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 "Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024" is like a big plan to fix rivers and harbors to keep them healthy and safe, making sure there is enough clean water for everyone, while being careful about how money is spent.
Summary AI
S. 4367, titled the "Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024," is aimed at enhancing the rivers and harbors across the United States by supporting water conservation, ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and storm damage risk reduction. This bill introduces several new projects, studies, and reports for the comprehensive development and maintenance of water resources and their infrastructure and makes technical updates to existing programs. It emphasizes partnerships with state and tribal agencies to improve water infrastructure and manage environmental impacts, while also addressing environmental justice initiatives. Additionally, the bill aims to secure funding for construction and maintenance efforts and encourages public-private partnerships to accelerate the achievement of these goals.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 is a sweeping legislative piece aimed at enhancing and managing the United States' water resources. Its objectives center on improving rivers and harbors, developing water-related resources, and addressing environmental concerns. It includes a vast variety of projects like feasibility studies, infrastructure improvements, and environmental restoration efforts spread across multiple states.
General Summary of the Bill
This act outlines numerous provisions and project authorizations that encompass diverse topics such as flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage reduction, navigation improvements, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. Several studies and reports are mandated to assess and address regional water resource needs. The bill also introduces new powers and responsibilities for the Secretary of the Army, particularly concerning the allocation and management of substantial federal funds for these initiatives. Additionally, the bill includes several amendments to existing water resource legislation, enhancing or adjusting prior directives.
Significant Issues
One of the primary concerns with this bill is the lack of transparency and clarity in defining economically disadvantaged communities. The allocation of federal resources in favor of these communities without clear definitions or criteria may lead to inconsistent application across different regions. Furthermore, the authorization of numerous feasibility studies without specific cost estimates or budgetary controls risks unchecked spending. Provisions that allow non-Federal entities to conduct water reallocation studies have raised flags regarding potential conflicts of interest and the impartiality of the federal decision-making process. Finally, the use of "Sense of Congress" statements may set unclear expectations for federal agencies, thereby affecting the agencies' abilities to efficiently implement actionable policies.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill’s positive impacts could include improved flood defenses, enhanced waterway navigation, and better management of environmental resources. These improvements can increase safety and economic stability, particularly in regions prone to flooding and storm damage. However, the broad nature of the bill and the significant financial commitments it requires could lead to higher government spending, which may impact federal budgets and taxpayer resources. Without clear, stringent oversight, there is a risk of resource misallocation across various projects.
Impact on Stakeholders
The bill specifically highlights certain stakeholders, such as tribes, economically disadvantaged communities, and regional entities, which could benefit from reduced financial burdens and enhanced resource allocation. With provisions aimed at supporting these groups, the bill holds the potential for positive socio-economic impacts. However, the lack of clarity in the bill's language and criteria poses a risk of uneven implementation, thereby potentially benefiting certain stakeholders over others. Conversely, non-Federal interests may face challenges with this bill's requirements to contribute to project costs, creating potential financial pressure. Furthermore, federal agencies involved with project execution might have to commit significant resources to meet the bill’s extensive requirements, possibly straining their operational capacities.
In conclusion, while the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 outlines numerous benefits for water resource management across the nation, the lack of precise definitions, transparency, and oversight mechanisms could lead to varied impacts on different stakeholders. The public and policymakers alike should remain vigilant to ensure the equitable and efficient application of the bill’s provisions.
Financial Assessment
The "Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024" introduces a range of financial allocations aimed at improving water resources and infrastructure across the United States. This bill authorizes significant spending in various sectors, particularly focusing on ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and storm damage risk reduction.
Increased Funding for Projects
The bill emphasizes substantial financial commitments towards multiple projects. For instance, Section 401 outlines specific projects with hefty price tags, such as the $5.8 billion allocated for St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Such allocations are substantial, leading to concerns about whether these funds are being scrutinized effectively to ensure they are necessary and well-used. The high costs associated with these projects raise questions about the sufficiency of evaluations and oversight before these funds are authorized.
Authorization of New Financial Spending
The bill authorizes new spending across various projects. In Section 302, financial commitments are made towards environmental infrastructure projects. Cities such as Glendale, Arizona, receive $5.2 million, while Tohono O’odham Nation in Arizona is allocated $10 million. These projects' primary focus is on water and wastewater infrastructure. Additionally, in Section 315, the Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Illinois, is set at 90% upon completion. These appropriations reflect significant federal investment, showing a focus on updating and ensuring water infrastructure resilience.
Considerations for Economically Disadvantaged Communities
Several sections prioritize economically disadvantaged communities by offering favorable financial measures. For example, Section 309 allows for a 90% federal share of total project costs for projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities. However, concerns arise regarding the clarity and consistent application of criteria used to designate these communities. The lack of explicit definitions can lead to unequal distribution of resources, potentially disadvisting some areas over others.
Potential Impacts of Adjustments in Funding Allocation
Inland waterway projects see an increase in government investment, shifting from a 65% to a 75% cost-share starting in Section 109. While this aims to boost infrastructure development, it may strain federal budgets if not well-justified. This shift has been flagged as potentially problematic due to the absence of transparent support for increased government spending, which could adversely affect budget priorities if unchecked.
Funding for Pilot Programs and Feasibility Studies
The legislation earmarks funds for various pilot programs and feasibility studies, with Section 117 authorizing an appropriation of $15 million annually from fiscal years 2024 to 2029 for Tribal project implementations. Nonetheless, the authorization of such studies and programs without well-defined cost estimates may lead to unchecked expenditure, enabling possible financial mismanagement without stringent budgetary controls in place.
Public-Private Partnerships
Section 229 highlights developing a guide for using public-private partnerships for water projects. The exploration of such partnerships is potentially beneficial for accelerating project completions. However, caution and clear guidelines are necessary to avoid misinterpretations and inconsistencies among diverse stakeholders involved in these projects.
Overall, while the bill reflects a comprehensive financial strategy to address water infrastructure challenges, several financial references and allocations require further scrutiny to ensure efficient and equitable resource distribution. Transparency in expenditure and clearer definitions within the bill could improve fiscal responsibility and mitigate potential issues surrounding financial management and equitable resource allocation.
Issues
The increase in funding from 65% to 75% for inland waterway projects (Sec. 109) might result in increased government expenditure without transparent justification, potentially straining federal budgets.
The sense of Congress and funding allocations (Sec. 119, 328) frequently lack clear directives and specific guidelines, leading to possible misinterpretations and inconsistent applications that could affect public resources allocation.
The project authorizations (Sec. 401) involve significant financial commitments, such as the $5.8 billion allocation for the St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana project. These allocate large federal funds, which raises concerns about the scrutiny and necessity of such investments.
The amendments prioritizing economically disadvantaged communities (Sec. 302, 303, 309) lack clarity in the definition and criteria, which might lead to inconsistent applications, creating concerns about equitable resource distribution.
The use of sense of Congress sections (Sec. 119, 328, 338, 349, 350, 358) to express opinions rather than enforce actionable policy may result in ineffective guidance and unclear expectations from federal agencies.
The authorization for feasibility studies (Sec. 201, 214) without specific cost estimates or budgetary controls could lead to unchecked spending and financial mismanagement.
Provisions for non-Federal interests preparation of water reallocation studies in North Dakota (Sec. 217) raise potential conflicts of interest and impartiality concerns, especially when non-Federal funding is involved.
The amendments expanding funding and project scopes (Sec. 330, 334, 336) lack transparent justification for increases from prior allocations, raising questions about fiscal responsibility.
The deauthorization section (Sec. 301) outlines project terminations without clear explanations, raising concerns about potential disruptions in ongoing infrastructure projects and local economic impacts.
The coordination and collaboration clauses with federal and non-federal entities (Sec. 114, 229, 243) could lead to varied interpretations and potential favoritism in project implementations, necessitating clearer guidelines to ensure transparency.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 outlines various provisions and projects related to water resources development across the United States. This includes notices and reports to Congress, feasibility studies for project proposals, environmental infrastructure projects, and measures addressing issues like storm damage, flood risk management, and invasive species control.
2. Definition of Secretary Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines the word “Secretary” to specifically refer to the Secretary of the Army within the context of this Act.
101. Notice to Congress regarding WRDA implementation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the Secretary's responsibilities for implementing a new water resources law, including creating an action plan, reporting progress on previous related laws, and informing Congress about upcoming regulations. It also establishes a team to help ensure all parts of the law are being properly carried out by the Corps of Engineers and periodically updates Congress on its progress.
102. Prior guidance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to issue new guidance within 180 days after this Act is enacted, following the specific instructions listed in two previous laws: the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 and the Water Resources Development Act of 2022.
103. Ability to pay Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the Secretary of the Army must streamline guidance on how to determine if non-federal entities can afford their share of water resources project costs. This determination and related details must be reported annually to specific Congressional committees, covering both the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and the Tribal Partnership Program under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
104. Federal interest determinations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 905(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 requires the Secretary to identify studies that include economically disadvantaged communities when submitting work or spend plans to Congress. It limits federal interest determinations to 20 new studies per year and allows for the continuation of studies without a new investment decision after determining federal interest, while requiring study costs to be covered by the respective work plan's funding.
105. Annual report to Congress Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 requires the Secretary to notify non-Federal interests if their proposals are included in the annual report's appendix, with an option for debriefing on why their proposal was included, suggested revisions for future inclusion, and other relevant information. Additionally, each proposal's inclusion in the report or appendix must be communicated to the Congressional members representing the state where the proposal is located.
106. Processing timelines Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to update the Corps of Engineers' public "permit finder" website within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year. The update should reflect the current status of projects with permits funded under a specific provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
107. Services of volunteers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends the law concerning the services of volunteers for the Corps of Engineers, allowing the Chief of Engineers to recognize volunteers' contributions, but prohibits cash awards as a form of recognition.
141. Services of volunteers Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Chief of Engineers oversees the use of volunteers for various services.
108. Support of Army civil works missions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 and outlines new academic research initiatives for various universities. Specifically, it designates research responsibilities related to flood resilience, water quality, hydropower, and ecosystem restoration for West Virginia University, Delaware State University, the University of Notre Dame, and Mississippi State University.
109. Inland waterway projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to change the cost-sharing terms for inland waterway projects, increasing the federal government's share from 65% to 75% starting October 1, 2024. If a project funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act cannot be completed with the allocated funds, the remaining costs will be covered by the general Treasury funds instead.
110. Leveraging Federal infrastructure for increased water supply Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill allows the Secretary to receive and use funds from both non-Federal groups and Federal agencies that own specific reservoir projects. These funds will be used to create or update documents about how these reservoirs are managed, particularly those that are used for flood control or navigation.
111. Outreach and access Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 8117(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 aims to ensure better awareness and transparency for potential non-Federal interests involved in water resources projects by clarifying roles and financial commitments, enhancing public access to information on projects and studies, and mandating the issuance of guidance for point-of-contact responsibilities. Additionally, a briefing on the implementation status and potential challenges of these amendments is required within 60 days of the Act's enactment.
112. Model development Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary to work with other government agencies, research labs, and universities to create and update models that help plan for water resources. These models are especially for understanding complex flooding situations.
113. Planning assistance for States Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates a law from 1974 to add that states can now get planning assistance for researching who owns abandoned buildings.
114. Corps of Engineers Levee Owners Advisory Board Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Corps of Engineers Levee Owners Advisory Board is established to offer advice on improving flood risk management and communication with Federal levee owners. This board, comprising 11 appointed members and a nonvoting Corps representative, meets at least twice a year and submits reports with recommendations, while members serve without pay but receive travel expenses.
115. Silver Jackets program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to continue the Silver Jackets program, which was originally established under the Flood Control Act of 1960 and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
116. Tribal partnership program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 allows for projects that enhance emergency response and access to infrastructure during natural disasters. It also establishes a pilot program led by the Secretary to conduct up to five projects in designated areas of Washington and South Dakota, with specific exclusions on dam removal or studies on federal dams.
117. Tribal project implementation pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a pilot program allowing Indian Tribes to directly manage eligible water resource projects, promoting tribal self-determination and economic opportunities. It includes details on administration, funding, and goals of the pilot, with obligations for the Secretary to provide guidance, support, and comprehensive reporting on the program's progress, ensuring projects are completed successfully before the program's authority ends in 2029.
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.
118. Eligibility for inter-Tribal consortiums Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 118 of the bill modifies existing laws to explicitly include "inter-tribal consortiums" and "Tribal organizations" in certain programs related to flood control and water resources development, ensuring that these groups receive recognition and eligibility for partnership opportunities alongside Indian tribes. The amendments clarify definitions and eligibility criteria across several sections of the U.S. Code.
119. Sense of Congress relating to the management of recreation facilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section expresses Congress's view that the Corps of Engineers should have more access to the money earned from recreational facilities they manage. They believe this money should be used to maintain and improve those facilities. Congress also feels the Corps should have more authority to work with public and nonprofit organizations to manage and improve these facilities and thinks laws should be considered to help make these changes happen.
120. Expedited consideration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 120 of the bill extends the deadline in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 from December 31, 2024, to December 31, 2026.
201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is authorized to conduct feasibility studies for new water resource projects and modifications to existing projects across various U.S. locations, focusing on areas like flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation. The document lists specific projects by location, outlining their type and purpose, such as flood management in coastal cities, ecosystem restoration in various regions, and navigation improvements in rivers and harbors.
202. Vertical integration and acceleration of studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to allow certain decisions on study extensions and additional costs to be delegated to local Division Commanders. It also defines the term "Division" as referring to specific divisions within the Corps of Engineers, and requires the Secretary to issue guidance and standardized forms to improve and streamline the implementation process.
Money References
- Secretary shall delegate the determination to grant an extension under subsection (c) to the Commander of the relevant Division if— “(A) the final feasibility report for the study can be completed with an extension of not more than 1 year beyond the time period described in subsection (a)(1); or “(B) the feasibility study requires an additional cost of not more than $1,000,000 above the amount described in subsection (a)(2).
203. Expedited completion Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section instructs the Secretary to speed up the completion of various feasibility studies and project plans related to flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, navigation improvements, and other infrastructure projects across multiple states. These projects include improvements and safety updates for dams, harbors, and levee systems, and aim to address issues such as flood control, coastal storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration.
204. Expedited completion of other feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates the Secretary to fast-track the review and coordination of feasibility studies for several projects: deepening the Cedar Port Channel in Baytown, Texas; restoring the ecosystem of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida; improving navigation on the Sabine-Neches Waterway in Texas; and expanding the La Quinta Ship Channel in Corpus Christi, Texas, as outlined under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
205. Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, feasibility study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is permitted to carry out a feasibility study on a project aimed at managing flood risks, improving navigation, and restoring ecosystems across several parishes in Louisiana, from Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico. This study will continue from a previous study that was authorized on July 23, 1997, by a committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.
206. Craig Harbor, Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the federal government will cover all costs to complete a report reevaluating the navigation project at Craig Harbor, Alaska, which was previously authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
207. Sussex County, Delaware Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress expresses the importance of regularly maintaining Lewes Beach in Sussex County, Delaware, for safety and economic reasons. The Secretary is tasked with preparing a detailed report on the Delaware Bay Coastline project, determining the project's scope, and considering the application of a specific law from 1968.
208. Forecast-informed reservoir operations in the Colorado River Basin Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill focuses on assessing and potentially implementing forecast-informed reservoir operations in the Colorado River Basin. It requires the Secretary to report to Congress within a year on whether these operations are feasible, and if they are, the Secretary can carry them out if funds are available.
209. Beaver Lake, Arkansas, reallocation study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to speed up a study focused on reallocating water supply storage for the Beaver Water District located at Beaver Lake, Arkansas, following the guidelines of the Water Supply Act of 1958.
210. Gathright Dam, Virginia, study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to study the possibility of changing the Gathright Dam project in Virginia, originally authorized in 1946 for flood control, to also support recreational activities downstream.
211. Delaware Inland Bays Watershed Study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with conducting a study to improve aquatic ecosystems in the Delaware Inland Bays Watershed. This involves analyzing needs such as saltmarsh restoration and stormwater management, consulting various stakeholders, using existing data, and possibly carrying out feasibility studies, but any resulting project needs Congress's approval before construction can start. The Secretary must report the findings and actions taken to Congress within three years of the act's enactment.
212. Upper Susquehanna River Basin comprehensive flood damage reduction feasibility study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to complete a study, upon request, to reduce flood damage in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, NY, using a specific report and evaluating benefits for disadvantaged communities.
213. Kanawha River Basin Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 1207 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 allows the Secretary of the Army to oversee projects in economically disadvantaged communities in West Virginia with a reduced non-federal cost share of 10%.
214. Authorization of feasibility studies for projects from CAP authorities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes feasibility studies for various projects, allowing the Secretary to assess and potentially reduce hurricane and storm damage risk at Cedar Point Seawall in Massachusetts, manage flood risks at Jones Levee in Washington and Hatch in New Mexico, and modify navigation and prevent shoreline erosion at Fort George Inlet in Florida. The Secretary must use relevant information from past related projects under specific acts to carry out these studies.
215. Port Fourchon Belle Pass channel, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the non-Federal interest to carry out a feasibility study, at their own cost, to deepen the Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel in Louisiana, subject to approval by the Secretary and Congress. It also encourages using previous agreements to expedite technical assistance and agreement processes related to the study, and it requires the Secretary to review and submit the study to Congress if it meets specific criteria.
216. 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 conducting a study to decide if water supply should be added as a goal for a project by the Corps of Engineers in the Colorado River Basin in Arizona. This study can be requested by local interests or the state's governor, and if water supply is recommended as a new goal, this recommendation will be submitted to relevant Senate and House committees.
217. Non-Federal interest preparation of water reallocation studies, North Dakota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows non-Federal interests in North Dakota to conduct water reallocation studies at reservoirs built by the Corps of Engineers. Upon completing these studies, they must submit the results to the Secretary, who will review them to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulations, and provide an assessment to Congress within 180 days.
218. Technical correction, Walla Walla River Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section makes changes to the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 by updating the description of a project on the Walla Walla River in Oregon for ecosystem restoration and adding a new project in Washington for restoring Mill Creek. It also adjusts the numbering of other project descriptions in the Act.
219. Watershed and river basin assessments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 219 of the bill updates the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by adding the Walla Walla River Basin and the San Francisco Bay Basin to the list of areas for watershed and river basin assessments.
220. Independent peer review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, changing the period from “17 years” to “22 years” in the context of an independent peer review process.
221. Ice jam prevention and mitigation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that within one year, the Secretary must report to Congress on efforts to prevent and reduce flood damage caused by ice jams. The report should evaluate existing projects, identify challenges, suggest possible solutions, and describe how the Secretary will assist local agencies in dealing with ice jam situations.
222. Report on hurricane and storm damage risk reduction design guidelines Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section requires the Secretary to submit a report within one year comparing the Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction Design Guidelines used by the Corps of Engineers with the construction methods of the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection System. The report should describe both the guidelines and the construction methods, note any deviations, and include an analysis of data from nearby land to evaluate the effectiveness of the structures.
223. Briefing on status of certain activities on the Missouri River Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary must brief the Senate and House Committees about the Missouri River projects within 30 days after certain environmental consultations are completed. This briefing will address any required actions based on the consultation's biological opinions and if any funding requests to Congress will be needed to carry out these actions.
224. Report on material contaminated by a hazardous substance and the civil works program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress within one year of the law's passage. The report should cover how hazardous material affects civil projects by the Corps of Engineers, including legal responsibilities, impacts on project timelines, operations, and costs, and may also suggest new laws to solve identified issues.
225. Report on efforts to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to report on the efforts to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species at water resources projects in the U.S. The report must describe current programs, discuss impacts and partnerships, provide updates on previous plans, and offer recommendations, including potential new laws, to improve these efforts.
226. J. Strom Thurmond Lake, Georgia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army must create a plan to manage encroachments on J. Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia, detailing their nature, causes, impacts, potential remedies, and costs, while minimizing harm to private landowners. Before taking any action to remove encroachments, the plan will be open to public comment, and Congress must specifically approve any such action.
227. Study on land valuation procedures for the Tribal Partnership Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires a study on how to determine the value of land and cost-sharing for projects under the Tribal Partnership Program, which is a program created to help with water resources projects involving tribal lands. The study will be completed within a year and will look at current procedures and cultural considerations, and it may suggest changes to laws if needed.
228. Report to Congress on levee safety guidelines Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, Congress requires a report on levee safety guidelines to be submitted by the Secretary within one year. The report will describe how the guidelines were developed, how widely they are used, ensure their voluntary nature, and include any suggestions for improvements.
229. Public-private partnership user's guide Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that within one year, the Secretary must create a guide for using public-private partnerships in water resources development projects, and make it available online. This guide should cover relevant laws and programs, opportunities for partnerships in various projects, past partnership insights, roles and responsibilities, and the benefits, particularly regarding risk-sharing and funding acceleration. The Secretary is also allowed to update an existing handbook to meet these requirements.
230. Review of authorities and programs for alternative project delivery Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section directs the Secretary to conduct a study within one year on the use of alternative project delivery methods by the Corps of Engineers, focusing on specific programs and authorities related to water resources projects. The findings, including assessments, project lists, challenges, lessons learned, and any recommendations, will be reported to specific congressional committees.
231. Report to Congress on emergency response expenditures Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to review emergency response spending from a specific fund and report to Congress about these expenditures for the fiscal years 2013 to 2023. The report must summarize yearly spending, budget requests, and any necessary actions due to funding shortfalls, as well as assess future budgetary needs and the impact of supplementary funds.
232. Excess land report for certain projects in North Dakota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of the Army is required to report to certain congressional committees on whether there is any property at Lake Oahe, North Dakota, that can be transferred to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for recreational purposes. If no transferable property is identified, the report must explain why the land is needed for existing project purposes.
233. GAO studies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Comptroller General of the United States is tasked with reviewing various aspects of water resources projects managed by the Corps of Engineers. This includes evaluating the accuracy of project cost estimates, the impact of legal clauses in project agreements, and the environmental review processes. The studies also cover how funding is distributed from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the consequences of environmental justice initiatives, and the possibility of using new technologies to modernize the Corps' work. These assessments aim to improve efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and environmental accountability in managing water resources projects.
234. Prior reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to prioritize completing specific reports related to the Water Resources Development Acts from various years. Additionally, the Secretary must notify certain congressional committees about the status of these reports within 60 days of the law's enactment, including the progress and estimated completion dates for each report.
235. Briefing on status of Cape Cod Canal Bridges, Massachusetts Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary to provide an update to certain Senate and House committees within 30 days on the status of replacing the Bourne and Sagamore Highway Bridges in Massachusetts. The update should cover the progress of environmental reviews, project timelines, and any challenges affecting the project's delivery.
236. Virginia Peninsula coastal storm risk management, Virginia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Secretary to use federal funds to study flood risk management and other issues on federal land in Virginia, and it allows other federal agencies to contribute funds for relevant land analysis. It also states that the cost-sharing rules for building approved water-related projects remain unchanged.
237. Allegheny River, Pennsylvania Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress expresses that the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania is a valuable waterway that can be better utilized for recreation, the environment, and navigation. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of maintaining service levels at locks and dams on the river until a designated study is completed.
238. New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries Focus Area Feasibility Study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to speed up the completion of a study on managing coastal storm risks for New York and New Jersey. This study will include looking at flood risks comprehensively, following the guidelines set in a specific law from 2022.
239. Matagorda Ship Channel, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The federal government is responsible for covering 90% of the costs for planning, designing, and building the recommended improvements for the Matagorda Ship Channel project in Texas, as identified in a 2020 report by the Army Corps of Engineers. This project was originally authorized by a 1958 law.
240. Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses the Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project in Texas, emphasizing that Congress believes the Secretary should prioritize finishing necessary documents quickly to avoid delays. It details tasks like preparing environmental statements and planning documents, and clarifies that if further authorization is needed, the Secretary should move ahead with project planning, engineering, and design once justified. The project is related to navigation improvements authorized by a 2020 law.
241. Assessment of impacts from changing construction responsibilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is required to evaluate the effects of changing construction responsibilities for navigation projects, including those for harbors, to be 75% federally funded for depths up to 55 feet. This evaluation will cover current and potential future projects, financial impacts, and implications on other federal navigation activities, with a report due in 18 months.
242. Deadline for previously required list of covered projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the Secretary must submit a list of covered projects, which was originally required by a deadline in a past law, within 30 days after this new law is enacted, regardless of the previous deadline.
243. Cooperation authority Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses how the Secretary will evaluate whether existing rules allow the Corps of Engineers to build water projects in other countries and specifies that a report on the findings will be sent to certain Senate and House committees. It also updates a law to increase the financial limit and include planning and design expertise for interagency and international support.
Money References
- (2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that— (A) describes— (i) the findings of the assessment under paragraph (1); (ii) how each authority and program assessed under paragraph (1) has been used by the Secretary to construct water resources development projects abroad, if applicable; and (iii) the extent to which the Secretary partners with other Federal agencies when carrying out such projects; and (B) includes any recommendations that result from the assessment under paragraph (1). (b) Interagency and international support authority.—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”. ---
301. Deauthorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section details certain projects across the United States that are no longer authorized by this Act. These include flood control projects in Nevada and Maine, a navigation project in Seattle Harbor, an ecosystem restoration study in East San Pedro Bay, a levee project in North Dakota, and a portion of a water basin project in Florida.
302. Environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section details new environmental infrastructure projects across various U.S. locations, specifying allocations for improvements like water and wastewater systems, stormwater management, and drainage enhancements. It also outlines modifications to existing projects, increasing funding and making geographical or procedural updates, while setting guidelines for the federal and non-federal financial responsibilities, particularly reducing the cost share for economically disadvantaged communities.
Money References
- (a) New projects.—Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(406) GLENDALE, ARIZONA.—$5,200,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Glendale, Arizona. “(407) 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. “(408) FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.—$4,800,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Flagstaff, Arizona. “(409) TUCSON, ARIZONA.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including recycled water systems), Tucson, Arizona. “(410) BAY-DELTA, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, San Francisco Bay–Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, California. “(411) INDIAN WELLS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Indian Wells Valley, Kern County, California. “(412) OAKLAND–ALAMEDA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 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.
- “(413) TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Tijuana River Valley Watershed, San Diego County, California.
- “(414) EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and stormwater management, El Paso County, Colorado.
- “(415) 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.
- “(416) WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Wilmington, Delaware.
- “(417) 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.
- “(418) COASTAL GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), Glynn County, Chatham County, Bryan County, Effingham County, McIntosh County, and Camden County, Georgia.
- “(419) COLUMBUS, HENRY, AND CLAYTON COUNTIES, GEORGIA.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), Columbus, Henry, and Clayton Counties, Georgia.
- “(420) COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Cobb County, Georgia.
- “(421) CALUMET CITY, ILLINOIS.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Calumet City, Illinois.
- “(422) 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.
- “(423) EASTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater treatment plant outfalls), Easthampton, Massachusetts.
- “(424) BYRAM, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Byram, Mississippi.
- “(425) DIAMONDHEAD, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and drainage systems, Diamondhead, Mississippi.
- “(426) 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.
- “(427) MADISON, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Madison, Mississippi.
- “(428) PEARL, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Pearl, Mississippi.
- “(429) NEW HAMPSHIRE.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, New Hampshire.
- “(430) CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Cape May County, New Jersey.
- “(431) 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.
- “(432) STOREY COUNTY, NEVADA.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Storey County, Nevada.
- “(433) NEW ROCHELLE, NEW YORK.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), New Rochelle, New York.
- “(434) CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including combined sewer overflows), Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
- “(435) BLOOMINGBURG, OHIO.—$6,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Bloomingburg, Ohio.
- “(436) CITY OF AKRON, OHIO.—$5,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including drainage systems), City of Akron, Ohio.
- “(437) EAST CLEVELAND, OHIO.—$13,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), East Cleveland, Ohio.
- “(438) ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply and water quality enhancement), Ashtabula County, Ohio.
- “(439) STRUTHERS, OHIO.—$500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater infrastructure, stormwater management, and sewer improvements), Struthers, Ohio.
- “(440) STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Stillwater, Oklahoma.
- “(441) PENNSYLVANIA.—$38,600,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pennsylvania.
- “(442) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure and other environmental infrastructure (including stormwater management), Chesterfield County, South Carolina.
- “(443) TIPTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure, including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution, Tipton County, Tennessee.
- “(444) OTHELLO, WASHINGTON.—$14,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water supply and storage treatment, Othello, Washington. “(445) COLLEGE PLACE, WASHINGTON.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, College Place, Washington.”. (b) Project modifications.
- (2) 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”.
- (C) 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”.
- (D) 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”.
- (E) 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”.
- (F) 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”.
- (G) MADISON COUNTY AND ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(55) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A–221; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended— (i) by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$110,000,000”; and (ii) by inserting “(including stormwater management)” after “wastewater assistance”.
- (I) 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”. (J) MICHIGAN.—Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended, in the paragraph heading, by striking “combined sewer overflows”.
- (K) DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “$130,000,000” and inserting “$144,000,000”.
- (L) 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”. (M) 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”.
- (N) 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 “$24,000,000”.
- (O) 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”.
- (P) 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 “$9,000,000”.
- (Q) 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 “$10,000,000”.
- (R) 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”.
- (S) LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “$165,000,000” and inserting “$232,000,000”.
- (T) 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 “$10,500,000”.
303. Pennsylvania environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Water Resources Development Act to remove the term "south central" and deletes certain subsections while renumbering others. Additionally, it makes a specific change to one paragraph, removing reference to the "SARCD Council and other."
304. Acequias irrigation systems Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by clarifying cost descriptions in a specific subsection, modifying the wording related to measures benefitting acequias irrigation systems, and increasing the authorized funding from $80 million to $100 million.
Money References
- Section 1113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4232; 110 Stat. 3719; 136 Stat. 3782) is amended— (1) in subsection (d)— (A) by striking “costs,” and all that follows through “except that” and inserting “costs, shall be as described in the second sentence of subsection (b) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3691)), except that”; and (B) by striking “measure benefitting” and inserting “measure (other than a reconnaissance study) benefitting”; and (2) in subsection (e), by striking “$80,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”. ---
305. Oregon environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines changes to a section of the Water Resources Development Act, specifically involving Oregon's environmental infrastructure projects. It removes the term "southwestern," increases funding from $50 million to $90 million, and updates related clerical references in other acts to reflect these changes.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Section 8359 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3802) is amended— (1) in the section heading, by striking “Southwestern”; (2) in each of subsections (a) and (b), by striking “southwestern” each place it appears; (3) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$90,000,000”; and (4) by striking subsection (f). (b) Clerical amendments.— (1) NDAA.—The table of contents in section 2(b) of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (136 Stat. 2430) is amended by striking the item relating to section 8359 and inserting the following: “Sec. 8359. Oregon.”. (2) WRDA.—The table of contents in section 8001(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3694) is amended by striking the item relating to section 8359 and inserting the following: “Sec. 8359. Oregon.”. ---
306. Kentucky and West Virginia environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill outlines a program where the federal government will assist Kentucky and West Virginia with water-related environmental projects, covering up to 75% of costs through grants or reimbursements, provided the projects are publicly owned and have required local agreements in place. It authorizes $75 million for this purpose, with 10% allowed for administrative expenses by the Corps of Engineers, and requires local entities to cover operation and maintenance costs entirely.
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).
307. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to specify that for certain critical restoration projects helping economically disadvantaged communities, the community is only required to cover 10 percent of the project's total costs.
308. Ohio and North Dakota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to clarify how the Federal share of project costs is determined. It specifies that if a project helps an economically disadvantaged community, the community only needs to pay 10% of the project's cost.
309. Southern West Virginia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to allow a higher federal cost share for projects in economically disadvantaged communities, setting it at 90%, and increases the total available funding for Southern West Virginia projects from $140 million to $170 million. Additionally, it makes changes to subsections by removing a part and 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 pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 116–260)), 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”. ---
310. Northern West Virginia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 modifies the Federal share of project costs for economically disadvantaged communities to be 90%; it also increases authorized funding from $120 million to $150 million and renumbers certain sections.
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 (B), the Federal share”; (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) as subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: “(B) EXCEPTION.—In the case of a project benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 116–260)), 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”. ---
311. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the Secretary is authorized to start a pilot program to help restore polluted waters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia that have been affected by acid mine drainage. Assistance can be given for technical and construction efforts, and projects must be publicly owned and involve cost-sharing, with the federal government covering 75% of the costs, while non-federal entities cover 25% and all future operating and maintenance costs.
Money References
- (i) Contributed funds.—The Secretary, with the consent of the non-Federal interest for a project carried out under this section, may receive or expend funds contributed by a nonprofit entity for the project. (j) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000, to remain available until expended. ---
312. Western rural water Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to clarify that a "non-Federal interest" includes entities recognized as political subdivisions of New Mexico and adjusts the cost-sharing rules, allowing economically disadvantaged communities to pay a smaller, 10% share of project costs.
313. Continuing authorities programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to various flood control and environmental restoration programs, increasing funding limits for these projects. It adds components for drought resilience and shore damage mitigation, while raising financial caps for initiatives like emergency streambank protection and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Money References
- (a) Removal of obstructions; clearing channels.—Section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 877, chapter 877; 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”. (b) Emergency streambank and shoreline protection.—Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) is amended— (1) by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”; 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 (60 Stat. 1056, chapter 960; 33 U.S.C. 426g(c)), is amended— (1) in paragraph (1), by striking “$37,500,000” and inserting “$45,000,000”; and (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”. (d) 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 “$85,000,000”; and (2) in the third sentence, 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 (d), by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”; and (3) in subsection (f), by striking “$62,500,000” and inserting “$75,000,000”. (f) Project modifications for improvement of environment.—Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended— (1) in subsection (d), in the third sentence, by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$15,000,000”; and (2) in subsection (h), by striking “$50,000,000” and inserting “$60,000,000”. (g) 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”.
- (h) 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”.
- (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”. ---
314. Small project assistance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 by changing the year "2024" to "2029" wherever it appears in Section 165(b).
315. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes that after completing the construction for the ecosystem restoration project at Brandon Road in Will County, Illinois, which is a part of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, the federal government will cover 90% of the operation and maintenance costs. This project has been authorized and modified by several acts, including the Water Resources Development Acts of 2020 and 2022.
316. Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Rivers, New York Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The non-Federal share of the cost for the flood risk management project for the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Rivers in New York is set at 10 percent. This applies to features that benefit an economically disadvantaged community, as defined by a 2020 law.
317. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a previous law from the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, changing the number in a specific clause from "20" to "25".
318. Selma flood risk management and bank stabilization Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a plan for managing flood risk and stabilizing banks in Selma, Alabama. It states that the Secretary will review the city's request to apply a specific law to the project, allowing Selma to pay back their share over 30 years after the project is done, and specifies that Selma will cover 10% of the project's costs.
319. Illinois River basin restoration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 by extending the deadline related to the Illinois River basin restoration project from 2010 to 2029.
320. Hawaii environmental restoration Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 expands its focus to include "coastal storm risk management" alongside environmental restoration, and specifies that Hawaii is included after Guam in the list of areas covered.
321. Connecticut River Basin invasive species partnerships Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section amends the River and Harbor Act of 1958 to include the Connecticut River Basin in the partnerships aimed at managing invasive species, similar to the existing focus on the Ohio River Basin.
322. Expenses for control of aquatic plant growths and invasive species Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill modifies the River and Harbor Act of 1958 to change the funding responsibility for controlling aquatic plant growths and invasive species, reducing the required federal share from 50% to 35%.
323. Corps of Engineers Asian carp prevention pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section extends the deadline in a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, changing it from 2024 to 2029 for the Corps of Engineers' Asian carp prevention pilot program.
324. Extension for certain invasive species programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 324 of the bill extends the duration of specific invasive species programs under the River and Harbor Act of 1958 by changing the funding period from fiscal years 2021-2024 to 2025-2029, and adjusts the termination year from 2028 to 2029.
325. 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 an existing law related to storm damage and erosion in Alaska by adding "riverine erosion" to the list of concerns. It also updates the table of contents in related documents to reflect this change.
326. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 by clarifying cost-sharing responsibilities for dam rehabilitation projects, limiting expenditures on the Waterbury Dam Spillway Project in Vermont to $100 million, updating the fiscal year range for funding, and removing a subsection entirely.
Money References
- “(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “(2) CERTAIN DAMS.—The Secretary shall not expend more than $100,000,000 under this section for the Waterbury Dam Spillway Project, Vermont.”; (3) in subsection (f), by striking “fiscal years 2017 through 2026” and inserting “fiscal years 2025 through 2029”; and (4) by striking subsection (g). ---
327. Ediz Hook Beach Erosion Control Project, Port Angeles, Washington Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section addresses the cost-sharing arrangement for the operation and maintenance of the beach erosion control project at Ediz Hook in Port Angeles, Washington. It specifies that this arrangement should follow the guidelines set in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
328. Sense of Congress relating to certain Louisiana hurricane and coastal storm damage risk reduction projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress expresses its opinion that efforts should be made to connect two Louisiana projects aimed at reducing hurricane and storm damage risks. These projects, located from Gibson to New Orleans, could provide continuous protection if linked together.
329. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 increases the funding limit for the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program from $100 million to $120 million.
Money References
- SEC. 329.Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program. Section 704(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263 note; Public Law 99–662) is amended, in the second sentence, by striking “$100,000,000” and inserting “$120,000,000”.
330. Bosque wildlife restoration project Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is directed to create a program focused on wildfire prevention and restoration in the Middle Rio Grande Bosque, which includes tasks like removing jetty jacks. Generally, the cost of this project will be shared between federal and non-federal entities based on existing laws, but if the project benefits an economically disadvantaged community, the non-federal share will be reduced to 10 percent. Additionally, an old law is repealed, but the new program is considered a continuation of the repealed one.
331. Expansion of temporary relocation assistance pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section expands a pilot program for temporary relocation assistance by including a project aimed at reducing hurricane and storm damage risks in Norfolk, Virginia. This addition is part of an amendment to a previous law from 2022.
332. Wilson Lock floating guide wall Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary, upon request from a relevant federal entity, must use all available resources to quickly offer technical help, including engineering, design, and cost estimation, to address navigation issues on the Tennessee River at Wilson Lock and Dam in Alabama.
333. Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast Coastal Storm Risk Management Study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a study for managing coastal storm risks in Delaware's Inland Bays and Bay Coast, stating that if economically disadvantaged communities stand to benefit, they will pay only 10% of the cost. Additionally, the section requires the Secretary to fast-track any updates to cost-sharing agreements tied to this study.
334. Upper Mississippi River Plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Upper Mississippi River Plan section of the bill changes the funding from $15 million to $25 million in order to improve the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
Money References
- SEC. 334.Upper Mississippi River Plan. Section 1103(e)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(4)) is amended by striking “$15,000,000” and inserting “$25,000,000”.
335. Rehabilitation of pump stations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that, despite the usual rules, the flood control pump station in Northampton, Massachusetts, and the Pointe Celeste Pump Station in Louisiana are both considered eligible pump stations according to the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.
336. Navigation along the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the Secretary must work with communities in Alabama and Mississippi to manage dredging needs and maintain the locks and dams on the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway to ensure continued navigation.
337. Garrison Dam, North Dakota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section instructs the Secretary to quickly review and consider a request from a Federal power marketing organization to apply a specific law related to dam safety for the Garrison Dam in North Dakota.
338. Sense of Congress relating to Missouri River priorities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress believes that the Secretary should make the data and decisions related to the Missouri River civil works projects available to the public to ensure transparency for the local communities.
339. Soil moisture and snowpack monitoring Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text describes an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, changing the deadline for soil moisture and snowpack monitoring from 2025 to 2029.
340. Contracts for water supply Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to water supply contracts in Copan Lake, Oklahoma, and the State of Kansas. For Copan Lake, it changes the cost calculation for storage space to be based on 110 percent of the most recent agreement's rate. In Kansas, it specifies changing the interest calculation on certain contracts from compounding annually to simple interest until the state decides to use the storage space immediately or pays the principal and interest.
341. Rend Lake, Carlyle Lake, and Lake Shelbyville, Illinois Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that if the Governor of Illinois requests to end certain contracts with the U.S. regarding water storage in specific lakes, the Secretary must act within 90 days to amend the agreements, releasing Illinois from needing to pay certain costs. These contracts involve water storage arrangements at Rend Lake, Carlyle Lake, and Lake Shelbyville.
342. Delaware Coastal System Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Delaware Coastal System Program aims to improve coastal storm risk management and hurricane protection in Delaware by managing several key projects as a unified system for better safety and economic benefits. The Program modifies existing projects to enhance them and specifies that the federal government will cover 80% of the costs for select projects.
343. Maintenance of pile dike system Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is tasked with maintaining the pile dike system, built by the Corps of Engineers, to aid navigation on the Lower Columbia River and Willamette River in Washington, using federal funds.
344. Conveyances Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines provisions for conveying certain properties, specifying how legal descriptions are determined, the costs involved, liability terms, and any additional conditions the Secretary may impose. It authorizes the transfer of land in Indiana to the State of Indiana and land in Washington to the Port of Skamania, each with specific conditions regarding the property's use and payment of its fair market value.
345. Emergency drought operations pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text describes an emergency drought operations pilot program for certain water projects in California and Arizona. It allows the Secretary to prioritize water supply during droughts while coordinating with local interests, and stipulates guidelines and limitations to ensure that flood management and existing legal agreements are not compromised.
346. Rehabilitation of existing levees Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 346 of the bill changes the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 by extending the deadline for a specific provision from 2028 to 2029.
347. Non-Federal implementation pilot program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines updates to a non-federal implementation pilot program from the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, increasing certain limits on projects and adjusting the fiscal years for implementation. It also details that for certain Louisiana restoration projects, the value of contributions made by non-federal parties can be considered when determining their share of construction costs.
348. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Water Resources Development Act of 2020 has been amended to expand the harmful algal bloom demonstration program. The new additions include Lake Elsinore in California and the Willamette River in Oregon.
349. Sense of Congress relating to Mobile Harbor, Alabama Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section conveys that Congress believes the Secretary should work with people in Alabama to manage the dredging needs for Mobile Harbor, as authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965 and updated in 2020.
350. Sense of Congress relating to Port of Portland, Oregon Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section expresses the view of Congress that the Port of Portland, Oregon, as the only dredging operator for the navigation channel in the Columbia River, should keep receiving operational and maintenance support from the Corps of Engineers. Additionally, Congress emphasizes the need for continued dredging efforts despite the advanced age of the Port's dredging equipment, particularly the "Dredge Oregon," which is significantly older than most U.S. dredging vessels.
351. Chattahoochee River Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Chattahoochee River Program section of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 has been updated to replace the term "comprehensive plan" with "plans," extend the timeline for developing these plans from 2 years to 4 years, and lengthen the period mentioned in another subsection from 3 years to 5 years.
352. Additional projects for underserved community harbors Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 352 modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to include ecosystem restoration projects for underserved community harbors and extends the deadline in subsection (h)(1) from 2026 to 2029.
353. Winooski River tributary watershed Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 by adding the Winooski River tributary watershed in Vermont to the list of areas covered under Section 212(e)(2).
354. Waco Lake, Texas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is asked to speed up the process to review and consider the City of Waco, Texas's request to apply a specific section of the Water Resources Development Act to the area next to Waco Lake.
355. Seminole Tribal claim extension Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a previous law from the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 by extending the deadline for the Seminole Tribal claim from 2022 to 2027.
356. Coastal erosion project, Barrow, Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses a coastal erosion project in Barrow, Alaska, allowing the North Slope Borough to meet certain legal requirements by adopting a floodplain management plan. This plan must be approved by and developed in consultation with relevant federal agencies.
357. Colebrook River Reservoir, Connecticut Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section addresses a request by the Metropolitan District of Hartford County, Connecticut, to end a specific contract with the U.S. government related to the Colebrook River Reservoir. It states that if the contract is amended, Hartford County would no longer be responsible for certain costs related to operating, maintaining, and upgrading the reservoir's water storage.
358. Sense of Congress relating to shallow draft dredging in the Chesapeake Bay Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress believes that dredging the shallow waters of the Chesapeake Bay is important for tourism, recreation, and fishing, and recommends that the Secretary use existing laws to help with the dredging needs of small harbors and channels in the area.
359. Replacement of Cape Cod Canal bridges Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is authorized to allow Massachusetts to replace the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges, following specific legal and environmental requirements. The state can receive up to $250 million in reimbursement for construction costs, provided certifications and available appropriations, while the total federal funding for the project cannot exceed $600 million.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and subsection (e), the Secretary is authorized to reimburse the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the Corps of Engineers contribution of the construction costs for the replacement of the Bourne Bridge and the Sagamore Bridge, Massachusetts, or a portion of the replacement of the bridges, except that the total reimbursement for the replacement of the bridges shall not exceed $250,000,000.
- (e) Total funding.—The total amount of funding expended by the Secretary for the construction of the replacement of the Bourne Bridge and the Sagamore Bridge, Massachusetts, shall not exceed $600,000,000.
360. Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, Minneapolis, Minnesota Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 by changing the numbering of certain paragraphs and adding new instructions that require the Secretary to minimize the area needed for easements at the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam in Minneapolis, focusing on possibly using crane barges on the Mississippi River to achieve this goal.
361. Flexibilities for certain hurricane and storm damage risk reduction projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses how Congress found mistakes by the Corps of Engineers in applying rules for certain storm protection projects in Florida, leading to confusion. To fix this, it allows these projects to have more flexible terms for easements, letting them last at least 25 years instead of permanently, as long as all other laws are followed. It also mentions that the local interests need to cover some costs, provides details on specific projects, and outlines rules for temporary easements and the termination of authority related to this section.
401. Project authorizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes several water resources development and conservation projects in various states across the United States. These projects, focused on areas such as navigation, flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration, have specified estimated costs and are approved to be executed by the Secretary according to pre-established plans or reports.
Money References
- Date of Report of Chief of EngineersD. Estimated Costs1. MDBaltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Sea Girt LoopJune 22, 2023Federal: $47,956,500Non-Federal: $15,985,500Total: $63,942,0002.
- CAOakland Harbor Turning Basins WideningMay 30, 2024Federal: $408,164,600Non-
- Federal: $200,780,400Total: $608,945,0003.
- AKAkutan Harbor Navigational ImprovementsJuly 17, 2024Federal: $68,100,000Non-Federal: $1,700,000Total: $69,800,000 (2) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.—A. StateB. NameC.
- KSManhattan LeveesMay 6, 2024Federal: $29,455,000Non-Federal: $15,860,000Total: $45,315,000
- RIRhode Island Coastline Storm Risk ManagementSeptember 28, 2023Federal: $188,353,750Non-Federal: $101,421,250Total: $289,775,0002.
- FLSt. Johns County, Ponte Vedra Beach, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementApril 18, 2024Federal: $49,223,000Non-Federal: $89,097,000Total: $138,320,0003.
- LASt. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Coastal Storm and Flood Risk ManagementMay 28, 2024Federal: $3,653,346,450Non-Federal: $2,240,881,550Total: $5,894,229,0004.
- DCMetropolitan Washington, District of Columbia, Coastal Storm Risk ManagementJune 17, 2024Federal: $9,899,500Non-Federal: $5,330,500Total: $15,230,000
- TXGulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazoria and Matagorda CountiesJune 2, 2023Federal: $204,244,000Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $109,977,000Total: $314,221,000 (5) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—A. StateB. NameC. Date of Decision DocumentD.
- Estimated Costs1. MSMemphis Metropolitan Stormwater–North DeSoto CountyDecember 18, 2023Federal: $44,295,000Non-Federal: $23,851,000Total: $68,146,000 (6) MODIFICATIONS AND OTHER PROJECTS.—A. StateB. NameC. Date of Report or Decision DocumentD.
- NYSouth Shore Staten Island, Fort Wadsworth to Oakwood Beach Coastal Storm Risk ManagementFebruary 6, 2024Federal: $1,730,973,900Non-Federal: $363,228,100Total: $2,094,202,0002.
- MOUniversity City Branch, River Des PeresFebruary 9, 2024Federal: $9,094,000Non-Federal: $4,897,000Total: $13,990,0003.
- AZTres Rios, Arizona Ecosystem Restoration ProjectMay 28, 2024Federal: $213,433,000Non-Federal: $118,629,000Total: $332,062,000 ---
402. Facility investment Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary is allowed to use funds from a specific revolving fund to design and build various facilities in Texas and Missouri, as described in detailed plans submitted to Congress, and must ensure that these funds are repaid by programs that benefit from the new constructions.