Overview

Title

To provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and for other purposes.

ELI5 AI

S. 4367 is like a plan to upgrade rivers and harbors, making them better for everyone by fixing water-related problems and working with different groups to do it. It talks about spending money wisely, but some people worry it's not clear about why some places get more help than others.

Summary AI

S. 4367 aims to enhance the rivers and harbors of the United States, focusing on water conservation and development, among other goals. The bill, titled the "Water Resources Development Act of 2024," provides a detailed framework for improving water infrastructure, including updates to existing projects, feasibility studies for new projects, and specific actions for flood risk management, environmental restoration, and navigation improvements. The legislation also emphasizes collaboration with federal, state, and tribal entities to implement these initiatives efficiently.

Published

2024-05-20
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: SENATE
Status: Introduced in Senate
Date: 2024-05-20
Package ID: BILLS-118s4367is

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
114
Words:
40,384
Pages:
196
Sentences:
974

Language

Nouns: 13,397
Verbs: 2,210
Adjectives: 1,467
Adverbs: 208
Numbers: 2,652
Entities: 3,466

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.28
Average Sentence Length:
41.46
Token Entropy:
5.69
Readability (ARI):
22.75

AnalysisAI

The proposed "Water Resources Development Act of 2024" is a comprehensive legislative effort designed to manage and improve water resources, infrastructure, and environmental projects across the United States. The bill outlines a wide range of initiatives focusing on flood control, navigation improvements, ecosystem restoration, and storm damage reduction. It spans multiple states and includes provisions for new studies and amendments to existing laws. The Act aims to support economically disadvantaged communities with reduced financial burdens on project costs and enhance partnerships with tribal entities.

Summary of Significant Issues

Several sections of the bill detail considerable funding allocations and increases without providing substantive justifications, leading to concerns about potential favoritism and unequal distribution of resources. For example, some environmental infrastructure projects receive significant financial boosts, raising questions about the criteria for selection and how these decisions are made transparent. Critics note that the bill occasionally references definitions and criteria from other legislative acts without providing adequate context or explanation, possibly leading to confusion about terms like "economically disadvantaged communities."

Another issue is the vagueness in some of the bill's language, particularly regarding terms such as "to the maximum extent practicable." This wording could result in inconsistent implementation across different regions or projects due to subjective interpretations by stakeholders. Moreover, some projects and studies appear to be prioritized for expedited completion without clear rationale, which might give rise to perceptions of favoritism.

The bill also seeks to deauthorize several projects, yet it lacks clear explanations about the motives or impacts on affected localities. This absence of transparency might unsettle communities that rely on these projects for safety or economic benefits.

Broad Impact on the Public

The bill's broad scope could result in widespread improvements in water resource management, which would benefit communities by reducing flood risks, enhancing water supply, and restoring ecosystems. These positive effects aim to improve public safety and environmental health, aligning with national priorities for infrastructure renewal and climate resilience.

However, the lack of transparency in funding allocations and prioritization might stir public skepticism about the fairness and equity of the projects selected for implementation. Public confidence may wane if communities perceive that funds are distributed based on political considerations rather than objective needs.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Economically Disadvantaged Communities: The bill includes provisions intended to alleviate financial burdens on economically disadvantaged areas by offering reduced non-federal cost-sharing. This can significantly advance projects in communities that may otherwise struggle to fund necessary infrastructure improvements.

Tribal Entities: By facilitating greater involvement in water resources projects, the bill recognizes tribal sovereignty and promotes self-determination. Nonetheless, the complexities involved in drafting appropriate agreements and providing guidance could challenge both federal and tribal authorities.

Local Governments: The bill may empower local governments with federal support for necessary infrastructure projects. At the same time, the financial obligations for operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation, especially when rising costs are not uniformly capped, could pose budgetary challenges.

Environmental and Advocacy Groups: Groups focused on environmental preservation may see the bill as a positive step toward addressing ecological concerns. However, concerns about favoritism and vague legislative language may require advocacy groups to actively monitor project implementations to ensure compliance with original environmental intents.

In conclusion, the "Water Resources Development Act of 2024" has the potential to deliver significant improvements in water management and environmental restoration across the United States. However, balancing these benefits with the need for transparency and fairness in project selection and funding allocation remains crucial to its overall success and public acceptance.

Financial Assessment

The proposed legislation, titled the "Water Resources Development Act of 2024," outlines various financial allocations, spending authorizations, and modifications related to water resources infrastructure across the United States. Here, we will focus on the financial references within the bill and their relation to the issues identified.

Financial Allocations and Appropriations

The bill details numerous financial appropriations across different sections:

  • Environmental Infrastructure: Section 302 serves as a focal point for substantial financial allocations, mentioning specific amounts for various locations. For instance, $5,200,000 is allocated to Glendale, Arizona, and $30,000,000 is designated for Tucson, Arizona. Similarly, Wilmington, Delaware, and other cities receive $25,000,000 each for environmental infrastructure projects.

  • Continuing Authorities Programs: Section 313 includes increases in funding ceilings. For example, funds for emergency streambank and shoreline protection are increased from $25,000,000 to $40,000,000, and storm and hurricane restoration funds move from $37,500,000 to $45,000,000. These increases lack detailed explanations, fueling concerns about potential waste without accountability measures.

  • Project Authorizations: Section 401 lists numerous projects with detailed financial estimates. For example, the Baltimore Harbor project shows a total cost of $63,942,000, with $47,956,500 federally funded, while a project in Rhode Island outlines a cost split, with the federal contribution also leading the financial charge.

  • Tribal Projects and Pilot Programs: Section 117 highlights an annual appropriation of $15,000,000 through 2029 for a tribal project implementation pilot program. This substantial allocation raises questions about criteria for these decisions, as there's concern about favoritism or targeted attention without transparent criteria.

Issues Related to Financial References

Several issues arise concerning the financial references:

  1. Lack of Justification and Transparency: Many financial allocations, particularly in the environmental infrastructure (Section 302) and modifications sections, lack clear reasoning. As acknowledged in the issues, this raises concerns about potential favoritism or unequal distribution without adequate support or justification. The considerable increases in authorized spending across several amendments, especially in the "Continuing Authorities Programs" section, also emphasize this issue, suggesting the potential for wasteful spending.

  2. Varying Cost Shares and Economic Disadvantage: The bill includes numerous references to economically disadvantaged communities, such as in sections involving project cost-sharing. For instance, certain projects have a reduced non-federal cost share of 10 percent for economically disadvantaged communities. However, the over-reliance on definitions from other acts could lead to confusion or uneven application, as recognized in the issue list.

  3. Expedited Projects Without Criteria: Sections like 347 emphasize expedited projects or those with significant financial allocations without clear selection criteria. This fuels concerns about bias, as priority decisions should ideally be justified by established criteria.

  4. Project De-authorizations: Some projects, such as those in Truckee Meadows and Souris River Basin (Section 301), face de-authorization without comprehensive criteria and explanation, potentially impacting local planning and economic expectations.

  5. Unclear Terms and Impacts: Vague definitions and subjective interpretations across sections may result in inconsistent implementation. Terms like "to the maximum extent practicable" appear in financial planning scenarios, suggesting subjectivity that may lead to misinterpretation or misapplication of funds.

In summary, while S. 4367 outlines ambitious plans for water resources development, the financial references highlight the need for greater transparency and consistency. Clear criteria for financial allocations could mitigate perceptions of bias or favoritism and ensure an equitable distribution of resources, aligning with project priorities and the economic needs of diverse communities.

Issues

  • The bill includes multiple references to 'economically disadvantaged communities.' However, it relies on definitions from other acts, such as the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, which may not be immediately accessible or understandable, leading to potential confusion and uneven application of benefits (Sections 104, 213, 219, 302).

  • There is a lack of clear justification and transparency in the allocation and increase of funding for specific projects and infrastructure, creating concerns about potential favoritism and unequal distribution of resources without adequate support, especially in sections related to environmental infrastructure and modifications (Sections 302, 306).

  • Significant increase in authorized spending across several amendments without detailed justification or accountability measures, especially in the 'Continuing Authorities Programs' section, which could lead to potential wasteful spending (Sections 313).

  • Vague definitions and subjective interpretations ('to the maximum extent practicable') used across numerous sections have the potential to cause inconsistent implementation and interpretation by various stakeholders (Sections 106, 332, 354).

  • Changes to established programs and legal agreements, such as calculation of interest under 'Contracts for water supply,' raising questions about fairness and potential hidden financial impacts (Section 340).

  • Certain projects and studies are expedited or prioritized without providing clear criteria or justification for these decisions, leading to potential perceptions of bias or favoritism (Sections 202, 347).

  • The bill deauthorizes several projects, such as those in Truckee Meadows, Nevada, and Souris River Basin, North Dakota, but lacks clear criteria, justification, and explanation of impacts on local communities, raising concerns of arbitrary decisions (Sections 301).

  • Some legislative references and technical terms, such as 'separable elements' and 'invasive species,' are not clearly defined within the bill, leading to potential confusion and misinterpretation (Sections 213, 225).

  • Several amendments significantly increase funds or extend project timelines without clear justification or analysis of the reasons, such as those related to the Illinois River basin restoration and Asian carp prevention pilot program (Sections 319, 323).

  • The designation of certain areas or projects, such as the Port of Portland and various tribal projects, might suggest favoritism or disproportionate attention without transparent criteria or rationale (Sections 350, 116).

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The "Water Resources Development Act of 2024" outlines an extensive framework for water resources projects and studies, focusing on efficient planning, partnerships with local and tribal entities, and addressing environmental challenges. The Act is divided into several sections covering general provisions, authorization of studies and reports, project modifications, and authorizations, demonstrating a comprehensive approach to improve water infrastructure and management across the United States.

2. Definition of Secretary Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section of the bill, the term "Secretary" refers specifically to the Secretary of the Army.

3. Effective date Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The act and its changes will become effective one day after it is officially enacted.

101. Notice to Congress regarding WRDA implementation Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines the Secretary's responsibility to create a plan and provide updates to Congress on the implementation of water resources development laws, including forming a team to assist with implementation, developing timelines, and sharing information with relevant committees. It specifies that regular briefings and notices are required to keep Congress informed about progress and any pending actions related to these laws.

102. Prior guidance Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is required to issue certain guidance within 180 days of the Act being enacted, as specified by two prior 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 the Secretary's responsibilities to quickly establish guidance related to the "ability to pay" as specified in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. It mandates annual written reports to specific Senate and House committees on determinations about the ability of non-Federal parties to pay, detailing the projects involved and reasons for these financial determinations.

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 could benefit economically disadvantaged communities and other communities when submitting work or spend plans to Congress. It limits determination of Federal interest to 20 new studies each fiscal year and allows continuation of studies after initial Federal interest determination without needing a new investment decision, ensuring funding is drawn from the designated work plan.

105. Annual report to Congress Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section amends the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 by introducing requirements for the Secretary to notify non-Federal interests and Congress about proposals included in the annual report. Non-Federal interests can request a debrief to understand why their proposal was included and receive guidance on revisions for future consideration, while Congress receives updates about proposals located in their respective states.

106. Processing timelines Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary must ensure that, within 30 days after each fiscal year ends, the public website for the Corps of Engineers' "permit finder" is updated to show the current status of projects that involve permits under a specific section of the Water Resources Development Act.

107. Services of volunteers Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section describes amendments to a law about the Corps of Engineers' ability to engage volunteers. It includes provisions for the Chief of Engineers to recognize volunteers' contributions with awards or other acknowledgments, ensuring no cash awards are given.

141. Services of volunteers Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Chief of Engineers is authorized to use volunteers to carry out various services, helping to support their activities.

108. Support of Army civil works missions Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendments to the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 allow West Virginia University, Delaware State University, and the University of Notre Dame to conduct research on various water-related issues such as flood resilience, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and hazard mitigation. Each university focuses on different areas and states, ranging from West Virginia and the Delaware River Basin to coastal communities.

109. Inland waterway projects Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendments to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 change the funding structure for inland waterway projects, increasing the federal share of costs from 65% to 75%, and this applies to projects starting or ongoing from October 1, 2024. Projects funded under a specific government act that cannot be completed with those funds will have costs covered by the general Treasury fund.

110. Leveraging Federal infrastructure for increased water supply Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The revised section of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 allows the Secretary to accept and use funds from non-federal entities or other federal agencies to help manage federal reservoirs used for flood control or navigation, as specified in the Flood Control Act of 1944.

111. Outreach and access Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill amends the Water Resources Development Act to ensure potential partners are informed about responsibilities before starting a water project, requires clear and consistent information to be available about projects, and mandates guidance for points of contact to fulfill their roles effectively. Additionally, the Secretary must brief Congress on the implementation of these changes within 60 days, outlining plans and any challenges.

112. Model development Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary of the Army is allowed to work with other government agencies, National Laboratories, and universities to create and maintain models that help plan water resources by understanding things like flooding. These models can be used by the Secretary in their planning.

113. Planning assistance for States Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section changes the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 by adding that planning assistance for states can now include title research for abandoned structures.

114. Corps of Engineers Levee Owners Advisory Board Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section establishes a Levee Owners Advisory Board, composed of appointed members, to provide recommendations to improve flood risk management and communication between the Corps of Engineers and levee system operators. Members serve three-year terms without pay, except for travel expenses, and the board must submit semiannual reports to Congress and make them publicly available.

115. Silver Jackets program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Silver Jackets program, managed by the Secretary, will continue as it was set up under two laws from 1960 and 1988 to help manage flood control and disaster relief efforts.

116. Tribal partnership program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 establishes a pilot program allowing up to five projects to improve emergency response and infrastructure access in specific areas in Washington and South Dakota. Additionally, it clarifies that the program does not include dam removal or studies about Federal dams and their functions.

117. Tribal project implementation pilot program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, a pilot program is set up to allow Indian Tribes to directly oversee and manage certain construction projects, as defined by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The program aims to support Tribal self-determination and assess the benefits and challenges of Tribes managing their own projects, with a report on its progress to be submitted to Congress in three and five years.

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

The section updates existing laws to include "inter-tribal consortiums" alongside Indian tribes and Tribal organizations, allowing them to partner in projects related to flood and hurricane control. These consortiums are defined based on other existing federal laws about Indian tribes and organizations.

119. Sense of Congress relating to the management of recreation facilities Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Congress believes that the Corps of Engineers should have more access to the money earned from recreation facilities they manage and use it for necessary activities at those sites. Additionally, they think the Corps should be able to partner with local public and nonprofit organizations to improve these facilities, and that Congress should consider laws to make these changes possible.

201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill allows the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies for various new water-related projects across the United States, such as flood risk management and ecosystem restoration. It also permits the Secretary to study possible modifications to existing projects, focusing on improvements like navigation and flood control.

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 the Secretary of the Army to delegate certain extension determinations to the Corps of Engineers' Division Commanders, provided those extensions meet specific cost and time limits. It also requires the Secretary to develop standardized forms and guidance for implementation within 180 days of the new act's enactment, and to notify relevant congressional committees about this guidance before making it public.

Money References

  • 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 Secretary is directed to speed up the completion of various studies and reports, as well as the completion of specific water-related projects across the United States, including flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation improvements. The intent is for these projects to quickly move forward into planning and design stages, with a focus on locations such as West Virginia, Arizona, California, and Louisiana, among others.

204. Expedited completion of other feasibility studies Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The legislation requires the Secretary to speed up the review and coordination of feasibility studies for several projects, including deepening the Cedar Port Channel in Texas, restoring ecosystems in Lake Okeechobee, Florida, improving navigation in the Sabine–Neches Waterway in Texas, and expanding the La Quinta Ship Channel in Texas, all under a specific section of 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 allowed to carry out a feasibility study for a project in various parishes in Louisiana focusing on managing flood risk, improving navigation, and restoring the ecosystem. This study will continue the efforts of a previous study started in 1997 concerning flood risk management from Alexandria to the Gulf of Mexico.

206. Craig Harbor, Alaska Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The completion of a report to reevaluate the navigation project at Craig Harbor, Alaska, which was authorized by the 2016 Water Resources Development Act, will be fully funded by the federal government.

207. Sussex County, Delaware Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Congress expresses that it believes nourishing Lewes Beach in Delaware is crucial for the safety and economy of Sussex County. Additionally, it instructs the Secretary to conduct a detailed review of the Delaware Bay Coastline project, determining which areas should be included and how the River and Harbor Act of 1968 should apply to the project.

208. Forecast-informed reservoir operations in the Colorado River Basin Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section adds a new requirement for the Secretary to submit a report to Congress within one year that evaluates whether a specific type of water management called "forecast-informed reservoir operations" can be used at a reservoir in the Colorado River Basin. If the report finds it is possible and suitable, the Secretary is allowed to implement these operations, depending on available funding.

209. Beaver Lake, Arkansas, reallocation study Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is instructed to speed up the completion of a study to change the water supply storage at Beaver Lake in Arkansas, specifically for the Beaver Water District, 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 tasked with studying whether it's possible to change the purpose of the Gathright Dam in Virginia, originally built for flood control, to also allow for recreational activities downstream.

211. Delaware Inland Bays Watershed Study Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, the Secretary is tasked with conducting a study focused on restoring the aquatic ecosystems in the Delaware Inland Bays Watershed, which includes analyzing restoration needs and recommending feasibility studies. The study requires consultation with various stakeholders and utilizing existing data, and any resulting projects need Congressional approval before construction can begin.

212. Upper Susquehanna River Basin comprehensive flood damage reduction feasibility study Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is tasked with completing a study to explore ways to reduce flood damage in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin in New York, using information from a 2020 report and considering benefits to economically disadvantaged communities, following certain guidelines from the Corps of Engineers.

213. Kanawha River Basin Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, the Secretary is tasked with overseeing projects that help economically disadvantaged communities in West Virginia, ensuring these communities pay only 10% of the project's cost.

214. Authorization of feasibility studies for projects from CAP authorities Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section authorizes the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies on several projects, including hurricane and storm damage reduction for the Cedar Point Seawall in Massachusetts, flood risk management for the Jones Levee in Washington and Hatch in New Mexico, and navigation improvements or shoreline erosion prevention for Fort George Inlet in Florida. The Secretary is required to use relevant information from specific past projects in each case.

215. Port Fourchon Belle Pass channel, Louisiana Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section allows non-Federal entities associated with the Port Fourchon Belle Pass Channel in Louisiana to conduct a feasibility study for deepening the channel, with certain conditions. The study must be approved by the Secretary and Congress before construction, and prior agreements can be used to speed up the process.

216. Studies for modification of project purposes in the Colorado River Basin in Arizona Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines that the Secretary will study a project by the Corps of Engineers in Arizona's Colorado River Basin to see if water supply should be a project goal. If requested by either the project's non-Federal interest or Arizona's Governor (if there isn't a non-Federal interest), they will collaborate with state and local authorities and propose changes to Congress if water supply becomes a recommended purpose.

217. Non-Federal interest preparation of water reallocation studies, North Dakota Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

A non-Federal interest in North Dakota can conduct a water reallocation study at a reservoir built by the Corps of Engineers. The Secretary of the Army will provide guidelines, review the study for compliance, and submit an assessment to Congress. The Secretary can also offer technical assistance, but this does not imply approval of the study.

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 regarding projects for ecosystem restoration on the Walla Walla River. It updates the description of a project in Oregon and adds a new project in Washington.

219. Watershed and river basin assessments Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section updates the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to include the Walla Walla River Basin and the San Francisco Bay Basin in its list of areas for watershed and river basin assessments.

220. Independent peer review Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section changes the duration mentioned in a specific part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, extending it from 17 years to 22 years.

221. Ice jam prevention and mitigation Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section of the bill requires the Secretary to submit a report within a year about efforts to prevent and reduce flood damages caused by ice jams. This report should assess past projects, describe challenges, suggest possible solutions, and outline plans for engaging with local authorities to improve understanding and response to ice jam events.

222. Report on hurricane and storm damage risk reduction design guidelines Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section requires the Secretary to send a report within one year comparing the guidelines used by the Corps of Engineers for reducing hurricane and storm damage risks with the construction methods used by the South Lafourche Levee District for a specific hurricane protection system in Louisiana. The report will also include an analysis of the land near the levees and structures to see how effective they are.

223. Briefing on status of certain activities on the Missouri River Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary must brief specific Senate and House committees within 30 days after completing a consultation under the Endangered Species Act regarding the Missouri River operations and projects. The briefing should cover biological opinions from the consultation and any future funding requests needed to support those actions.

224. Report on material contaminated by a hazardous substance and the civil works program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section mandates that the Secretary of the Army prepare and submit a report to Congress within one year about how hazardous substances in materials affect the Army Corps of Engineers' civil works projects. The report must cover legal requirements, roles, impacts on project timelines and costs, and propose potential legislative changes to address these challenges.

225. Report on efforts to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section mandates the Secretary to report to Congress on efforts to monitor, control, and eradicate invasive species at U.S. water resources projects, including detailing current programs, successful initiatives, collaborations with states and local governments, impacts on the Corps of Engineers' missions, and providing updates and recommendations for further action.

226. J. Strom Thurmond Lake, Georgia Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines a plan that the Secretary must create to address illegal encroachments on part of J. Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. The plan will describe the encroachments, assess their impact, explore alternatives, and estimate costs, while ensuring minimal impact on private landowners and inviting public comments.

227. Study on land valuation procedures for the Tribal Partnership Program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, a study is required to assess how land value and financial contributions are determined for the Tribal Partnership Program. The results should include an evaluation of existing procedures, identify which federal authorities could implement changes, and suggest any necessary legislation.

228. Report to Congress on levee safety guidelines Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, Congress defines "levee safety guidelines" as those established under a 2007 law and requires the Secretary to report to key congressional committees on how these guidelines were developed, their usage by various government levels, and any necessary revisions, while ensuring that they remain voluntary.

229. Public-private partnership user's guide Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is required to create a guide on public-private partnerships for water resources projects within a year, detailing relevant authorities, opportunities, and benefits, as well as providing a summary of past projects and a discussion of roles, responsibilities, and the process for forming partnerships. The Secretary can meet this requirement by updating an existing handbook.

230. Review of authorities and programs for alternative project delivery Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is required to conduct a study on the Corps of Engineers' programs for alternative project delivery in water resources, such as public-private partnerships, and report the findings to Congress. This study will include assessing current programs, listing projects, discussing challenges, and providing any recommendations for improvements.

231. Report to Congress on emergency response expenditures Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section requires the Secretary to review emergency spending from certain funds between 2013 and 2023 and report the findings to Congress. The report should include a summary of each year's spending and budget requests, reasons for budget changes, predictions of future budget needs, and the impact of extra funds after disasters.

232. Excess land report for certain projects in North Dakota Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section requires the Secretary to deliver a report to congressional committees, detailing any land at Lake Oahe, North Dakota, that is not essential for project purposes and could potentially be transferred to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for recreational activities, such as those at Walker Bottom Marina and Fort Yates Boat Ramp. If no land can be transferred, the report must explain why each piece of property is necessary for the project's authorized purposes and how it has recently been used for those purposes.

233. GAO studies Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines various studies and analyses to be conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States related to water resources projects. These include examining the accuracy of project cost estimates, the implications of indemnification clauses and maintenance responsibilities in project agreements, the review of certain permits, opportunities for modernization in the Corps of Engineers' practices, the use of easements, improvements in environmental review processes, disposal site construction costs, and the distribution and use of funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

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, within 60 days of the Act's enactment, the Secretary must inform certain Congressional committees about the status of each report and provide a timeline for any that are not yet finished.

235. Briefing on status of Cape Cod Canal Bridges, Massachusetts Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is required to brief two congressional committees about the progress of replacing the Bourne and Sagamore Highway Bridges over the Cape Cod Canal. This update must happen within 30 days of the law being passed and should cover the environmental review status, project timelines, and any issues affecting the project's delivery.

301. Deauthorizations Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill section deauthorizes several water-related projects in different U.S. locations, meaning these projects are no longer approved or funded. These include flood control in Truckee Meadows, Nevada; navigation in part of Seattle Harbor, Washington; flood control at the Cherryfield Dam in Maine; navigation at the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam; ecosystem restoration at East San Pedro Bay, California; a levee in the Souris River Basin, North Dakota; and a canal project in Florida.

302. Environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section describes amendments to the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, where new environmental infrastructure projects and modifications to existing projects have been proposed across various states, detailing their funding amounts and specific improvements such as water and wastewater infrastructure. Additionally, it outlines that economically disadvantaged communities will have a reduced non-Federal cost share for these projects, and the determination of a non-Federal entity's ability to pay will be made by the Secretary with a requirement for congressional notifications on these determinations.

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”.
  • (J) 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”.
  • (L) 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”. (M) 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”.
  • (N) 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”.
  • (O) 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”.
  • (P) 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”.
  • (Q) CINCINNATI, OHIO.—Sec 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”.
  • (R) 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”.
  • (S) 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”.
  • (T) 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”.
  • (U) 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 of the bill amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 by removing references to "south central," eliminating some subsections, redesignating others, and adjusting language in a specific paragraph to exclude the mention of the "SARCD Council and other".

304. Acequias irrigation systems Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendment to Section 1113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 updates the description of cost-sharing for acequias irrigation projects to align with the previous law and increases the funding limit for these projects 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 section modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 by updating the title and specific subsections to remove references to “southwestern,” increasing the funding amount from $50 million to $90 million for certain projects, and eliminating a subsection. It also updates the table of contents for related laws to reflect these changes, using "Oregon" instead.

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.”.

306. Kentucky and West Virginia environmental infrastructure Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill establishes a program for the United States Secretary to provide environmental assistance to non-federal groups in Kentucky and West Virginia for projects like wastewater treatment and environmental restoration, as long as the projects are publicly owned. It requires local cooperation agreements, outlines cost-sharing responsibilities, and authorizes funding of $75 million, which is split between the two states, with no more than 10% allocated 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).

307. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to allow certain critical restoration projects that benefit economically disadvantaged communities around Lake Champlain, Vermont and New York, to only require 10% of the total project costs to be covered, instead of the usual percentage.

308. Ohio and North Dakota Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to change how the Federal share of project costs is described, specifying that for economically disadvantaged communities, the non-Federal share will be reduced to 10 percent.

309. Southern West Virginia Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to adjust the rules about project costs and funding for Southern West Virginia. It specifies that economically disadvantaged communities can receive 90% of project costs funded by the government and raises the total available funds for the projects from $140 million to $170 million.

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 changes the funding rules for projects in Northern West Virginia by stating that, for economically disadvantaged communities, the Federal government will cover 90% of project costs. It also increases the authorized funding from $120 million to $150 million and makes several technical changes, including renumbering 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 (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

The text outlines a pilot program that allows the government to help restore polluted water in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, especially areas affected by acid mine drainage. The program will fund up to 75% of project costs and the full amount of ongoing costs will be covered by non-Federal entities, with a total appropriation of $50 million available until used.

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 redefine the term “non-Federal interest” to include political subdivisions in New Mexico. Additionally, it changes the numbering of certain paragraphs.

313. Continuing authorities programs Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines amendments to various U.S. laws related to public works and environmental projects, including increases in funding limits for flood control, shoreline protection, storm and hurricane restoration, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and other related projects. It also introduces new provisions to enhance drought resilience through restoration efforts.

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

Section 314 amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 to change the expiration date of certain provisions from 2024 to 2029.

315. Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road, Will County, Illinois Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section discusses the completion of a project in Will County, Illinois, which focuses on restoring the ecosystem as part of a broader initiative involving the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. After the project's construction, the federal government will cover 90% of the operation and maintenance costs.

316. Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Rivers, New York Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section states that the project to manage flood risks for the Mamaroneck-Sheldrake Rivers in New York, which helps an economically disadvantaged community, will require a 10 percent cost contribution from non-Federal sources. This project is authorized under specific sections of the Water Resources Development Acts of 2018 and 2020.

317. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Alaska Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 changes the number in Section 5032(a)(2) from "20" to "25."

318. Selma flood risk management and bank stabilization Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill instructs the Secretary to quickly review and consider a request from Selma, Alabama, for a flood management and bank stabilization project, applying specific provisions from the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The project requires Selma to cover 10 percent of the project's costs.

319. Illinois River basin restoration Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section changes the deadline in an existing law related to the Illinois River basin restoration, extending it from the year 2010 to 2029.

320. Hawaii environmental restoration Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Section 320 of the bill amends a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 by adding "coastal storm risk management" to the activities it covers and includes "Hawaii" alongside other regions like "Guam" in its provisions.

321. Connecticut River Basin invasive species partnerships Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The law is being changed to include the Connecticut River Basin in a list that already has the Ohio River Basin, allowing for invasive species partnerships in that area.

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 government's share of expenses for managing aquatic plant growths and invasive species from 50% to 35%.

323. Corps of Engineers Asian carp prevention pilot program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section changes the deadline in the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 for a Corps of Engineers program aimed at preventing Asian carp from spreading. The deadline is extended from 2024 to 2029.

324. Extension for certain invasive species programs Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section changes the expiration dates for certain invasive species programs in the River and Harbor Act of 1958, extending them from 2024 to 2029 and making a minor adjustment to another date 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

In the Ediz Hook Beach Erosion Control Project section, the cost-sharing rules for operating and maintaining the beach erosion control in Port Angeles, Washington, are specified. These rules follow the guidelines set out by previous Water Resources Development Acts from 1974 and 1986.

328. Sense of Congress relating to certain Louisiana hurricane and coastal storm damage risk reduction projects Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section conveys Congress's opinion that efforts should be made to extend two hurricane and storm damage risk reduction projects in Louisiana, called Morganza to the Gulf and Upper Barataria Basin, to connect them for continuous protection from storms from Gibson to New Orleans.

329. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program received a funding increase, changing from $100 million to $120 million, as specified in an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

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 Bosque wildlife restoration project requires the Secretary to implement plans and projects for wildfire prevention and restoration in the Middle Rio Grande Bosque area, including the removal of jetty jacks. The cost for these projects will generally follow federal guidelines, but projects that help economically disadvantaged communities will have a reduced non-Federal cost share of 10%. Additionally, a previous related law has been repealed and this effort is a continuation of that prior program.

331. Expansion of temporary relocation assistance pilot program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section expands a pilot program that offers temporary relocation assistance by including a project in Norfolk, Virginia, aimed at reducing risks from hurricanes and storm damage. This project was originally authorized by a 2020 law.

332. Wilson Lock floating guide wall Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section describes that the Secretary should provide technical and cost estimation assistance to help deal with navigation issues on the Tennessee River at Wilson Lock and Dam, Alabama, if requested by the relevant Federal entity. It also clarifies that this section does not allow the Secretary to spend money on repairing or replacing any property owned by the entity, like the Wilson Lock and Dam itself.

333. Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast Coastal Storm Risk Management Study Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines the Delaware Inland Bays and Delaware Bay Coast Coastal Storm Risk Management Study, defining key terms such as "economically disadvantaged community" and specifying that if the study benefits such communities, the government will cover 90% of the study and project costs. It also mentions that the Secretary should quickly update any cost-sharing agreements related to the study to reflect these provisions.

334. Upper Mississippi River Plan Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendment increases the funding for the Upper Mississippi River Plan from $15 million to $25 million, as stated in Section 1103(e)(4) of 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 allows the flood control pump station in Northampton, Massachusetts, and the Pointe Celeste Pump Station in Louisiana to be treated as eligible pump stations under the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, bypassing certain existing requirements.

336. Navigation along the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is tasked with working with local stakeholders in Alabama and Mississippi to manage dredging needs for the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway and to ensure that navigation continues smoothly at the Corps of Engineers' locks and dams along the waterway.

337. Garrison Dam, North Dakota Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is required to speed up the review process and consider a request from the Federal power marketing administration to apply a specific section of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to enhance dam safety at Garrison Dam in North Dakota.

338. Sense of Congress relating to Missouri River priorities Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Congress expresses the opinion that the Secretary should share any data and decisions regarding civil works projects in the Missouri River Basin to ensure transparency for the local communities.

339. Soil moisture and snowpack monitoring Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Section 339 extends the deadline in the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 from 2025 to 2029 for soil moisture and snowpack monitoring activities.

340. Contracts for water supply Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section of the bill modifies water supply contracts at Copan Lake, Oklahoma, and with the State of Kansas. For Copan Lake, it changes how storage costs are calculated under a 2022 law. For Kansas, it adjusts the method of calculating interest charges on water storage contracts from compounding annually to simple interest annually until certain conditions are met.

341. Rend Lake, Carlyle Lake, and Lake Shelbyville, Illinois Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines that if the Governor of Illinois requests to terminate specific contracts, the Secretary must release all rights of Illinois to use water storage in specified reservoirs within 90 days. This will relieve Illinois from certain costs related to the operation and maintenance of these water storage facilities.

342. Delaware Coastal System Program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Delaware Coastal System Program aims to improve planning and execution of projects protecting Delaware's coast from storms and hurricanes. It involves managing several projects as a unified system, with the federal government covering 80% of the costs for certain projects, and includes modifications for the use of dredged material in storm damage reduction efforts at Broadkill Beach.

343. Maintenance of pile dike system Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section requires the Secretary to keep maintaining a system of structures, called pile dikes, that were built by the Army Corps of Engineers. This maintenance, which helps navigation along parts of the Lower Columbia River and Willamette River in Washington, will be paid for by the federal government.

344. Conveyances Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Under Section 344, the U.S. government outlines the legal process and conditions for transferring certain properties. It includes details about the survey requirements, costs, and liability for properties conveyed to other entities. Specifically, it authorizes the transfer of land to the State of Indiana and the Port of Skamania, Washington, with conditions for maintaining public use and ensuring fair market value payment respectively.

345. Emergency drought operations pilot program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section establishes a pilot program for operating certain projects in California and Arizona during drought emergencies, focusing on water supply as the main purpose. It allows the Secretary to update water control manuals, use forecast-informed operations, and accept funds from non-federal sources while ensuring that existing laws and agreements are not affected. After two years, a report on the program's progress and lessons learned must be submitted to Congress.

346. Rehabilitation of existing levees Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Section 346 of the bill amends a previous law, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, by changing the deadline for the rehabilitation of existing levees from 2028 to 2029.

347. Non-Federal implementation pilot program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section describes amendments to a pilot program related to non-Federal implementation of water projects. It expands the scope and time frame of the program, and specifically allows for certain projects in Louisiana to be included and considers in-kind contributions by non-Federal parties toward project costs.

348. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section of the bill amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 to add Lake Elsinore in California and the Willamette River in Oregon to the list of locations for the harmful algal bloom demonstration program.

349. Sense of Congress relating to Mobile Harbor, Alabama Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Congress believes that the Secretary should work with stakeholders in Alabama to manage the dredging needs for Mobile Harbor, ensuring it follows the laws set by past acts, including modifications made by more recent legislation.

350. Sense of Congress relating to Port of Portland, Oregon Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section expresses Congress's view that the Port of Portland, Oregon, should receive ongoing support from the Corps of Engineers for operations and maintenance, highlighting that the Port is the only operator for a federal navigation channel there and uses an aging dredging vessel called the "Dredge Oregon." Congress also commits to ensuring continued dredging efforts for the Port.

351. Chattahoochee River Program Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Section 351 of the bill modifies the Chattahoochee River Program. It changes the time frames specified in the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 by extending in subsection (b)(1) the period from 2 years to 4 years, and in subsection (j) from 3 years to 5 years.

352. Additional projects for underserved community harbors Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section changes part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to allow funding for ecosystem restoration at underserved community harbors and extends a deadline from 2026 to 2029.

353. Winooski River tributary watershed Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section modifies the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to include the Winooski River tributary watershed in Vermont in the list of projects that are part of the law.

354. Waco Lake, Texas Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The Secretary is instructed to prioritize and carefully consider the City of Waco’s request to apply a specific law related to water resources to a dam near Waco Lake, Texas.

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.

401. Project authorizations Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section authorizes various water-related projects, covering areas like navigation, flood risk management, and storm damage reduction, based on reports to Congress. These projects involve different states and detailed cost estimates, with funding shared between federal and non-federal sources.

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: $63,942,000
  • KSManhattan LeveesMay 6, 2024Federal: $29,455,000Non-Federal: $15,860,000Total: $45,315,000 (3) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—A.
  • 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: $138,320,000 (4) NAVIGATION AND HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—A. StateB. NameC. Date of Report of Chief of EngineersD.
  • TXGulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazoria and Matagorda CountiesJune 2, 2023Federal: $204,244,000Inland Waterways Trust Fund: $109,977,000Total: $314,221,000
  • Estimated Costs1. MSMemphis Metropolitan Stormwater–North DeSoto CountyDecember 18, 2023Federal: $17,289,000Non-Federal: $9,310,000Total: $26,599,000 (6) MODIFICATIONS AND OTHER PROJECTS.—A. StateB. NameC. Date of Report or Decision DocumentD. Estimated Costs1.
  • 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: $13,990,000 ---