Overview
Title
To provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 8812 is a plan to make U.S. rivers and harbors better and protect water resources. It tries to fix issues like floods and unwanted plants, and it helps different places with water projects, but it's important to make sure the money is spent wisely and fairly.
Summary AI
H. R. 8812, also known as the "Water Resources Development Act of 2024," aims to enhance water resources in the United States by improving rivers and harbors and encouraging water conservation and development. It includes measures for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, harbor maintenance, and addressing invasive species. The bill also authorizes multiple projects and studies related to water infrastructure across various states. Additionally, it focuses on coordination with state, local, and tribal governments to effectively manage water resources and provide necessary assistance.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, labeled H.R. 8812 or The Water Resources Development Act of 2024, focuses on enhancing the management and development of the United States' water resources. The bill encompasses a wide range of topics, including improvements to rivers and harbors, flood risk management, navigation, and environmental restoration. By specifying various projects, feasibility studies, and funding appropriations, this extensive bill seeks to address systemic water management challenges while providing federal, state, and local entities with the authority and resources needed to implement effective solutions.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill authorizes substantial spending across numerous water-related projects and initiatives, creating potential concerns regarding financial oversight, accountability, and equitable resource distribution. Sections 401 and 402, for example, propose a considerable allocation of federal funds without necessarily involving significant state or local cost-sharing, raising scrutinizing views on fiscal responsibility. The lack of clear criteria and prioritization for deauthorizing projects, as discussed in Section 301, might lead to significant initiatives being discontinued for reasons unrelated to their viability, such as temporary funding delays or local opposition.
Increases in financial commitments, particularly for certain areas like the Missouri River levee system or San Diego County, where Section 327 and Section 338 propose notably higher appropriations, do not extensively justify these decisions. This opens the door to perceptions of favoritism or potentially unnecessary expenditures. This concern extends to 100% federal cost-sharing provisions found in Sections 115 and 313, which effectively bypass collaboration with state or local entities, possibly undermining comprehensive community investment.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, the public may see the bill as a positive step towards developing robust water management and infrastructure systems that can withstand environmental challenges such as floods or erosion. By committing resources to these challenges, the bill attempts to create long-term benefits, including better protection of life and property and enhanced environmental quality.
Specific stakeholders, such as local governments and public authorities, might witness both positive and negative effects. On one hand, they stand to benefit significantly from increased federal funding and expanded systems, potentially without a corresponding increase in their costs due to the significant federal cost share in various sections. On the other hand, local entities might view certain provisions as an overreach or as enabling federally-directed management strategies that may not align entirely with local needs or priorities.
Additionally, non-Federal interests tasked with project responsibilities might face inconsistencies in implementation due to variations in oversight and standards, necessitating a careful balance between autonomy and federal guidance to ensure effective execution of local projects.
In conclusion, while the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 aims to address critical challenges facing the nation's water infrastructure and management systems, its successful impact will depend on its ability to mitigate concerns over fiscal accountability, equitable distribution of resources, and consistent application of project responsibilities across various entities.
Financial Assessment
The "Water Resources Development Act of 2024" (H.R. 8812) proposes several financial allocations to improve water infrastructure and resources across the United States. Here is a detailed overview of the financial aspects of the bill and how they connect to identified issues:
Spending and Appropriations Overview
The bill authorizes significant financial commitments across various sections:
Section 101 earmarks $50,000,000 annually for continuing authority programs, which aim to provide flexibility and support for various water projects without the need for specific congressional authorization each time.
Section 327 proposes a substantial increase in the federal funding limit for the Missouri River levee system from $7,000,000 to $65,000,000, which is a notable jump without detailed justification provided.
Section 338 involves a wide range of environmental infrastructure projects across numerous states, totaling millions of dollars. For example, it allocates $200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in San Diego County, California. This particular section highlights the broad sweep of financial allocations without detailed prioritization criteria, raising questions about equitable distribution.
Section 139 establishes a National Coastal Mapping Program with an annual funding authorization of $15,000,000. However, this initiative lacks specific performance metrics or detailed outcome measures, potentially leading to inefficiencies or lack of accountability in how the funds are utilized.
Multiple Sections highlight full federal funding for certain projects, such as in Section 115 (Inland waterways regional dredge pilot program) and Section 313 (Selma, Alabama), where projects receive a 100% federal cost share. This approach may bypass traditional state or local partnerships and financial contributions, questioning the sustainability and collaborative efforts typically expected in federal projects.
Financial Allocations and Identified Issues
The bill presents several financial allocations that intersect with potential issues:
Issue of Wasteful Spending: The large and varied appropriations, especially without clear cost-sharing requirements (e.g., full federal coverage of certain projects), could raise concerns about wasteful spending or inefficient resource allocation. This is particularly true in light of Sections 327 and 338, where substantial budget increases are proposed with minimal explanation of necessity.
Perceptions of Favoritism: The notable increases or full funding of specific projects (e.g., San Diego County) may lead to perceptions of favoritism, especially where detailed prioritization criteria or justification for such significant investments are not provided.
Legal Ambiguities: Financial provisions related to perpetual easements (Section 146) might lead to future legal disputes. These financial mechanisms are critical in understanding how long-term commitments, potentially lasting generations, are financially structured and governed.
Oversight and Accountability: Several sections allocate funding to non-Federal interests for the construction of projects or conducting studies, which could lead to inconsistent application without rigorous oversight or uniform standards. The financial mechanisms need clearer provisions for accountability to ensure consistent application across projects.
Conclusion
H.R. 8812 outlines ambitious financial commitments to U.S. water resource projects, yet it underscores the need for detailed oversight, clear prioritization criteria, and mechanisms to ensure fiscal responsibility. Without addressing these aspects, the legislation runs the risk of inefficiencies, perceived inequities, or future legal complications related to its financial allocations.
Issues
The bill authorizes substantial spending across various projects (e.g., Sec. 401-402), with potential issues of wasteful spending or lack of cost-sharing with state or local entities, raising concerns about financial oversight and accountability.
Section 301 outlines a process for deauthorizing inactive projects without clear criteria or resolution mechanisms for disputes, which might lead to strategic or significant projects being unfairly deauthorized due to unrelated funding delays or local opposition.
The bill allows for significant funding increases in certain sections (e.g., Section 327 for Missouri River levee system, and Sec. 338 for San Diego County) without detailed justification, leading to potential perceptions of favoritism or unnecessary spending.
Sections such as Sec. 115 (Inland waterways regional dredge pilot program) and Sec. 313 (Selma, Alabama) include a 100% federal cost share, which raises concerns about bypassing state or local partnerships and contributions.
Section 139 establishes a National Coastal Mapping Program with $15,000,000 annual funding authorization but lacks specific performance metrics, which may lead to inefficiencies.
Section 338 on Environmental Infrastructure lists a wide array of projects in different states, with sizeable budget increases for several, raising questions about equitable distribution and prioritization criteria.
Section 202 outlines expedited completion for feasibility studies and projects without clear criteria on justification or priority, which may lead to perceptions of favoritism or inefficient use of resources.
The bill includes multiple sections that could create potential legal ambiguities, such as Section 146 regarding perpetual easements for damage reduction projects, which might lead to future legal disputes or challenges.
Several sections (e.g., Sec. 104-105) involve the delegation of project construction or study responsibilities to non-Federal interests, which could result in inconsistent application or interpretation without robust oversight or uniform standards.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The "Water Resources Development Act of 2024" outlines a comprehensive framework for the management and development of water resources in the United States. It includes diverse sections addressing everything from water supply and harbor management to environmental concerns like aquatic plant control, invasive species, and flood risk management.
2. Secretary defined Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this part of the Act, the term “Secretary” is defined to refer specifically to the Secretary of the Army.
101. Continuing authority programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this bill, the U.S. Congress outlines a pilot program that allows alternative delivery methods for water resource projects, such as partnerships involving federal and non-federal parties. These methods aim to provide more cost-effective and timely project completion. Also included are amendments to expand funding limits and authorities for environmental improvements, drought resilience, and community revitalization projects.
Money References
- (10) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each fiscal year.
- (c) Emergency streambank and shoreline protection.—Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.
- (d) Storm and hurricane restoration and impact minimization program.—Section 3(c) of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g(c)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1), by striking “$37,500,000” and inserting “$62,500,000”; and (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$12,500,000”.
- (e) Small river and harbor improvement projects.—Section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$12,500,000”.
- (f) Aquatic ecosystem restoration.—Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended— (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following: “(3) ANADROMOUS FISH.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for projects carried out under subsection (a)(3), the non-Federal interest shall provide 15 percent of the cost of construction, including provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations.”; and (2) in subsection (d), by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”. (g) Removal of obstructions; clearing channels.—Section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g) is amended by striking “$500,000” and inserting “$1,000,000”.
- (h) Project modifications for improvement of environment or drought resiliency.—Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended— (1) in the section heading, by inserting “or drought resiliency” after “environment”; (2) in subsection (a)— (A) by striking “for the purpose of improving” and inserting “for the purpose of— “(1) improving”; (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting “; or”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “(2) providing drought resiliency.”; (3) in subsection (b), by striking “(2) will improve” and inserting “(2) will provide for drought resilience or will improve”; (4) in subsection (d), by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$12,500,000”; (5) in subsection (h), by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$62,000,000”; and (6) by adding at the end the following: “(j) Drought resilience.—Drought resilience measures carried out under this section may include— “(1) water conservation measures to mitigate and address drought conditions; “(2) removal of sediment captured behind a dam for the purpose of restoring or increasing the authorized storage capacity of the project concerned; “(3) the planting of native plant species that will reduce the risk of drought and the incidence of non-native species; and “(4) other actions that increase drought resilience, water conservation, or water availability.”. (i) Small flood control projects.
- “(h) Funding.— “(1) LIMITATION.—Not more than $15,000,000 in Federal funds may be allocated under this section for a single project within a single specific geographic area, such as a city, town, or county.
- “(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $90,000,000 for each fiscal year.”
- (j) Community revitalization program.—Section 165(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended— (1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting “Community revitalization program”; (2) in paragraph (1), by striking “pilot program” and inserting “program”; (3) in paragraph (2)— (A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows: “(A) solicit project proposals from non-Federal interests by posting program information on a public-facing website and reaching out to non-Federal interests that have previously submitted project requests to the Secretary; and”; and (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking “a total of 20 projects” and inserting “projects”; (4) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following: “(4) PRIORITY PROJECTS.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall prioritize the following projects: “(A) Projects located in coastal communities in western Alaska impacted by Typhoon Merbok. “(B) The Hatch Dam project, Arizona, carried out pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). “(C) Projects located in Guam.”; and (5) by adding at the end the following: “(6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each fiscal year.”. ---
205. Small flood control projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is authorized to work with non-Federal partners to implement small projects for managing flood and stormwater risks, with specific cost-sharing and project agreement requirements outlined for these projects. The projects must include non-Federal contributions of lands and certain costs, and feature strategies like green infrastructure. Funding for a single project is capped at $15 million in Federal funds, with up to $90 million available each fiscal year.
Money References
- — (1) LIMITATION.—Not more than $15,000,000 in Federal funds may be allocated under this section for a single project within a single specific geographic area, such as a city, town, or county.
- (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $90,000,000 for each fiscal year.
102. Community project advisor Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires the Secretary to establish an office with a Community Project Advisor to help local groups access Federal resources for water projects. The advisor will provide guidance, run workshops, and identify the best assistance options, prioritizing rural, small, and certain other communities. An online portal will be created to offer guidance, and $10 million is authorized each year for this effort.
Money References
- (e) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each fiscal year. ---
103. Minimum real estate interest Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to provide a real estate plan for water resources development projects, identifying the minimum property interest needed for their execution. It mandates that non-Federal interests supply the necessary property interest identified, and requires an annual report on cases where full property ownership was deemed essential, along with the reasons.
104. Study of water resources development projects by non-Federal interests Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to allow non-Federal entities to conduct and submit feasibility studies for water resource projects to the Secretary of the Army, with guidelines to be provided for clear coordination. It also specifies notification procedures, caps on federal costs for feasibility studies, and authorizes funding for these activities, while allowing existing agreements to be amended to align with these changes.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) by striking “may undertake a federally authorized feasibility study of a proposed water resources development project, or,” and inserting the following: “may undertake and submit to the Secretary— “(A) a federally authorized feasibility study of a proposed water resources development project; or”; (ii) by striking “upon the written approval” and inserting the following: “(B) upon the determination”; (iii) in subparagraph (B) (as so designated)— (I) by striking “undertake”; and (II) by striking “, and submit the study to the Secretary” and inserting “or constructed by a non-Federal interest pursuant to section 204”; (B) in paragraph (2)— (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)— (I) by striking “, as soon as practicable,”; and (II) by striking “non-Federal interests to” and inserting “non-Federal interests that”; (ii) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: “(A) provide clear, concise, and transparent guidance for the non-Federal interest to use in developing a feasibility study that complies with requirements that would apply to a feasibility study undertaken by the Secretary;”; (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (iv) by adding at the end the following: “(C) provide guidance to a non-Federal interest on obtaining support from the Secretary to complete elements of a feasibility study that may be considered inherently governmental and required to be done by a Federal agency; and “(D) provide contacts for employees of the Corps of Engineers that a non-Federal interest may use to initiate coordination with the Secretary and identify at what stages coordination may be beneficial.”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “(3) DETERMINATION.—If a non-Federal interest requests to undertake a feasibility study on a modification to a constructed water resources development project under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall expeditiously provide to the non-Federal interest the determination required under such paragraph with respect to whether conceptual modifications, as presented by the non-Federal interest, are consistent with the authorized purposes of the project.”; (2) in subsection (b)— (A) in paragraph (3)— (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking “receives a request under this paragraph” and inserting “receives a study submission under subsection (a) or receives a request under subparagraph (A)”; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: “(C) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED.—The Secretary shall notify a non-Federal interest if, upon initial review of a submission received under subsection (a) or a receipt of a request under subparagraph (A), the Secretary requires additional information to perform the required analyses, reviews, and compliance processes and include in such notification a detailed description of the required information.”; (B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following: “(4) NOTIFICATION.—Upon receipt of a study submission under subsection (a) or receipt of a request under paragraph (3)(A), the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate of the submission or request and a timeline for completion of the required analyses, reviews, and compliance processes and shall notify the non-Federal interest of such timeline.”; and (C) in paragraph (5), by striking “receiving a request under paragraph (3)” and inserting “receiving a study submission under subsection (a) or a request under paragraph (3)(A)”; (3) in subsection (d)— (A) by striking “If a project” and inserting the following: “(1) IN GENERAL.—If a project”; (B) by inserting “or modification to the project” before “an amount equal to”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “(2) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—Any credit provided to a non-Federal interest under this subsection may not exceed the maximum Federal cost for a feasibility study initiated by the Secretary under section 1001(a)(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c(a)).”; and (4) by adding at the end the following: “(f) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $1,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry out this section.”. (b) Guidance.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update any guidance as necessary to reflect the amendments made by this section.
105. Construction of water resources development projects by non-Federal interests Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 allows non-Federal groups to lead water projects, ensuring they share costs and follow safety, legality, and engineering standards. It provides for project funding, applies exclusions, and authorizes $1,000,000 annually for these initiatives, with guidelines to be updated within 18 months.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(1)— (A) by striking “an appropriate non-Federal interest” and inserting “a non-Federal interest carrying out a project, or separable element of a project, under this section”; (B) by striking “on construction for any project” and inserting “for the construction of any project or separable element”; and (C) by inserting “, consistent with the authorized cost share for the project,” after “United States funds”; (2) in subsection (d)— (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking clauses (i) through (iii) and inserting the following: “(i) the non-Federal interest— “(I) enters into a written agreement with the Secretary under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), including an agreement to pay the non-Federal share, if any, of the cost of operation and maintenance of the project; “(II) makes any information relevant to carrying out the project available to the Secretary to review; and “(III) identifies features of the project or separable element that are outside the scope of the authorized project; and “(ii) the Secretary— “(I) reviews the plans for construction by the non-Federal interest; “(II) determines the project outputs are consistent with the authorized project and construction would not result in life safety concerns; “(III) determines that the plans comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations; and “(IV) verifies that the construction documents, including supporting information, have been signed by an Engineer of Record; and”; (B) in paragraph (3)— (i) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and (ii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: “(B) the non-Federal interest has obligated or expended funds for the cost of a discrete segment or separable element thereof and has requested reimbursement of the Federal share of the cost of the discrete segment or separable element;”; and (iii) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by inserting “, discrete segment of the project, or separable element of the project,” after “the project”; (C) in paragraph (5)— (i) by striking subparagraph (A)(ii) and inserting the following: “(ii) before the review and approval of plans under paragraph (1)(A)(ii), the Secretary makes the determinations required under subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph (1)(A)(ii) with respect to the discrete segment.”; (ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking “plans approved under paragraph (1)(A)(i)” and inserting “the plans reviewed under paragraph (1)(A)(ii)”; (iii) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking “paragraph (1)(A)(iii)” and inserting “paragraph (1)(A)(i)”; and (iv) in subparagraph (D)(i) by striking “paragraph (1)(A)(iii)” and inserting “paragraph (1)(A)(i)”; and (D) by adding at the end the following: “(6) EXCLUSIONS.—The Secretary may not provide credit or reimbursement for— “(A) activities required by the non-Federal interest to initiate design and construction that would otherwise not be required by the Secretary; or “(B) delays incurred by the non-Federal interest resulting in project cost increases.”; and (3) by adding at the end the following: “(g) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each fiscal year.”. (b) Guidance.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update any guidance as necessary to reflect the amendments made by this section.
106. Review process Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899, creates a dedicated office within the Corps of Engineers to ensure consistent and timely reviews of applications for permissions, offers a pre-application meeting for guidance, and allows the use of non-Federal funds for these meetings. It also requires that the office head inform applicants and handle their requests through a standardized process.
107. Electronic submission and tracking of permit applications Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines amendments to the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, requiring the Secretary to create an electronic system for submitting and tracking permit applications and environmental review documents. It sets coordination requirements with other agencies, specifies system capabilities, and imposes deadlines, aiming to make environment-related federal reviews more accessible and efficient.
108. Vertical integration and acceleration of studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends specific provisions of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. It increases the cost limits for studies on water projects, based on their estimated construction costs, and updates an amount in the 1986 Act from $200,000 to $300,000.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Section 1001(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c(a)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1), by striking “of initiation” and inserting “on which the Secretary determines the Federal interest for purposes of the report pursuant to section 905(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(b)”; and (2) in paragraph (2)— (A) by striking “cost of $3,000,000; and” and inserting the following: “cost of— “(A) $3,000,000 for a project with an estimated construction cost of less than $500,000,000; and”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “(B) $5,000,000 for a project with an estimated construction cost of greater than or equal to $500,000,000; and”. (b) Adjustment.—Section 905(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking “$200,000” and inserting “$300,000”.
109. Systemwide improvement framework and encroachments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a law to allow a non-Federal interest to be eligible for flood control repair assistance even if they don't meet certain requirements but have a plan to improve systemwide maintenance. It also outlines how the Secretary should handle existing structures that may encroach on flood control areas and clarifies that participation in unrelated disaster exercises can't be a condition for receiving assistance.
110. Fish and wildlife mitigation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to require clearer and more public reporting on how fish and wildlife losses from water projects are addressed, including involving local stakeholders in planning, making information about mitigation efforts available online, and ensuring coordination between project and regulatory teams.
111. Harbor deepening Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section proposes changes to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by increasing the authorized depth for harbor deepening from 50 feet to 55 feet for both construction and ongoing operation and maintenance.
112. Emerging harbors Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to issue guidance and create a way to accept funds from non-federal sources for maintaining certain harbors within 90 days after the Act becomes law.
113. Remote and subsistence harbors Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 113 amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to specify that remote and subsistence harbor projects can be located in certain U.S. states and territories, such as Hawaii and Alaska. It requires that most goods transported through these harbors be consumed in the U.S., or that the harbor is necessary for the long-term viability of local communities.
114. Additional projects for underserved community harbors Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 8132 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 allows for additional projects in underserved community harbors. It specifies criteria for these projects, including their economic benefits and location in areas like island communities or Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 regions. Moreover, it permits up to 10 projects for marinas or berthing areas associated with federal navigation projects.
115. Inland waterways regional dredge pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a change to the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, where the Secretary is instructed to prioritize projects for dredging contracts that aim to improve the consistency of navigation, increase the amount of goods transported, and boost the availability of containerized cargo on inland waterways.
116. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act allows non-federal entities to use both federal and qualified non-federal dredged material disposal facilities under specific conditions and mandates that such use not compromise federal projects. It also requires fees for use unless improvements made by non-federal entities reduce these fees, and provides for studies to determine whether non-federal facilities should remain in federal use if not utilized for 20 years.
117. Maximization of beneficial use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses amendments to laws concerning the use of dredged material, aiming to increase its beneficial use. It authorizes the Secretary to prioritize using dredged material for projects that reduce flood risks and erosion, ensures 70% of dredged material is utilized beneficially when possible, and allows the transfer of excess material to non-Federal interests for beneficial projects at no cost.
118. Economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic modeling Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army, alongside various agencies and research institutions, is tasked with developing and updating models related to economics, hydraulics, and hydrology to aid water resource projects. These efforts include collaborating on model data, sharing information with non-federal partners, providing public access to finalized models, and allowing non-federal partners to contribute models in exchange for project cost credits.
119. Forecast-informed reservoir operations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to update water control manuals for reservoirs using "forecast-informed reservoir operations" whenever possible. It also mandates developing guidelines and conducting assessments of various geographically diverse reservoirs to evaluate the feasibility of these operations, with special attention given to certain regions, while consulting with relevant parties.
120. Updates to certain water control manuals Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 120 of the bill updates the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 by adding that water control manuals can include the use of forecast-informed reservoir operations.
121. Water supply mission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the Secretary of the Army must consider water supply as a primary goal in managing water resource projects by the Corps of Engineers, but they cannot start new projects with this focus. It also mentions amending the Water Supply Act to allow more water storage for projects and requires the Secretary to report on actions taken to enhance water supplies within a year and finalize steps taken within three years.
122. Real estate administrative fees Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to develop and share standardized guidance for setting and managing real estate administrative fees used by the Corps of Engineers. It includes creating methodologies for cost estimation, defining involved activities, and establishing review procedures, with stakeholder input and public access to the information.
123. Challenge cost-sharing program for management of recreation facilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 allows non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit entities to manage recreation facilities and collect user fees at those sites, using the fees for upkeep under the oversight of the Secretary. It also defines what qualifies as non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit entities, ensuring these entities have the authority to enter agreements and handle finances responsibly.
124. Retention of recreation fees Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Flood Control Act allows the Secretary of the Army to retain and use fees collected from recreation sites for their maintenance and operation, with specific amounts set for fiscal years 2024 through 2031 and provisions for subsequent years. The collected fees will be in addition to already allocated annual funding and cannot replace or reduce such funding, ensuring that most fees are used at the specific sites where they are collected.
Money References
- , the Secretary may retain, for use in accordance with subparagraph (B)(ii)— “(i) for each fiscal year during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this paragraph an amount equal to the difference between— “(I) the total amount of fees collected under this subsection for the applicable fiscal year; “(II) for fiscal year 2024, $61,000,000; “(III) for fiscal year 2025, $63,000,000; “(IV) for fiscal year 2026, $64,000,000; “(V) for fiscal year 2027, $66,000,000; “(VI) for fiscal year 2028, $67,000,000; “(VII) for fiscal year 2029, $69,000,000; “(VIII) for fiscal year 2030, $71,000,000; and “(IX) for fiscal year 2031, $72,000,000; and “(ii) for the first fiscal year after the 10-year period described in clause (i), and each fiscal year thereafter, the total amount of fees collected under this subsection for the fiscal year. “(B) USE.—The amounts retained by the Secretary under subparagraph (A) shall— “(i) be deposited in a special account, to be established in the Treasury; and “(ii) be available for use, without further appropriation, for the operation and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, subject to the condition that not less than 80 percent of fees collected at a specific recreation site shall be used at such site. “(6) TREATMENT.—Fees collected under this subsection— “(A) shall be in addition to annual appropriated funding provided for the operation and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities under the jurisdiction of the Secretary; and “(B) shall not be used as a basis for reducing annual appropriated funding for such operation and maintenance.”. (b) Special accounts.—Amounts in the special account for the Corps of Engineers described in section 210(b)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d–3(b)(4)) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) that are unobligated on that date shall—
125. Databases of Corps recreational sites Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to regularly update public databases managed by the Corps of Engineers with information about recreational sites, including their operational status and available activities.
126. Services of volunteers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary can honor volunteers working for the Army Corps of Engineers as per the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1983, but the recognition cannot be in the form of a cash award.
127. Non-recreation outgrant policy Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to update policies within 180 days to evaluate and approve requests for installing broadband infrastructure on lands and waters managed by the Corps of Engineers. The updated policies must consider public benefits, financial alternatives, ensure quick decisions, and provide detailed reasons if a request is denied. The section also clarifies that the responsibility to protect natural resources and carry out specific water projects remains unchanged.
128. National inventory of dams and low-head dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section amends the National Dam Safety Program Act to require the Secretary of the Army to maintain and update a publicly accessible inventory of dams and low-head dams, including their condition and safety information. It clarifies that a low-head dam is a river barrier creating a water backup with a drop between 6 inches and 25 feet, and it mandates coordination with various government entities to gather data.
6. National inventory of dams and low-head dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires the Secretary of the Army to maintain and update a national inventory of dams and low-head dams, detailing information like their location, condition, and safety status. This inventory should be publicly accessible and includes a directory of resources for improving safety and removing obstacles at low-head dams.
129. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 1177 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 allows the Secretary to spend more than $60 million on certain dam rehabilitation projects only if Congress approves it. Additionally, the time frame for funding these projects has been updated from "2017 through 2026" to "2025 through 2030".
Money References
- Section 1177 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 467f–2 note) is amended— (1) in subsection (e)— (A) by striking “The Secretary” and inserting the following: “(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “(2) EXCEPTION.—For a project under this section for which the Federal share of the costs is expected to exceed $60,000,000, the Secretary may expend more than such amount only if— “(A) the Secretary submits to Congress the determination made under subsection (a) with respect to the project; and “(B) construction of the project substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in such determination is specifically authorized by Congress.”; and (2) in subsection (f), by striking “2017 through 2026” and inserting “2025 through 2030”. ---
130. Treatment of projects in covered communities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines how, during feasibility studies, the Secretary should adjust the cost-benefit analysis for projects in "covered communities" like Hawaii, Alaska, and U.S. territories, to fairly compare them with projects in the mainland U.S. This involves calculating two ratios—one unadjusted and another adjusted for construction costs—and using these to help select a plan.
131. Ability to pay Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends parts of the Water Resources Development Act to update how the ability of non-Federal entities to pay for water projects is assessed. It outlines criteria for determining financial capacity, procedures for requesting reduced cost-sharing, and mandates annual reports to Congress. Additionally, it specifies certain projects that will require priority assessment of the non-Federal interest's ability to pay.
132. Tribal partnership program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to update definitions related to Indian tribes, include additional considerations for stormwater management projects, and increase the funding limit from $26 million to $28.5 million for certain programs.
Money References
- Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by striking “the term ‘Indian tribe’ has the meaning given the term” and inserting “the terms ‘Indian tribe’ and ‘Indian Tribe’ have the meanings given the terms”; (2) in subsection (b)— (A) in paragraph (1)(B)— (i) by striking “or in proximity” and inserting “, in proximity”; and (ii) by inserting “, or in proximity to a river system or other aquatic habitat with respect to which an Indian Tribe has Tribal treaty rights” after “Alaska Native villages”; (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting “and stormwater management (including management of stormwater that flows at a rate of less than 800 cubic feet per second for the 10-percent flood)” after “erosion control”; and (C) in paragraph (4), by striking “$26,000,000” each place it appears and inserting “$28,500,000”; and (3) by striking subsection (e). ---
133. Funding to process permits Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 133 updates the Water Resources Development Act by defining "Indian Tribe" to include both federally recognized tribes and entities formed by these tribes, allowing them to process permits alongside others like public-utility companies. It also specifies that certain projects can include aquatic ecosystem restoration, and removes one existing paragraph from the section.
134. Project studies subject to independent external peer review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to Section 2034 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 focus on enhancing the review process for water project studies by adding considerations for nonstructural flood risk management alternatives and removing and redesignating certain subsections.
135. Control of aquatic plant growths and invasive species Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the River and Harbor Act of 1958 by requiring efforts to include monitoring and planning for unexpected situations related to detecting aquatic plants, and it also adds the Connecticut River Basin to the list of areas covered by these efforts.
136. Remote operations at Corps dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
During the 10 years after this law starts, the Army Corps of Engineers can't replace on-site workers with remote operations at projects like dams unless they notify Congress that the operation won't interfere with existing laws, will handle security risks properly, and is needed to improve the project. Additionally, the development of remote operations must involve discussions with affected workers and stakeholders.
137. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 to expand the harmful algal bloom demonstration program, allowing for more involvement from local and non-profit agencies and increasing funding from $25 million to $35 million. It also emphasizes prioritizing projects that reduce nutrient pollution, use natural methods, protect wetlands, develop new technologies, and create beneficial uses for algae, while permitting agreements for using or selling developed technologies.
Money References
- Section 128 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 610 note) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by inserting “or affecting water bodies of regional, national, or international importance” after “projects”; (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking “and State agencies” and inserting “, State, and local agencies, institutions of higher education, and private organizations, including nonprofit organizations”; (3) in subsection (c) in paragraph (6), insert “Watershed” after “Okeechobee”; (4) in subsection (e), by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$35,000,000”; and (5) by adding at the end the following: “(f) Priority.—In carrying out the demonstration program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, prioritize carrying out program activities that— “(1) reduce nutrient pollution; “(2) utilize natural and nature-based approaches, including oysters; “(3) protect, enhance, or restore wetlands or flood plains, including river and streambank stabilization; “(4) develop technologies for remote sensing, monitoring, or early detection of harmful algal blooms, or other emerging technologies; and “(5) combine removal of harmful algal blooms with a beneficial use, including conversion of retrieved algae biomass into biofuel, fertilizer, or other products. “(g) Agreements.—In carrying out the demonstration program under subsection (a), the Secretary may enter into agreements with a non-Federal entity for the use or sale of successful technologies developed under this section.”. ---
138. Support of Army civil works missions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 allows three universities—Western Washington University, the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and California State Polytechnic University, Pomona—to conduct research on topics like water quality, flood mitigation, and sustainable water management. This research aims to improve the resilience of water resources projects to natural disasters and enhance their overall effectiveness.
139. National coastal mapping program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The National Coastal Mapping Program section authorizes the Secretary to conduct regular coastal mapping of U.S. coastlines to support various missions like navigation and environmental restoration. The program involves sharing data, advancing mapping technologies, assessing regions affected by severe hurricanes, and collaborating with federal and state agencies, with a yearly budget of $15 million.
Money References
- (b) Scope.—In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall— (1) disseminate coastal mapping data and new or advanced geospatial information and remote sensing tools for coastal mapping derived from the analysis of such data to the Corps of Engineers, other Federal agencies, States, and other stakeholders; (2) implement coastal surveying based on findings of the national coastal mapping study carried out under section 8110 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3702); (3) conduct research and development on bathymetric liDAR and ancillary technologies necessary to advance coastal mapping capabilities in order to exploit data with increased efficiently and greater accuracy; (4) with respect to any region affected by a hurricane rated category 3 or higher— (A) conduct coastal mapping of such region; (B) determine volume changes at Federal projects in such region; (C) quantify damage to navigation infrastructure in such region; (D) assess environmental impacts to such region, measure any coastal impacts; and (E) make any data gathered under this paragraph publicly available not later than 2 weeks after the acquisition of such data; (5) at the request of another Federal entity or a State or local government entity, provide subject matter expertise, mapping services, and technology evolution assistance; (6) enter into an agreement with another Federal agency or a State agency to accept funds from such agency to expand the coverage of the program to efficiently meet the needs of such agency; (7) coordinate with representatives of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Geological Survey, and any other representative of a Federal agency that the Secretary determines necessary, to support any relevant Federal, State, or local agency through participation in working groups, committees, and organizations. (8) maintain the panel of senior leaders established under section 8110(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022; (9) convene an annual coastal mapping community of practice meeting to discuss and identify technical topics and challenges to inform such panel in carrying out the duties of such panel; and (10) to the maximum extent practicable, to procure any surveying or mapping services in accordance with chapter 11 of title 40, United States Code. (c) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal year $15,000,000, to remain available until expended. ---
140. Watershed and river basin assessments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to update the list of watersheds for assessments and allows the Secretary to create feasibility reports for new water resource projects in certain areas, with priority given to watersheds in Maui, Hawaii, and various U.S. territories in the Pacific.
141. Removal of abandoned vessels Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines amendments to a law regarding the removal of vessels that block navigation in U.S. waters. It authorizes the Secretary to remove abandoned vessels if it's in the public interest, requires cooperation between governmental agencies, and specifies that vessel owners are liable for removal costs. The law also defines what constitutes an "abandoned vessel" and provides funding authorization for such removal activities.
Money References
- “(B) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘covered vessel’ does not include— “(i) any vessel for which the Secretary has removal authority under subsection (a) or section 20; “(ii) an abandoned barge for which the Commandant of the Coast Guard has the authority to remove under chapter 47 of title 46, United States Code; and “(iii) a vessel— “(I) for which the owner is not identified, unless determined to be abandoned by the Commandant of the Coast Guard; or “(II) for which the owner has not agreed to pay the costs of removal, destruction, or disposal. “(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.”.
19. Vessel removal by Corps of Engineers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Corps of Engineers to remove vessels that obstruct navigation.
142. Corrosion prevention Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to add a new paragraph about corrosion prevention activities. It includes programs accredited by organizations setting industry standards or industrial coatings applicator programs associated with employment and training or registered apprenticeships.
143. Missouri River existing features protection Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that before making changes to certain river features on the Missouri River, an analysis must be conducted to see if the changes would negatively impact things like water levels, flooding, navigation, erosion, ports, or sand harvesting. If negative impacts are identified, steps must be taken to reduce them. It also specifies that this section does not override existing laws.
144. Federal breakwaters and jetties Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 by adding references to "pile dikes" alongside "jetties" throughout the specified section. It also updates conditions under which the Secretary can take action regarding maintaining federal breakwaters and specifies that actions can occur if a pile dike detaches from a navigation project due to lack of maintenance.
145. Temporary relocation assistance pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Water Resources Development Act by adding a new part about a hurricane and storm damage risk reduction project in Norfolk, Virginia, which was authorized by a previous law in 2020.
146. Easements for hurricane and storm damage reduction projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that for certain hurricane and storm damage reduction projects, the Secretary may allow the use of a non-perpetual easement if it follows specified agreements and provides notice about future limitations if the easement isn't extended. It also mandates disclosure of perpetual easement requirements for new projects and aims to minimize real estate interests when possible, without altering existing laws.
147. Shoreline and riverine protection and restoration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to include the shoreline of Connecticut as part of shoreline and riverine protection and restoration efforts.
148. Sense of Congress related to water data Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress believes that improving the management of water resources requires the Secretary to create a framework for integrating and sharing water data, prioritize important data, and develop national standards with input from various groups. The goal is to make water data accessible, adopt new technologies, and enhance data tools and infrastructure.
149. Sense of Congress relating to comprehensive benefits Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress believes that when the Secretary conducts any feasibility study, they should closely follow the guidance and policies outlined in specific memoranda from April 2020 and January 2021, which focus on thoroughly documenting the benefits of such studies.
150. Reporting and oversight Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to submit reports to specific Congressional committees detailing the status of various projects under the Water Resources Development Act. It mandates an initial report within 90 days of the Act's enactment and annual updates, ensuring that these reports are made publicly available and exclude feasibility studies.
201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies for new and modified projects related to water resources, flood risk, ecosystem restoration, and navigation across multiple states. The projects cover various purposes, including flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, navigation improvements, and water supply, and are proposed to enhance infrastructure, manage flood risks, and support environmental sustainability.
202. Expedited completion Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section directs the Secretary to speed up feasibility studies for various approved projects, including ecosystem restoration, navigation improvements, and flood risk management across multiple states. It also requires the Secretary to expedite post-authorization change reports for specific ecosystem restoration and water reallocation projects.
203. Expedited modification of existing feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to speed up the completion of feasibility studies for several projects, including navigation improvements in Mare Island Strait, California, changes to the Savannah Harbor, Georgia, evaluation, project modification for disaster resilience at Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii, flood control from Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, and flood risk management for the Saw Mill River in New York, with specific adjustments and expansions in scope for each study.
204. Corps of Engineers reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines several reports that the Secretary of the Army must submit to Congress, covering different topics such as accessibility for individuals with disabilities at recreational areas, turbidity issues in Oregon, security at the Soo Locks in Michigan, seagrass rehabilitation in Florida, shoreline use permits at Table Rock Lake, property buyouts for storm risk management, and fuel efficiency of vessels owned by the Corps of Engineers. Each report has specific requirements and timelines to help improve transparency and informed decision-making on these issues.
205. GAO studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section details a series of studies to be conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States within a year of the Act's enactment. These studies cover various topics, including donor ports, digital infrastructure, disaster preparedness, unauthorized homeless encampments on Corps property, Federal-State data sharing, nature-based features in projects, ecosystem services, Tribal coordination, and the Risk Rating 2.0 initiative. After completing each study or review, the Comptroller General is to report the findings to specific House and Senate Committees.
206. Annual report on harbor maintenance needs and trust fund expenditures Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to submit an annual report to specific committees in Congress about the costs and funding related to maintaining harbors, including details on expenses, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund deposits, and unmet maintenance needs. It also mandates this report to be publicly available, with a special focus on outlining potential savings from maintaining harbors, and repeals outdated sections of previous acts.
207. Examination of reduction of microplastics Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary, through the Engineer Research and Development Center and in consultation with other Federal agencies, is tasked with researching and developing methods to reduce microplastic pollution related to the Corps of Engineers' activities, such as sandblasting. This research will also explore the use of natural or nature-based features and assess the costs, benefits, and impact on project timelines of implementing such measures.
208. Post-disaster watershed assessment for impacted areas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to conduct assessments of watersheds impacted by disasters in specific areas, including parts of Maui, Hawaii, and near Belen, New Mexico. A report on these assessments must be provided to Congress within 18 months of the legislation being enacted.
209. Upper Barataria Basin and Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico Connection, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with looking into building a connection between two hurricane and storm damage reduction projects in Louisiana. Within one year of the Act's passing, the Secretary must finish this evaluation and report any recommendations to specific committees in Congress.
210. Upper Mississippi River System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with conducting a study to evaluate and propose ways to improve flood resiliency and reduce flood risk in the Upper Mississippi River System. This includes considering local and systemic measures, recommending changes to existing projects and laws, and collaborating with various stakeholders, with the Federal government covering 75% of the study costs.
211. New Jersey hot spot erosion mitigation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with studying and recommending solutions for hot spot erosion affecting coastal storm risk management projects in New Jersey. This includes exploring various structural and natural methods to counteract erosion and improve project effectiveness, with "hot spot erosion" defined as the rapid loss of sediment in concentrated areas due to natural causes.
212. Oceanside, California Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Oceanside, California, is required to speed up a study for reducing harm and restoring beaches as set by a previous law, and create a report with recommendations based on new sediment data. If these plans are found workable and good for the environment, they can move directly into detailed planning and design for the beach restoration work.
213. Coastal Washington Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is authorized to conduct comprehensive studies on flooding in coastal areas of Washington, focusing on sea level rise, climate change, and impacts on vulnerable communities. These studies will use existing data to recommend actions for protecting critical infrastructure and resources.
214. Cherryfield Dam, Narraguagus River, Maine Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to conduct a study to evaluate the potential removal of the Cherryfield Local Protection Project on the Narraguagus River in Maine. This study is mandated under the Flood Control Act and a report on its progress must be submitted to Congress within 18 months of this section's enactment.
215. Poor Farm Pond Dam, Worcester, Massachusetts Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that the Secretary of the Army conduct a study to evaluate the removal of the Poor Farm Pond Dam in Worcester, Massachusetts, under the Flood Control Act of 1970. A report on the progress of this study must be submitted to specific Congressional committees within 18 months of the law's passage.
216. National Academy of Sciences study on Upper Rio Grande Basin Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill directs the Secretary to collaborate with the National Academy of Sciences to produce a report on how dams and reservoirs in the Upper Rio Grande Basin are managed. The report, which must be submitted to Congress within two years, should include recommendations for better management strategies that consider factors like drought and changing weather patterns.
217. Chambers, Galveston, and Harris Counties, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to conduct a study about the release or exchange of land and easements for a project in Texas, ensuring that local entities have first rights and can work with the government to find trading opportunities.
218. Sea sparrow accounting Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to work with various government agencies to keep an accurate yearly count of Cape Sable Seaside Sparrows in Florida. Additionally, this information must be reported to Congress within 90 days of the law's enactment and then yearly for the next ten years.
301. Deauthorization of inactive projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the process for Congress to stop working on water projects that are no longer feasible, setting clear steps for identifying, listing, and deauthorizing these projects. It outlines how the Secretary will create a list of such projects, allow for public comments, and submit a final list to Congress, making sure not to include any project that gets funding before this list is submitted.
302. General reauthorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to various pieces of legislation related to water resources and environmental programs. Key changes include increasing funding limits for projects, extending the deadlines for certain pilot programs, and designating priority projects for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration in different parts of the United States.
Money References
- (a) Las Vegas, Nevada.—Section 529(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2658; 119 Stat. 2255; 125 Stat. 865; 136 Stat. 4631) is amended by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$60,000,000”.
303. Conveyances Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the rules for transferring certain federal properties. It specifies that properties like the Salinas Dam and Reservoir in California and land in the City of Los Angeles and Port of Skamania County, Washington, can be transferred without any cost, as long as they are used for public purposes, and includes conditions like property reverting back to the U.S. if these conditions aren't met.
304. Lakes program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 304 modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by adding five new lakes to the list of locations eligible for the lakes program. These additions include East Lake Tohopekaliga in Florida, Dillon Lake in Ohio, Hillcrest Pond in Pennsylvania, Falcon Lake in Zapata County, Texas, and Lake Casa Blanca in Webb County, Texas.
305. Maintenance of navigation channels Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 adds several new navigation channels, including West Dundalk Branch Channel and Dundalk-Seagirt Connecting Channel in Maryland, Crown Bay Marina Channel in the United States Virgin Islands, Pidgeon Industrial Area Harbor in Tennessee, McGriff Pass Channel in Florida, and Oak Harbor Channel and Breakwater and Ediz Hook in Washington.
306. Asset divestiture Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the River and Harbor Act to update how the Secretary of the Army can transfer ownership of bridges to state or local authorities. It specifies conditions for the transfer, including responsibilities for maintaining and operating the bridges, and includes provisions that allow the Secretary to transfer funds for bridge repairs. Additionally, the Secretary is required to report on certain bridges managed by the Corps of Engineers, detailing their status and exploring options to reduce the number of bridges under their control.
307. Upper Mississippi River restoration program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to update funding amounts for the Upper Mississippi River restoration program, changing the allocation to $15 million for the year 2024 and $20 million for each year after that.
Money References
- SEC. 307.Upper Mississippi River restoration program. Section 1103(e)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(4)) is amended by striking “$15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter” and inserting “$15,000,000 for fiscal year 2024 and $20,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter”.
308. Coastal community flood control and other purposes Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 103(k)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 is modified to change certain payment terms and allow for excess credits from payments to be used towards remaining project costs or transferred back to the non-Federal interest for use in other projects.
Money References
- Section 103(k)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)(4)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A)— (A) in clause (i), by striking “makes” and inserting “made”; and (B) in clause (ii), by striking “repays an amount equal to 2⁄3 of the remaining principal by” and inserting “made a payment of an additional $200,000,000 for that eligible deferred payment agreement on or before”; (2) in subparagraph (B) by inserting “interest’s” after “non-Federal”; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ---
309. Shore protection and restoration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text modifies a section of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to include areas outside of Delaware for shore protection and restoration. It now covers the State of Delaware along with certain locations in New York, like Fire Island National Seashore and several hamlets in New York.
310. Hopper dredge McFarland replacement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If the Secretary replaces the Federal hopper dredge McFarland, the new dredge must be kept ready for emergencies, undergo regular testing not exceeding 70 days per year, and be used actively for dredging if private companies cannot fulfill their contracts or bid correctly.
311. Acequias irrigation systems Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In the amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the conditions for federal and non-federal responsibilities in acequias irrigation systems are revised, including a 100% federal funding for reconnaissance studies, and the overall funding limit is increased from $80 million to $90 million.
Money References
- Section 1113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4232; 110 Stat. 3719, 136 Stat. 3781) is amended— (1) in subsection (d)— (A) by striking “The non-Federal” and inserting the following: “(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Federal share of a reconnaissance study carried out by the Secretary under this section shall be 100 percent.”; and (2) in subsection (e), by striking “$80,000,000” and inserting “$90,000,000”. ---
312. Pacific region Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a previous law, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, by adding Hawaii to a list that already includes Guam.
313. Selma, Alabama Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Federal government will cover 100% of the costs for a flood risk management and bank stabilization project in Selma, Alabama, as authorized by the 2022 Water Resources Development Act.
314. Barrow, Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows Barrow, Alaska, to be considered compliant with certain flood management regulations if the North Slope Borough adopts a floodplain management plan. This plan must be developed in consultation with federal agencies and approved by the Secretary to help reduce the effects of flooding in the project area.
315. San Francisco Bay, California Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 focuses on the San Francisco Bay and its surrounding counties, adding Contra Costa to the list of areas considered. It mandates that the Secretary investigate measures for adapting to rising sea levels, taking into account local economies, the needs of disadvantaged communities, and the use of natural features, as well as assess potential impacts on public infrastructure, ecosystems, and stormwater management.
316. Santa Ana River Mainstem, California Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses modifications to the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project in California, particularly focusing on the Santiago Creek Channel. It requires the Secretary to treat the construction of this channel as a separate part of the project and prevents construction unless it minimizes harm to nearby trees. Additionally, the Secretary must submit a report within 90 days detailing progress on land acquisitions and reimbursement requests related to the project.
317. Faulkner Island, Connecticut Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 by increasing the funding for Faulkner Island, Connecticut, from $4.5 million to $8 million.
Money References
- Section 527 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767) is amended by striking “$4,500,000” and inserting “$8,000,000”.
318. Broadkill Beach, Delaware Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The project originally designed to reduce hurricane and storm damage risks by using dredged material from the Delaware River is modified to now also address storm reduction for the Delaware Bay coastline in Delaware and New Jersey, including Broadkill Beach. This modification combines efforts previously authorized in 1999 and 2020 to enhance protection in these areas.
319. Federal Triangle Area, Washington, District of Columbia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is allowed to accept and use money from other Federal agencies for a project studying how to manage flood risks in the Federal Triangle Area of Washington, D.C, which is part of a larger effort approved in 2022.
320. Washington Aqueduct Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section makes changes to a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022. It updates the language to include "Water and Sewer Authority" after "District of Columbia" and replaces "Fairfax County" with "the Fairfax County Water Authority".
321. Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the federal government will cover 100% of the costs for the feasibility study of a water supply project in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, as authorized by a 2022 law.
322. Northern estuaries ecosystem restoration, Florida Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 related to the Northern estuaries ecosystem restoration in Florida, specifying that the federal government will cover 100% of the cost for a certain part of the project.
323. Chicago shoreline protection, Illinois Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary, working with local non-Federal partners, must review a plan to protect the Chicago shoreline from storm damage and erosion within one year. This project covers areas along Lake Michigan from Wilmette to the Illinois-Indiana State line and includes building protective structures at Morgan Shoal and Promontory Point.
324. Dillard Road, Patoka Lake, Indiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary can transfer certain land related to Dillard Road in Patoka Lake, Indiana, to the State of Indiana without cost. If the state stops using it as a road, the land can go back to the U.S., and Indiana must cover any transfer costs and take responsibility for future activities on the land.
325. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the process for modifying the Port Fourchon project in Louisiana. It specifies that if a feasibility study is requested, the Secretary must respond within 30 days, and if information is complete, review and complete necessary analysis within 180 days, with certain exceptions requiring more time.
326. Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, Minnesota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam in Minnesota, as defined in previous laws, is now changed to no longer include navigation as one of its allowed purposes.
327. Missouri River levee system, Missouri Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 327 of the document refers to the Missouri River levee system in Missouri. It updates a previous law by increasing the allocated funding amount from $7,000,000 to $65,000,000.
Money References
- Section 111 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (123 Stat. 607) is amended by striking “$7,000,000” and inserting “$65,000,000”.
328. Table Rock Lake, Missouri and Arkansas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows certain structures, like privately owned sewer and septic systems, to remain at Table Rock Lake as long as specific conditions are not met, such as the system being abandoned, sold, or the death of the property owner. It defines eligible structures and terms like "fee land" within the context of the Table Rock Lake project managed by the Corps of Engineers.
329. Missouri River mitigation, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines rules for acquiring land for a Missouri River project, stating that the land must be on the river side of levees or aid in future flood protection, and require a governor's approval, without using eminent domain. It defines "covered land" as property obtained by federal agencies other than the Corps of Engineers and specifies the "covered project" as efforts to mitigate fish and wildlife losses along the Missouri River.
330. New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, New York and New Jersey Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a study to reduce flood and storm damage in the New York and New Jersey Harbor and its tributaries, allowing the Secretary to investigate and recommend projects that offer public and ecological benefits. It authorizes the Secretary to carry out related projects if they meet specific criteria, mandates progress reports to Congress, and ensures ongoing studies are not delayed by these new actions.
331. Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 for the Western Lake Erie basin by changing "flood control" to "flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction," allowing for updated and continuing studies, and stating that projects based on these studies can proceed under a specific section of law.
332. Willamette Valley, Oregon Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is prohibited from finishing their review of certain projects related to flood control and navigation in the Willamette River Basin in Oregon until an option that stops using the projects for hydropower is prepared and formally analyzed, even though using them for hydropower is currently allowed.
333. Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that when maintaining the Columbia River Channel for navigation, the Secretary can include the cost of replacing the Cutter Suction Dredge as part of the project's operating costs, if both the Secretary and the non-Federal partner agree it's necessary.
334. Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency study, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to speed up the completion of the Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency Study in Texas, initially authorized by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. The final report must include project recommendations that align with community goals, minimize environmental and community impacts, and boost infrastructure resilience, and it must be submitted to Congress by December 31, 2025.
335. Matagorda Ship Channel Jetty Deficiency, Port Lavaca, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes modifications to the Matagorda Ship Channel project in Texas, allowing for repairs to the jetty deficiency as described in a 2020 report. The federal government will cover 90% of the repair costs, while the remaining 10% will be the responsibility of non-federal entities.
336. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The project for flood control in the San Antonio Channel, Texas, originally authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954, has been changed to follow a new plan called Alternative 7, according to a report from January 2014. This plan aims to enhance flood protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers.
337. Western Washington State, Washington Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army may create a program to help certain counties in Western Washington with water-related environmental projects, like improving wastewater facilities or protecting water resources. The federal government can cover 75% of a project's cost, but these projects must be publicly owned, and the local partners must cover all ongoing operation and maintenance costs. A total of $242 million is authorized for this initiative.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated $242,000,000 to carry out this section.
338. Environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section outlines new funding allocations and project modifications for environmental infrastructure across various locations in the United States. It specifies financial appropriations for water and wastewater infrastructure, including areas like water supply, stormwater management, and environmental restoration, and includes both new projects and amendments to previous funding commitments.
Money References
- (a) New projects.—Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1258; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(405) BUCKEYE, ARIZONA.—$12,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Buckeye, Arizona. “(406) FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Flagstaff, Arizona.
- “(407) PAGE, ARIZONA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Page, Arizona.
- “(408) SAHUARITA, ARIZONA.—$4,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the town of Sahuarita, Arizona.
- “(409) TUCSON, ARIZONA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Tucson, Arizona.
- “(410) WINSLOW, ARIZONA.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Winslow, Arizona. “(411)
- ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Adelanto, California.
- “(412) APTOS, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Aptos, California.
- “(413) BISHOP, CALIFORNIA.—$2,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bishop, California.
- “(414) BLOOMINGTON, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Bloomington, California.
- “(415) BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection in Butte County, California.
- “(416) CALIFORNIA CITY, CALIFORNIA.—$1,902,808 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of California City, California.
- “(417) CARSON, CALIFORNIA.—$11,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the City of Carson, California.
- “(418) CEDAR GLEN, CALIFORNIA.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in Cedar Glen, California.
- “(419) CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in City of Culver City, California.
- “(420) COLTON, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Colton, California.
- “(421) EAST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drinking water, and water supply, in the City of Los Angeles, California, including Sun Valley.
- “(422) FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, and environmental restoration, in Fresno County, California.
- “(423) GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.—$20,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, for communities served by the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, California.
- “(424) GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Grand Terrace, California.
- “(425) HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the city of Hayward, California.
- “(426) HOLLISTER, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Hollister, California.
- “(427) INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA.—$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Indian Wells, California.
- “(428) LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake County, California.
- “(429) LAKE TAHOE BASIN.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the communities within the Lake Tahoe Basin in Nevada and California.
- “(430) LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of La Quinta, California.
- “(431) LAKEWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Lakewood, California.
- “(432) LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA.—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lawndale, California.
- “(433) LONE PINE, CALIFORNIA.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Lone Pine, California.
- “(434) LOMITA, CALIFORNIA.—$5,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the city of Lomita, California.
- “(435) LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Los Banos, California.
- “(436) LOS OLIVOS, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Los Olivos, California.
- “(437) LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$12,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Lynwood, California.
- “(438) MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$27,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Madera County, California.
- “(439) MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Milpitas, California.
- “(440) MONTECITO, CALIFORNIA.—$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the town of Montecito, California.
- “(441) OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.—$30,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the cities of Oakland and Alameda, California.
- “(442) OXNARD, CALIFORNIA.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, conservation, water reuse and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection, in the city of Oxnard, California.
- “(443) PATTERSON, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and environmental restoration, in the city of Patterson, California.
- “(444) POMONA, CALIFORNIA.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in Pomona, California.
- “(445) ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Rohnert Park, California.
- “(446) SALINAS, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Salinas, California.
- “(447) SAN BENITO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Benito County, California.
- “(448) SAN BUENAVENTURA, CALIFORNIA.—$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of San Buenaventura, California.
- “(449) SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Diego County, California.
- “(450) SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of South Gate, California.
- “(451) SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water supply, in San Luis Obispo County, California.
- “(452) STANISLAUS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Stanislaus County, California.
- “(453) TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, and environmental restoration, in Tulare County, California.
- “(454) WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA.—$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Watsonville, California.
- “(455) YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Yolo County, California.
- “(456) YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.—$6,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in communities served by the Yorba Linda Water District, California.
- “(457) FREMONT COUNTY, COLORADO.—$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, in Fremont County, Colorado.
- “(458) EAST HAMPTON, CONNECTICUT.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Hampton, Connecticut.
- “(459) EAST LYME, CONNECTICUT.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Lyme, Connecticut.
- “(460) BETHANY BEACH TO REHOBOTH BEACH, DELAWARE.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment, and environmental restoration in the town of Bethany Beach, Delaware and the city of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
- “(461) WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment, and environmental restoration in the City of Wilmington, Delaware.
- “(462) BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$50,000,000 for water and water-related infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment, surface water protection, and environmental restoration, in Broward County, Florida.
- “(463) DELTONA, FLORIDA.—$31,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Deltona, Florida.
- “(464) LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Town of Longboat Key, Florida.
- “(465) MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including water supply, in Marion County, Florida.
- “(466) OVIEDO, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the city of Oviedo, Florida.
- “(467) OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, and environmental restoration, in Osceola County, Florida.
- “(468) CENTRAL FLORIDA.—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Brevard County, Orange County, and Osceola County, Florida.
- “(469) CENTRAL COASTAL GEORGIA, GEORGIA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, and McIntosh counties, Georgia.
- “(470) DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in DeKalb County, Georgia.
- “(471) PORTERDALE, GEORGIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and environmental restoration in the City of Porterdale, Georgia.
- “(472) BURLEY, IDAHO.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water treatment, in the city of Burley, Idaho.
- “(473) BELVIDERE, ILLINOIS.—$17,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Belvidere, Illinois.
- “(474) DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the village of Clarendon Hills, Illinois.
- “(475) FOX RIVER, ILLINOIS.—$9,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the villages of Lakemoor, Island Lake, and Volo, and McHenry County, Illinois.
- “(476) GERMAN VALLEY, ILLINOIS.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of German Valley, Illinois.
- “(477) LASALLE, ILLINOIS.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drinking water, water treatment, and environmental restoration, in the city of LaSalle, Illinois.
- “(478) ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the city of Rockford, Illinois.
- “(479) SAVANNA, ILLINOIS.—$2,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including drinking water, in the city of Savanna, Illinois. “(480) SHERRARD, ILLINOIS.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of Sherrard, Illinois.
- “(481) BROWNSVILLE, KENTUCKY.—$14,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Brownsville, Kentucky.
- “(482) MONROE, LOUISIANA.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and drinking water, in the city of Monroe, Louisiana.
- “(483) POINT CELESTE, LOUISIANA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, in Point Celeste, Louisiana.
- “(484) FRANKLIN, MASSACHUSETTS.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Franklin, Massachusetts.
- “(485) WINTHROP, MASSACHUSETTS.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Winthrop, Massachusetts.
- “(486) MILAN, MICHIGAN.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Milan, Michigan.
- “(487) SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN.—$58,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Genesee, Macomb, Oakland, Wayne, and Washtenaw counties, Michigan.
- “(488) ELYSIAN, MINNESOTA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Elysian, Minnesota.
- “(489) LE SUEUR, MINNESOTA.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Le Sueur, Minnesota.
- “(490) COLUMBIA, MISSISSIPPI.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water quality enhancement and water supply, in the city of Columbia, Mississippi.
- “(491) LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Laurel, Mississippi.
- “(492) MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI.—$11,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Moss Point, Mississippi.
- “(493) OLIVE BRANCH, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water quality enhancement, and water supply, in the city of Olive Branch, Mississippi.
- “(494) PICAYUNE, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Picayune, Mississippi.
- “(495) STARKVILLE, MISSISSIPPI.—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water, water treatment, water quality enhancement, and water supply, in the city of Starkville, Mississippi.
- “(496) LAUGHLIN, NEVADA.—$29,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Laughlin, Nevada.
- “(497) PAHRUMP, NEVADA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Pahrump, Nevada.
- “(498) NEW HAMPSHIRE.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, and related environmental infrastructure, in the counties of Belknap, Carroll, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford, New Hampshire.
- “(499) BELMAR, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management in Belmar Township, New Jersey.
- “(500) CAPE MAY, NEW JERSEY.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and desalination, for the city of Cape May, the boroughs of West Cape May and Cape May Point, and Lower Township, New Jersey.
- “(501) COLESVILLE, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Colesville, New Jersey
- “(502) DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Deptford Township, New Jersey.
- “(503) LACEY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management, in Lacey Township, New Jersey.
- “(504) MERCHANTVILLE, NEW JERSEY.—$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Merchantville, New Jersey.
- “(505) PARK RIDGE, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Park Ridge, New Jersey.
- “(506) WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey.
- “(507) BERNALILLO, NEW MEXICO.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bernalillo, New Mexico.
- “(508) BOSQUE FARMS, NEW MEXICO.—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Bosque Farms, New Mexico.
- “(509) CARMEL, NEW YORK.—$3,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Carmel, New York.
- “(510) DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Dutchess County, New York.
- “(511) KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Kings County, New York.
- “(512) MOHAWK RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NEW YORK.—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, environmental restoration, and related infrastructure, in the vicinity of the Mohawk River and tributaries, including the counties of Albany, Delaware, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Otsego, Saratoga, Schoharie, and Schenectady, New York.
- “(513) MOUNT PLEASANT, NEW YORK.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, New York.
- “(514) NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the vicinity of Newtown Creek, New York City, New York.
- “(515) NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in New York County, New York.
- “(516) ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orange County, New York.
- “(517) SLEEPY HOLLOW, NEW YORK.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Sleepy Hollow, New York.
- “(518) ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Ulster County, New York.
- “(519) RAMAPO, NEW YORK.—$4,000,000 for water infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the town of Ramapo, New York.
- “(520) RIKERS ISLAND, NEW YORK.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) on Rikers Island, New York.
- “(521) YORKTOWN, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Yorktown, New York.
- “(522) CANTON, NORTH CAROLINA.—$41,025,650 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Canton, North Carolina.
- “(523) FAIRMONT, NORTH CAROLINA.—$7,137,500 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the town of Fairmont, North Carolina.
- “(524) MURPHY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$1,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Murphy, North Carolina.
- “(525) ROBBINSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$3,474,350 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Robbinsville, North Carolina.
- “(526) WEAVERVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Weaverville, North Carolina.
- “(527) APPLE CREEK, OHIO.—$350,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Apple Creek, Ohio.
- “(528) BROOKLYN HEIGHTS, OHIO.—$170,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Brooklyn Heights, Ohio.
- “(529) CHAGRIN FALLS REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, OHIO.—$3,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the villages of Bentleyville, Chagrin Falls, Moreland Hills, and South Russell, and the Townships of Bainbridge, Chagrin Falls, and Russell, Ohio.
- “(530) CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO.—$11,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
- “(531) ERIE COUNTY, OHIO.—$16,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) in Erie County, Ohio.
- “(532) HURON, OHIO.—$7,100,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Huron, Ohio.
- “(533) KELLEYS ISLAND, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Kelleys Island, Ohio.
- “(534) NORTH OLMSTED, OHIO.—$1,175,165 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of North Olmsted, Ohio.
- “(535) PAINESVILLE, OHIO.—$11,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City of Painesville, Ohio.
- “(536) SOLON, OHIO.—$14,137,341 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Solon, Ohio.
- “(537) SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Summit County, Ohio.
- “(538) STARK COUNTY, OHIO.—$24,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Stark County, Ohio.
- “(539) TOLEDO AND OREGON, OHIO.—$10,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the cities of Toledo and Oregon, Ohio.
- “(540) VERMILION, OHIO.—$15,400,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Vermilion, Ohio.
- “(541) WESTLAKE, OHIO.—$750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Westlake, Ohio.
- “(542) STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA.—$30,000,000 for water infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and water storage, transmission, treatment, and distribution, in the city of Stillwater, Oklahoma.
- “(543) BEAVERTON, OREGON.—$10,000,000 for water supply in the city of Beaverton, Oregon.
- “(544) CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including combined sewer overflows, in Clackamas County, Oregon.
- “(545) WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON.—$50,000,000 for water infrastructure and water supply in Washington County, Oregon.
- “(546) BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, drinking water, and water treatment, in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
- “(547) CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, drinking water, and water treatment, in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
- “(548) FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania.
- “(549) INDIAN CREEK, PENNSYLVANIA.—$50,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the boroughs of Telford, Franconia, and Lower Safford, Pennsylvania.
- “(550) PEN ARGYL, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania.
- “(551) CHESTERFIELD, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$1,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Chesterfield, South Carolina.
- “(552) CHERAW, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$8,800,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure in the town of Cheraw, South Carolina.
- “(553) FLORENCE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Florence County, South Carolina.
- “(554) LAKE CITY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management in the city of Lake City, South Carolina.
- “(555) TIPTON, HAYWOOD, AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and water supply, in Tipton, Haywood, and Fayette Counties, Tennessee.
- “(556) AUSTIN, TEXAS.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Austin, Texas.
- “(557) AMARILLO, TEXAS.—$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water storage and treatment systems, in the City of Amarillo, Texas. “(558) BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of Brownsville, Texas. “(559) CLARENDON, TEXAS.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water storage, in the city of Clarendon, Texas.
- “(560) QUINLAN, TEXAS.—$1,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Quinlan, Texas.
- “(561) RUNAWAY BAY, TEXAS.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water storage and treatment systems, in the city of Runaway Bay, Texas.
- “(562) WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply in Webb County, Texas.
- “(563) ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Zapata County, Texas.
- “(564) KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA.—$1,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in King William County, Virginia.
- “(565) POTOMAC RIVER, VIRGINIA.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, environmental infrastructure, and water quality improvements, in the vicinity of the Potomac River, Virginia.
- “(566) CHELAN, WASHINGTON.—$9,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, storage, and distribution, in the city of Chelan, Washington.
- “(567) COLLEGE PLACE, WASHINGTON.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply and storage, in the city of College Place, Washington.
- “(568) FERNDALE, WASHINGTON.—$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Ferndale, Washington.
- “(569) LYNDEN, WASHINGTON.—$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lynden, Washington.
- “(570) OTHELLO, WASHINGTON.—$14,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and aquifer storage and recovery, in the city of Othello, Washington.”
- — (A) ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(80) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1258) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$45,000,000”.
- (B) CALAVERAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(86) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended by striking “$13,280,000” and inserting “$16,300,000”. (C) CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(87) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259) is amended— (i) by inserting “$80,000,000, of which not less than” before “$23,000,000”; and (ii) by inserting “shall be for” after “$23,000,000”; and (iii) by inserting “service area, and of which not less than $57,000,000 shall be for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, within the service areas for the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and the Ironhouse Sanitary District, Contra Costa County” after “Water District”. (D) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(93) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended— (i) by striking “$103,000,000” and inserting “$128,000,000”; and (ii) by striking “Santa Clarity Valley” and inserting “Santa Clarita Valley”. (E) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.—Section 8319(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3785) is amended by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”. (F) LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA.
- (ii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—Section 219(e)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 121 Stat. 1192) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$43,000,000”.
- (G) SAN BERNADINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(101) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1260) is modified by striking “$9,000,000” and inserting “$24,000,000”.
- (H) SOUTH PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(52) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.
- (I) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Section 219(f)(129) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking “$7,500,000” and inserting “$57,500,000”.
- (J) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—Section 219(e)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking “$75,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”. (K) EAST POINT, GEORGIA.—Section 219(f)(136) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1261; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “$15,000,000” and inserting “$20,000,000”.
- (L) GUAM.—Section 219(f)(323) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (136 Stat. 3811) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$35,000,000”.
- (M) MAUI, HAWAII.—Section 219(f)(328) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3811) is modified by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “50,000,000”.
- (N) COOK COUNTY AND LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(54) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$149,000,000”.
- (O) FOREST PARK, ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(330) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3811) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.
- (P) MADISON AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, ILLINOIS.—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; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended— (i) by inserting “(including stormwater)” after “wastewater”; and (ii) by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$150,000,000”.
- (Q) SOUTH CENTRAL ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(333) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended— (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking “Montgomery and Christian Counties, Illinois” and inserting “South Central Illinois”; and (ii) by striking “Montgomery County and Christian County” and inserting “Montgomery County, Christian County, Fayette County, Shelby County, Jasper County, Richland County, Crawford County, and Lawrence County”. (R) BATON ROUGE, LOUSIANA.—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; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “$90,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.
- (S) EAST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND AMITE RIVER BASIN REGION, LOUISIANA.—Section 5082(i) of the Water Resources and Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1226) is amended by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$45,000,000”.
- (T) LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA.—Section 219(f)(146) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended by striking “$2,300,000” and inserting “$7,300,000”.
- (U) SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.—Section 219(f)(153) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “$12,500,000” and inserting “$17,500,000”. (V) SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA REGION, LOUISIANA.—Section 5085(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1228) is amended by striking “$17,000,000” and inserting “$22,000,000”.
- is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”.
- (X) HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS.—Section 219(f)(337) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”.
- (Y) LAWRENCE, MASSACHUSETTS.—Section 219(f)(338) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”.
- (Z) LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS.—Section 219(f)(339) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”.
- (AA) METHUEN, MASSACHUSETTS.—Section 219(f)(340) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”.
- (BB) MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—Section 219(f)(345) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$90,000,000”.
- is amended— (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking “Michigan combined sewer overflows” and inserting “Michigan”; and (ii) in subparagraph (A) by striking “$85,000,000” and inserting “$160,000,000”. (DD) BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(163) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat, 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1263) is amended by striking “$5,000,000” and inserting “$10,000,000”. (EE) DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 119 Stat. 282; 119 Stat. 2257; 122 Stat. 1623; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “$130,000,000” and inserting “$170,000,000”.
- (FF) MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(351) of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat, 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$22,000,000”.
- (GG) MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(352) of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat, 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$26,000,000”.
- (HH) RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(254) of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat, 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$22,000,000”.
- (II) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 337; 121 Stat. 1233; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “$70,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.
- (JJ) CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY.—Section 219(f)(357) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$119,000,000” and inserting “$143,800,000”.
- (KK) CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.—Section 593(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 380; 119 Stat. 2255; 136 Stat. 3820) is amended by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$150,000,000”.
- (LL) KIRYAS JOEL, NEW YORK.—Section 219(f)(184) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1264) is amended by striking “$5,000,000” and inserting “$25,000,000”.
- (MM) QUEENS, NEW YORK.—Section 219(f)(377) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3814) is amended by striking “$119,200,000” and inserting “$190,000,000”.
- (OO) NORTH CAROLINA.—Section 5113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1237) is amended in subsection (f) by striking “$13,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.
- (PP) CLEVELAND, OHIO.—Section 219(f)(207) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1265) is amended by striking “$2,500,000 for Flats East Bank” and inserting “$25,500,000”.
- (QQ) CINCINNATI, OHIO.—Section 219(f)(206) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1265) is amended by striking “$1,000,000” and inserting “$31,000,000”. (RR) OHIO.—Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381; 119 Stat. 2261; 121 Stat. 1140; 121 Stat. 1944; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended in subsection (h) by striking “$250,000,000” and inserting “$300,000,000”.
- (SS) MIDWEST CITY, OKLAHOMA.—Section 219(f)(231) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266; 134 Stat 2719) is amended by striking “$5,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”.
- (TT) WOODWARD, OKLAHOMA.—Section 219(f)(236) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended by striking “$1,500,000” and inserting “$3,000,000”.
- (UU) SOUTHWESTERN OREGON.—Section 8359 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3802) is amended— (i) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000” ; and (ii) in subsection (f), by inserting “Lincoln,” after “Lane,”. (VV) HATFIELD BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 219(f)(239) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended by striking “$310,000” and inserting “$3,000,000”. (WW) NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334) is amended— (i) by striking “$20,000,000 for water related infrastructure” and inserting “$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply”; and (ii) by inserting “Luzerne,” after “Lackawanna,”. (XX) PHOENIXVILLE BOROUGH, CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 219(f)(68) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended by striking “$2,400,000 for water and sewer infrastructure” and inserting “$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater infrastructure and water supply”.
- (YY) LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818; 134 Stat. 2719; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “$165,000,000” and inserting “$235,000,000”.
- (ZZ) MOUNT PLEASANT, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(393) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended by striking “$7,822,000” and inserting “$20,000,000”.
- (AAA) SMITH COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—Section 219(f)(395) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended by striking “$19,500,000” and inserting “$69,500,000”.
- (BBB) DALLAS COUNTY REGION, TEXAS.—Section 5140 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1251) is amended in subsection (i) by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.
- (CCC) TEXAS.—Section 5138 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended in subsection (i) by striking “$80,000,000” and inserting “$200,000,000”.
- is amended— (i) in subsection (c)(1)— (I) by inserting by inserting “, including natural and nature-based infrastructure” after “water-related environmental infrastructure,”; (II) in subparagraph (C), by striking “and” at the end; and (III) by adding at the end the following: “(E) drought resilience measures; and”; and (ii) in subsection (i)— (I) in paragraph (1), by striking “$800,000,000” and inserting “$850,000,000”; and (II) in paragraph (2), by striking “$200,000,000” and inserting “$250,000,000”. (EEE) MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN.—Section 219(f)(405) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended by striking “$4,500,000” and inserting “$11,000,000”.
339. Specific deauthorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the deauthorization of specific channels and projects for flood risk management, navigation, and flood protection across various locations in the United States, including Los Angeles County, California; Thames River, Connecticut; Saint Petersburg Harbor, Florida; the Chicago River, Illinois; the Papillion Creek Watershed, Nebraska; Truckee River, Nevada; Newtown Creek, New York; Monroe Bay and Creek, Virginia; and Seattle Harbor, Washington. It involves discontinuing their status as federally authorized projects, meaning the federal government will no longer be responsible for their management or upkeep.
401. Project authorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines various authorized projects related to water resource development, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and project modifications. These projects, identified and reviewed in congressional reports, cover multiple states and include estimated costs divided into federal and non-federal contributions.
Money References
- Date of Report of Chief of EngineersD. Estimated Costs1. CAOakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening, OaklandMay 30, 2024Federal: $408,164,600Non-Federal: $200,780,400Total: $608,945,0002.
- MDBaltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Modification of Seagirt Loop Channel, City of Baltimore, Deep Draft NavigationJune 22, 2023Federal: $47,956,500Non-Federal: $15,985,500Total: $63,942,000 (2) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—A. StateB. NameC.
- Estimated Costs1. DC, VAMetropolitan Washington, District of Columbia, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementJune 17, 2024Federal: $9,899,000
- Federal: $5,330,500Total: $15,230,0002.
- FLSt. Johns County, Ponte Vedra Beach Coastal Storm Risk ManagementApril 18, 2024Initial Federal: $24,591,000Initial Non-Federal: $35,533,000Total: $60,124,000Renourishment Federal: $24,632,000Renourishment Non-Federal: $53,564,000Renourishment Total: $78,196,0003.
- 2024Federal: $1,730,973,900Non
- -Federal: $363,228,100Total: $2,094,202,0004.
- RIRhode Island Coastline, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementSeptember 28, 2023Federal: $188,353,750Non-Federal: $101,421,250Total: $289,775,000 (3) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—A. StateB. NameC.
- Estimated Costs1. LASt. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Coastal Storm and Flood Risk ManagementMay 28, 2024Federal: $3,653,346,450Non-Federal: $2,240,881,550Total: $5,894,229,000 (4) NAVIGATION AND HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—A. StateB. NameC.
- Date of Report of Chief of EngineersD. Estimated Costs1. TXGulf Intracoastal Waterway, Coastal Resilience Study, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties June 2, 2023Total: $314,221,000 (5) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—A. StateB. NameC.
- Date of Report of Chief of EngineersD. Estimated Costs1. MSMemphis Metropolitan Stormwater - North DeSoto County Feasibility Study, DeSoto County, Flood Risk Management and Ecosystem RestorationDecember 18, 2023Federal: $44,295,000Non-Federal: $23,851,000Total: $68,146,000
- Estimated Costs1. AZTres Rios, Arizona Ecosystem Restoration ProjectMay 28, 2024Federal: $215,840,300Non-Federal: $116,221,700Total: $332,062,0002.
- KSManhattan, Kansas Federal Levee SystemMay 6, 2024Federal: $29,454,750Non-Federal: $15,860,250Total: $45,315,0003.
- MOUniversity City Branch, River Des Peres, University City, St. Louis County, Flood Risk ManagementFebruary 9, 2024Federal: $9,094,000Non-Federal: $4,897,000Total: $13,990,000 ---
402. Facility investment Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary of the Army to use funds from a specific revolving fund to design and construct new buildings and facilities in Texas and Missouri, as long as they follow detailed plans submitted to Congress. It also requires that any money spent from the fund be reimbursed from other funds allocated for projects that benefit from these new facilities.