‘economically disadvantaged 
community’’ for the purposes of this Act and the amend-
ments made by this Act. 
(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In defining the term ‘‘eco-
nomically disadvantaged community’’ under subsection 
(a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent prac-
ticable, utilize the criteria under paragraphs (1) or (2) of 
section 301(a) of the Public Works and Economic Devel-
opment Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3161), to the extent that 
such criteria are applicable in relation to the development 
of water resources development projects. 
(c) PUBLIC COMMENT.—In developing the guidance 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide notice 
and an opportunity for public comment. 
SEC. 139. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR TERRITORIES 
AND INDIAN TRIBES. 
Section 1156(b) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310(b)) is amended by striking 
‘‘for inflation’’ and all that follows through the period at 
the end and inserting ‘‘on an annual basis for inflation.’’.
SEC. 140. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES. 
Section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘Except as’’ and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(2) RENEGOTIATION OF TERMS.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a 
non-Federal interest, the Secretary and the 
non-Federal interest may renegotiate the terms 
and conditions of an eligible deferred payment, 
including— 
‘‘(i) permitting the non-Federal con-
tribution to be made without interest, pur-
suant to paragraph (1); 
‘‘(ii) recalculation of the interest rate; 
‘‘(iii) full or partial forgiveness of in-
terest accrued during the period of con-
struction; and 
‘‘(iv) a credit against construction in-
terest for a non-Federal investment that 
benefits the completion or performance of 
the project or separable element.
‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE DEFERRED PAYMENT.—An 
eligible deferred payment agreement under sub-
paragraph (A) is an agreement for which— 
‘‘(i) the non-Federal contribution was 
made with interest; 
‘‘(ii) the period of project construction 
exceeds 10 years from the execution of a 
project partnership agreement or appro-
priation of funds; and 
‘‘(iii) the construction interest exceeds 
$45,000,000. 
‘‘(C) CREDIT
FOR
NON-FEDERAL
CON-
TRIBUTION.— 
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is 
authorized to credit any costs incurred by 
the non-Federal interest (including in-kind 
contributions) to remedy a design or con-
struction deficiency of a covered project or 
separable element toward the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the covered project, if 
the Secretary determines the remedy to be 
integral to the completion or performance 
of the covered project. 
‘‘(ii) CREDIT OF COSTS.—If the non- 
Federal interest incurs costs or in-kind
contributions for a project to remedy a de-
sign or construction deficiency of a project 
or separable element which has a 100 per-
cent Federal cost share, and the Secretary 
determines the remedy to be integral to the 
completion or performance of the project, 
the Secretary is authorized to credit such 
costs to any interest accrued on a deferred 
non-Federal contribution.’’. 
SEC. 141. REVIEW OF CONTRACTING POLICIES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall com-
plete a review of the policies, guidelines, and regulations 
of the Corps of Engineers for the development of contrac-
tual agreements between the Secretary and non-Federal 
interests and utilities associated with the construction of 
water resources development projects. 
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after com-
pleting the review under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, 
and make publicly available, a report that includes— 
(1) a summary of the results of the review; and
(2) public guidance on best practices for non- 
Federal interest to use when writing or developing 
contractual agreements with the Secretary and utili-
ties. 
(c) PROVISION OF GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall 
provide the best practices guidance included under sub-
section (b)(2) to non-Federal interests prior to the devel-
opment of contractual agreements. 
SEC. 142. BUY AMERICA. 
With respect to all Corps of Engineers construction 
and rehabilitation contracts to be awarded after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the steel components furnished 
and delivered under such contracts shall be manufactured 
or fabricated in whole or substantial part in the United 
States with steel produced or made in the United States, 
its territories, or possessions. 
SEC. 143. ANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS OF FEASIBILITY 
STUDIES. 
Concurrent with each report submitted under section 
7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), the Secretary shall submit 
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works a report that provides for 
an accounting of all outstanding feasibility studies being
conducted by the Secretary, including, for each such 
study, its length, cost, and expected completion date. 
TITLE II—STUDIES AND 
REPORTS 
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY 
STUDIES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to 
conduct a feasibility study for the following projects for 
water resources development and conservation and other 
purposes, as identified in the reports titled ‘‘Report to 
Congress on Future Water Resources Development’’ sub-
mitted to Congress pursuant to section 7001 of the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 
U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress: 
(1) TONTO
CREEK, GILA
RIVER, ARIZONA.— 
Project for flood risk management, Tonto Creek, 
Gila River, Arizona. 
(2) SULPHUR RIVER, ARKANSAS AND TEXAS.— 
Project for ecosystem restoration, Sulphur River, 
Arkansas and Texas. 
(3) CABLE
CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Project for 
flood risk management, water supply, and related 
benefits, Cable Creek, California.
(4) DEL
MAR
BLUFFS, CALIFORNIA.—Project 
for shoreline stabilization, Del Mar Bluffs, San 
Diego County, California. 
(5) REDBANK
AND
FANCHER
CREEKS, CALI-
FORNIA.—Project for water conservation and water 
supply, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California. 
(6) RIO
HONDO
CHANNEL, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
Project for ecosystem restoration, Rio Hondo Chan-
nel, San Gabriel River, California. 
(7) SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, 
CALIFORNIA.— 
Project for coastal storm damage reduction, South-
ern California. 
(8) SHINGLE
CREEK
AND
KISSIMMEE
RIVER, 
FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration and 
water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, 
Osceola County, Florida. 
(9) ST. JOHN’S RIVER AND LAKE JESUP, FLOR-
IDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, St. John’s 
River and Lake Jesup, Florida. 
(10) WAIMEA
RIVER, 
HAWAII.—Project for 
flood risk management, Waimea River, Kauai, Ha-
waii. 
(11) CHICAGO AREA WATERWAYS SYSTEM, ILLI-
NOIS.—Project for ecosystem restoration, recreation, 
and other purposes, Illinois River, Chicago River,
Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, Little Cal-
umet River, and other waterways in the vicinity of 
Chicago, Illinois. 
(12) FOX RIVER, ILLINOIS.—Project for flood 
risk management, Fox River, Illinois. 
(13) LOWER
MISSOURI
RIVER, 
KANSAS.— 
Project for bank stabilization and navigation, Lower 
Missouri River, Sioux City, Kansas. 
(14) 
TANGIPAHOA
PARISH, 
LOUISIANA.— 
Project for flood risk management, Tangipahoa Par-
ish, Louisiana. 
(15) KENT
NARROWS
AND
CHESTER
RIVER, 
MARYLAND.—Project for navigation, Kent Narrows 
and Chester River, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. 
(16) BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Boston, 
Massachusetts, pursuant to the comprehensive study 
authorized under the Disaster Relief Appropriations 
Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2). 
(17) LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER, MINNESOTA.— 
Project for flood risk management, ecosystem res-
toration, and recreation, Lower St. Croix River, 
Minnesota. 
(18) ESCATAWPA RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.— 
Project for flood risk management and ecosystem
restoration, Escatawpa River, Jackson County, Mis-
sissippi. 
(19) LONG BEACH, BAY ST. LOUIS AND MIS-
SISSIPPI SOUND, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for hurricane 
and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk 
management, Long Beach, Bay St. Louis and Mis-
sissippi Sound, Mississippi. 
(20) PASCAGOULA RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.— 
Project 
for 
comprehensive 
watershed 
study, 
Pascagoula, Mississippi. 
(21) TALLAHOMA
AND
TALLAHALA
CREEKS, 
MISSISSIPPI.—Project for flood risk management, 
Leaf River, Jones County, Mississippi. 
(22) LOWER OSAGE RIVER BASIN, MISSOURI.— 
Project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Osage 
River Basin, Missouri. 
(23) UPPER BASIN AND STONY BROOK (GREEN 
BROOK
SUB-BASIN), RARITAN
RIVER
BASIN, NEW 
JERSEY.—Reevaluation of the Upper Basin and 
Stony Brook portions of the project for flood control, 
Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New 
Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119), 
including the evaluation of nonstructural measures 
to achieve the project purpose.
(24) LAKE ONTARIO SHORELINE, NEW YORK.— 
Project for coastal storm resiliency, Lake Ontario 
shoreline, New York. 
(25) WADING
RIVER
CREEK, NEW
YORK.— 
Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduc-
tion, flood risk management, navigation, and eco-
system restoration, Wading River Creek, New York. 
(26) REEL
POINT
PRESERVE, NEW
YORK.— 
Project for navigation and shoreline stabilization, 
Reel Point Preserve, New York. 
(27) GOLDSMITH INLET, NEW YORK.—Project 
for navigation, Goldsmith Inlet, New York. 
(28) TUSCARAWAS
RIVER
BASIN, 
OHIO.— 
Project 
for 
comprehensive 
watershed 
study, 
Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 
(29) LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN (TURNING 
BASIN), OREGON AND WASHINGTON.—Project to im-
prove and add turning basins for the project for 
navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and 
Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 280). 
(30) WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project 
for flood risk management and levee rehabilitation, 
greater Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
(31) CITY
OF
CHARLESTON, SOUTH
CARO-
LINA.—Project for tidal- and inland-related flood 
risk management, Charleston, South Carolina. 
(32) TENNESSEE AND CUMBERLAND RIVER BA-
SINS, TENNESSEE.—Project to deter, impede, or re-
strict the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species in the 
Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins, Ten-
nessee. 
(33) 
SABINE
PASS
TO
GALVESTON
BAY, 
TEXAS.—Modification of the project for hurricane 
and storm damage risk reduction, Port Arthur and 
Orange County, Texas, authorized by section 203 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), and 
authorized as a separable element of the project for 
Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, authorized by item 3 
of section 1401(3) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3838), to reduce the 
risk of flooding through the construction of improve-
ments to interior drainage. 
(34) PORT OF VICTORIA, TEXAS.—Project for 
flood risk management, Port of Victoria, Texas. 
(35) LOWER FOX RIVER BASIN, WISCONSIN.— 
Project for comprehensive watershed study, Lower 
Fox River Basin, Wisconsin.
(36) UPPER FOX RIVER AND WOLF RIVER, WIS-
CONSIN.—Project for flood risk management and 
ecosystem restoration, Upper Fox River and Wolf 
River, Wisconsin. 
(b) SPECIAL RULE.—The Secretary shall consider 
any study carried out by the Secretary to formulate the 
modifications to the project for hurricane and storm dam-
age risk reduction, Port Arthur and Orange County, 
Texas, identified in subsection (a)(33) to be a continuation 
of the study carried out for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, 
Texas, authorized by a resolution of the Committee on En-
vironment and Public Works of the Senate, approved June 
23, 2004, and funded by title IV of division B of the Bi-
partisan Budget Act of 2018, under the heading ‘‘Corps 
of Engineers—Civil—Department of the Army—Con-
struction’’ (Public Law 115–123; 132 Stat. 76). 
SEC. 202. EXPEDITED COMPLETIONS. 
(a) FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—The Secretary shall ex-
pedite the completion of a feasibility study for each of the 
following projects, and if the Secretary determines that 
the project is justified in a completed report, may proceed 
directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and de-
sign of the project: 
(1) Project for navigation, St. George Harbor, 
Alaska.
(2) Project for shoreline stabilization, Aunu‘u 
Harbor, American Samoa. 
(3) Project for shoreline stabilization, Tutuila 
Island, American Samoa. 
(4) Project for flood risk management, Lower 
Santa Cruz River, Arizona. 
(5) Project for flood control, water conserva-
tion, and related purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, Cali-
fornia. 
(6) Project for flood damage reduction and eco-
system restoration, Del Rosa Channel, city of San 
Bernardino, California. 
(7) Project for flood risk management, Lower 
Cache Creek, California. 
(8) Project for flood damage reduction and eco-
system restoration, Mission-Zanja Channel, cities of 
San Bernardino and Redlands, California. 
(9) Project for shoreline protection, Oceanside, 
California, authorized pursuant to section 414 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
Stat. 2636; 121 Stat. 1176). 
(10) Project for flood risk management, Prado 
Basin, California. 
(11) Project to modify the project for naviga-
tion, San Francisco Bay to Stockton, California.
(12) Project to modify the Seven Oaks Dam, 
California, portion of the project for flood control, 
Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, authorized 
by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment 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 author-
ized purpose. 
(13) Project to modify the project for naviga-
tion, Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deep-
ening, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, au-
thorized by section 101(6) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802; 113 
Stat. 300; 114 Stat. 2602), to include the construc-
tion of a turning basin located near the Packer Ave-
nue Marine Terminal. 
(14) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central 
and Southern Florida Project Canal 111 (C–111), 
South Dade County, Florida. 
(15) Project for comprehensive hurricane and 
storm damage risk reduction and shoreline erosion 
protection, Chicago, Illinois, authorized by section 
101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664; 113 Stat. 302).
(16) Project for flood risk management, Whea-
ton, DuPage County, Illinois. 
(17) Project for flood damage reduction, eco-
system restoration, and recreation, Blue River 
Basin, Kansas City, Kansas, carried out pursuant to 
the resolution of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 
adopted on September 24, 2008 (docket number 
2803). 
(18) Project for flood control, Amite River and 
Tributaries east of the Mississippi River, Louisiana. 
(19) Project for coastal storm risk manage-
ment, Upper Barataria Basin, Louisiana. 
(20) Project to replace the Bourne and Saga-
more Bridges, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. 
(21) Project to deepen the project for naviga-
tion, Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by 
section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094). 
(22) Project for flood risk management, Rah-
way River Basin, New Jersey. 
(23) Project for hurricane and storm damage 
risk reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, 
Highlands, New Jersey.
(24) Project for navigation, Shark River, New 
Jersey. 
(25) Project for flood risk management, 
Rondout Creek-Wallkill River Watershed, New York, 
carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives adopted on May 2, 2007 
(docket number 2776). 
(26) Project for ecosystem restoration and hur-
ricane and storm damage risk reduction, Spring 
Creek South (Howard Beach), Queens, New York. 
(27) Project to resolve increased silting and 
shoaling adjacent to the Federal channel, Port of 
Bandon, Coquille River, Oregon. 
(28) Project for flood control, 42nd Street 
Levee, Springfield, Oregon, being carried out under 
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
U.S.C. 701s). 
(29) Project for ecosystem restoration, Hood 
River at the confluence with the Columbia River, Or-
egon. 
(30) Project for flood risk management, Rio 
Culebrinas, Puerto Rico. 
(31) Project for flood risk management, Rio 
Grande de Manati, Puerto Rico.
(32) Project for flood risk management, Rio 
Guayanilla, Puerto Rico. 
(33) Project for flood risk management, Dor-
chester County, South Carolina. 
(34) Project for navigation, Georgetown Har-
bor, South Carolina. 
(35) Project for hurricane and storm damage 
risk reduction, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 
(36) Project to modify the projects for naviga-
tion and other purposes, Old Hickory Lock and Dam 
and the Cordell Hull Dam and Reservoir, Cum-
berland River, Tennessee, authorized by the Act of 
July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636), to add 
flood risk management as an authorized purpose. 
(37) Project for flood risk management, eco-
system restoration, water supply, and related pur-
poses, Lower Rio Grande River, Cameron County, 
Texas, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives adopted on May 21, 
2003 (docket number 2710). 
(38) Project for hurricane and storm damage 
risk reduction and shoreline erosion protection, 
Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Is-
lands.
(39) Project for flood risk management, Savan 
Gut Phase II, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Is-
lands. 
(40) Project for flood risk management, Tur-
pentine Run, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Is-
lands. 
(41) Project for navigation, North Landing 
Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Virginia. 
(b) POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORTS.—The 
Secretary shall expedite completion of a post-authorization 
change report for the following projects: 
(1) Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres 
Rios, Arizona. 
(2) Project for flood control, San Luis Rey 
River, California. 
(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central 
and Southern Florida Project Canal 111 (C–111), 
South Dade County, Florida. 
(4) Project for ecosystem restoration, Com-
prehensive 
Everglades 
Restoration 
Plan, 
Caloosahatchee River C–43, West Basin Storage 
Reservoir, Florida. 
(5) Project for flood risk management, Des 
Moines Levee System, including Birdland Park
Levee, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, 
Iowa. 
(c) WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.— 
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of an assess-
ment under section 729 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a), for the following: 
(1) Kansas River Basin, Kansas. 
(2) Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts. 
(d) DISPOSITION STUDIES.—The Secretary shall ex-
pedite the completion of a disposition study, carried out 
under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 
U.S.C. 549a), for the following: 
(1) The disposition of the project for Salinas 
Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), California. 
(2) The partial disposition of the Upper St. An-
thony Falls Lock facility and surrounding real prop-
erty, in accordance with the requirements of section 
2010 of the Water Resources Reform and Develop-
ment Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1270; 132 Stat. 3812). 
SEC. 203. FEASIBILITY STUDY MODIFICATIONS. 
(a) SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 142 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 
Stat. 2930) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘, and along the ocean shore-
line of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Coun-
ties,’’ after ‘‘Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’’; 
(2) by inserting ‘‘and, with respect to the bay 
and ocean shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, 
and Marin Counties, the feasibility of and the Fed-
eral interest in providing measures to adapt to rising 
sea levels’’ after ‘‘tidal and fluvial flooding’’; 
(3) by striking ‘‘investigation’’ and inserting in 
its place ‘‘investigations’’; and 
(4) by inserting after ‘‘San Francisco Bay re-
gion’’ the following: ‘‘and, with respect to the bay 
and ocean shorelines and streams running to the bay 
and ocean shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, 
and Marin Counties, the effects of proposed meas-
ures or improvements on the local economy; habitat 
restoration, enhancement, or expansion efforts or op-
portunities; public infrastructure protection and im-
provement; stormwater runoff capacity and control 
measures, including those that may mitigate flood-
ing; erosion of beaches and coasts; and any other 
measures or improvements relevant to adapting to 
rising sea levels’’. 
(b) SACRAMENTO RIVER, SOUTHERN SUTTER COUN-
TY, CALIFORNIA.—The study for flood control and allied
purposes for the Sacramento River Basin, authorized by 
section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 
1197), is modified to authorize the Secretary to conduct 
a study for flood risk management, southern Sutter Coun-
ty between the Sacramento River and Sutter Bypass, Cali-
fornia. 
(c) SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA.—In carrying out the 
program to implement projects to restore the Salton Sea, 
California, authorized by section 3032 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1113; 130 
Stat. 1677), the Secretary is authorized to carry out a 
study for the construction of a perimeter lake, or a north-
ern or southern subset thereof, for the Salton Sea, Cali-
fornia. 
(d) NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR AND 
TRIBUTARIES, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.—The study 
for flood and storm damage reduction for the New York 
and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries project, author-
ized by the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 
132), and being carried out pursuant to the Disaster Re-
lief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2), is 
modified to require the Secretary to— 
(1) evaluate and address the impacts of low-fre-
quency precipitation and sea-level rise on the study 
area;
(2) consult with affected communities; and 
(3) ensure the study is carried out in accord-
ance with section 1001 of the Water Resources Re-
form and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
2282c). 
SEC. 204. SELMA, ALABAMA. 
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate a report that— 
(1) provides an update on the study for flood 
risk management and riverbank stabilization, Selma, 
Alabama, authorized by resolutions of the Commit-
tees on Public Works and Rivers and Harbors of the 
House of Representatives on June 7, 1961, and 
April 28, 1936, respectively, the completion of which 
the Secretary was required to expedite by section 
1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2018 (132 Stat. 3803); and 
(2) identifies project alternatives necessary to— 
(A) assure the preservation of cultural and 
historic values associated with national historic 
landmarks within the study area; and
(B) provide flood risk management for eco-
nomically disadvantaged communities within the 
study area. 
SEC. 205. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE SACRAMENTO 
RIVER, YOLO BYPASS, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.—The Secretary shall 
conduct a comprehensive study of the Sacramento River 
in the vicinity of the Yolo Bypass System, California, to 
identify actions to be undertaken by the Secretary for the 
comprehensive management of the Yolo Bypass System 
for the purposes of flood risk management, ecosystem res-
toration, water supply, hydropower, and recreation. 
(b) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTING DATA.— 
(1) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the com-
prehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall consult with the Governor of the State of Cali-
fornia, applicable Federal, State, and local agencies, 
non-Federal interests, the Yolo Bypass and Cache 
Slough Partnership, and other stakeholders. 
(2) USE OF EXISTING DATA AND PRIOR STUD-
IES.—To the maximum extent practicable and where 
appropriate, the Secretary may— 
(A) make use of existing data provided to 
the Secretary by the entities identified in para-
graph (1); and
(B) incorporate— 
(i) relevant information from prior 
studies and projects carried out by the 
Secretary within the study area; and 
(ii) the latest technical data and sci-
entific approaches to changing hydrologic 
and climatic conditions. 
(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—In conducting the com-
prehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary 
may develop a recommendation to Congress for— 
(A) the construction of a water resources 
development project; 
(B) the structural or operational modifica-
tion of an existing water resources development 
project; 
(C) additional monitoring of, or adaptive 
management measures to carry out with respect 
to, 
existing 
water 
resources 
development 
projects, to respond to changing hydrologic and 
climatic conditions; or 
(D) geographic areas within the Yolo By-
pass System for additional study by the Sec-
retary.
100 
(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasi-
bility study carried out pursuant to a recommenda-
tion under paragraph (1)(D) shall be considered to 
be a continuation of the comprehensive study au-
thorized under subsection (a). 
(d) COMPLETION
OF STUDY; REPORT
TO CON-
GRESS.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enact-
ment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing— 
(1) the results of the comprehensive study con-
ducted under subsection (a), including any rec-
ommendations developed under subsection (c); 
(2) any additional, site-specific areas within the 
Yolo Bypass System where additional study for flood 
risk management or ecosystem restoration projects 
is recommended by the Secretary; and 
(3) any interim actions relating to existing 
water resources development projects undertaken by 
the Secretary during the study period. 
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) YOLO
BYPASS
SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘Yolo 
Bypass System’’ means the system of weirs, levees, 
bypass structures, and other water resources devel-
101 
opment projects in California’s Sacramento River 
Valley, extending from the Fremont Weir near 
Woodland, California, to the Sacramento River near 
Rio Vista, California, authorized pursuant to section 
2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (chapter 144; 39 
Stat. 949). 
(2) YOLO BYPASS AND CACHE CLOUGH PART-
NERSHIP.—The term ‘‘Yolo Bypass and Cache 
Slough Partnership’’ means the group of parties to 
the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Memorandum of 
Understanding, effective May 2016, regarding col-
laboration and cooperation in the Yolo Bypass and 
Cache Slough region. 
SEC. 206. LAKE OKEECHOBEE REGULATION SCHEDULE, 
FLORIDA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the review of the 
Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule pursuant to section 
1106 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 
(132 Stat. 3773), the Secretary shall— 
(1) evaluate the implications of prohibiting re-
leases from Lake Okeechobee through the S–308 
and S–80 lock and dam structures on the operation 
of the lake in accordance with authorized purposes 
and seek to minimize unnecessary releases to coastal 
estuaries; and
102 
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, coordi-
nate with the ongoing efforts of Federal and State 
agencies responsible for monitoring, forecasting, and 
notification of cyanobacteria levels in Lake Okee-
chobee. 
(b) MONTHLY REPORT.—Each month, the Secretary 
shall make public a report, which may be based on the 
Water Management Daily Operational Reports, disclosing 
the volumes of water deliveries to or discharges from Lake 
Okeechobee & Vicinity, Water Conservation Area I, Water 
Conservation Area II, Water Conservation Area III, East 
Coast Canals, and the South Dade Conveyance. Such re-
port shall be aggregated and reported in a format designed 
for the general public, using maps or other widely under-
stood communication tools. 
(c) EFFECT.—In carrying out the evaluation under 
subsection (a)(1), nothing shall be construed to authorize 
any new purpose for the management of Lake Okeechobee 
or authorize the Secretary to affect any existing author-
ized purpose, including flood protection and management 
of Lake Okeechobee to provide water supply for all author-
ized users. 
SEC. 207. GREAT LAKES COASTAL RESILIENCY STUDY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the comprehensive 
assessment of water resources needs for the Great Lakes
103 
System under section 729 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a), as required by 
section 1219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2018 (132 Stat. 3811), the Secretary shall— 
(1) taking into account recent high lake levels 
within the Great Lakes, assess and make rec-
ommendations to Congress on— 
(A) coastal storm and flood risk manage-
ment measures, including measures that use 
natural features and nature-based features, as 
those terms are defined in section 1184 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 
U.S.C. 2289a); 
(B) operation and maintenance of the 
Great Lakes Navigation System, as such term 
is defined in section 210 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2238); 
(C) ecosystem protection and restoration; 
(D) the prevention and control of invasive 
species and the effects of invasive species; and 
(E) recreation associated with water re-
sources development projects;
104 
(2) prioritize actions necessary to protect crit-
ical public infrastructure, communities, and critical 
natural or cultural resources; and 
(3) to the maximum extent practicable and 
where appropriate, utilize existing data provided to 
the Secretary by Federal and State agencies, Indian 
Tribes, and other stakeholders, including data ob-
tained through other Federal programs. 
(b) RECOMMENDATIONS; ADDITIONAL STUDY.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—In carrying out the com-
prehensive assessment described in subsection (a), 
the Secretary may make a recommendation to Con-
gress for— 
(A) the construction of a water resources 
development project; 
(B) the structural or operational modifica-
tion of an existing water resources development 
project; 
(C) such additional monitoring of, or 
adaptive management measures to carry out 
with respect to, existing water resources devel-
opment projects, to respond to changing hydro-
logic and climatic conditions; or
105 
(D) geographic areas within the Great 
Lakes System for additional study by the Sec-
retary. 
(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasi-
bility study carried out pursuant to a recommenda-
tion under paragraph (1)(D) shall be considered to 
be a continuation of the comprehensive assessment 
described in subsection (a). 
(c) EXEMPTION FROM MAXIMUM STUDY COST AND 
DURATION LIMITATIONS.—Section 1001 of the Water Re-
sources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 
2282c) shall not apply to any study recommended under 
subsection (b)(1)(D). 
SEC. 208. RATHBUN LAKE, CHARITON RIVER, IOWA. 
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate a report that evaluates— 
(1) the existing allocations of storage space for 
Rathbun Lake, authorized pursuant to the Flood 
Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1262; 121 Stat. 
1124), including the existing allocation for municipal 
water supply;
106 
(2) the feasibility of expanding the existing allo-
cation of storage for municipal water supply; and 
(3) the affordability of future municipal water 
supply allocations from Rathbun Lake, for residen-
tial users of such future allocations, at projected fu-
ture costs. 
SEC. 209. REPORT ON THE STATUS OF RESTORATION IN 
THE LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA. 
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection 
and Restoration Task Force established by section 7004 
of Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 
1272) shall submit to Congress a report that summarizes 
the activities and recommendations of the task force, in-
cluding— 
(1) 
policies, 
strategies, 
plans, 
programs, 
projects, and activities undertaken for addressing 
conservation, protection, restoration, and mainte-
nance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and 
(2) financial participation by each agency rep-
resented on the Task Force in conserving, pro-
tecting, restoring, and maintaining the coastal Lou-
isiana ecosystem.
107 
SEC. 210. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE 
STUDY. 
(a) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct 
a comprehensive study of the Lower Mississippi 
River basin, from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to the 
Gulf of Mexico, to identify actions to be undertaken 
by the Secretary for the comprehensive management 
of the basin for the purposes of flood risk manage-
ment, navigation, ecosystem restoration, water sup-
ply, hydropower, and recreation. 
(2) FOCUS
AREAS.—In conducting the com-
prehensive study under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
shall investigate projects, including— 
(A) projects proposed in the comprehensive 
coastal protection master plan entitled ‘‘Lou-
isiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sus-
tainable Coast’’ prepared by the State of Lou-
isiana and accepted by the Louisiana Coastal 
Protection and Restoration Authority (including 
any subsequent amendments or revisions), in-
cluding— 
(i) Ama sediment diversion; 
(ii) Union freshwater diversion; 
(iii) increase Atchafalaya flow to 
Terrebonne; and
108 
(iv) Manchac Landbridge diversion; 
and 
(B) natural features and nature-based fea-
tures, including levee setbacks and instream 
and floodplain restoration. 
(b) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTING DATA.— 
In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection 
(a), the Secretary shall consult with applicable Federal, 
State, and local agencies, Indian Tribes, non-Federal in-
terests, and other stakeholders, and, to the maximum ex-
tent practicable and where appropriate, make use of exist-
ing data provided to the Secretary by such parties. 
(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—In conducting the com-
prehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary 
may develop a recommendation to Congress for— 
(A) the construction of a water resources 
development project; 
(B) the structural or operational modifica-
tion of an existing water resources development 
project; 
(C) such additional monitoring of, or 
adaptive management measures to carry out 
with respect to, existing water resources devel-
109 
opment projects, to respond to changing condi-
tions; or 
(D) geographic areas within the Lower 
Mississippi River basin for additional study by 
the Secretary. 
(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasi-
bility study carried out pursuant to a recommenda-
tion under this subsection shall be considered to be 
a continuation of the comprehensive study required 
under subsection (a). 
(d) COMPLETION
OF STUDY; REPORT
TO CON-
GRESS.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enact-
ment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing— 
(1) the results of the comprehensive study re-
quired by this section, including any recommenda-
tions developed under subsection (c); and 
(2) any interim actions relating to existing 
water resources development projects undertaken by 
the Secretary during the study period.