Overview
Title
An Act 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
The bill, called the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024, aims to take care of the water in the United States by building better water-related projects, keeping everything clean and fair, and working with other groups to make sure everyone gets the water help they need.
Summary AI
The bill, S. 4367, known as the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024, is designed to improve water resources in the United States. It introduces new rules to enhance the development and conservation of water resources, regulate studies and funding for water projects, and foster partnerships with non-federal entities and Tribal communities. The legislation also focuses on stormwater management, real estate interest guidelines, infrastructure enhancements, and environmental and ecologically-focused programs. Additionally, the bill updates policies for inland waterways, flood protection, and maintains federal responsibilities for various water-related projects and partnerships.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, titled "An Act 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," outlines a comprehensive framework for managing and enhancing various water resources, transportation infrastructures, and public buildings across the United States. This extensive bill addresses a variety of issues, including water resource development, economic development, and public building reforms, and introduces new programs alongside modifications to existing ones.
General Summary of the Bill
The bill is an expansive document divided into three primary divisions, each addressing different realms of public interest:
Water Resources Management and Infrastructure: This segment focuses on improvements to waterways and related infrastructures. It covers topics such as ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and infrastructure resilience.
Transportation and Economic Development: Addressing transportation funding and regional economic strategies, this section aims to reinforce economic diversification, infrastructure resilience, and competitiveness of different economic sectors, including manufacturing and renewable energy.
Public Buildings and Assets: This area mandates measures to optimize the utilization of federal buildings, manage surplus properties effectively, and enhance oversight of real estate assets.
Summary of Significant Issues
A key issue identified in multiple sections is the potential for wasteful spending due to a lack of clear criteria or justification for allocating substantial federal funds. For instance, the authorization of large sums for projects such as Everglades restoration or courthouse renamings lacks detailed explanations of necessity or impact, leading to concerns about fiscal efficiency.
Additionally, potential favoritism emerges within the bill. For example, specific regions and projects are spotlighted for increased funding or favorable treatments without transparent rationales, potentially leading to uneven distribution of benefits or resources.
There's also an absence of clear accountability and oversight measures in various parts of the bill. This lack of detailed frameworks or performance indicators for evaluating the success of projects or the proper use of funds might pose risks of mismanagement and inefficiencies.
Public Impact
Broadly speaking, the bill's attempts to address water resources and infrastructure, if implemented effectively, could lead to positive developments in terms of environmental restoration and infrastructure resilience. These efforts are likely to enhance ecosystem health, economic opportunities, and public safety across many regions.
However, concerns about transparency, wasteful spending, and favoritism might undermine public trust if not adequately addressed. The bill's impact on public confidence in government fiscal responsibility may depend on successfully implementing clear oversight mechanisms and maintaining equitable distribution of federal resources.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For Local Communities: Local stakeholders, particularly those in disadvantaged areas, stand to benefit from increased federal support for infrastructure and economic development projects. However, they may face challenges in competing for funds if processes lack transparency or if resources are funneled toward select regions.
For Federal and State Agencies: The bill introduces additional responsibilities and expectations for agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and the Economic Development Administration. Effective collaboration and coordination will be crucial to ensure that new policies and projects are executed efficiently.
For Environmental Organizations: With emphasis on ecosystem restoration, this bill could align with environmental goals aimed at combating climate change and restoring natural habitats. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives likely hinges on the rigor of the implementation processes.
For Taxpayers: As the primary funders of these federal expenditures, taxpayers might be concerned with how funds are utilized and may demand transparency and accountability to ensure they receive value for their contributions.
In conclusion, while the bill seeks to address essential issues of national interest through a comprehensive strategy, its success will depend on the careful oversight and equitable management of resources to ensure that all stakeholders, and the public at large, benefit from these legislative initiatives.
Financial Assessment
The bill, S. 4367, encompasses a wide range of financial allocations targeting the improvement of water resources, flood management, and infrastructure projects across the United States. Below is a breakdown of the financial elements within the bill and how they relate to the identified issues.
Financial Summary
The bill includes significant authorizations for appropriations across multiple sections, with varying purposes and scales:
- Project Authorizations and Allocations: Section 1401 details large-scale funding for specific projects. Notable ones include:
- Akutan Harbor Navigational Improvements: $72,647,000 in total costs.
- Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening: $642,530,000.
- Tampa Harbor Deep Draft Navigation: $1,148,260,000.
- Metropolitan Washington Coastal Storm Risk Management: $15,632,000.
These allocations highlight the extensive financial resources directed toward navigation and storm risk management projects.
Increased Funding for Existing Programs: Sections such as 1313 and 1335 propose increases for ongoing projects, with Faulkner Island's allocation changing from $4,500,000 to $8,000,000, and the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery getting a boost from $100,000,000 to $120,000,000. This trend of heightened funding continues without explicit performance metrics.
Specific Program Allocations: Several sections, such as 2236, authorize funds for broader programs:
- Workforce training grants receive $50,000,000 annually from 2025 through 2029.
- $40,000,000 annually authorized for each regional commission for fiscal years 2025 through 2029 under Section 2241.
Issues and Concerns
Potential for Wasteful Spending and Favoritism: The broad discretion in financial allocations raises concerns about favoritism. Sections like 1401 and 2244 authorize significant amounts without clear accountability, making it difficult to ensure equitable distribution and effective use of funds.
Ambiguity in Criteria for Funding: The bill designates full federal funding for projects benefitting 'economically disadvantaged communities' under Sections 1348, 1352, and 1353. Still, the lack of clear definitions can lead to unequal treatment and perceptions of unfairness.
Lack of Performance Metrics: Many appropriations increase funding for existing efforts, such as in Sections 1313 and 1335, without clear performance or oversight mechanisms, potentially compromising fiscal responsibility.
Impact on Accountability and Oversight: Amendments in Sections 2221 and 2222 allow significant flexibility in grant distribution. Without robust oversight mechanisms, there's a risk of inefficiency and reduced accountability in how funds are used.
Uncertain Impact and Overlapping Roles: With the establishment of new commissions and offices, as noted in Sections 2249 and 2250, the risk of duplication with existing entities and unnecessary bureaucratic growth could dilute the impact of allocated resources.
This commentary reflects concerns surrounding the financial aspects of the bill, S. 4367. While significant in scale and ambition, the bill's financial allocations also warrant scrutiny to ensure they are equitable, accountable, and effective.
Issues
The bill authorizes numerous projects and expenditures without clear criteria or justification, potentially leading to wasteful spending and favoritism (Sections 101, 1401, 1402, 2103, 2244).
Certain sections provide broad discretion for funding allocation, such as allowing complete federal funding for small communities under subjective criteria, which could lead to perceptions of favoritism and inequity (Sections 2215, 1348, 1352, 1353).
Many sections increase funding without explicit justification or performance metrics, which could be seen as a lack of fiscal responsibility and oversight (Sections 1313, 1335, 1355, 2251, 2253).
The bill establishes new commissions and offices, raising concerns about potential overlap with existing entities and unnecessary bureaucratic expansion (Sections 2249, 2250, 15735, 2232, 2228).
Several provisions involve reallocation or modification of existing programs that could lead to confusion or unintended consequences if not carefully managed and explained (Sections 2243, 15308, 1301, 1340).
Certain sections designate buildings and other entities after specific individuals, which could be controversial or perceived as favoritism (Sections 2314, 2318, 2319).
Provisions related to environmental infrastructure and restoration lack specific guidelines or criteria, raising concerns about effectiveness and impact (Sections 1334, 2220, 15902).
The lack of detailed definitions and criteria for 'eligible counties', 'eligible recipients', and 'economically disadvantaged communities' could cause ambiguity and unfair treatment in various programs (Sections 15901, 2224, 2225, 1356).
Amendments allowing for flexibility in grant and funding allocations without clear oversight mechanisms potentially lead to inefficiencies and reduced accountability (Sections 2221, 2222, 15507, 2233).
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.
101. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines the contents of the "Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024," which is divided into sections covering a wide range of topics related to water resources, infrastructure development, and policies for economic growth. This includes provisions for general water resource projects, studies, environmental infrastructure, economic development grants, regional economic programs, and public building reforms.
1001. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the text states that the division can be referred to as the "Water Resources Development Act of 2024."
1002. Secretary defined Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the term "Secretary" refers specifically to the Secretary of the Army.
1101. Outreach and access Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act to improve outreach by ensuring potential non-Federal interests understand their responsibilities, appointing community project advisors, and making project information publicly available. Additionally, the Secretary must brief Congress on the status and challenges of implementing these changes within 60 days of the Act's enactment.
1102. Notice to Congress regarding WRDA implementation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the responsibilities of the Secretary regarding the implementation of water resource development laws. It requires the development of a plan within 90 days, notification to Congress on the status of prior laws, creation of a WRDA implementation team, and ongoing updates and briefings to Congress on the progress and any potential delays in executing these laws.
1103. Vertical integration and acceleration of studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 changes the timeline for study completion from 3 years to 4 years after determining federal interest and sets a cost limit of $5,000,000 for such studies. Additionally, existing feasibility studies are not affected by these changes.
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 “3 years after the date of initiation” and inserting “4 years after the date 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) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: “(2) have a maximum total cost of $5,000,000; and”. (b) Savings Clause.—Nothing in the amendments made by subsection (a) shall be construed to affect a feasibility study that was initiated prior to the date of the enactment of this Act. ---
1104. Minimum real estate interest Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the process by which the Secretary of an authorized water resources project must determine and provide the necessary real estate interests for construction and maintenance, ensuring that only the minimum required interest in the property is used; it also mandates annual reporting to Congress and allows for the amendment of existing agreements to align with these requirements.
1105. Review process Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a law from 1899 to improve the review process for applications regarding the Corps of Engineers. It introduces guidance for consistency, offers preapplication meetings to help non-Federal entities understand design standards and identify issues, and allows the use of funds from these entities to support such meetings.
1106. Processing timelines Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary must make sure that, within 30 days after each fiscal year ends, the public website for the "permit finder" of the Corps of Engineers shows the accurate status of permits that have received funds, according to a law from 2000.
1107. Continuing authority programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill establishes a pilot program that lets non-federal groups work on certain projects through new project delivery methods, with up to 25 projects allowed. It outlines various financial provisions and requires regular progress reports, while also amending funding and guidelines for several water-related environmental projects, like flood control and ecosystem restoration, to enhance efficiency, drought resilience, and shoreline protection.
Money References
- (10) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2032.
- is amended— (1) by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”; and (2) by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”. (c) 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 “$15,000,000”.
- (d) 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 “$15,000,000”.
- (e) Aquatic ecosystem restoration.—Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following: “(4) DROUGHT RESILIENCE.—A project under this section may include measures that enhance drought resilience through the restoration of wetlands or the removal of invasive species.”; (2) 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.”; (3) in subsection (d), by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”; and (4) in subsection (f), by striking “$62,500,000” and inserting “$75,000,000”. (f) Removal of obstructions; clearing channels.—Section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g) is amended— (1) by striking “$7,500,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”; (2) by inserting “for preventing and mitigating flood damages associated with ice jams,” after “other debris,”; and (3) by striking “$500,000” and inserting “$1,000,000”.
- (g) 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 the following: “for the purpose of— “(1) improving”; (B) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), 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 “$15,000,000”; (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 nonnative species; and “(4) other actions that increase drought resilience, water conservation, or water availability.”. (h) Shore damage prevention or mitigation.—Section 111(c) of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i(c)) is amended by striking “$12,500,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”.
- (i) Regional sediment management.—Section 204(c)(1)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326(c)(1)(C)) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”.
- (j) Small flood control projects.—Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended— (1) in the first sentence, by striking “$68,750,000” and inserting “$90,000,000”; and (2) in the third sentence, by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”. (k) 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) in the paragraph heading, by striking “pilot”; (B) 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 relevant project proposals to the Secretary; and”; and (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking “a total of 20 projects” and inserting “projects”; (3) by striking paragraph (4); and (4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); (5) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by inserting “the” before “Water”; and (6) by adding at the end the following: “(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $150,000,000 for each fiscal year.”. ---
1108. Stormwater management projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section establishes a program led by the Secretary to conduct studies and implement projects for stormwater control and reuse, focusing on urban flood management with Federal and non-Federal partnerships. It requires non-Federal parties to provide essential lands and bear specific costs, with Federal funding sharing up to 50% of study costs and 65% of construction costs, capped at $10 million per project, and authorizes $50 million annually for these initiatives.
Money References
- — (1) STUDY.—Subject to paragraph (3), the Federal share of the cost of a study carried out under this section shall be 50 percent, except that the first $100,000 of the cost of the study shall be at Federal expense.
- (3) LIMITATION.—The total Federal amount expended for a study or project under this section shall be not more than $10,000,000.
- (d) Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each fiscal year.
1109. 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 make it easier for non-federal groups to carry out studies related to water resources projects. It describes how these groups should coordinate with federal authorities, clarifies the roles of the Secretary, and provides funding for these efforts.
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 Federal share of the 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.
1110. Construction of water resources development projects by non-Federal interests Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates rules for water resources projects carried out by non-Federal groups, allowing them to request help from the Secretary for studies and technical aspects if they agree to fund it. It also clarifies that no credits will be given for certain expenses or delays caused by the non-Federal groups, and gives these groups a chance to update prior agreements with the changes.
1111. Annual report to Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to include a new reference to the Water Resources Development Act of 2024, reorganizes some subsections, and establishes requirements for notifying non-Federal interests and Congress about proposals included in the annual report or appendix.
1112. Services of volunteers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary has the authority to recognize volunteers working for the Department of Defense, specifically within the Army Corps of Engineers, through awards or other means, although cash awards are not allowed. Additionally, the Secretary is required to create a process to facilitate this recognition.
1113. Nonrecreation outgrant policy Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to update policy guidelines for approving nonrecreational real estate requests, like installing broadband infrastructure, on lands managed by the Corps of Engineers. This includes considering public benefits, financial factors, and providing detailed reasons for any request denials, all while ensuring natural resources and water projects remain protected.
1114. Silver Jackets program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with continuing the Silver Jackets program, which was originally set up under two laws: the Flood Control Act of 1960 and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
1115. Support of Army civil works missions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 by specifying that several universities are to perform academic research on various water-related subjects, such as flood resilience, coastal restoration, and water quality, across different states and regions like West Virginia, Delaware, and North Carolina, among others.
1116. Temporary relocation assistance pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 by adding a new project to the list of those eligible for temporary relocation assistance. This new project focuses on reducing hurricane and storm damage risks in Norfolk, Virginia.
1117. Harbor deepening Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to increase the depth for harbor deepening projects from 50 feet to 55 feet, affecting both construction and maintenance activities.
1118. Inland waterways regional dredge pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines that the Secretary, when awarding contracts for the dredge pilot program in inland waterways, should prioritize projects that improve navigation year-round, increase freight capacity, and potentially enhance the transportation of containerized cargo.
1119. Dredged material disposal facility partnerships Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act to allow non-Federal entities to use dredged material disposal facilities with the Secretary's permission, provided it does not interfere with authorized projects and certain conditions are met. It also allows for fees to be charged for the use of these facilities, accounting for any improvements made by non-Federal entities, and mandates studies to determine if facilities are needed when they have not been used for an extended period.
1120. Real estate administrative fees Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to create guidelines for setting and managing real estate administrative fees within 30 days. These guidelines must include methods for estimating costs, defining related activities, tracking costs, setting review schedules, and allowing stakeholder input. The guidance and any relevant information must be made available online by the Corps of Engineers.
1121. Databases of Corps recreational sites Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Corps of Engineers is required to keep databases updated with information on recreational sites they manage, including details about their operational status and available recreational activities.
1122. Project studies subject to independent external peer review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 by removing a part labeled as subsection (h) and renumbering other parts that follow.
1123. National coastal mapping program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a nationwide coastal mapping program to support various missions like navigation and environmental restoration. It involves sharing data, implementing surveys, researching technology, and responding to hurricanes while authorizing $15 million annually for these efforts.
Money References
- (b) Scope.—In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary— (1) shall 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) shall 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) shall 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, shall— (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, may provide subject matter expertise, mapping services, and technology evolution assistance; (6) may 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) shall 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) may maintain the panel of senior leaders established under section 8110(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022; and (9) may 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. (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. ---
1124. Removal of abandoned vessels Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates existing legislation to allow the Corps of Engineers to remove abandoned vessels from U.S. navigable waters if it's in the public's interest and approved by the Coast Guard. It establishes that owners will be liable for removal costs and specifies what is considered a "covered vessel," with a budget of $10 million per year authorized for this purpose from 2025 to 2029.
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.”. (b) Conforming amendment.—Section 20 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 416) is amended by striking “the preceding section of this Act” and inserting “section 19(a)”.
19. Vessel removal by Corps of Engineers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the removal of vessels that obstruct waterways.
1125. Missouri River existing features protection Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that before undertaking any significant action related to certain features on the Missouri River, an analysis must be conducted to assess potential impacts like increased flooding, dry conditions, erosion, and effects on navigation. If any negative outcomes are identified, measures must be taken to reduce them, and existing legal requirements related to water resources remain unchanged.
1126. Inland waterway projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to change the funding split for inland waterway projects, increasing the federal government's share of project costs from 65% to 75% and reducing the non-federal share from 35% to 25%, starting on October 1, 2024, for new or ongoing navigation projects.
1127. Planning assistance for States Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section changes a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 to include funding for research on the ownership history of abandoned buildings.
1128. Expedited consideration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 1128 amends the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 by changing the deadline from December 31, 2024, to December 31, 2026.
1129. Emerging harbors Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary must, within 90 days of the Act's enactment, provide guidance for implementing a specific section of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and create a way to accept funds from non-Federal sources for maintenance dredging.
1130. Maximization of beneficial use Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments focus on maximizing the beneficial use of dredged material in water resources projects. This includes policies to ensure that a large portion of dredged material is used beneficially, plans to prioritize areas vulnerable to coastal land loss, and authorizing the transfer of excess dredged material to non-federal entities, who will cover removal and transportation costs.
1131. Economic, hydraulic, and hydrologic modeling Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines how the Secretary is responsible for developing and maintaining models related to water resources and flooding, working with various agencies and institutions. It also details how these models should be shared with non-Federal entities and the public, unless the information is confidential, and explains how costs for model development can be credited to non-Federal project partners.
1132. Improvements to National Dam Safety Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines updates to the National Dam Safety Program, including adding a definition for "underserved community," requiring the Secretary of the Army to maintain a detailed inventory of dams, revising requirements for rehabilitation grants, and extending related provisions to 2028. It also repeals a section of the National Dam Safety Program Act and emphasizes safety and technical assistance for low-head dams.
6. National inventory of dams and low-head dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is required to maintain and update a public inventory of dams and low-head dams in the United States, sharing information about their safety, location, and condition, and coordinate with various agencies to gather data. A "low-head dam" is defined as a barrier across a river that creates a water backup and has a drop off between 6 inches and 25 feet.
1133. Funding to process permits Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 by defining "Indian Tribe" to include any entity formed under Indian Tribes, adding "Indian Tribe" to certain lists, and specifying that projects can include aquatic ecosystem restoration. It also removes a specific paragraph from the previous version of the law.
1134. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 to improve the harmful algal bloom demonstration program. It expands the program's focus to include projects affecting important water bodies, increases collaboration with various organizations, adds more locations, raises funding to $35 million, and prioritizes activities that reduce pollution and use nature-based solutions. Additionally, the Secretary may form agreements for the use or sale of successful 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 in the United States or its territories” 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)— (A) in paragraph (6), by inserting “Watershed” after “Okeechobee”; (B) in paragraph (13), by striking “and” at the end; (C) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (D) by adding at the end the following: “(15) Lake Elsinore, California; and “(16) Willamette River, Oregon.”; (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.”. ---
1135. Corrosion prevention Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 1033(c) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 clarifies that corrosion prevention activities can be carried out through programs that either set industry standards for corrosion prevention or are part of industrial coatings applicator programs connected to employment training or registered apprenticeships.
1136. Federal breakwaters and jetties Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to include "pile dike" alongside "jetty" and "breakwater" in its provisions. It clarifies conditions under which federal maintenance is required by specifying that federal maintenance should occur if a pile dike has become disconnected from an authorized navigation project due to the lack of regular and routine maintenance.
1137. Eligibility for inter-Tribal consortiums Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 1137 amends the Flood Control Act of 1970 to make inter-tribal consortiums, as defined in the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, eligible for certain benefits or programs under the Act.
1138. Shoreline and riverine protection and restoration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to include the shoreline of Connecticut and the Winooski River tributary watershed in Vermont as areas to be prioritized for protection and restoration efforts.
1139. Ability to pay Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines changes to how the financial ability of non-Federal entities to participate in water resource projects is assessed. The Secretary is required to use specific criteria when determining if these entities can pay, develop procedures to assist them in this process, report annually to Congress about such determinations, and prioritize certain projects for these evaluations.
1140. Tribal partnership program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Tribal Partnership Program in the Water Resources Development Act to include definitions for "inter-tribal consortium" and "Tribal organization." It expands authorized activities to help manage flood risks, water resources, and emergency response, adds a congressional notification requirement, increases funding, and establishes a pilot program to explore water-related projects, particularly in areas with Tribal treaty rights.
Money References
- Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)— (A) in the subsection heading, by striking “Definition of Indian Tribe” and inserting “Definitions”; (B) by striking “In this section, the term” and inserting “In this section: “(1) INDIAN TRIBE.—The terms ‘Indian tribe’ and ‘Indian Tribe’ have the meanings given the terms”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “(2) INTER-TRIBAL CONSORTIUM.—The term ‘inter-tribal consortium’ has the meaning given the term in section 403 of the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3202). “(3) TRIBAL ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘Tribal organization’ has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).”; (2) in subsection (b)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting “, inter-tribal consortiums, Tribal organizations,” after “Indian tribes”; and (ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting “, inter-tribal consortiums, or Tribal organizations” after “Indian tribes”; (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: “(2) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—An activity conducted under paragraph (1) may address— “(A) projects for flood or hurricane and storm damage reduction, including erosion control 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), environmental restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and natural resources; “(B) watershed assessments and planning activities; “(C) technical assistance to an Indian Tribe, an inter-tribal consortium, or a Tribal organization, including— “(i) assistance for planning to ameliorate flood hazards, to avoid repetitive flood impacts, to anticipate, prepare, and adapt to changing hydrological and climatic conditions and extreme weather events, and to withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruption due to flood hazards; and “(ii) the provision of, and integration into planning of, hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses; “(D) projects that improve emergency response capabilities and provide increased access to infrastructure that may be utilized in the event of a severe weather event or other natural disaster; and “(E) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation with Indian Tribes, inter-tribal consortiums, Tribal organizations, and the heads of other Federal agencies, determines to be appropriate.”; (C) in paragraph (3)(A)— (i) by inserting “, an inter-tribal consortium, or a Tribal organization” after “an Indian tribe”; and (ii) by inserting “, inter-tribal consortium, or Tribal organization” after “the Indian tribe”; and (D) in paragraph (4), by striking “$26,000,000” each place it appears and inserting “$28,500,000”; (3) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following: “(7) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.
1141. Tribal project implementation pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes a pilot program allowing Indian Tribes to directly manage certain water resource projects, aiming to enhance tribal self-determination and economic opportunities. The Secretary of the Army oversees the program and provides guidance, with funding through 2029, while ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations.
Money References
- (j) Authorization of appropriations.—In addition to any amounts appropriated for a specific eligible project, there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section, including the costs of administration of the Secretary, $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2029.
1142. Federal interest determinations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 requires the Secretary of the Army to identify and evaluate potential studies for federal interest, particularly those benefiting economically disadvantaged communities, with a cap of 20 studies per year. The maximum cost for certain activities is increased and applies to any relevant funding provided, and the studies can proceed without a new decision after an initial federal interest determination.
Money References
- (2) in paragraph (2)— (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “and” at the end; (B) in subparagraph (B)— (i) by striking “$200,000” and inserting “$300,000”; and (ii) by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and (C) by adding at the end the following: “(C) shall be paid from the funding provided for the study in the applicable work plan described in that paragraph.”; (3) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following: “(4) TREATMENT.—The cost of a determination under paragraph (1) shall not be included for purposes of the maximum total cost under section 1001(a)(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c(a)(2)).”; and (4) by adding at the end the following: “(6) POST-DETERMINATION WORK.—A study under this section shall continue after a determination under paragraph (1)(B)(i) without a new investment decision.”. ---
1143. Watershed and river basin assessments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text amends Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to include new regions like the Walla Walla River Basin and the San Francisco Bay Basin for watershed and river basin assessments. It also authorizes the preparation of feasibility reports for water resource projects when requested by non-Federal interests, prioritizing areas in Hawaii and U.S. territories like the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.
1144. Control of aquatic plant growths and invasive species Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates an existing law to enhance the control of aquatic plant growths and invasive species by adding measures for monitoring and contingency planning. It also extends these measures to include the Connecticut River Basin along with the Ohio River Basin.
1145. Easements for hurricane and storm damage reduction projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines conditions under which the Secretary can certify real estate availability and proceed with hurricane and storm damage reduction projects using nonperpetual easements instead of perpetual ones, subject to compliance with specific agreements and notifications, especially if the easements expire without renewal. It also details the management of real estate interests, implementation measures for specific projects in Florida, and emphasizes that easements for these projects should not exceed the project's lifespan nor be less than 50 years.
1146. Systemwide improvement framework and encroachments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a law from 1941 to improve how flood control systems are maintained and repaired by allowing non-Federal entities to qualify for assistance even if they aren't fully compliant, as long as they have a proper improvement plan in coordination with the Secretary. It also specifies that certain existing structures within flood control areas, called "covered encroachments," won't need to be removed unless they threaten the integrity of the flood control work.
1147. Remote and subsistence harbors Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to specify that certain harbor projects must be located in specific U.S. states and territories, and that these projects should either primarily serve U.S. consumption or are crucial for the long-term sustainability of local communities. Additionally, it updates the criteria for evaluating project benefits.
1148. Treatment of projects in covered communities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines procedures for evaluating project feasibility in certain U.S. territories. The Secretary must consider alternative cost calculations to equitably compare these projects with those in the contiguous U.S., inform Congress if a project is discontinued for yielding an unfavorable benefit-cost ratio, and report the ratio comparisons for each project to Congress.
1149. Remote operations at Corps dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is allowed to use remote technology to operate navigation or hydroelectric power facilities at Corps of Engineers' projects for six years, starting when the law is enacted. This can only happen if they notify Congress that the remote operations don't interfere with certain existing activities, address security risks, and are necessary to improve the facility. Also, the plans for remote operations must be developed with input from affected personnel and stakeholders.
1150. Reporting and oversight Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section details reporting requirements and oversight measures related to water resources projects. It requires the Secretary to submit various reports and updates on specific water projects to Congress and make them publicly available. Additionally, it mandates the issuance of guidelines for certain provisions within a specified timeframe.
1151. Alternate seaports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress believes that it is crucial for national security to address the operation and maintenance needs of alternate seaports. Within one year of the Act's enactment, the Secretary must submit a report to specific congressional committees assessing the needs and backlog for Corps of Engineers projects at these seaports.
1152. Columbia River Basin Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Water Resources Development Act to allow the U.S. government, with Canada's agreement, to manage extra flood storage at Hugh Keenleyside Dam to reduce flood risks in the Columbia River Basin. It authorizes funding for this purpose through 2027 and includes a sunset clause for the authority, along with definitions for key terms used in the law.
Money References
- “(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To carry out this subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated $37,600,000 for fiscal year 2025 and $37,600,000, adjusted for inflation beginning on August 1, 2024, for each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027, to remain available until expended.
1153. Challenge cost-sharing program for management of recreation facilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendments to the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 allow non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit organizations to enter agreements with the Secretary to manage recreation facilities. These entities can collect and utilize user fees for facility and resource management while ensuring terms are met and damages covered, all under the Secretary's oversight.
1154. Retention of recreation fees Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section changes the rules about how the Army can collect and use recreation fees from visitors. It states that most of the money collected should be used for maintaining the parks where it was collected, as long as it follows the rules set by Congress.
1155. Sense of Congress related to water data Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress expresses the opinion that to better manage water resources, the Secretary should create a plan for sharing and using water data, identify important data for resource management, work with various groups to set national standards for data collection, make data easy to access, and adopt new technologies for data handling.
1156. Sense of Congress relating to comprehensive benefits Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress believes that when the Secretary carries out any feasibility study, they should follow certain guidelines and policies to document benefits fully. These guidelines, described in memos from April 2020 and January 2021, are signed by leaders in Civil Works.
1160. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that this part of the law can be referred to as the “Grace F. Napolitano Priority for Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency Act of 2024”.
1161. Declaration of policy Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the U.S. policy for the Corps of Engineers to maximize opportunities for water supply and conservation, work with states and local interests on water projects, and enable the adoption of drought resiliency measures, all while considering requests from non-Federal interests. It clarifies that this policy does not change existing state water management rights, water agreements, or authority of the Corps, nor does it affect any state water laws or existing agreements.
1162. Forecast-informed reservoir operations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to update water control manuals for certain reservoirs by using forecast-informed reservoir operations when possible, and to create guidelines for this process in cooperation with relevant agencies. Additionally, it mandates an assessment of various reservoirs to analyze the feasibility of using these operations, especially focusing on certain geographic areas, while ensuring no state water laws or existing legal agreements are overridden.
1163. Updates to certain water control manuals Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 8109 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 allows water control manuals to include methods that use forecast-informed reservoir operations.
1164. Emergency drought operations pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a pilot program allowing the Secretary of the Army to prioritize water supply operations during drought emergencies in certain projects in California, Nevada, and Arizona. It ensures that these operations adhere to existing water management plans, allows for collaboration with non-federal parties, and maintains compliance with federal and state environmental laws without altering existing agreements or state water laws.
1165. Leveraging Federal infrastructure for increased water supply Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 to allow the Secretary to receive and use funds from non-Federal entities or Federal agencies that own certain Federal reservoir projects. These funds may be used to create or update documents about how these reservoirs are managed, especially if they are used for flood control or navigation.
1201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies for various new projects and modifications related to water resources management across multiple states in the U.S. These projects address flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, navigation improvements, and coastal storm risk management, among other objectives, to enhance water resources development and conservation efforts.
1202. Expedited modification of existing feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the Secretary is to speed up the completion of certain feasibility studies and may proceed with project planning if the studies show the projects are justified. It specifies modifications to studies relating to Mare Island Strait, Savannah Harbor, Honolulu Harbor, Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico, and Saw Mill River to include additional benefits and expanded areas for evaluation.
1203. Expedited completion Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section directs the Secretary to speed up the completion of various feasibility studies, reports, projects, and other activities related to flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, navigation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and other purposes across different states in the United States, including special provisions for tribal partnership programs and watershed assessments. The Secretary is also tasked with prioritizing the prospectus for a facility in Portland, Oregon, and a disposition study for a lock and dam in Minnesota.
1204. Expedited completion of other feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to speed up the review and coordination of feasibility studies for four projects in Texas, which include channel deepening and navigation improvements at Cedar Port and Sabine-Neches Waterway, the La Quinta expansion, and flood control at Raymondville Drain. These studies are conducted under a specific section of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
1205. Corps of Engineers Reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Corps of Engineers Reports section mandates that the Secretary submit various reports to congressional committees within specified timeframes. These reports cover topics related to accessibility for people with disabilities at recreational areas, turbidity issues in Oregon's Willamette Valley reservoirs, security at the Soo Locks in Michigan, Florida's seagrass rehabilitation, shoreline use permits, relocation policies, vessel fuel efficiency, and infrastructure related to boat ramps, bridges, real estate interests, ice jam prevention, and overseas water projects. The section outlines detailed requirements for each report to analyze existing issues, assess current practices, and propose improvements or changes.
1206. Annual report on harbor maintenance needs and trust fund expenditures Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that each year, starting from the budget submission for fiscal year 2026, the Secretary of Transportation must submit a report to Congress detailing the costs, expenditures, and needs associated with maintaining harbors and inland harbors. The report should include the operation and maintenance costs, the allocations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and any cost savings from maintaining the harbors' engineered dimensions. The report must also be made publicly accessible.
1207. Craig Harbor, Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The U.S. government will cover the entire cost of completing a report to evaluate a navigation project at Craig Harbor, Alaska, which was previously authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
1208. Studies for modification of project purposes in the Colorado River Basin in Arizona Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is tasked with studying certain projects in Arizona's Colorado River Basin to decide if supplying water should be added as a project goal. This study can be requested by either a local non-Federal interest or the Governor of Arizona, and the Secretary must work with state and local authorities. If the study finds that adding water supply is necessary, the Secretary will recommend changes to Congress.
1209. Beaver Lake, Arkansas, reallocation study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to quickly finish a study about reallocating water supply storage at Beaver Lake in Arkansas. This study is for the Beaver Water District and follows the guidelines of a law from 1958 about water supply.
1210. Oceanside, California Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to quickly finish studying plans for beach restoration in Oceanside, California, as authorized by a previous law. If these plans are determined to be technically and environmentally suitable, they may proceed with detailed planning and engineering for the project.
1211. Delaware Inland Bays Watershed Study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section directs the Secretary to study ways to restore aquatic ecosystems in the Delaware Inland Bays watershed, with a focus on saltmarsh restoration, shoreline stabilization, and stormwater management. It also calls for consultation with various stakeholders and the use of existing data, while any recommended projects would need congressional authorization before proceeding.
1212. Sussex County, Delaware Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress acknowledges the importance of regularly replenishing Lewes Beach for the safety and economic health of Sussex County, Delaware. Additionally, the Secretary is directed to assess the Delaware Bay Coastline's needs and determine how existing laws apply to this project.
1213. J. Strom Thurmond Lake, Georgia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a plan for addressing property encroachments on J. Strom Thurmond Lake lands that are known to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It requires the creation of a detailed plan to assess impacts, explore alternatives, and estimate costs, with public input, while minimizing disruption to private landowners; the removal of encroachments will only occur with Congress's specific authorization.
1214. Algiers Canal Levees, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 changes the responsibilities regarding the West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, Louisiana Hurricane Protection Project. It specifies that all features of the project must be operated, maintained, repaired, replaced, and rehabilitated, rather than simply resuming such activities on the Algiers Canal Levees.
1215. Upper Barataria Basin and Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico Connection, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is tasked with assessing the possibility of linking two Louisiana projects designed for hurricane and storm damage protection: the Upper Barataria Basin Project and the Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico Project. This evaluation must be completed and the recommendations submitted to Congress within one year of the act's passage.
1216. Poor Farm Pond Dam, Worcester, Massachusetts Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is instructed to conduct a study on whether to deauthorize and potentially remove the Poor Farm Pond Dam in Worcester, Massachusetts, as part of a flood control effort. A report detailing the study's progress must be submitted to Congress within 18 months of the Act's enactment.
1217. New Jersey hot spot erosion mitigation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses a plan by the Secretary to study how certain areas in New Jersey’s coast, known as "hot spots," are eroding quickly. The aim is to find ways to protect these areas, like building structures or using natural features to slow the erosion, and to suggest changes to current projects to help manage storm risks better.
1218. New Jersey Shore protection, New Jersey Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary to propose solutions for restoring ecosystems while working on any study related to the New Jersey Shore protection directed by the 1987 resolution from the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
1219. Excess land report for certain projects in North Dakota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress within one year, identifying any real property at Lake Oahe, North Dakota, that is not needed for project purposes and could be transferred to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for recreation. If no such property is found, the report must explain why each considered property is necessary for the project and how it has been used recently.
1220. Allegheny River, Pennsylvania Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress believes that the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania is a valuable resource for recreation, environment, and navigation, and efforts to enhance its use need consistent operating hours at locks and dams. They emphasize maintaining these service levels until a study on navigation and ecosystem restoration is completed.
1221. Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency study, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is tasked with speeding up the completion of a study on the Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency in Texas. They must submit a report by December 31, 2025, which includes project recommendations that align with community goals, minimize negative environmental and community impacts, and enhance infrastructure resilience.
1222. Lake O’ the Pines, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to submit a report within one year to certain congressional committees. This report should explore possible exchanges of land or easements related to the Lake O’ the Pines project in Texas, ensuring that such exchanges align with the project's existing purposes. The section also defines the Lake O’ the Pines project as part of the broader flood control plan authorized by a previous law.
1223. Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that Congress wants the Secretary to speed up the completion of important documents related to the Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project in Texas. It explains that these documents include an environmental impact statement, a plan for managing dredged materials, and a possible report on changes after authorization, and highlights that if the project needs more approval, planning and design should start right away.
1224. Waco Lake, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is instructed to quickly review and consider a request from the City of Waco, Texas, to apply specific provisions from the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 to a dam area near Waco Lake.
1225. Coastal Washington Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is permitted to conduct studies on river and coastal flooding in Washington State, focusing on understanding flood risks and improving flood management. This includes analyzing sea level rise, identifying areas vulnerable to flooding, and recommending ways to protect communities, infrastructure, and resources.
1226. Kanawha River Basin Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Kanawha River Basin section of the bill updates the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 to specify that for certain projects or parts of projects in economically disadvantaged communities in West Virginia, the non-Federal portion of the project cost will be 10 percent. This is applicable to projects recommended after studies conducted by the Secretary.
1227. Upper Mississippi River System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with leading a study to find ways to reduce flood risks and improve flood resilience in the Upper Mississippi River area. This study will focus on making recommendations for managing floods, supporting navigation and environmental goals, and possibly changing laws, while working closely with relevant states, federal agencies, and local organizations.
1228. Briefing on status of certain activities on Missouri River Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary must brief two congressional committees about the consultation on the Missouri River's operations not later than 30 days after the consultation under the Endangered Species Act is completed. This briefing will cover any biological opinions from the consultation and any related funding requests.
1229. Ogallala Aquifer Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Secretary, along with federal and state agencies, to study water supply issues and aquifer conditions in areas above the Ogallala Aquifer. However, it specifies that this does not allow for studies or projects that would redirect water outside the Missouri River Basin.
1230. National Academy of Sciences study on Upper Rio Grande Basin Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section directs the Secretary to work with the National Academy of Sciences to study and report on how the Corps of Engineers manages dams and reservoirs in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. The report will include recommendations for improving operations to address challenges like droughts, and must be submitted to relevant congressional committees within two years.
1231. Upper Susquehanna River Basin comprehensive flood damage reduction feasibility study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with finishing a study focused on reducing flood damage in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin in New York, if a non-federal group requests it. This study should use information from a prior report from January 2020 and also reassess project benefits, particularly considering economically disadvantaged communities.
1232. Technical correction, Walla Walla River Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to specify projects for restoring the ecosystem in two areas: Nursery Reach in the Walla Walla River, Oregon, and Mill Creek in the Walla Walla River Basin, Washington.
1233. Dam safety assurance consideration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to quickly review and consider a request from the Federal power marketing administration to apply a specific part of the Water Resources Development Act to improve dam safety at the Garrison Dam in North Dakota and the Oahe Dam in South Dakota.
1234. Sea sparrow accounting Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to collaborate with various government agencies to count Cape Sable Seaside Sparrows in Florida every year and, as much as possible, for the five years before each count. Additionally, the Secretary must report the findings to specific congressional committees every year for ten years after the Act is enacted.
1235. Report on efforts to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the requirements for a report by the Secretary on efforts to address invasive species at water resource projects in the U.S. It specifies the need for an assessment, detailing statutory authorities, successful projects, the impact of invasive species, partnerships with local governments, and providing status updates and recommendations for legislative improvements.
1236. Deadline for previously required list of covered projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to give a list of water resource projects to the Comptroller General of the United States within 30 days after the new law is enacted, despite a previous deadline set in the Water Resources Development Act of 2022.
1237. Examination of reduction of microplastics Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section requires the Secretary, through the Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center, to report to Congress on ways to reduce microplastics released into the environment during the Corps of Engineers' projects. The report must review measures related to vessel sandblasting, explore natural solutions, and weigh the costs and benefits of implementing such measures.
1238. Post-disaster watershed assessment for impacted areas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to conduct post-disaster assessments of watersheds in areas affected by wildfires, specifically mentioning regions in Maui, Hawaii, and near Belen, New Mexico. A report on these assessments must be submitted to specified Congressional committees within 18 months of the Act's enactment.
1239. Study on land valuation procedures for the Tribal Partnership Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates a study to be completed within a year to analyze how real estate value is determined for projects under the Tribal Partnership Program. The results will be reported to Congress, evaluating current procedures, considering cultural factors, and suggesting any changes needed, including possible new legislation.
1240. Report to Congress on levee safety guidelines Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary, along with other federal agencies, to report to Congress about the levee safety guidelines established under a previous law. This report must cover the guidelines themselves, how they were developed, how widely they're used by various government entities, the voluntary nature of the guidelines, and any suggestions for updates.
1241. Public-private partnership user’s guide Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section directs the Secretary to create and share a guide within a year on how public-private partnerships can be used in water resources projects, covering relevant regulations, previous examples, roles, and potential benefits like faster funding. The Secretary can update an existing handbook to meet these requirements.
1242. Review of authorities and programs for alternative delivery methods Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary of the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study on alternative delivery methods for water resource projects, like public-private partnerships, and report findings to Congress within a year. The report should cover the current use of specific laws, challenges faced, benefits gained, and recommendations to improve these methods.
1243. Cooperation authority Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to include planning and design expertise in cooperation projects and increases the funding limit from $1,000,000 to $2,500,000.
Money References
- Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended— (1) in subsection (c), by inserting “, including the planning and design expertise,” after “expertise”; and (2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking “$1,000,000” and inserting “$2,500,000”. ---
1244. GAO studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section lays out a series of studies and reviews to be conducted by the Comptroller General. These include examining the accuracy of project cost estimates, analyzing indemnification clauses in project agreements, reviewing the permitting process under the section 408 program, assessing modernization opportunities for the Corps of Engineers, and evaluating various policies and initiatives related to water resource projects, disaster preparedness, environmental justice, and more. The findings and recommendations from these analyses aim to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and legal compliance in water resources development and related activities.
1301. Deauthorization of inactive projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act to outline a process for identifying and deauthorizing water projects that are no longer viable because of issues like lack of support or resources. It also details the steps for creating, consulting on, and finalizing a list of these projects to be submitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register, ensuring only projects that remain unfunded are included in the final list.
1302. Specific deauthorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines various deauthorizations of projects for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and additional studies regarding deauthorization impacting flood protection on the San Joaquin River in California. Specific projects and locations are listed with their deauthorization details, including dates, affected areas, and coordinates, if applicable.
1303. General reauthorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines updates to various projects and programs related to water resources, including increasing funding for certain projects, extending deadlines for invasive species control, and prioritizing projects in specific locations like California, Kentucky, and Vermont. It also includes amendments to timeframes and financial allocations for several ongoing pilot programs and safety initiatives under the Water Resources Development Act and related legislation.
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”.
1304. Environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, adding new projects and modifying existing ones for environmental infrastructure. It specifies the allocation of federal funds for water and wastewater infrastructure projects in numerous cities and regions across the United States, as well as adjustments to funding amounts for several projects initially established under previous legislation.
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: “(406) BUCKEYE, ARIZONA.—$12,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Buckeye, Arizona. “(407)
- FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for water reclamation, withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Flagstaff, Arizona.
- “(408) GLENDALE, ARIZONA.—$5,200,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Glendale, Arizona.
- “(409) PAGE, ARIZONA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Page, Arizona.
- “(410) SAHUARITA, ARIZONA.—$4,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the town of Sahuarita, Arizona.
- “(411) TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION, ARIZONA.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Tohono O’odham Nation, Arizona.
- “(412) TUCSON, ARIZONA.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water reclamation and recycled water systems), Tucson, Arizona.
- “(413) WINSLOW, ARIZONA.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Winslow, Arizona. “(414) ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Adelanto, California. “
- (415) APTOS, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Aptos, California.
- “(416) SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS, BAY-DELTA, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, San Francisco Bay–Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta watershed, California
- “(417) BISHOP, CALIFORNIA.—$2,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bishop, California.
- “(418) BLOOMINGTON, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Bloomington, California.
- “(419) 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.
- “(420) CALIFORNIA CITY, CALIFORNIA.—$1,902,808 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of California City, California.
- “(421) CARSON, CALIFORNIA.—$11,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the City of Carson, California.
- “(422) CEDAR GLEN, CALIFORNIA.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in Cedar Glen, California.
- “(423) CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in City of Culver City, California.
- “(424) COLTON, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Colton, California.
- “(425) 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.
- “(426) 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.
- “(427) 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.
- “(428) GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Grand Terrace, California.
- “(429) HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the city of Hayward, California.
- “(430) HOLLISTER, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Hollister, California. “(431) KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Kern County, California.
- “(432) LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake County, California.
- “(433) 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.
- “(434) LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of La Quinta, California.
- “(435) LAKEWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Lakewood, California.
- “(436) LAWNDALE, CALIFORNIA.—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lawndale, California.
- “(437) LONE PINE, CALIFORNIA.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Lone Pine, California.
- “(438) LOMITA, CALIFORNIA.—$5,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the city of Lomita, California.
- “(439) LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Los Banos, California.
- “(440) LOS OLIVOS, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Los Olivos, California.
- “(441) LYNWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$12,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Lynwood, California.
- “(442) MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$27,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Madera County, California.
- “(443) MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Milpitas, California
- “(444) MONTECITO, CALIFORNIA.—$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the town of Montecito, California.
- “(445) OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems and water quality enhancement, Oakland-Alameda Estuary, Oakland and Alameda Counties, California.
- “(446) 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.
- “(447) PATTERSON, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and environmental restoration, in the city of Patterson, California.
- “(448) POMONA, CALIFORNIA.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in Pomona, California.
- “(449) ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Rohnert Park, California.
- “(450) SALINAS, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Salinas, California.
- “(451) SAN BENITO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Benito County, California.
- “(452) SAN BUENAVENTURA, CALIFORNIA.—$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of San Buenaventura, California.
- “(453) SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Diego County, California.
- “(454) SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of South Gate, California.
- “(455) 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.
- “(456) STANISLAUS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Stanislaus County, California.
- “(457) TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Tijuana River Valley Watershed, California.
- “(458) 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.
- “(459) WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA.—$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Watsonville, California.
- “(460) YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Yolo County, California.
- “(461) YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.—$6,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in communities served by the Yorba Linda Water District, California.
- “(462) EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and stormwater management, El Paso County, Colorado.
- “(463) FREMONT COUNTY, COLORADO.—$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, in Fremont County, Colorado.
- “(464) EAST HAMPTON, CONNECTICUT.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Hampton, Connecticut.
- “(465) EAST LYME, CONNECTICUT.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Lyme, Connecticut.
- “(466) REHOBOTH BEACH, LEWES, DEWEY, BETHANY, SOUTH BETHANY, FENWICK ISLAND, DELAWARE.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Rehoboth Beach, Lewes, Dewey, Bethany, South Bethany, and Fenwick Island, Delaware.
- “(467) WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Wilmington, Delaware.
- “(468) PICKERING BEACH, KITTS HUMMOCK, BOWERS BEACH, SOUTH BOWERS BEACH, SLAUGHTER BEACH, PRIME HOOK BEACH, MILTON, MILFORD, DELAWARE.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pickering Beach, Kitts Hummock, Bowers Beach, South Bowers Beach, Slaughter Beach, Prime Hook Beach, Milton, and Milford, Delaware.
- “(469) 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. “(470) DELTONA, FLORIDA.—$31,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Deltona, Florida.
- “(471) LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Town of Longboat Key, Florida.
- “(472) MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including water supply, in Marion County, Florida.
- “(473) OVIEDO, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the city of Oviedo, Florida.
- “(474) OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, and environmental restoration, in Osceola County, Florida.
- “(475) CENTRAL FLORIDA.—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Brevard County, Orange County, and Osceola County, Florida.
- “(476) COASTAL GEORGIA, GEORGIA.—$50,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management and water supply), in Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, and McIntosh Counties, Georgia.
- “(477) MUSCOGEE, HENRY, AND CLAYTON COUNTIES, GEORGIA.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), Muscogee, Henry, and Clayton Counties, Georgia.
- “(478) COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Cobb County, Georgia.
- “(479) DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in DeKalb County, Georgia.
- “(480) PORTERDALE, GEORGIA.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and environmental restoration in the city of Porterdale, Georgia
- “(481) BURLEY, IDAHO.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water treatment, in the city of Burley, Idaho.
- “(482) BELVIDERE, ILLINOIS.—$17,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Belvidere, Illinois.
- “(483) CALUMET CITY, ILLINOIS.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Calumet City, Illinois.
- “(484) DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the village of Clarendon Hills, Illinois.
- “(485) 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.
- “(486) GERMAN VALLEY, ILLINOIS.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of German Valley, Illinois.
- “(487) 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.
- “(488) ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the city of Rockford, Illinois.
- “(489) SAVANNA, ILLINOIS.—$2,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including drinking water, in the city of Savanna, Illinois.
- “(490) SHERRARD, ILLINOIS.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of Sherrard, Illinois.
- “(491) WYANDOTTE COUNTY AND KANSAS CITY, KANSAS.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas.
- “(492) BROWNSVILLE, KENTUCKY.—$14,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Brownsville, Kentucky.
- “(493) MONROE, LOUISIANA.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and drinking water, in the city of Monroe, Louisiana.
- “(494) POINTE CELESTE, LOUISIANA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, in Pointe Celeste, Louisiana.
- “(495) EASTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater treatment plant outfalls), Easthampton, Massachusetts.
- “(496) FRANKLIN, MASSACHUSETTS.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Franklin, Massachusetts.
- “(497) NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, Hockanum Road, Northampton, Massachusetts.
- “(498) WINTHROP, MASSACHUSETTS.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Winthrop, Massachusetts.
- “(499) MILAN, MICHIGAN.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Milan, Michigan.
- “(500) 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.
- “(501) ELYSIAN, MINNESOTA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Elysian, Minnesota.
- “(502) LE SUEUR, MINNESOTA.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Le Sueur, Minnesota.
- “(503) BYRAM, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Byram, Mississippi.
- “(504) COLUMBIA, MISSISSIPPI.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water quality enhancement and water supply, in the city of Columbia, Mississippi.
- “(505) DIAMONDHEAD, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and drainage systems, Diamondhead, Mississippi.
- “(506) HANCOCK COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Hancock County, Mississippi.
- “(507) LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Laurel, Mississippi.
- “(508) MADISON, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Madison, Mississippi.
- “(509) MOSS POINT, MISSISSIPPI.—$11,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Moss Point, Mississippi.
- “(510) 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.
- “(511) PEARL, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Pearl, Mississippi.
- “(512) PICAYUNE, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Picayune, Mississippi.
- “(513) 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.
- “(514) LAUGHLIN, NEVADA.—$29,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Laughlin, Nevada.
- “(515) NYE COUNTY, NEVADA.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water wellfield and pipeline in the Pahrump Valley), Nye County, Nevada.
- “(516) PAHRUMP, NEVADA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Pahrump, Nevada. “(517) STOREY COUNTY, NEVADA.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Storey County, Nevada.
- “(518) NEW HAMPSHIRE.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, New Hampshire.
- “(519) BELMAR, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management in Belmar Township, New Jersey.
- “(520) CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—$40,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, desalination, and facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Cape May County, New Jersey.
- “(521) COLESVILLE, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Colesville, New Jersey.
- “(522) DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Deptford Township, New Jersey.
- “(523) LACEY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management, in Lacey Township, New Jersey.
- “(524) MERCHANTVILLE, NEW JERSEY.—$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Merchantville, New Jersey.
- “(525) PARK RIDGE, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Park Ridge, New Jersey.
- “(526) WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey.
- “(527) BERNALILLO, NEW MEXICO.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bernalillo, New Mexico.
- “(528) BOSQUE FARMS, NEW MEXICO.—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Bosque Farms, New Mexico.
- “(529) CARMEL, NEW YORK.—$3,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Carmel, New York.
- “(530) DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Dutchess County, New York.
- “(531) KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Kings County, New York.
- “(532) 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.
- “(533) MOUNT PLEASANT, NEW YORK.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, New York.
- “(534) NEW ROCHELLE, NEW YORK.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), New Rochelle, New York.
- “(535) 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.
- “(536) 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.
- “(537) ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orange County, New York.
- “(538) SLEEPY HOLLOW, NEW YORK.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Sleepy Hollow, New York.
- “(539) ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Ulster County, New York.
- “(540) RAMAPO, NEW YORK.—$4,000,000 for water infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the town of Ramapo, New York.
- “(541) RIKERS ISLAND, NEW YORK.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) on Rikers Island, New York.
- “(542) YORKTOWN, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Yorktown, New York.
- “(543) CANTON, NORTH CAROLINA.—$41,025,650 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Canton, North Carolina.
- “(544) FAIRMONT, NORTH CAROLINA.—$7,137,500 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the town of Fairmont, North Carolina.
- “(545) MURPHY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$1,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Murphy, North Carolina.
- “(546) ROBBINSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$3,474,350 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Robbinsville, North Carolina.
- “(547) WEAVERVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Weaverville, North Carolina.
- “(548) CITY OF AKRON, OHIO.—$5,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including drainage systems), City of Akron, Ohio.
- “(549) APPLE CREEK, OHIO.—$350,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Apple Creek, Ohio.
- “(550) ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply and water quality enhancement), Ashtabula County, Ohio.
- “(551) BLOOMINGBURG, OHIO.—$6,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Bloomingburg, Ohio.
- “(552) BROOKLYN HEIGHTS, OHIO.—$170,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Brooklyn Heights, Ohio.
- “(553) 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.
- “(554) CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO.—$11,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including combined sewer overflows), Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
- “(555) EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO.—$13,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), East Cleveland, Ohio.
- “(556) ERIE COUNTY, OHIO.—$16,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) in Erie County, Ohio.
- “(557) HURON, OHIO.—$7,100,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Huron, Ohio.
- “(558) KELLEYS ISLAND, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Kelleys Island, Ohio.
- “(559) NORTH OLMSTED, OHIO.—$1,175,165 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of North Olmsted, Ohio.
- “(560) PAINESVILLE, OHIO.—$11,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City of Painesville, Ohio.
- “(561) SOLON, OHIO.—$14,137,341 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Solon, Ohio.
- “(562) SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Summit County, Ohio.
- “(563) STARK COUNTY, OHIO.—$24,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Stark County, Ohio.
- “(564) STRUTHERS, OHIO.—$500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater infrastructure, stormwater management, and sewer improvements), Struthers, Ohio.
- “(565) TOLEDO AND OREGON, OHIO.—$10,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the cities of Toledo and Oregon, Ohio.
- “(566) VERMILION, OHIO.—$15,400,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Vermilion, Ohio.
- “(567) WESTLAKE, OHIO.—$750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Westlake, Ohio.
- “(568) STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure (including facilities for water storage, withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), in the city of Stillwater, Oklahoma.
- “(569) BEAVERTON, OREGON.—$10,000,000 for water supply in the city of Beaverton, Oregon.
- “(570) CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including combined sewer overflows, in Clackamas County, Oregon.
- “(571) WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON.—$50,000,000 for water infrastructure and water supply in Washington County, Oregon.
- “(572) PENNSYLVANIA.—$38,600,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pennsylvania.
- “(573) 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.
- “(574) 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.
- “(575) FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania.
- “(576) INDIAN CREEK, PENNSYLVANIA.—$50,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the boroughs of Telford, Franconia, and Lower Safford, Pennsylvania.
- “(577) PEN ARGYL, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania.
- “(578) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure and other environmental infrastructure (including stormwater management), Chesterfield County, South Carolina.
- “(579) CHERAW, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$8,800,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure in the town of Cheraw, South Carolina.
- “(580) FLORENCE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Florence County, South Carolina.
- “(581) LAKE CITY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management in the city of Lake City, South Carolina.
- “(582) TIPTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure, including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution, Tipton County, Tennessee.
- “(583) 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.
- “(584) AUSTIN, TEXAS.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Austin, Texas.
- “(585) 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.
- “(586) BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of Brownsville, Texas.
- “(587) CLARENDON, TEXAS.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water storage, in the city of Clarendon, Texas.
- “(588) QUINLAN, TEXAS.—$1,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Quinlan, Texas
- “(589) 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.
- “(590) WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply in Webb County, Texas.
- “(591) ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Zapata County, Texas.
- “(592) KING WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA.—$1,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in King William County, Virginia.
- “(593) POTOMAC RIVER, VIRGINIA.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, environmental infrastructure, and water quality improvements, in the vicinity of the Potomac River, Virginia.
- “(594) CHELAN, WASHINGTON.—$9,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, storage, and distribution, in the city of Chelan, Washington.
- “(595) COLLEGE PLACE, WASHINGTON.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, in the city of College Place, Washington.
- “(596) FERNDALE, WASHINGTON.—$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Ferndale, Washington.
- “(597) LYNDEN, WASHINGTON.—$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lynden, Washington. “(598) OTHELLO, WASHINGTON.—$14,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, storage, and treatment, and aquifer storage and recovery), in the city of Othello, Washington.”. (b) Project modifications.
- — (A) ALABAMA.—Section 219(f)(274) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$85,000,000”.
- (B) 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”.
- (C) 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”.
- (D) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 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) in the paragraph heading, by striking “water district” and inserting “county”; (ii) by inserting “$80,000,000, of which not less than” before “$23,000,000”; (iii) by inserting “shall be” after “$23,000,000”; and (iv) 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”. (E) 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”. (F) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.—Section 8319 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3785) is amended— (i) in subsection (d)(3), by adding at the end the following: “(E) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 90 percent.”; and (ii) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”. (G) 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”.
- (H) SAN BERNARDINO 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”.
- (I) 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”.
- (J) KENT, DELAWARE.—Section 219(f)(313) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.
- (K) NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE.—Section 219(f)(314) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.
- (L) SUSSEX, DELAWARE.—Section 219(f)(315) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.
- (M) 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”.
- (N) 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”.
- (O) 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”.
- (P) 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”.
- (Q) 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”.
- (R) 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”.
- (S) 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”.
- (T) 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 management)” after “wastewater assistance”; and (ii) by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$150,000,000”. (U) 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”. (V) WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(334) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by striking “$30,000,000” and inserting “$36,000,000”.
- (W) BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.—Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 121 Stat. 1226; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “$90,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.
- (X) EAST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND AMITE RIVER BASIN REGION, LOUISIANA.—Section 5082(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1226) is amended by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$45,000,000”.
- (Y) 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”.
- (Z) 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”.
- (AA) 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”.
- (BB) FITCHBURG, MASSACHUSETTS.—Section 219(f)(336) 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”.
- (CC) 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”.
- (DD) 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”.
- (EE) 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”.
- (FF) 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”.
- (GG) 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”.
- (HH) MICHIGAN.—Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4825; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262; 136 Stat. 3818) 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”. (II) 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”.
- (JJ) 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”.
- (KK) JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(167) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1263; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “$125,000,000” and inserting “$139,000,000”.
- (LL) MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(351) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$24,000,000”.
- (MM) MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(352) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$26,000,000”.
- (NN) RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(354) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$24,000,000”.
- (PP) 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”.
- (QQ) 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”.
- (RR) 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”.
- (SS) 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”.
- (TT) 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”.
- (VV) 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”.
- (WW) 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”.
- (XX) 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”.
- (YY) 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”.
- (ZZ) 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”.
- (AAA) 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,”. (BBB) 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”.
- (CCC) NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking “$20,000,000 for water related infrastructure” and inserting “$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply”.
- (DDD) PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 219(f)(243) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended— (i) by striking “$1,600,000” and inserting “$3,000,000”; and (ii) by inserting “water supply and” before “wastewater”. (EEE)
- 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”.
- is amended by striking “$165,000,000” and inserting “$235,000,000”.
- (GGG) 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”.
- (HHH) 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”.
- (III) 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”.
- (JJJ) 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”.
- (KKK) WESTERN RURAL WATER.—Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681; 134 Stat. 2719; 136 Stat. 3822) is amended— (i) in subsection (a)— (I) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; and (II) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) the following: “(1) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The term ‘non-Federal interest’ includes an entity declared to be a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico.”; (ii) 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 (iii) 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”. (LLL) 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”.
1305. Environmental infrastructure pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes an environmental infrastructure pilot program for projects in economically disadvantaged communities, allowing the federal government to cover up to 90% of the project costs, as long as the total increased federal contribution does not surpass $10 million per year. This authority will end 7 years after the enactment of the law.
Money References
- (b) Limitation.—The total amount expended for an increased Federal share for all projects under subsection (a) shall not exceed $10,000,000 for each fiscal year.
1306. Conveyances Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary to give or sell specific pieces of U.S. government property to various local entities with certain conditions. These include land and infrastructure for public use in Los Angeles, California; Indiana; and Washington and include terms like the possibility of the land reverting back to the U.S. if not used as intended. Additionally, the section involves technical corrections to a previous legislative act.
1307. Selma, Alabama Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section specifies that the federal government will cover the entire cost of the flood risk management and bank stabilization project in Selma, Alabama, as authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2022.
1308. Barrow, Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows Barrow, Alaska, to proceed with a coastal erosion project if the North Slope Borough adopts a floodplain management plan that meets certain criteria. This plan must be developed with the help of the Secretary and FEMA, following specific guidelines, and has to be approved by the Secretary to ensure that the area is protected from flood impacts.
1309. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section changes the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 by increasing a specified number from “20” to “25” in the section related to the Lowell Creek Tunnel in Alaska.
1310. San Francisco Bay, California Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 broadens the Secretary's responsibilities regarding shoreline management in San Francisco Bay and Contra Costa and Solano Counties. It requires the Secretary to explore ways to adapt to rising sea levels, consider the needs of disadvantaged communities, use natural solutions when possible, and evaluate the impacts of flood protection and environmental infrastructure on the local economy and ecosystems.
1311. Santa Ana River Mainstem, California Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the flood control project for the Santa Ana River Mainstem, including Santiago Creek, by making the Santiago Creek Channel a separate part of the project and restricting construction to minimize damage to trees. It also mandates a report within 90 days to update on the project's progress and land-related issues.
1312. Colebrook River Reservoir, Connecticut Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that if the Metropolitan District of Hartford County, Connecticut, requests to end their contract about the Colebrook River Reservoir, the U.S. Secretary must offer to amend the contract within 90 days to cancel Hartford's rights to use the reservoir's water storage space. Once the amendment is signed, Hartford will no longer need to pay for their share of the reservoir's operating, replacement, and rehabilitation costs.
1313. Faulkner Island, Connecticut Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 527 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 increases the authorized funding for Faulkner Island, Connecticut, from $4,500,000 to $8,000,000.
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”.
1314. Northern estuaries ecosystem restoration, Florida Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 states that the federal government will cover 90% of the costs involved in a project related to the restoration of northern estuaries in Florida.
1315. New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia and South Carolina Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 modifies the project involving the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam to include full repairs and modifications to keep the water level stable, the construction of a fish passage without removing the dam, and the transfer of nearby parkland to Augusta-Richmond County. It also sets a spending limit for the Georgia Ports Authority on construction costs linked to these modifications.
1316. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that after the construction of the ecosystem restoration project at Brandon Road, Illinois, is completed, the federal government will cover 90% of the project's operation and maintenance costs for ten years, starting from when federal funds are first allocated for these expenses.
1317. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a requirement for the Secretary to study the Larose to Golden Meadow project in Louisiana by June 30, 2025, assessing modifications, risks, and necessary improvements, and then report findings and recommendations to Congress. Additionally, it defines the project as authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965 and allocates $3,000,000 for this purpose.
Money References
- (2) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after completing the study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that includes— (A) the results of the study; (B) a recommendation for a pathway into a systemwide improvement plan created pursuant to section 5(c)(2) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(c)) (as amended by this Act); and (C) recommendations for improvement to the covered project to address any deficiencies. (b) Covered project defined.—In this section, the term “covered project” means the Larose to Golden Meadow project, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965 as the Grand Isle and vicinity project. (c) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000. ---
1318. Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is amended to allow the Secretary of the Army to credit the non-Federal share of costs for the Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico project in Louisiana. This credit applies to costs from interim flood protection work done by local interests after March 31, 1989, as long as the work is essential to the project, followed Federal laws and policies at the time, and meets certain other requirements.
1319. Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the procedures for modifying the Port Fourchon project in Louisiana, detailing how a feasibility study can be requested, and establishing timelines and conditions for the necessary analyses and reviews by the Secretary. It also specifies what actions the Secretary must take if additional information is needed or if more time is required due to unforeseen circumstances.
1320. Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, Minneapolis, Minnesota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 to add a new paragraph, which instructs the Secretary to minimize the land needed for easements near the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam in Minneapolis by exploring options like using crane barges on the Mississippi River.
1321. Missouri River levee system, Missouri Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act increases the funding for the Missouri River levee system from $7 million to $65 million.
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”.
1322. Stockton Lake, Missouri Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section requires the Secretary to reallocate water storage at Stockton Lake, Missouri, and establish a water storage agreement with the Southwest Missouri Joint Municipal Water Utility Commission, implementing specific conditions for costs and usage timelines for two storage spaces. It ensures that any losses to Federal hydropower are compensated, prohibits increased payments from water users due to required reimbursements, and clarifies that the Secretary's authority remains unaffected by these provisions.
1323. Table Rock Lake, Missouri and Arkansas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines guidelines for allowing eligible structures, such as homes, to remain at the Table Rock Lake project unless they are abandoned or fail. It defines key terms like "abandonment," "eligible structure," "fee land," and "Table Rock Lake Project" to clarify who and what is affected by these rules.
1324. Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Rivers, New York Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the cost for certain flood risk management features in the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Rivers project in New York will be shared with a 10 percent contribution from non-Federal sources, benefiting an economically disadvantaged community as defined by specific U.S. law.
1325. Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary, as long as funding is available, to include the cost of replacing a Cutter Suction Dredge as part of the overall operating costs for maintaining the Columbia River Channel project in Oregon and Washington. This agreement must be made between the Secretary and the non-Federal partner involved in the project.
1326. Willamette Valley, Oregon Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is prohibited from completing the review and consultation on the operation and maintenance of certain flood control and navigation projects in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, until an analysis is done on stopping hydropower operations at these projects, even though hydropower is currently an authorized purpose.
1327. Chambers, Galveston, and Harris counties, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is directed to review certain lands and easements related to the Houston Ship Channel and convey or release them to the Port of Houston Authority if they are no longer needed, ensuring the conveyance doesn't interfere with federal navigation projects. The Port of Houston Authority must cover all related costs, and the agreement will include terms to protect U.S. interests and waive certain property screening requirements.
1328. Matagorda Ship Channel, Port Lavaca, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Federal government will cover 90% of the costs for planning, design, and construction related to fixing issues identified in the 2020 Matagorda Ship Channel Project Deficiency Report for the Matagorda Ship Channel in Port Lavaca, Texas, which was originally authorized by the 1958 River and Harbor Act.
1329. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The San Antonio Channel Improvement project for flood control in Texas, originally authorized in 1954, has been modified to proceed based on Alternative 7 as outlined in the 2014 report and environmental assessment. The Secretary is mandated to carry out this project following these updated guidelines.
1330. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 1330 amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to allow for a reduced cost share of 10% for critical restoration projects that benefit economically disadvantaged communities in the Lake Champlain Watershed in Vermont and New York.
1331. Ediz Hook Beach Erosion Control Project, Port Angeles, Washington Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The cost sharing for maintaining the Ediz Hook Beach Erosion Control Project in Port Angeles, Washington, is set to follow the guidelines established by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. This project was originally authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1974.
1332. Western Washington State, Washington Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is allowed to create a program that helps with environmental projects related to water in several counties in Washington State, offering support like design and construction for infrastructure that is publicly owned. The funding covers 75% of most project costs and 90% for economically disadvantaged communities, with a limit set for the total money that can be spent on these projects.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated $242,000,000 to carry out this section.
1333. Storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, riverine erosion, and ice and glacial damage, Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to include riverine erosion in addition to coastal erosion and other types of damages in Alaska. It also updates the tables of contents in two acts to reflect this change.
1334. Chattahoochee River Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 1334 of the bill amends the Chattahoochee River Program by changing the term "comprehensive plan" to "plans" throughout, extending the timeline to prepare implementation plans from 2 to 4 years, and extending the timeline in subsection (j) from 3 to 5 years.
1335. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 1335 of the bill updates the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by increasing the funding limit for the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program from $100 million to $120 million.
Money References
- is amended, in the second sentence, by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$120,000,000”.
1336. Delaware Coastal System Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The "Delaware Coastal System Program" aims to manage various projects that reduce storm risks and protect the coastline in Delaware, improving safety and boosting economic growth. The program emphasizes a coordinated approach and includes six specific projects across Delaware, with the federal government covering 80% of the costs for most of them.
1337. Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast Coastal Storm Risk Management Study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a study called the Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast Coastal Storm Risk Management Study. It aims to help economically disadvantaged communities by ensuring they pay only 10% of the costs for this study or related projects, but it cannot be used for ongoing beachfill projects along the Atlantic Coast.
1338. Hawaii environmental restoration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to include "coastal storm risk management" along with environmental restoration and adds "Hawaii" to the existing list of locations, which includes Guam.
1339. Illinois River basin restoration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 by changing the year specified in Section 519(c)(2) from "2010" to "2029," extending the timeframe for the Illinois River basin restoration project.
1340. Kentucky and West Virginia environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to set up a program to help Kentucky and West Virginia with environmental projects, focusing on water-related infrastructure and resource development. The program, which has a $75 million budget, mandates that projects must be publicly owned, include cost-sharing agreements with non-Federal partners, and are subject to specific terms regarding local cooperation, funding distribution, and the federal cost percentage, with the Corps of Engineers using up to 10% of the budget for administrative expenses.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 to carry out this section, to be divided between the States described in subsection (a).
1341. Missouri River mitigation, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the Secretary's guidelines for acquiring land in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska for a project to mitigate environmental impacts along the Missouri River. It specifies that land can only be purchased with approval from the state's Governor, not through eminent domain, and details the sources and criteria for what qualifies as "covered land" for this environmental project.
1342. New York emergency shore restoration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Secretary to repair or restore hurricane and storm damage structures or public beaches in certain areas of New York if damaged by a Nor’easter, without needing to prove national economic benefits. Repairs cannot extend beyond the beach's natural profile and the authority to repair public beaches will expire 10 years after the law is enacted.
1343. New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, New York and New Jersey Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the modifications for a study on flood and storm damage reduction in the New York and New Jersey Harbor area, emphasizing the inclusion of ecological and societal benefits. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to carry out recommended projects if they fit certain criteria and must consult with relevant agencies, gather public input, and report progress to Congress within three years, all while ensuring ongoing activities are not delayed.
1344. Southeastern North Carolina environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text establishes a program by the Secretary to help with environmental projects in Southeastern North Carolina, such as improving water infrastructure and protecting resources, with a Federal cost share of 75% typically, but 90% for economically disadvantaged areas. The assistance is contingent on projects being publicly owned, and various credits and agreements are detailed to ensure proper implementation and maintenance.
Money References
- (2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following: (A) Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. (B) Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest. (f) Credit for interest.—In case of a delay in the funding of the Federal share of a project under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost. (g) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. (h) Operation and maintenance.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent. (i) Authorization of appropriations.— (1) There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section; and (2) Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers to administer projects under this section. (j) Southeastern north carolina defined.—Southeastern North Carolina includes the North Carolina counties of Duplin, Sampson, Robeson, Bladen, Columbus, Scotland, Hoke, Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender, and Cumberland. ---
1345. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The document describes a program that allows for financial assistance to be provided to create publicly owned systems to treat pollution from abandoned mines in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The program covers most of the costs for designing and building these systems but not for operating them long-term, and it prioritizes projects that clean up multiple pollution sources or have wide-reaching impact.
Money References
- (i) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000, to remain available until expended. ---
1346. 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 to focus on improving flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction in the Western Lake Erie basin area across Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. It updates guidelines for how new studies should be treated and confirms that projects resulting from these studies can be implemented according to specific provisions.
1347. Ohio and North Dakota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 specifies that for most projects, the Federal government will cover a portion of the costs, but in economically disadvantaged communities, the local government only needs to pay 10% of the project costs. Additionally, the amendment increases the available funding from $250 million to $300 million.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 382; 119 Stat. 2261; 121 Stat. 1140; 121 Stat. 1944; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended— (1) in subsection (d)(3)(A)— (A) by striking “In general” and inserting “Project costs”; (B) by striking “The Federal share of” and inserting the following: “(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (iii), the Federal share of”; (C) by striking “The Federal share may” and inserting the following: “(ii) FORM.—The Federal share may”; and (D) by adding at the end the following: “(iii) EXCEPTION.—The non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 10 percent.”; and (2) in subsection (h) by striking “$250,000,000” and inserting “$300,000,000”. ---
1348. Oregon environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a program that allows the Secretary to provide environmental assistance for water-related projects in Oregon, requiring projects to be publicly owned and involving partnership agreements with cost-sharing provisions. A total of $40 million is authorized for this purpose, with specific guidelines on cost-sharing and credit for non-Federal contributions.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 to carry out this section.
1349. Pennsylvania environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is allowed to create a program to help Pennsylvania with water-related environmental projects, like wastewater treatment, as long as they are publicly owned. The projects will have a cost-sharing arrangement where the federal government covers 75% of the costs, and there are measures in place to credit the state for certain project contributions. Up to $25 million is authorized for the program, with no more than 10% used for administrative expenses by the Corps of Engineers.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.
1350. Washington Aqueduct Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 updates the language by including "Water and Sewer Authority" after "District of Columbia" and replacing "Fairfax County" with "the Fairfax County Water Authority."
1351. 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 90% of the cost for a study on water supply for Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia. It also clarifies that existing agreements about this study won't change until a new agreement is made under this section.
1352. Northern West Virginia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 include changing the Federal share of project costs to 90% for projects in economically disadvantaged communities and increasing the funding limit from $120 million to $150 million. Additionally, it involves the removal and redesignation of certain subsections.
Money References
- Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371; 121 Stat. 1257; 136 Stat. 3807) is amended— (1) in subsection (e)(3)— (A) in subparagraph (A), in the first sentence, by striking “The Federal share” and inserting “Except as provided in subparagraph (F), the Federal share”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “(F) EXCEPTION.—In the case of a project benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), the Federal share of the project costs under the applicable local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 90 percent.”; (2) by striking subsection (g); (3) by redesignating subsections (h), (i), and (j) as sections (g), (h), and (i), respectively; and (4) in subsection (g) (as so redesignated), by striking “$120,000,000” and inserting “$150,000,000”. ---
1353. Southern West Virginia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section from the Water Resources Development Act makes several changes, including increasing the federal government's share of project costs to 90% for projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities, as defined by the Secretary. It also raises the total funding for these projects from $140 million to $170 million and eliminates one subsection while renumbering others.
Money References
- Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 136 Stat. 3807) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(3)— (A) in the first sentence, by striking “Total project costs” and inserting the following: “(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), total project costs”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “(B) EXCEPTION.—In the case of a project benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), the Federal share of the total project costs under the applicable local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 90 percent. “(C) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the total project costs under this paragraph may be provided in the same form as described in section 571(e)(3)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371).”; (2) by striking subsection (e); (3) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) as subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and (4) in subsection (f) (as so redesignated), in the first sentence, by striking “$140,000,000” and inserting “$170,000,000”. ---
1354. Upper Mississippi River restoration program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the funding details for the Upper Mississippi River restoration program, specifying that from fiscal years 1999 through 2024, the funding continues as planned, and sets a new funding amount of $25 million for fiscal year 2025 and each year after that.
Money References
- SEC. 1354.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 “fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter” and inserting “each of fiscal years 1999 through 2024, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year thereafter”.
1355. Acequias irrigation systems Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to establish that the Federal government will cover 100% of the pre-design planning costs for acequias irrigation systems, and it increases the funding limit 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) PRE-DESIGN PLANNING COSTS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Federal share of pre-design planning costs under this section shall be 100 percent.”; and (2) in subsection (e), by striking “$80,000,000” and inserting “$90,000,000”. ---
1356. Additional projects for underserved community harbors Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to include ecosystem restoration in its projects and outlines new-supported areas like harbors serving island communities and marinas near federal navigation projects. It extends authorization deadlines from 2026 to 2029 and allows for up to 10 projects at underserved community harbors that are marinas or berthing areas.
1357. Bosque wildlife restoration project Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Bosque wildlife restoration project requires the Secretary to create a program for wildfire prevention and restoration in the Middle Rio Grande Bosque, which includes removing jetty jacks. Typically, non-Federal funding for these projects must follow specific guidelines, but economically disadvantaged communities only need to cover 10% of the costs. Additionally, a previous related act is repealed, though this new program is a continuation of it.
1358. Coastal community flood control and other purposes Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 changes the terms of funding agreements related to flood control projects. It updates how payments are made and repaid, allows non-Federal interests to apply excess credits to other projects, and requires agreements to reflect these changes.
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:
1359. Congressional notification of deferred payment agreement request Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by requiring the Secretary to report to specific Congressional committees about the status of requests for renegotiating payment terms made by non-Federal interests. It suggests that Congress believes the Secretary should respond to these requests promptly.
1360. Contracts for water supply Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the bill, changes are made to how water storage costs are calculated. For Copan Lake in Oklahoma, the cost per acre-foot of storage is adjusted to match the most recent agreement rate. For the State of Kansas, contracts are amended to switch from compounding interest to simple interest on water storage investments until Kansas is ready to use the storage and pay the full amount owed.
1361. Expenses for control of aquatic plant growths and invasive species Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 1361 of the bill changes the existing law regarding the financial responsibility for controlling aquatic plant growths and invasive species. It amends the River and Harbor Act of 1958 to reduce the federal government's cost-sharing requirement from 50% to 35%.
1362. Hopper dredge McFarland replacement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If the Secretary decides to replace the hopper dredge McFarland, they must keep the new dredge in reserve, regularly test it, and consult with stakeholders to use it for emergency work or if private companies fail to meet bidding or project requirements.
1363. Lakes program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by amending a list to include five new lakes: East Lake Tohopekaliga in Florida, Dillon Lake in Ohio, Hillcrest Pond in Pennsylvania, Falcon Lake in Texas, and Lake Casa Blanca in Texas.
1364. Maintenance of navigation channels Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 by adding several new navigation channels to those requiring maintenance, including channels in Maryland, the United States Virgin Islands, Tennessee, Florida, and Washington.
1365. Maintenance of pile dike system Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to maintain the pile dike system, which was built by the Corps of Engineers to help with navigation on the Lower Columbia and Willamette Rivers in Washington, and this maintenance will be funded by the federal government.
1366. Navigation along the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with working together with local communities and stakeholders in Alabama and Mississippi to manage dredging needs and ensure smooth navigation on the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway, especially at the locks and dams maintained by the Corps of Engineers.
1367. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to Section 1177 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 change the cost-sharing rules for dam rehabilitation projects, stating that the non-Federal share will match the initial construction costs, update the fiscal years for project authorizations from 2026 to 2030, and allow the Secretary to exceed a $60 million Federal cost limit only with Congress's specific authorization.
Money References
- Section 1177 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 467f–2 note) is amended— (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: “(c) Cost sharing.—The non-Federal share of the cost of a project for rehabilitation of a dam under this section, including the cost of any required study, shall be the same share assigned to the non-Federal interest for the cost of initial construction of that dam, including provision of all land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations.”; (2) 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.”
1368. Soil moisture and snowpack monitoring Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 511(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 has been changed to extend the deadline from 2025 to 2029. This section deals with soil moisture and snowpack monitoring.
1369. Waiver of non-Federal share of damages related to certain contract claims Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section changes the deadline in the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, allowing certain damages claims involving federal contracts to waive the non-federal share until 2027 instead of 2022.
1370. Wilson Lock floating guide wall Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to provide technical support, including engineering and cost estimation, to a federal entity when requested, in order to help manage navigation impacts on the Tennessee River at Wilson Lock and Dam, Alabama.
1371. Sense of Congress relating to Mobile Harbor, Alabama Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section expresses Congress's view that the Secretary should work with stakeholders in Alabama to manage the dredging needs for the Theodore Ship Channel at Mobile Harbor, as authorized by past legislation, to ensure navigation projects are completed efficiently.
1372. Sense of Congress relating to shallow draft dredging in the Chesapeake Bay Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress expresses the view that dredging in the Chesapeake Bay is essential for tourism, recreation, and fishing, and urges the Secretary to use existing authorities as much as possible to meet the dredging needs of small harbors and channels in the area.
1373. Sense of Congress relating to Missouri River priorities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress believes that the Secretary should share important information and decisions made by the Corps of Engineers about civil works projects along the Missouri River, to keep the local communities informed and ensure transparency.
1401. Project authorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes various projects focused on water resources development and conservation, including navigation improvements, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and other modifications. Each project, identified in detailed reports or reviewed by Congress, is carried out under the supervision of the Secretary, with specific funding estimated from federal and non-federal sources.
Money References
- AKAkutan Harbor Navigational Improvements, AkutanJuly 17, 2024Federal: $70,898,000Non-Federal: $1,749,000
- Total: $72,647,0002.
- CAOakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening, OaklandMay 30, 2024Federal: $432,232,000Non-Federal: $210,298,000Total: $642,530,0003.
- FLTampa Harbor, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, Deep Draft NavigationAugust 14, 2024Federal: $520,420,000Non-Federal: $627,840,000Total: $1,148,260,0004.
- MDBaltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Modification of Seagirt Loop Channel, City of Baltimore, Deep Draft NavigationJune 22, 2023Federal: $53,765,250Non-Federal: $17,921,750Total: $71,687,000 (2) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—A. StateB. NameC.
- DC, VAMetropolitan Washington, District of Columbia, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementJune 17, 2024Federal: $10,160,800Non-Federal: $5,471,200Total: $15,632,0002.
- FLSt. Johns County, Ponte Vedra Beach Coastal Storm Risk ManagementApril 18, 2024Federal: $50,449,000Non-Federal: $91,317,000Total: $141,766,0003.
- FLMiami-Dade Back Bay, Miami-Dade County, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementAugust 26, 2024Federal: $1,756,000,000Non-Federal: $945,000,000 Total: $2,701,000,0004.
- MDBaltimore Metropolitan, Baltimore City, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementAugust 5, 2024Federal: $51,439,700Non-Federal: $27,698,300Total: $79,138,0005.
- NYSouth Shore Staten Island, Fort Wadsworth to Oakwood Beach, Richmond County, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementFebruary 6, 2024Federal: $1,775,600,000Non
- -Federal: $368,200,000Total: $2,143,800,0006.
- PRPuerto Rico, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementJuly 30, 2024Federal: $99,570,000Non-Federal: $159,010,000Total: $258,580,0007.
- RIRhode Island Coastline, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementSeptember 28, 2023Federal: $216,690,500Non-Federal: $116,679,500Total: $333,370,000 (3) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—A. StateB. NameC.
- Date of Report of Chief of EngineersD. Estimated Costs1. LASt. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Coastal Storm and Flood Risk ManagementMay 28, 2024Federal: $3,706,814,000Non-Federal: $2,273,679,000Total: $5,980,493,000
- June 2, 2023Total: $322,761,000 (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 CountyDecember 18, 2023Federal: $17,380,000Non-Federal: $9,358,000Total: $26,738,000 (6) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—A. StateB. NameC. Date of Report of Chief of EngineersD. Estimated Costs1.
- FLComprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Western Everglades Restoration PlanSeptember 11, 2024Federal: $1,057,630,000Non
- -Federal: $1,057,630,000Total: $2,115,260,0002.
- TN, ARMississippi River, Hatchie-Loosahatchie, Mississippi River Mile 775-736August 12, 2024Federal: $41,306,000Non-Federal: $22,353,000Total: $63,659,000 (7) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.—A. StateB. NameC.
- Estimated Costs1. NCTar Pamlico River BasinSeptember 11, 2024Federal: $65,142,350Non-Federal: $35,076,650 Total: $100,219,000 (8) MODIFICATIONS AND OTHER PROJECTS.—A. StateB. NameC. Date of Decision DocumentD.
- Estimated Costs1. AZTres Rios, Arizona Ecosystem Restoration ProjectMay 28, 2024Federal: $215,574,000Non-
- Federal: $119,835,000Total: $335,409,0002.
- FLComprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project, Miami-Dade CountyDecember 2, 2024Federal: $171,215,000Non-Federal: $171,215,000Total: $342,430,0003.
- KSManhattan, Kansas Federal Levee SystemMay 6, 2024Federal: $29,725,000Non-Federal: $16,006,000Total: $45,731,0004.
- MOUniversity City Branch, River Des Peres, University City, St. Louis County, Flood Risk ManagementFebruary 9, 2024Federal: $9,299,000Non-Federal: $5,007,000Total: $14,306,000
1402. Special rule Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is allowed to give Florida up to $320 million to help design and build a stormwater treatment area as part of a plan to restore the Everglades, as long as there is money available.
Money References
- The Secretary is authorized to provide up to $320,000,000 in financial assistance to the State of Florida for design and construction of the North Feeder Stormwater Treatment Area, as recommended in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for the project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Western Everglades Restoration Plan, Florida, authorized by this Act, and subject to the availability of appropriations.
1403. Additional project authorization pursuant to study by non-Federal interest Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The North of Lake Okeechobee Storage Reservoir, a part of the Everglades Restoration Plan, is cleared to start under the direction of the Secretary, following a review finished in August 2024. The Secretary can make changes as needed when carrying it out.
1404. Facility investment Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary to use certain available funds to design and construct various facilities in Texas and Missouri, as well as make necessary infrastructure improvements. Additionally, it requires that any money used from the revolving fund must be reimbursed from funds allocated to Corps of Engineers programs benefiting from these new facilities.
2101. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the title of the legislation is the "Fiscally Responsible Highway Funding Act of 2024."
2102. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines key terms used in the bill: "Secretary" refers to the Secretary of Transportation, "State" includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the "TIFIA program" is a credit assistance program detailed in federal law.
2103. Redistribution of prior TIFIA funding Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a plan for redistributing $1.8 billion in previous funding for transportation projects to U.S. states, based on their allocations for fiscal year 2025. This money will follow existing rules for highway construction funding and must be used by 2028, with states having flexibility regarding its specific use within federal guidelines.
Money References
- — (1) AMOUNT DESCRIBED.—Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of contract authority referred to in subsection (a) is $1,800,000,000, which shall be derived from the unobligated amounts of contract authority made available for credit assistance under— (A) the transportation infrastructure finance and innovation program under subchapter II of chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code (as in effect before the date of enactment of SAFETEA–LU (Public Law 109–59; 119 Stat. 1144)); and (B) the TIFIA program. (2) TREATMENT.—The amount distributed under subsection (a) shall— (A) be subject to the obligation limitation for Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs; (B) remain available until September 30, 2028; and (C) be in addition to any other funding apportioned to States under section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code.
2104. Redistribution of fiscal year 2025 TIFIA funding Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In fiscal year 2025, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation is required to calculate and redistribute part of the unused TIFIA program funds to states, allocating a portion based on each state's share of highway funding. This redistribution must follow federal regulations and remain available until 2028 for various transportation projects.
2105. Redistribution of fiscal year 2026 TIFIA funding Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In fiscal year 2026, the Secretary will identify unused funds from the TIFIA program and redistribute 75% of those funds to states by April 1, 2026. These distributed funds, which must be used according to specific federal rules and guidelines, will remain available until September 30, 2029, and will be apportioned based on each state's share of certain federal highway funds for that year.
2201. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section titled "SEC. 2201" states that this part of the law is called the “Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024”.
2211. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines amendments to the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, adding definitions for terms such as "blue economy," "capacity building," "outdoor recreation," "project predevelopment," "regional commission," and "travel and tourism," and providing details on changes to existing sections, including those on economic organizations and partnerships.
2212. Increased coordination Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to allow the Secretary of Commerce to organize meetings with government and development groups to improve economic development efforts. Additionally, the Secretary must hold regular meetings with Regional Commissions to coordinate activities, reduce repeated efforts, and develop regional development strategies, with a report published afterward detailing actions and strategies discussed.
2213. Grants for public works and economic development Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to broaden the purposes for which grants can be used, such as improving waste management and recycling systems, increasing resilience in projects, and supporting job creation. It also introduces new criteria for awarding grants, including promoting economic diversification, addressing extreme weather impacts, enhancing access to high-speed broadband, and supporting activities like outdoor recreation and travel in rural communities.
2214. Grants for planning and grants for administrative expenses Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to specify that grants can cover administrative expenses like planning, project predevelopment, and updating development plans. It also supports hiring professional staff for economic recovery and development activities, and it adds provisions to address and mitigate the economic impacts of extreme weather.
2215. Cost sharing Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 adjusts the cost-sharing rules by increasing the federal share for some projects to 60% and allowing regional funds to count as the non-federal share. It also permits a full federal funding option for small communities with less than 10,000 residents under certain conditions.
2216. Regulations on relative needs and allocations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section revises the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to consider per capita income levels, labor force participation rates, and underemployment in certain areas, and emphasizes both job creation and retention.
2217. Research and technical assistance; university centers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to allow grants to universities to become "university centers" that collaborate and provide technical assistance for economic development across states. These centers will focus on innovation, business development, and supporting economic strategies, especially in distressed communities.
2218. Investment priorities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress is updating the Public Works and Economic Development Act to outline the types of projects that can receive financial support under new investment priorities. These projects should improve infrastructure, enhance workforce skills, boost innovation and entrepreneurship, increase economic resilience, or grow manufacturing capabilities. If a new priority not listed is chosen, a review by Congress is required.
208. Investment priorities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
For a project to get financial help, it must align with specific priorities like building critical infrastructures such as roads and internet, supporting job training and participation, promoting innovation and entrepreneurship, strengthening economic resilience, or boosting manufacturing. If a new priority is introduced, it must be explained to relevant Congressional committees, but no requirements from the Act are waived.
2219. Grants for economic adjustment Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendments to the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 authorize grants to help areas affected by economic changes, such as layoffs in the coal and steel industries, and to support nuclear host communities dealing with the economic impacts of decommissioned power plants. The goal is to provide regional flexibility and support for communities facing economic challenges due to industry contractions or climate-related issues like drought.
2220. Renewable energy program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to redefine and expand the "brightfields demonstration" program into a "renewable energy" program focused on redeveloping brownfield sites using renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean energy.
2221. Workforce training grants Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Workforce Training Grants section allows the Secretary to provide grants to eligible recipients for developing and expanding workforce training programs, including purchasing equipment and building facilities. States can also receive specific grants for training individuals for high-demand jobs, with funding conditions and a maximum federal contribution of 70 percent; this authority ends on September 30, 2029.
Money References
- “(6) PARTICIPANT AMOUNTS.—A State shall ensure that grant funds provided under this subsection to each individual that receives funds under the program established by the applicable State is the lesser of the following amounts: “(A) In a case in which the individual is also eligible for a Federal Pell Grant under section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) for enrollment at the applicable training program for any award year of the training program, $11,000 minus the amount of the awarded Federal Pell Grant. “
- (B) For an individual not described in paragraph (1), the lesser of— “(i) $11,000; and “(ii) the total cost of the training program in which the individual is enrolled, including tuition, fees, career navigation services, textbook costs, expenses related to assessments and exams for certification or licensure, equipment costs, and wage stipends (in the case of a training program that is an earn-and-learn program).
219. Workforce training grants Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary to give grants to eligible recipients for creating and improving workforce training programs that help people get good jobs. It also includes a special pilot program for states to support job training in high-demand industries, with specific guidelines for using grant money, application processes, and funding limits, and states must ensure the aid they provide is fair and based on clear criteria.
Money References
- (A) In a case in which the individual is also eligible for a Federal Pell Grant under section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) for enrollment at the applicable training program for any award year of the training program, $11,000 minus the amount of the awarded Federal Pell Grant. (B) For an individual not described in paragraph (1), the lesser of— (i) $11,000; and (ii) the total cost of the training program in which the individual is enrolled, including tuition, fees, career navigation services, textbook costs, expenses related to assessments and exams for certification or licensure, equipment costs, and wage stipends (in the case of a training program that is an earn-and-learn program).
2222. Congressional notification requirements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section specifies that if a project receives a grant of $100,000 or more from the Economic Development Administration, the Secretary must notify certain Congressional committees at least three business days before informing the grant recipient. This notice must include details about the project, such as its name, location, expected job impact, and grant amount, and must be made publicly available within 60 days.
Money References
- “(b) Projects described.—A project referred to in subsection (a) is a project that the Secretary has selected to receive a grant administered by the Economic Development Administration in an amount not less than $100,000.
220. Congressional notification requirements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines requirements for notifying congressional committees about large grant awards for economic development projects. It specifies that the Secretary must inform certain Senate and House committees about qualifying projects at least three business days before notifying grant recipients and make the information publicly available within 60 days, including details such as project names, applicants, locations, and expected job impacts.
Money References
- (b) Projects described.—A project referred to in subsection (a) is a project that the Secretary has selected to receive a grant administered by the Economic Development Administration in an amount not less than $100,000.
2223. Specific flexibilities related to deployment of high-speed broadband Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section of the bill outlines plans to promote high-speed broadband deployment by allowing the Secretary to give grants for related projects. It defines key terms like "broadband project" and "eligible recipient" and explains the requirements and considerations for grant applications, including geographic diversity and input from various federal agencies.
221. High-speed broadband deployment initiative Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a high-speed broadband deployment initiative that defines "broadband projects" and "eligible recipients," allows grants for expanding broadband access, and specifies how property and procurement should be handled. It also explains how the non-Federal share of project costs can be calculated, emphasizing diverse geographic distribution and improving access in underserved areas.
2224. Critical supply chain site development grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a grant program, known as the "Critical Supply Chain Site Development grant program," which allows the Secretary to provide financial assistance to eligible recipients for site development or expansion projects aimed at preparing sites for manufacturing purposes. The grants prioritize projects that enhance economic conditions in specific communities, align with regional economic plans, and support sectors important to U.S. national or economic security.
222. Critical supply chain site development grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Critical Supply Chain Site Development grant program allows the Secretary to provide grants to eligible recipients for developing or expanding sites to prepare them for manufacturing projects while considering factors like economic improvement and job training. Priority is given to projects with funding from various sources or evident commercial interest, and the grants can be used for utilities, site readiness, workforce development, and ensuring job access for disadvantaged communities, without requiring prior private company investment, but with safeguards to ensure timely completion and private sector interest.
2225. Updated distress criteria and grant rates Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 301 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 outlines criteria for identifying areas in need, focusing on unemployment, income levels, workforce participation, and expected economic challenges due to changes in the energy industry. It also requires the Secretary to explain publicly why certain neighboring areas are included in economic development plans.
2226. Comprehensive economic development strategies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to include measures that address the economic impacts of extreme weather in its strategies. It also states that this requirement does not apply to certain grants where more than one comprehensive economic development strategy is relevant.
2227. Office of Tribal Economic Development Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Office of Tribal Economic Development is established within the Economic Development Administration to coordinate Tribal economic development activities, help Tribal communities access assistance, and work with other federal agencies. It will create and update a strategic plan for Tribal development, report to Congress, provide an informational website, and maintain sufficient staff for outreach efforts.
508. Office of Tribal Economic Development Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Office of Tribal Economic Development is set up within the Economic Development Administration to support and coordinate Tribal economic development activities, assist Tribal communities in accessing economic programs, and work with other Federal agencies. It will create and regularly update a strategic plan for Tribal economic development and maintain a public website to provide information on economic opportunities for Tribal communities, with enough staff to manage outreach activities.
2228. Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section establishes the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience under the Secretary's direction, detailing its roles in enhancing economic recovery and resilience after disasters. It authorizes temporary personnel appointments, explains their conversion to permanent positions, creates a disaster team for quick response, and requires annual reports on the office's activities, deployments, and expenses.
509. Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill mandates the establishment of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience to oversee economic recovery after disasters. It gives the Secretary the power to appoint temporary staff with a pathway to permanent positions, create a specialized disaster team for rapid deployment during emergencies, and requires annual reports on activities and expenditures.
2229. Establishment of technical assistance liaisons Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Under SEC. 510, the Economic Development Administration's Regional Directors can appoint a staff member as a Technical Assistance Liaison to help underresourced communities with their grant applications. These liaisons work with Economic Development Representatives to provide extra guidance and feedback on unsuccessful applications and can involve contracts for additional assistance.
510. Technical assistance liaisons Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
A Regional Director from the Economic Development Administration can appoint a staff member as a "Technical Assistance Liaison" to help underresourced communities apply for assistance. This liaison works with an Economic Development Representative to offer extra support, provides feedback on unsuccessful grant applications, and the Secretary may also contract with eligible recipients to aid these communities in their application process.
2230. Annual report to Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 603 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 includes requirements for the Economic Development Administration to report on grants supporting rural areas and details about construction project timelines and outcomes. Additionally, this amendment mandates these reports to be publicly accessible and requires an analysis of project timeline estimates and the sources of any delays.
2231. Economic Development Representatives Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress emphasizes that the Economic Development Administration should ensure access to its aid programs through Economic Development Representatives, especially in communities that lack resources, with a focus on coal regions. The Secretary of Commerce may consider the specific needs of these coal communities when appointing Economic Development Representatives.
2232. Modernization of environmental reviews Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Commerce is required to submit a report within 180 days detailing efforts to speed up and simplify environmental reviews for projects funded by a specific public works law. The report must outline actions related to recent amendments, identify commonly used shortcuts in the review process, and consider new approaches or partnerships to make these reviews more efficient. Within two years of the report, the Secretary must establish rules to implement these improvements as much as possible.
2233. GAO report on economic development programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Comptroller General to submit a report by September 30, 2026, to certain congressional committees, evaluating the impact and effectiveness of economic development programs managed by the Economic Development Administration and Regional Commissions. The report must assess various economic outcomes, describe documentation and coordination efforts, and possibly suggest legislative improvements.
2234. GAO report on Economic Development Administration regulations and policies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Comptroller General of the United States to create a report within two years that assesses how regulations and policies by the Economic Development Administration might be restricting communities from accessing and managing grants. The report will involve reviewing current grant processes, evaluating technical abilities of potential grant recipients, identifying challenges small communities face, and offering recommendations for improvement, including streamlining the grant application process.
2235. GAO study on rural communities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that, within two years, the Comptroller General must research the effects of Economic Development Administration funding on distressed rural communities. This includes examining job impacts, unemployment, and affordable housing, and reporting the findings to relevant Senate and House committees.
2236. General authorization of appropriations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines the changes to the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, specifying the amounts of money to be allocated for various grants and programs from 2025 to 2029. These funds are aimed at public works, economic development, planning, training, technical assistance, coal and nuclear host communities, renewable energy, workforce training, supply chain development, and technical assistance, ensuring they remain available until used.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Section 701 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3231) is amended— (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (k); and (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: “(a) Grants for public works and economic development.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 201, to remain available until expended— “(1) $170,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; “(2) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; “(3) $220,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; “(4) $245,000,000 for fiscal year 2028; and “(5) $270,000,000 for fiscal year 2029.
- “(b) Grants for planning and grants for administrative expenses.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 203, to remain available until expended— “(1) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; “(2) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; “(3) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; “(4) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2028; and “(5) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2029.
- “(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; “(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; “(3) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; “(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2028; and “(5) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2029.
- “(d) Grants for economic adjustment.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 209 (other than subsections (d) and (e)), to remain available until expended— “(1) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; “(2) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; “(3) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; “(4) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 2028; and “(5) $105,000,000 for fiscal year 2029.
- “(e) Assistance to coal communities.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 209(d) $75,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029, to remain available until expended.
- “(f) Assistance to nuclear host communities.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 209(e), to remain available until expended— “(1) to carry out paragraph (2)(A), $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029; and “(2) to carry out paragraph (2)(B), $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2027.
- “(g) Renewable energy program.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 218 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029, to remain available until expended.
- “(h) Workforce training grants.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 219 $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029, to remain available until expended, of which $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029 shall be used to carry out subsection (c) of that section.
- “(i) Critical supply chain site development grant program.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 222 $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029, to remain available until expended.
- “(j) Technical assistance liaisons.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 510 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029, to remain available until expended.”.
2237. Technical correction Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The modification in the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 revises the section on the table of contents, expanding and detailing various sections, such as economic development partnerships, grants for public works, and eligibility for economic development strategies, along with sections on administration, miscellaneous provisions, and funding. This updated structure introduces new programs and clarifies existing ones to ensure comprehensive coverage of economic development activities and support across different areas.
2241. Regional commission authorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 2241 of the bill proposes an amendment to Section 15751 of title 40, United States Code, to authorize an appropriation of $40,000,000 annually for each fiscal year from 2025 to 2029, for the purpose of funding each regional commission.
Money References
- SEC. 2241.Regional commission authorizations. Section 15751 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: “(a) In general.—There is authorized to be appropriated to each Commission to carry out this subtitle $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.”.
2242. Regional commission modifications Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The modifications to title 40 of the United States Code involve changes to the membership, decision-making processes, administrative powers, and meeting rules of regional commissions. Key updates include allowing alternate State members to delegate voting authority, adjusting quorum requirements for meetings, permitting commissions to collect service fees, and extending the deadline for annual reports from 90 to 180 days.
2243. Transfer of funds among Federal agencies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends U.S. law to allow federal commissions to transfer funds to and from other federal agencies, as long as the purpose of the funds is consistent with original authorizations. It also provides conditions under which other federal agencies can transfer funds to these commissions, ensuring the funds' use aligns with the agencies' legal authority.
15308. Transfer of funds among Federal agencies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Each Commission has the authority to transfer funds to and receive funds from other Federal agencies, as long as the funds are used for their authorized purpose and the original agency's rules allow for such use.
2244. Financial assistance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill proposes that funds available under a specific program can be used to cover the non-Federal share of costs for projects funded by other Federal grant programs, as long as the Commission involved is not the main funding source and aligns with the Commission's authority.
15507. Payment of non-Federal share for certain Federal grant programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Amounts provided under this section can be used to cover the non-Federal portion of any project funded by another Federal grant program, as long as a Commission is not the main funding source and the project aligns with the Commission's legal powers.
2245. Northern Border Regional Commission area Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the United States Code to include additional counties—Lincoln, Merrimack, Schoharie, and Wyoming—within the Northern Border Regional Commission area.
2246. Southwest Border Regional Commission area Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the list of counties included in the Southwest Border Regional Commission area by adding Bernalillo, Cibola, Curry, De Baca, Guadalupe, Lea, Roosevelt, Torrance, and Valencia, and making corrections to the names of other counties.
2247. Great Lakes Authority area Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 15734 of title 40 in the United States Code clarifies that the Great Lakes Authority area includes counties that are partially or entirely within its boundaries.
2248. Additional regional commission programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The document describes amendments to United States Code Title 40, introducing Chapter 159 which establishes programs for regional development. The first program is a State capacity building grant to support economic and infrastructure growth in certain states by funding initiatives related to business support, workforce development, broadband access, and technical assistance, among others. The second program allows for demonstration health projects, funding entities that enhance regional healthcare facilities, addressing workforce shortages and health priorities in distressed areas.
15901. State capacity building grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The State capacity building grant program is designed to provide financial support to states with eligible counties for enhancing business retention, workforce development, and infrastructure improvement, such as expanding high-speed broadband and creating economic plans. Funds cannot be used for certain expenses like furniture or compensating state commission members, and each state must submit an annual work plan and report detailing how the funds are utilized.
15902. Demonstration health projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a program where a Commission can award grants to support health projects aimed at boosting economic development in distressed areas. Eligible recipients include educational institutions and hospitals, and grants can fund planning, construction, equipment, or operation costs of health facilities, with special attention given to regional health priorities such as addiction treatment, tackling healthcare workforce shortages, and improving access to chronic health issue screenings.
2249. Establishment of Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes the Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission as a part of U.S. law and designates that its region will include all counties in Delaware, as well as counties in Maryland and Pennsylvania not already served by the Appalachian Regional Commission. Additionally, the section modifies the application process for counties within this newly defined region.
15735. Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Commission covers all counties in Delaware, and counties in Maryland and Pennsylvania that are not part of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
2250. Establishment of Southern New England Regional Commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill establishes the Southern New England Regional Commission as part of the United States Code, defining its region to include all counties in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and several counties in Connecticut. It also specifies amendments for the legal framework to support the inclusion of this new commission.
15736. Southern New England Regional Commission Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes the areas covered by the Southern New England Regional Commission, which include all the counties in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, as well as the counties of Hartford, Middlesex, New Haven, New London, Tolland, and Windham in Connecticut.
2251. Denali Commission reauthorization Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Denali Commission Act of 1998 is being updated to increase the funding from $15 million to $35 million for each fiscal year from 2025 to 2029. Additionally, the commission is gaining the authority to lease office space, use federal funds to pay for non-federal project costs, and make interagency transfers, while some subsections are being restructured for clarity.
Money References
- (a) Reauthorization.—Section 312(a) of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 3121 note; Public Law 105–277) is amended by striking “$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2021” and inserting “$35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029”.
2252. Denali Housing Fund Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Denali Housing Fund is set up to support the construction and rehabilitation of housing for low- to moderate-income households and public employees in Alaska through grants and loans to eligible entities like nonprofits and local governments. The Federal Cochair manages the fund, which can also be used for planning expenses and necessary infrastructure improvements, ensuring that affordable housing projects can be developed, particularly in rural areas.
Money References
- (D) GENERAL EXPENSES.—The Federal Cochair may charge the general expenses of carrying out this section to the Fund. (3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Fund $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
2253. Delta Regional Authority reauthorization Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section reauthorizes the Delta Regional Authority by increasing its funding to $40 million annually from 2025 to 2029, removes its termination clause, allows the collection of fees for the Delta Doctors program, ensures leadership roles are filled if they become vacant, includes Indian Tribes in its operations, and adds specific areas to the Delta Development Act.
Money References
- (a) Authorization of appropriations.—Section 382M(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009aa–12(a)) is amended by striking “$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023” and inserting “$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029”.
2254. Northern Great Plains Regional Authority reauthorization Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section reauthorizes funding for the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority, increasing the amount to $40 million for each fiscal year from 2025 to 2029. Additionally, it repeals the section related to the termination of the Authority's powers.
Money References
- (a) Authorization of appropriations.—Section 383N(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009bb–12(a)) is amended by striking “$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2018” and inserting “$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029”.
2301. Amendments to the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 specified in Section 2301 aim to improve the management and sale of federal buildings by introducing innovative methods, updating definitions, and modifying terms for board membership and meetings. It also includes provisions for the hiring and return of staff, sets new termination dates, provides guidelines for property recommendations, and ensures access to federal property information, while ensuring transparency and involving relevant stakeholders like local governments and tribes.
26. Access to Federal Real Property Council meetings and reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Board to have access to meetings and reports from the Federal Real Property Council, but only after they sign an agreement about public disclosure. If this agreement isn't made within 60 days of the law's enactment, the Board must inform certain congressional committees and continue to do so every 60 days until the agreement is completed.
2302. Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies Act aims to improve the way federal buildings and leased spaces are used by ensuring they meet a standard utilization rate of at least 60%. It requires federal agencies to track and report how much space they actually use, and to take action to reduce unused space, such as consolidating offices or selling excess property, all while protecting personal information.
2303. Impact of Crime on Public Building Usage Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Impact of Crime on Public Building Usage Act requires the Comptroller General to investigate the effects of crime on the use of federal buildings and report the findings to Congress. This includes examining how crime affects commuting options, office safety, and related costs. Additionally, the General Services Administration's inspector general, with others, will report on crime-related operational costs around federal buildings.
2304. Federal Oversight of Construction Use and Safety Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Federal Oversight of Construction Use and Safety Act aims to enhance oversight and safety in federal building projects by requiring notifications of cost and scope changes, mandating data collection on safety incidents, promoting efficient use of space, reviewing special use spaces, and encouraging space sharing among agencies to reduce costs. Additionally, it necessitates reports on project milestones and efforts to address any public safety concerns.
3319. Interagency space coordination Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that, unless restricted for national security reasons, the General Services Administration must share information about other Federal agencies in the same area with agencies looking for new or replacement office space. This is to help them find ways to share or consolidate space, which can save money and make better use of the available space.
2305. Public Buildings Accountability Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Public Buildings Accountability Act requires the Comptroller General of the United States to review the Public Buildings Service within one year of the law being enacted. The review will cover the management and administration of real estate programs, staffing details and costs over the past ten years, and the effectiveness of its organizational structure. Additionally, it will examine the Federal Buildings Fund, focusing on costs related to conferences, training, and travel.
2306. Sale of Webster school Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires the Administrator of General Services to sell the Webster School property in Washington, D.C., by the end of 2025 for fair market value. The money made from the sale will be added to a federal fund and can only be used if Congress specifically allocates it in the future.
2307. Real property conveyance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the process for selling real estate administered by the Bureau of Prisons in Missouri, requiring it to be sold at fair market value, prohibiting foreign ownership, and using the net proceeds for federal buildings funding. It also mentions the need for a satisfactory survey and handling of deferred maintenance costs before the sale.
2308. Think Differently About Building Accessibility Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Think Differently About Building Accessibility Act requires the Comptroller General of the United States to deliver a report within one year of the act's enactment. This report will evaluate how well office buildings overseen by the General Services Administration comply with the standards established by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.
2309. Revision of design standards Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that the General Services Administration must update the procedure for revising design standards for federal buildings, including requiring public feedback and posting changes online, with a report detailing the revisions to be sent to relevant Congressional committees.
2310. Limitation on authorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to title 40, United States Code, adds a new rule stating that if a lease or project is not started within five years after approval by specific congressional committees, the approval will expire. This rule only applies to resolutions approved after the new amendment is enacted.
2311. Conveyance of Federal courthouse to the City of Huntsville, Alabama Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The United States government plans to transfer ownership of a courthouse and post office in Huntsville, Alabama, to the City of Huntsville. The city will have to pay an amount equal to the property's fair market value, as decided by an acceptable appraisal, although this amount can be partially offset using certain land value credits, and the city must cover all associated costs of the transfer.
2312. Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the sale of the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building, which must happen within two years after current federal agencies move out. The building must be sold for fair market value, and the proceeds are deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund for future use through specific appropriations. It also prohibits selling the building to foreign persons or entities.
2313. Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The United States Congress has designated that the courthouse annex located at 310 South Main Street in London, Kentucky, will now be called the "Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex". In addition, any references in official documents to this courthouse annex will be considered as referring to the newly designated name.
2314. Senator Dianne Feinstein Federal Building Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the Federal building at 50 United Nations Plaza in San Francisco, California, will be named the "Senator Dianne Feinstein Federal Building." Any mention of this building in U.S. laws or documents will use this new name.
2315. Reuben E. Lawson Federal Building Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress recognizes the achievements of Reuben E. Lawson, a lawyer who worked to end segregation in Southwest Virginia, by renaming the Richard H. Poff Federal Building in Roanoke as the "Reuben E. Lawson Federal Building," and this new name will be used in all relevant legal and official documents.
2316. Irene M. Keeley United States Courthouse Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The United States courthouse located at 500 West Pike Street in Clarksburg, West Virginia, is officially named the "Irene M. Keeley United States Courthouse." Any references to this courthouse in official documents will now use this new name.
2317. Virginia Smith Federal Building Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section designates the Federal building located at 300 E. 3rd Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the “Virginia Smith Federal Building”. It also states that any references to this building in official U.S. documents will use this new designation.
2318. Harold L. Murphy Federal Building and United States Courthouse Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress has decided that the Federal building and United States courthouse in Rome, Georgia, will be named the "Harold L. Murphy Federal Building and United States Courthouse" to honor Judge Harold L. Murphy for his remarkable contributions and service on the Federal bench for over 45 years. Judge Murphy was renowned for his wisdom, kindness, and dedication, and he played a significant role in a landmark case addressing racial segregation in the Alabama University System.
2319. Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez United States Courthouse Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section officially names the U.S. courthouse at 350 W. 1st Street in Los Angeles, California, as the "Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez United States Courthouse". It also states that any mention of this courthouse in any U.S. documents or records should use this new name.
2320. Helen Edwards Engineering Research Center Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that the Department of Energy Integrated Engineering Research Center Federal Building at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, will now be called the “Helen Edwards Engineering Research Center.” It also states that any future reference to the building in official documents or records will use this new name.