(1) in the section heading by striking “Authorization of appropriations” and inserting “Funding for harbor navigation”;

(2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and

(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

(1) in subsection (d)(2)(A)(i) (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section) by striking “subsection (e)” and inserting “subsection (f)”;

(2) in subsection (e)(3)(B)(i) (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section) by striking “subsection (c)(2)(A)” and inserting “subsection (d)(2)(A)”; and

(3) in subsection (f)(2)(A)(ii) (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section) by striking “subsection (d)(2)” and inserting “subsection (e)(2)”.

(1) an analysis of the use of forecast-informed reservoir operations at Coyote Valley Dam, California;

(2) an assessment of the viability of using forecast-informed reservoir operations at other dams owned or operated by the Secretary;

(3) an identification of other dams owned or operated by the Secretary where forecast-informed reservoir operations may assist the Secretary in the optimization of future reservoir operations; and

(4) any additional areas for future study of forecast-informed reservoir operations.

(1) The compatibility of hydropower generation with existing purposes of the dam.

(2) The proximity of the dam to existing transmission resources.

(3) The existence of studies to characterize environmental, cultural, and historic resources relating to the dam.

(4) Whether hydropower is an authorized purpose of the dam.

(1) by striking “strengthening, raising, extending, or other modification thereof” and inserting “strengthening, raising, extending, realigning, or other modification thereof”; and

(2) by striking “structure or project damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than an ordinary nature to the design level of protection when, in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers,” and inserting “structure or project damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than an ordinary nature to either the pre-storm level or the design level of protection, whichever provides greater protection, when, in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers,”.

(1) support the goal of achieving efficient permitting and maintaining appropriate environmental protections; and

(2) promote increased transparency in the use of mitigation banks.

(1) be consistent with—

(2) provide for—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, conduct a study to determine the extent to which Indian Tribes have been displaced as a result of the construction of the John Day Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, as authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179), including an assessment of effects related to housing and related improvements.

(2) ADDITIONAL ACTIONS.—If the Secretary determines, based on the study under paragraph (1), that assistance is required, the Secretary may use all existing authorities of the Secretary to provide assistance, which may include housing and related improvements, to Indian Tribes displaced as a result of the construction of the John Day Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon.

(3) REPEAL.—Section 1178(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1675) is repealed.

(1) Congress plays a central role in identifying, prioritizing, and authorizing vital water resources infrastructure activities throughout the United States.

(2) The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–121) established a new and transparent process to review and prioritize the water resources development activities of the Corps of Engineers with strong congressional oversight.

(3) Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) requires the Secretary to develop and submit to Congress each year a Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development and, as part of the annual report process, to—

(4) Congress will use the information provided in the annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development to determine authorization needs and priorities for purposes of water resources development legislation.

(5) To ensure that Congress can gain a thorough understanding of the water resources development needs and priorities of the United States, it is important that the Secretary take sufficient steps to ensure that non-Federal interests are made aware of the new annual report process, including the need for non-Federal interests to submit proposals during the Secretary’s annual request for proposals in order for such proposals to be eligible for consideration by Congress.

(1) develop and disseminate technical assistance materials, seminars, and guidance on the annual process as it relates to non-Federal interests;

(2) provide written notice to local elected officials and previous and potential non-Federal interests on the annual process and on opportunities to address local water resources challenges through the missions and authorities of the Corps of Engineers;

(3) issue guidance for non-Federal interests to assist such interests in developing proposals for water resources development projects that satisfy the requirements of such section 7001; and

(4) provide, at the request of a non-Federal interest, assistance with researching and identifying existing project authorizations and Corps of Engineers decision documents.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Prior to developing and issuing any new or revised implementation guidance for a covered water resources development law, the Secretary shall issue a public notice that—

(2) ISSUANCE OF NOTICE.—The Secretary shall issue the notice under paragraph (1) through a posting on a publicly accessible website dedicated to providing notice on the development and issuance of implementation guidance for a covered water resources development law.

(1) INPUT.—The Secretary shall allow a minimum of 60 days after issuance of the public notice under subsection (a) for non-Federal stakeholders to provide input and recommendations to the Secretary, prior to finalizing implementation guidance for a covered water resources development law.

(2) OUTREACH.—The Secretary may, as appropriate (as determined by the Secretary), reach out to non-Federal stakeholders and circulate drafts of implementation guidance for a covered water resources development law for informal feedback and recommendations.

(1) the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014;

(2) the Water Resources Development Act of 2016;

(3) this Act; and

(4) any Federal water resources development law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.

(A) in the heading, by inserting “backlog” before “information”; and

(B) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking “subparagraph (A)” and inserting “subparagraph (A)(i)”;

(A) in clause (i), in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking “Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall submit a copy of the list” and inserting “For fiscal year 2019, and biennially thereafter, in conjunction with the President’s annual budget submission to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit a copy of the lists”; and

(B) in clause (ii), by striking “list” and inserting “lists”.

(1) the ability of the Corps of Engineers to carry out its statutory missions and responsibilities, and the potential effects of transferring the functions (including regulatory obligations), personnel, assets, and civilian staff responsibilities of the Secretary relating to civil works from the Department of Defense to a new or existing agency or subagency of the Federal Government, including how such a transfer might affect the Federal Government’s ability to meet the current statutory missions and responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers; and

(2) improving the Corps of Engineers’ project delivery processes, including recommendations for such improvements, taking into account factors including—

(1) effects on the national security of the United States;

(2) the ability of the Corps of Engineers to maintain sufficient engineering capability and capacity to assist ongoing and future operations of the United States armed services; and

(3) emergency and natural disaster response obligations of the Federal Government that are carried out by the Corps of Engineers.

(1) the Department of Defense, including the Secretary of the Army and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works;

(2) the Department of Transportation;

(3) the Environmental Protection Agency;

(4) the Department of Homeland Security;

(5) the Office of Management and Budget;

(6) other appropriate Federal agencies;

(7) professional and nongovernmental organizations; and

(8) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

“(c) Submission to Congress.—

“(e) Review and technical assistance.—

(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting “federally authorized” before “water resources development project”;

(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting “, except as provided in paragraph (3)” before the semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

(A) in paragraph (3)—

(B) in paragraph (5)—

(1) by striking “a flood-control project duly adopted and authorized by law” and inserting “a federally authorized water resources development project,”;

(2) by striking “such work” and inserting “such project”;

(3) by striking “from appropriations which may be provided by Congress for flood-control work” and inserting “if appropriations are provided by Congress for such purpose”; and

(4) by adding at the end the following: “For purposes of this Act, the term ‘State’ means the several States, the District of Columbia, the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States, and Indian tribes (as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304(e))).”.

(1) the process or timeline for development and implementation of other water resources development projects by other non-Federal entities that do not use such authorities; or

(2) the process for including such projects in the President’s annual budget submission to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.

(A) by striking “4 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph” and inserting “December 31, 2022”; and

(B) by striking “carry out a study” and inserting “carry out a followup study”.

(1) carry out a study on the economic principles and analytical methodologies currently used by or applied to the Corps of Engineers to formulate, evaluate, and budget for water resources development projects; and

(2) make recommendations to Congress on potential changes to such principles and methodologies to improve transparency, return on Federal investment, cost savings, and prioritization, in the formulation, evaluation, and budgeting of such projects.

(1) an analysis of the current economic principles and analytical methodologies used by or applied to the Corps of Engineers in determining the total benefits and total costs during the formulation of, and plan selection for, a water resources development project;

(2) an analysis of improvements or alternatives to how the Corps of Engineers utilizes the National Economic Development, Regional Economic Development, Environmental Quality, and Other Social Effects accounts developed by the Institute for Water Resources of the Corps of Engineers in the formulation of, and plan selection for, such projects;

(3) an analysis of whether such principles and methodologies fully account for all of the potential benefits of project alternatives, including any reasonably associated benefits of such alternatives that are not contrary to law, Federal policy, or sound water resources management;

(4) an analysis of whether such principles and methodologies fully account for all of the costs of project alternatives, including potential societal costs, such as lost ecosystem services, and full lifecycle costs for such alternatives; and

(5) an analysis of the methodologies utilized by the Federal Government in setting and applying discount rates for benefit-cost analyses used in the formulation, evaluation, and budgeting of Corps of Engineers water resources development projects.

(1) submit a report containing the results of the study and the recommendations to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; and

(2) make a copy of such report available on a publicly accessible website.

(1) aligns the assessment of the potential benefit-cost ratio for budgeting water resources development projects with that used by the Corps of Engineers during project plan formulation and evaluation pursuant to section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–17); and

(2) demonstrates the transparent criteria and metrics utilized by the President in the evaluation and selection of water resources development projects included in the budget request.

(1) an analysis of—

(2) a description of Corps of Engineers, stakeholder, and expert perspectives on the effectiveness of corrosion management efforts to reduce the incidence of corrosion at projects and properties under the control of the Corps of Engineers.

(1) a description of guidance or instructions issued, and other measures taken, by the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers to consider natural features and nature-based features in project feasibility studies;

(2) an assessment of the costs, benefits, impacts, and trade-offs associated with natural features and nature-based features recommended by the Secretary for flood risk reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration projects, and the effectiveness of those natural features and nature-based features;

(3) a description of any statutory, fiscal, regulatory, or other policy barriers to the appropriate consideration and use of a full array of natural features and nature-based features; and

(4) any recommendations for changes to statutory, fiscal, regulatory, or other policies to improve the use of natural features and nature-based features by the Corps of Engineers.

(1) a summary of flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages throughout the State of Alaska, based on information from—

(2) the status of efforts to relocate Alaska Native villages due to flooding and erosion threats; and

(3) any other issues relating to flooding and erosion threats to, or relocation of, Alaska Native villages, as the Comptroller General determines to be appropriate.

(1) in the heading by inserting “navigation and” before “hydroelectric facilities”;

(2) in the first sentence, by striking “Activities currently performed” and inserting the following:

(3) in subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (2)), by inserting “navigation or” before “hydroelectric”;

(4) in the second sentence, by striking “This section” and inserting the following:

(5) by adding at the end the following:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding”; and

“(2) TIMING.—The 15 additional years under paragraph (1) shall begin on the date of initiation of construction of congressionally authorized nourishment.”.

“(1) IN GENERAL.—For any major disaster declared in the territories of the United States before the date of enactment of this subsection, all activities in the territory carried out or undertaken pursuant to the authorities described under this section shall be conducted at full Federal expense unless the President determines that the territory has the ability to pay the cost share for an assessment under this section without the use of non-Federal funds or loans.

“(2) TERRITORIES DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘territories of the United States’ means those insular areas specified in section 1156(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310(a)(1)).”.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out studies to determine the feasibility of habitat restoration for each of the eight reaches identified as priorities in the report prepared by the Secretary pursuant to section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, titled “Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment; Final Assessment In Response to Section 402 of WRDA 2000” and dated July 2015.

(2) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall consult with the Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee during each feasibility study carried out under paragraph (1).

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out studies to determine the feasibility of a project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management in Madison, St. Clair, and Monroe Counties, Illinois, St. Louis City, and St. Louis, Jefferson, Franklin, Gasconade, Maries, Phelps, Crawford, Dent, Washington, Iron, St. Francois, St. Genevieve, Osage, Reynolds, and Texas Counties, Missouri.

(2) CONTINUATION OF EXISTING STUDY.—Any study carried out under paragraph (1) shall be considered a continuation of the study being carried out under Committee Resolution 2642 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, adopted June 21, 2000.

(1) Project for riverbank stabilization, Selma, Alabama.

(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, Three Mile Creek, Alabama.

(3) Project for navigation, Nome, Alaska.

(4) Project for flood diversion, Seward, Alaska.

(5) Project for navigation, Three Rivers, Arkansas.

(6) Project for flood control, water conservation, and related purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, California.

(7) Project for flood risk management, Lower Cache Creek, California.

(8) Project for flood risk management, Lower San Joaquin River, California, as described in section 1322(b)(2)(F) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1707) (second phase of feasibility study).

(9) Project for flood risk management, South San Francisco, California.

(10) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Tijuana River, California.

(11) Project for flood risk management in East Hartford, Connecticut.

(12) Project for flood risk management in Hartford, Connecticut.

(13) Projects under the Comprehensive Flood Mitigation Study for the Delaware River Basin.

(14) Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Apopka, Florida.

(15) Project for ecosystem restoration, Kansas River Weir, Kansas.

(16) Project for water resource improvements, Willamette River Basin, Fern Ridge, Oregon.

(17) Project for ecosystem restoration, Resacas at Brownsville, Texas.

(18) Project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor, Virginia.

(19) Project for coastal storm risk management, Norfolk, Virginia.

(20) Project for navigation, Tacoma Harbor, Washington.

(1) Project for flood risk management, San Luis Rey River Flood Control Protection Project, California.

(2) Project for flood risk management, Success Reservoir Enlargement Project, California.

(3) Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir, Central Everglades Planning Project, Florida.

(4) Project for navigation, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.

“(d) Considerations.—In carrying out a disposition study with respect to the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, including a disposition study under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), the Secretary may not complete such study until the Secretary considers, and issues a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on—