(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

(2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:

(3) by adding at the end the following:

(1) by striking paragraphs (6) through (9);

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively;

(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

(4) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), by adding at the end the following:

(A) by striking “and annually thereafter,” and inserting “and annually thereafter concurrent with the submission of the President’s annual budget request to Congress,”; and

(B) by striking “Public Works and Transportation” and inserting “Transportation and Infrastructure”; and

(1) in paragraph (3)(A)—

(2) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking “fiscal year 2012” each place it appears and inserting “each of the previous 3 fiscal years”;

(3) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9) and inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

(4) in paragraph (9), as so redesignated—

(1) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and

(2) in subsection (e), as so redesignated—

“(1) ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE.—Whenever a non-Federal interest carries out improvements to a federally authorized harbor or inland harbor, the Secretary shall be responsible for operation and maintenance in accordance with section 101(b) if—

“(2) FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE COSTS OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED PLAN.—In the case of improvements determined by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i) to deviate from the national economic development plan, the Secretary shall be responsible for all operation and maintenance costs of such improvements, as described in section 101(b), including costs in excess of the costs of the national economic development plan, if the Secretary determines that the improvements satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1).”.

(1) during each of fiscal years 2021 through 2027; and

(2) for a project the construction of which is initiated during such period, in each fiscal year until such construction is complete.

(1) develops such projects in accordance with—

(2) fully identifies and analyzes national economic development benefits, regional economic development benefits, environmental quality benefits, and other societal effects.

(1) provide notice to interested non-Federal stakeholders of the Secretary’s intent to revise the procedures;

(2) provide opportunities for interested non-Federal stakeholders to engage with, and provide input and recommendations to, the Secretary on the revision of the procedures; and

(3) solicit and consider public and expert comments.

(1) INTERAGENCY GUIDELINES.—The term “interagency guidelines” means the interagency guidelines contained in the document finalized by the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962–3) in December 2014, to implement the principles and requirements.

(2) PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS.—The term “principles and requirements” means the principles and requirements contained in the document prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962–3), entitled “Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources”, and dated March 2013.

(1) The report required under section 1214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3809).

(2) The report required under section 1120(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1643).

(1) AGENCIES AND TRIBES.—The Secretary shall ensure that all covered community consultation policies, regulations, and guidance of the Corps of Engineers continue to be implemented, and that consultations with Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes required for a water resources development project are carried out.

(2) COMMUNITIES.—The Secretary shall ensure that any covered communities, including such communities identified in the reports submitted under subsection (a), that are found to be disproportionately or adversely affected are included in consultation policies, regulations, and guidance of the Corps of Engineers.

(3) PROJECT PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall ensure that covered communities are consulted in the development of water resources development project planning and construction, for the purposes of achieving environmental justice and addressing any disproportionate or adverse effects on such communities.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall update any policies, regulations, and guidance of the Corps of Engineers related to achieving environmental justice for covered communities.

(2) RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSULTATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

(1) promotes the meaningful involvement of such communities in the project development and implementation, enforcement efforts, and other activities of the Corps of Engineers;

(2) provides guidance and technical assistance to such communities to increase understanding of the project development and implementation activities, regulations, and policies of the Corps of Engineers; and

(3) cooperates with State, Tribal, and local governments with respect to activities carried out pursuant to this subsection.

(1) (A) consults with Indian Tribes specifically on any Tribal lands near or adjacent to any activities of the Corps of Engineers, for purposes of identifying lands of ancestral, cultural, or religious importance; and

(2) (A) consults with Indian Tribes specifically on any Tribal areas near or adjacent to any activities of the Corps of Engineers, for purposes of identifying lands, waters, and other resources critical to the livelihood of the Indian Tribes; and

(1) COMMUNITY OF COLOR.—The term “community of color” means a community of individuals who are—

(2) COVERED COMMUNITY.—The term “covered community” means each of the following:

(3) STATE.—The term “State” means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, and each of the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, and in conjunction with the development of procedures under section 109 of this Act, the Secretary is directed to review, and where appropriate, revise the existing planning guidance documents and regulations on the assessment of the effects of sea level rise on future water resources development projects to ensure that such guidance documents and regulations are based on the best available, peer-reviewed science and data on the current and future effects of sea level rise on coastal communities.

(2) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon the request of a non-Federal interest, in carrying out a feasibility study for a project for flood risk mitigation, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, or ecosystem restoration under section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), the Secretary shall consider whether the need for the project is predicated upon or exacerbated by conditions related to sea level rise.

(2) SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCY BENEFITS.—To the maximum extent practicable, in carrying out a study pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall document the potential effects of sea level rise on the project, and benefits of the project relating to sea level rise, during the 50-year period after the date of completion of the project.

(A) by striking “nonstructural flood control measures” and inserting “a flood risk management or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction measure using a nonstructural feature, or a natural feature or nature-based feature (as those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))),”; and

(B) by striking “cash during construction of the project” and inserting “cash during construction for a nonstructural feature if the costs of land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations for such feature are estimated to exceed 35 percent”.

(1) include all associated seismic hazard risk reduction benefits approved by the Secretary in the calculation of the national economic development benefit-cost ratio for a flood risk management project in a seismic hazard zone for purposes of plan formulation pursuant to section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; and

(2) seek to maximize the combination of flood risk reduction and seismic hazard risk reduction benefits in the formulation of the national economic development alternative for such project.

“(1) IN GENERAL.—In preparing a feasibility report under subsection (a) for a study that will benefit an economically disadvantaged community, upon request by the non-Federal interest for the study, the Secretary shall first determine the Federal interest in carrying out the study and the projects that may be proposed in the study.

“(2) COST SHARE.—The costs of a determination under paragraph (1)—

“(3) DEADLINE.—A determination under paragraph (1) shall be completed by not later than 120 days after the date on which funds are made available to the Secretary to carry out the determination.

“(4) TREATMENT.—

“(5) REPORT TO NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—If, based on a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary determines that a study or project is not in the Federal interest because the project will not result, or is unlikely to result, in a recommended plan that will produce national economic development benefits greater than cost, but may result in a technically sound and environmentally acceptable plan that is otherwise consistent with section 904 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281), the Secretary shall issue a report to the non-Federal interest with recommendations on how the non-Federal interest might modify the proposal such that the project could be in the Federal interest and feasible.”.

(1) publish a notice in the Federal Register that requests from non-Federal interests proposals for the potential feasibility study of a flood risk management project or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction project for an economically disadvantaged community;

(2) upon request of a non-Federal interest for such a project, provide technical assistance to such non-Federal interest in the formulation of a proposal for a potential feasibility study to be submitted to the Secretary under the pilot program; and

(3) review such proposals and select 10 feasibility studies for such projects to be carried out by the Secretary, in coordination with the non-Federal interest, under this pilot program.

(1) the percentage of people living in poverty in the county or counties (or county-equivalent entity or entities) in which the project is located is above the percentage of people living in poverty in the State, based on census bureau data;

(2) the percentage of families with income above the poverty threshold but below the average household income in the county or counties (or county-equivalent entity or entities) in which the project is located is above the percentage of the same for the State, based on census bureau data;

(3) the percentage of the population that identifies as belonging to a minority or indigenous group in the county or counties (or county-equivalent entity or entities) in which the project is located is above the average percentage in the State, based on census bureau data; and

(4) the project is addressing flooding or hurricane or storm damage effects that have a disproportionate impact on a rural community or a community of color (as such term is defined in section 111 of this Act), including Tribal or indigenous peoples.

(1) a description of proposals received from non-Federal interests pursuant to subsection (b)(1);

(2) a description of technical assistance provided to non-Federal interests under subsection (b)(2); and

(3) a description of proposals selected under subsection (b)(3) and criteria used to select such proposals.

(1) AFFECTED COMMUNITY.—The term “affected community” means a legally constituted public body (as that term is used in section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b))—

(2) NATURAL FEATURE; NATURE-BASED FEATURE.—The terms “natural feature” and “nature-based feature” have the meanings given those terms in section 1184 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a).

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out a program to study, design, and construct water resources development projects through measures involving, among other things, strengthening, raising, extending, realigning, or otherwise modifying existing flood control works, designing new works, and incorporating natural features, nature-based features, or nonstructural features, as appropriate to provide flood and coastal storm risk management to affected communities.

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practical, review and, where appropriate, incorporate natural features or nature-based features, or a combination of such features and nonstructural features, that avoid or reduce at least 50 percent of flood or storm damages in one or more of the alternatives included in the final alternatives evaluated.

(3) CONSTRUCTION.—

(4) ABILITY TO PAY.—

(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following—

(2) in subsection (c)—

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

(2) an assessment, based on information from relevant Federal and non-Federal sources, of—

(3) an analysis of projects for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration that have incorporated natural infrastructure, natural features, or nature-based features to identify best practices, including for measuring project benefits and costs;

(4) a description of any statutory, fiscal, regulatory, or other policy barriers to the appropriate consideration and use of a full array of natural infrastructure, natural features, and nature-based features in carrying out feasibility studies and projects; and

(5) any recommendations for changes to law, or to fiscal, regulatory, or other policies, to improve the use of natural infrastructure, natural features, and nature-based features by the Corps of Engineers in carrying out feasibility studies and projects.

(1) IN GENERAL.—It is the policy of the United States for the Corps of Engineers to maximize the beneficial reuse, in an environmentally acceptable manner, of suitable dredged material obtained from the construction or operation and maintenance of water resources development projects.

(2) PLACEMENT OF DREDGED MATERIALS.—

(1) PILOT PROGRAM PROJECTS.—Section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) is amended—

(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary, in selecting projects for the beneficial reuse of dredged materials under section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note), should ensure the thorough evaluation of project submissions from rural, small, and economically disadvantaged communities.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the District Commander of each district of the Corps of Engineers that obtains dredged material through the construction or operation and maintenance of a water resources development project shall, at Federal expense, develop and submit to the Secretary a 5-year dredged material management plan in coordination with relevant State agencies and stakeholders.

(2) SCOPE.—Each plan developed under this subsection shall include—

(3) PUBLIC COMMENT.—In developing each plan under this subsection, each District Commander shall provide notice and an opportunity for public comment.

(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Upon submission of each plan to the Secretary under this subsection, each District Commander shall make the plan publicly available, including on a publicly available website.

(1) REVISIONS.—Section 1111 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) is amended—

(2) COORDINATION WITH EXISTING AUTHORITIES.—The Secretary may carry out the dredge pilot program authorized by section 1111 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) in coordination with Federal regional dredge demonstration programs in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:

(2) by adding at the end the following:

(1) consult with the heads of appropriate Federal and State agencies; and

(2) make maximum use of existing Federal and State data and ongoing programs and activities of Federal and State agencies, including the activities of the Secretary carried out through the Engineer Research and Development Center pursuant to section 1109 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 610 note).

(1) high-altitude lakes; and

(2) the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins.

(1) flood risk management and navigation; and

(2) the population recovery of the pallid sturgeon, including baseline population counts.

(1) submits the report required by subsection (a);

(2) acting through the Engineer Research and Development Center, conducts further research on interception-rearing complex design, including any effects on existing flows, flood risk management, and navigation; and

(3) develops a plan—

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT.—The Secretary shall provide an opportunity for comment from the public and the Governor of each affected State on any proposals to construct an interception-rearing complex after the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) PERIOD.—The public comment period required by paragraph (1) shall be not less than 90 days for each proposal to construct an interception-rearing complex on the Missouri River.

(1) in clause (i)(I), by inserting “, or provide contributions equal to,” after “pay”; and

(2) in clause (ii)—

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)—

(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting “, or provide contributions equal to,” before “an amount sufficient”; and

(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Prior to the acceptance of materials, services, or funds under this section, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement that specifies—

(2) EXCEPTION.—If an agreement under paragraph (1) was not entered prior to materials or services being contributed, a non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary that—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—For each levee included in an inventory established under subsection (b) or for which the Secretary has conducted a review under subsection (c), the Secretary shall—

“(2) CONSULTATION.—In identifying deficiencies and describing remedies for a levee under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with relevant non-Federal interests, including by providing an opportunity for comment by those non-Federal interests.”.

(1) in paragraph (4)—

(2) in paragraph (10)—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—Section 8A(a) of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(a)) is amended by striking “to non-Federal sponsors” and inserting “to States with dam safety programs”.

(2) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Section 8A(b) of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(b)) is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “for a project may be used for” and inserting “to a State may be used by the State to award grants to eligible subrecipients for”.

(3) AWARD OF GRANTS.—Section 8A(c) of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(c)) is amended—

(4) REQUIREMENTS.—Section 8A(d) of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(d)) is amended—

(5) FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLANS.—Section 8A(e) of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(e)) is amended—

(6) CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.—Section 8A(i)(1) of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(i)(1)) is amended by striking “a non-Federal sponsor” and inserting “an eligible subrecipient”.

(1) ELIGIBLE PUMP STATION.—The term “eligible pump station” means a pump station—

(2) REHABILITATION.—

(1) provide 35 percent of the cost of rehabilitation of an eligible pump station carried out under this section; and

(2) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations associated with the rehabilitation described in subparagraph (A), at no cost to the Federal Government.

(1) to pay the non-Federal share of the costs of rehabilitation under subsection (c); and

(2) to pay 100 percent of the operation and maintenance costs of the rehabilitated eligible pump station, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary.

“(9) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as”; and

“(2) RENEGOTIATION OF TERMS.—

(1) a summary of the results of the review; and

(2) public guidance on best practices for non-Federal interest to use when writing or developing contractual agreements with the Secretary and utilities.

(1) TONTO CREEK, GILA RIVER, ARIZONA.—Project for flood risk management, Tonto Creek, Gila River, Arizona.

(2) SULPHUR RIVER, ARKANSAS AND TEXAS.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Sulphur River, Arkansas and Texas.

(3) CABLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, water supply, and related benefits, Cable Creek, California.

(4) DEL MAR BLUFFS, CALIFORNIA.—Project for shoreline stabilization, Del Mar Bluffs, San Diego County, California.

(5) REDBANK AND FANCHER CREEKS, CALIFORNIA.—Project for water conservation and water supply, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California.

(6) RIO HONDO CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Rio Hondo Channel, San Gabriel River, California.

(7) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for coastal storm damage reduction, Southern California.

(8) SHINGLE CREEK AND KISSIMMEE RIVER, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration and water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Osceola County, Florida.

(9) ST. JOHN’S RIVER AND LAKE JESUP, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, St. John’s River and Lake Jesup, Florida.

(10) WAIMEA RIVER, HAWAII.—Project for flood risk management, Waimea River, Kauai, Hawaii.

(11) CHICAGO AREA WATERWAYS SYSTEM, ILLINOIS.—Project for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and other purposes, Illinois River, Chicago River, Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River, and other waterways in the vicinity of Chicago, Illinois.

(12) FOX RIVER, ILLINOIS.—Project for flood risk management, Fox River, Illinois.

(13) LOWER MISSOURI RIVER, KANSAS.—Project for bank stabilization and navigation, Lower Missouri River, Sioux City, Kansas.

(14) TANGIPAHOA PARISH, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk management, Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana.

(15) KENT NARROWS AND CHESTER RIVER, MARYLAND.—Project for navigation, Kent Narrows and Chester River, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.

(16) BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Boston, Massachusetts, pursuant to the comprehensive study authorized under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2).

(17) LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Lower St. Croix River, Minnesota.

(18) ESCATAWPA RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Escatawpa River, Jackson County, Mississippi.

(19) LONG BEACH, BAY ST. LOUIS AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management, Long Beach, Bay St. Louis and Mississippi Sound, Mississippi.

(20) PASCAGOULA RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for comprehensive watershed study, Pascagoula, Mississippi.

(21) TALLAHOMA AND TALLAHALA CREEKS, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for flood risk management, Leaf River, Jones County, Mississippi.

(22) LOWER OSAGE RIVER BASIN, MISSOURI.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri.

(23) UPPER BASIN AND STONY BROOK (GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN), RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY.—Reevaluation of the Upper Basin and Stony Brook portions of the project for flood control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119), including the evaluation of nonstructural measures to achieve the project purpose.

(24) LAKE ONTARIO SHORELINE, NEW YORK.—Project for coastal storm resiliency, Lake Ontario shoreline, New York.

(25) WADING RIVER CREEK, NEW YORK.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Wading River Creek, New York.

(26) REEL POINT PRESERVE, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation and shoreline stabilization, Reel Point Preserve, New York.

(27) GOLDSMITH INLET, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, Goldsmith Inlet, New York.

(28) TUSCARAWAS RIVER BASIN, OHIO.—Project for comprehensive watershed study, Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.

(29) LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN (TURNING BASIN), OREGON AND WASHINGTON.—Project to improve turning basins for the project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280).

(30) WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood risk management and levee rehabilitation, greater Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

(31) CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project for tidal- and inland-related flood risk management, Charleston, South Carolina.

(32) TENNESSEE AND CUMBERLAND RIVER BASINS, TENNESSEE.—Project to deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins, Tennessee.

(33) SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS.—Modification of the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Arthur and Orange County, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), and authorized as a separable element of the project for Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, authorized by item 3 of section 1401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3838), to reduce the risk of flooding through the construction of improvements to interior drainage.

(34) PORT OF VICTORIA, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, Port of Victoria, Texas.

(35) LOWER FOX RIVER BASIN, WISCONSIN.—Project for comprehensive watershed study, Lower Fox River Basin, Wisconsin.

(36) UPPER FOX RIVER AND WOLF RIVER, WISCONSIN.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Upper Fox River and Wolf River, Wisconsin.

(1) Project for navigation, St. George Harbor, Alaska.

(2) Project for shoreline stabilization, Aunu‘u Harbor, American Samoa.

(3) Project for shoreline stabilization, Tutuila Island, American Samoa.

(4) Project for flood risk management, Lower Santa Cruz River, Arizona.

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

(6) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Del Rosa Channel, city of San Bernardino, California.

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

(8) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Mission-Zanja Channel, cities of San Bernardino and Redlands, California.

(9) Project for shoreline protection, Oceanside, California, authorized pursuant to section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636; 121 Stat. 1176).

(10) Project for flood risk management, Prado Basin, California.

(11) Project to modify the project for navigation, San Francisco Bay to Stockton, California.

(12) Project to modify the Seven Oaks Dam, California, portion of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101 Stat. 1329–111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat. 1115), to include water conservation as an authorized purpose.

(13) Project to modify the project for navigation, Delaware River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802; 113 Stat. 300; 114 Stat. 2602), to include the construction of a turning basin located near the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal.

(14) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida Project Canal 111 (C–111), South Dade County, Florida.

(15) Project for comprehensive hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Chicago, Illinois, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664; 113 Stat. 302).

(16) Project for flood risk management, Wheaton, DuPage County, Illinois.

(17) Project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Kansas, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on September 24, 2008 (docket number 2803).

(18) Project for flood control, Amite River and Tributaries east of the Mississippi River, Louisiana.

(19) Project for coastal storm risk management, Upper Barataria Basin, Louisiana.

(20) Project to replace the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

(21) Project to deepen the project for navigation, Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094).

(22) Project for flood risk management, Rahway River Basin, New Jersey.

(23) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Highlands, New Jersey.

(24) Project for navigation, Shark River, New Jersey.

(25) Project for flood risk management, Rondout Creek-Wallkill River Watershed, New York, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on May 2, 2007 (docket number 2776).

(26) Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Spring Creek South (Howard Beach), Queens, New York.

(27) Project to resolve increased silting and shoaling adjacent to the Federal channel, Port of Bandon, Coquille River, Oregon.

(28) Project for flood control, 42nd Street Levee, Springfield, Oregon, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(29) Project for ecosystem restoration, Hood River at the confluence with the Columbia River, Oregon.

(30) Project for flood risk management, Rio Culebrinas, Puerto Rico.

(31) Project for flood risk management, Rio Grande de Manati, Puerto Rico.

(32) Project for flood risk management, Rio Guayanilla, Puerto Rico.

(33) Project for flood risk management, Dorchester County, South Carolina.

(34) Project for navigation, Georgetown Harbor, South Carolina.

(35) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

(36) Project to modify the projects for navigation and other purposes, Old Hickory Lock and Dam and the Cordell Hull Dam and Reservoir, Cumberland River, Tennessee, authorized by the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636), to add flood risk management as an authorized purpose.

(37) Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, and related purposes, Lower Rio Grande River, Cameron County, Texas, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on May 21, 2003 (docket number 2710).

(38) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.

(39) Project for flood risk management, Savan Gut Phase II, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.

(40) Project for flood risk management, Turpentine Run, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.

(41) Project for navigation, North Landing Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Virginia.

(1) Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona.

(2) Project for flood control, San Luis Rey River, California.

(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida Project Canal 111 (C–111), South Dade County, Florida.

(4) Project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Caloosahatchee River C–43, West Basin Storage Reservoir, Florida.

(5) Project for flood risk management, Des Moines Levee System, including Birdland Park Levee, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa.

(1) Kansas River Basin, Kansas.

(2) Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts.

(1) by inserting “, and along the ocean shoreline of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties,” after “Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers”;

(2) by inserting “and, with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, the feasibility of and the Federal interest in providing measures to adapt to rising sea levels” after “tidal and fluvial flooding”;

(3) by striking “investigation” and inserting in its place “investigations”; and

(4) by inserting after “San Francisco Bay region” the following: “and, with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines and streams running to the bay and ocean shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, the effects of proposed measures or improvements on the local economy; habitat restoration, enhancement, or expansion efforts or opportunities; public infrastructure protection and improvement; stormwater runoff capacity and control measures, including those that may mitigate flooding; erosion of beaches and coasts; and any other measures or improvements relevant to adapting to rising sea levels”.

(1) evaluate and address the impacts of low-frequency precipitation and sea-level rise on the study area;

(2) consult with affected communities; and

(3) ensure the study is carried out in accordance with section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c).

(A) assure the preservation of cultural and historic values associated with national historic landmarks within the study area; and

(B) provide flood risk management for economically disadvantaged communities within the study area.

(1) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the Governor of the State of California, applicable Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal interests, the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership, and other stakeholders.

(2) USE OF EXISTING DATA AND PRIOR STUDIES.—To the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, the Secretary may—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary may develop a recommendation to Congress for—

(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasibility study carried out pursuant to a recommendation under paragraph (1)(D) shall be considered to be a continuation of the comprehensive study authorized under subsection (a).

(1) the results of the comprehensive study conducted under subsection (a), including any recommendations developed under subsection (c);

(2) any additional, site-specific areas within the Yolo Bypass System where additional study for flood risk management or ecosystem restoration projects is recommended by the Secretary; and

(3) any interim actions relating to existing water resources development projects undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.

(1) YOLO BYPASS SYSTEM.—The term “Yolo Bypass System” means the system of weirs, levees, bypass structures, and other water resources development projects in California’s Sacramento River Valley, extending from the Fremont Weir near Woodland, California, to the Sacramento River near Rio Vista, California, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (chapter 144; 39 Stat. 949).

(2) YOLO BYPASS AND CACHE CLOUGH PARTNERSHIP.—The term “Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Partnership” means the group of parties to the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough Memorandum of Understanding, effective May 2016, regarding collaboration and cooperation in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough region.

(1) evaluate the implications of prohibiting releases from Lake Okeechobee through the S–308 and S–80 lock and dam structures on the operation of the lake in accordance with authorized purposes and seek to minimize unnecessary releases to coastal estuaries; and

(2) to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate with the ongoing efforts of Federal and State agencies responsible for monitoring, forecasting, and notification of cyanobacteria levels in Lake Okeechobee.

(1) taking into account recent high lake levels within the Great Lakes, assess and make recommendations to Congress on—

(2) prioritize actions necessary to protect critical public infrastructure, communities, and critical natural or cultural resources; and

(3) to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, utilize existing data provided to the Secretary by Federal and State agencies, Indian Tribes, and other stakeholders, including data obtained through other Federal programs.

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the comprehensive assessment described in subsection (a), the Secretary may make a recommendation to Congress for—

(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasibility study carried out pursuant to a recommendation under paragraph (1)(D) shall be considered to be a continuation of the comprehensive assessment described in subsection (a).

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the Lower Mississippi River basin, from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to the Gulf of Mexico, to identify actions to be undertaken by the Secretary for the comprehensive management of the basin for the purposes of flood risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, water supply, hydropower, and recreation.

(2) FOCUS AREAS.—In conducting the comprehensive study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall investigate projects, including—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a), the Secretary may develop a recommendation to Congress for—

(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasibility study carried out pursuant to a recommendation under this subsection shall be considered to be a continuation of the comprehensive study required under subsection (a).

(1) the results of the comprehensive study required by this section, including any recommendations developed under subsection (c); and

(2) any interim actions relating to existing water resources development projects undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), upon the request of the non-Federal interest for the Lower Missouri Basin study, the Secretary shall expand the scope of such study to investigate and provide recommendations relating to—

(2) EXCEPTION.—If the Secretary determines that expanding the scope of the Lower Missouri Basin study as provided in paragraph (1) is not practicable, and the non-Federal interest for such study concurs in such determination, the Secretary shall carry out such additional studies as are necessary to investigate the modifications described in paragraph (1).

(3) CONTINUATION OF LOWER MISSOURI BASIN STUDY.—The following studies shall be considered a continuation of the Lower Missouri Basin study:

(4) RELIANCE ON EXISTING INFORMATION.—In carrying out any study described in or authorized by this section, the Secretary, to the extent practicable, shall rely on existing data and analysis, including data and analysis prepared under section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16).

(5) CONSIDERATION; CONSULTATION.—In developing recommendations under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

(6) EXEMPTION FROM MAXIMUM STUDY COST AND DURATION LIMITATIONS.—Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) shall not apply to the Lower Missouri Basin study or any study described in paragraph (3).

(7) PRECONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN.—Upon completion of a study authorized by this section, if the Secretary determines that a recommended project, or modification to a project described in paragraph (1), is justified, the Secretary may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the project or modification.

(8) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—

(9) COMPLETION OF STUDY; REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing—

(1) LOWER MISSOURI BASIN STUDY.—The term “Lower Missouri Basin study” means the Lower Missouri Basin Flood Risk and Resiliency Study, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri, authorized pursuant to section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a).

(2) SMALL COMMUNITY.—The term “small community” means a local government that serves a population of less than 15,000.

(1) a description of the potential effects of deauthorizing hydropower as a project purpose at the Cougar and Detroit Dams project on—

(2) identification of any further research needed.

(A) an evaluation of guidance or instructions issued, and other measures taken, by the Secretary to ensure successful mitigation of such impacts;

(B) a review of the methods of mitigation, including the use of in-lieu fees, mitigation banking, and permittee-responsible mitigation, and their long-term effectiveness of restoring or mitigating ecosystem services impacted by such projects;

(C) a review of how the use of the different mitigation methods for such projects varies across Corps of Engineers districts;

(D) an assessment of the backlog of mitigation projects, including the number of mitigation projects pending completion to address such impacts resulting from constructed water resources development projects;

(E) an evaluation of how the Secretary tracks compliance with the mitigation requirements across Corps of Engineers districts;

(F) a review of how the mitigation requirements for water resources development projects contributes to the resilience of water resources in the United States;

(G) an assessment of whether mitigation is being done prior to or contemporaneously with the construction of projects, as required by section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283);

(H) an evaluation of compliance with section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) for the development of specific mitigation plans for projects, whether such plans were successful in mitigating the designated impacts of the projects, and, in instances where such plans were not successful, what actions the Secretary is taking to modify the plans such that they will be successful; and

(I) an assessment of how the Secretary might take advantage of natural infrastructure in mitigation planning to reduce flood risks and flood recovery costs for some communities; and

(A) describes the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1);

(B) includes recommendations to ensure compliance with and successful implementation of mitigation requirements for water resources development projects; and

(C) includes recommendations to ensure existing programs and authorities include the use, to the maximum extent practicable, of natural infrastructure.

(1) an inventory of all federally authorized harbor and inland harbor projects;

(2) an assessment of current uses of such projects (and, to the extent practicable, the national, regional, and local benefits of such uses), including the uses listed in section 210(d)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986;

(3) an assessment of the annual operation and maintenance needs associated with harbors and inland harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2) of section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238), including a breakdown of such needs for each of the following types of projects—

(4) an assessment of any deferred operation and maintenance needs for such projects;

(5) an assessment of the annual funding level trends for moderate-use harbor projects (as defined in section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–121), excluding funds awarded to donor ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports (as such terms are defined in section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201));

(6) an assessment of projected needs associated with donor ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports (as such terms are defined in section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201)); and

(7) an itemization of expenditures provided to donor ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports under section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201).

(1) achieves the objectives of the report of the Chief of Engineers for ecosystem restoration in the Louisiana Coastal Area or the objectives of the comprehensive coastal protection master plan entitled “Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast” prepared by the State of Louisiana and accepted by the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (including any subsequent amendments or revisions);

(2) promotes ridge restoration, barrier island restoration, marsh creation, nonstructural risk management, or any other projects authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, pursuant to such comprehensive coastal protection master plan;

(3) allows for proactive investment in projects by a public or private entity seeking to generate credits to satisfy responsibilities associated with environmental compliance;

(4) allows for leveraging additional State, Parish, or Federal funds; and

(5) recommends methods for awarding additional credit for high-priority projects listed in the report and plan described in paragraph (1).

(1) a description of existing water resources development projects with municipal water supply or water conservation as authorized purposes, and the extent to which such projects are utilized for such purposes;

(2) a description of existing water resources development projects with respect to which—

(3) a description of ongoing water resources development project studies the authorizations for which include authorization for the Secretary to study the feasibility of carrying out the project with a purpose of municipal water supply or water conservation;

(4) an analysis of how adding municipal water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers would affect the ability of the Secretary to carry out future water resources development projects; and

(5) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to including municipal water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, and annually thereafter the Secretary shall complete an inventory of Corps of Engineers civil works facilities that are or may be contaminated, or could become contaminated, by PFAS.

(2) CONTENTS OF INVENTORY.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall review and identify—

(3) COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—To the maximum extent practicable, the actions taken under this subsection shall supplement and support work undertaken by other Federal agencies, including actions taken pursuant to the plan published by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, titled “EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan” and dated February 2019.

(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Upon completion of the inventory under paragraph (1), and annually thereafter concurrent with the President’s annual budget request to Congress, the Secretary shall submit the inventory to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

(1) RESEARCH SUPPORT.—The Secretary, acting through the Hazardous Waste Research Center located at the Engineer Research and Development Center, shall, to the maximum extent practicable, support the efforts of other Federal agencies in the development of innovative technologies and methodologies for the detection, treatment, and cleanup of PFAS associated with Federal facilities, including groundwater associated with such facilities.

(2) DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS.—Nothing in this subsection is intended to duplicate the activities undertaken by other Federal agencies as identified in subsection (a)(3).

(1) to identify water resources development projects authorized by Congress that are no longer viable for construction due to—

(2) to create an expedited and definitive process for Congress to deauthorize water resources development projects that are no longer viable for construction; and

(3) to allow the continued authorization of water resources development projects that are viable for construction.

(1) PRELIMINARY LIST OF PROJECTS.—

(2) PREPARATION OF PROPOSED DEAUTHORIZATION LIST.—

(3) SEQUENCING OF PROJECTS.—

(4) PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSULTATION.—

(5) PREPARATION OF FINAL DEAUTHORIZATION LIST.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the close of the comment period under subsection (b)(4), the Secretary shall—

(2) EXCLUSIONS.—The Secretary shall not include in the final deauthorization list submitted under paragraph (1) any project or separable element with respect to which Federal funds for planning, design, or construction are obligated after the development of the preliminary list under subsection (b)(1)(A) but prior to the submission of the final deauthorization list under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.

(1) IN GENERAL.—After the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date of publication of the final deauthorization list and appendix under subsection (c)(1)(B), a project or separable element of a project identified in the final deauthorization list is hereby deauthorized, unless Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving the final deauthorization list prior to the end of such period.

(2) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—

(3) PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN APPENDIX.—A project or separable element of a project identified in the appendix to the final deauthorization list shall remain subject to future deauthorization by Congress.

(1) POST-AUTHORIZATION STUDIES.—A project or separable element of a project may not be identified on the proposed deauthorization list developed under subsection (b), or the final deauthorization list developed under subsection (c), if the project or separable element received funding for a post-authorization study during the current fiscal year or any of the 10 preceding fiscal years.

(2) TREATMENT OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.—For purposes of this section, if an authorized water resources development project or separable element of the project has been modified by an Act of Congress, the date of the authorization of the project or separable element shall be deemed to be the date of the most recent such modification.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Any water resources development project, or separable element of a project, authorized for construction prior to November 17, 1986, for which construction has not been initiated prior to the date of enactment of this Act, or for which funds have not been obligated for construction in the 10-year period prior to the date of enactment of this Act, is hereby deauthorized.

(2) IDENTIFICATION.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that identifies—

(1) the Secretary provides to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a post-authorization change report that updates the economic and environmental analysis of the project or separable element; and

(2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate take appropriate action to address any modifications to the economic and environmental analysis for the project or separable element of the project contained in the post-authorization change report.

(1) POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT.—The term “post-authorization change report” has the meaning given such term in section 1132(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2282e).

(2) POST-AUTHORIZATION STUDY.—The term “post-authorization study” means—

(3) WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.—The term “water resources development project” includes an environmental infrastructure assistance project or program of the Corps of Engineers.

“(29) Ellis Pond and Guild Pond, Norwood, Massachusetts; and

“(30) Memorial Pond, Walpole, Massachusetts.”.

(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and inserting after subsection (g) the following:

(2) in subsection (i) (as so redesignated), by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$60,000,000”.

(1) beginning at a point N691263.78, E1181259.26;

(2) running N 35°01’50.75” W about 955.59 feet to a point N692046.26, E1180710.74;

(3) running N 54°58’06.78” E about 100.00 feet to a point N692103.66, E1180792.62;

(4) running S 35°01’50.75” E about 989.8 feet to a point N691293.17, E1181360.78; and

(5) running S 73°51’15.45” W about 105.69 feet to the point described in paragraph (1).

(1) by striking “200,000 acre-feet of”;

(2) by inserting “and San Juan-Chama project” after “Rio Grande system”; and

(3) by striking “, in lieu of the water storage authorized by section 5 of Public Law 97–140, to the extent that contracting entities under section 5 of Public Law 97–140 no longer require such storage”.

(1) store up to elevation 6230.00 NGVD29 at Abiquiu Dam, New Mexico, to the extent that the necessary real property interests have been acquired by any entity requesting such storage; and

(2) amend the March 20, 1986, contract between the United States of America and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (assigned by the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico to the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority) for water storage space in Abiquiu Reservoir to allow for storage by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority of San Juan-Chama project water or native Rio Grande system water up to elevation 6230.00 NGVD29.

(1) retain or enter into new agreements with entities for a proportionate allocation of 29,100 acre-feet of storage space pursuant to section 5 of Public Law 97–140; and

(2) amend or enter into new storage agreements for storage of San Juan-Chama project water or native Rio Grande system water up to the space allocated for each entity’s proportionate share of San Juan-Chama water.

(1) The storage of native Rio Grande system water shall be subject to the provisions of the Rio Grande Compact and the resolutions of the Rio Grande Compact Commission.

(2) The storage of native Rio Grande system water shall only be authorized to the extent that the necessary water ownership and storage rights have been acquired by the entity requesting such storage.

(3) The storage of native Rio Grande system water or San-Juan Chama project water shall not interfere with the authorized purposes of the Abiquiu Dam and Reservoir project.

(4) Each user of storage space, regardless of source of water, shall pay for any increase in costs attributable to storage of that user’s water.

(1) SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840) is amended to read as follows:

(2) SOUTH PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(52) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$50,000,000”.

(3) MADISON AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(55) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$45,000,000”.

(4) SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.—Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat. 1226) is amended—

(5) DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 119 Stat. 282; 119 Stat. 2257; 122 Stat. 1623) is amended by striking “$75,000,000” and inserting “$130,000,000”.

(6) JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 1494; 121 Stat. 1258) is amended by striking “$32,500,000” and inserting “$57,500,000”.

(7) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 337; 121 Stat. 1233) is amended by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$70,000,000”.

(8) MIDWEST CITY, OKLAHOMA.—Section 219(f)(231) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended by striking “$2,000,000” and inserting “$5,000,000”.

(9) SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat. 1146) is amended—

(10) LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “$89,550,000” and inserting “$110,000,000”.

(11) EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS.—Section 219(f)(269) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1268) is amended by striking “$25,000,000” and inserting “$75,000,000”.

(12) WESTERN RURAL WATER.—Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681) is amended—

(13) CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 571(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371; 121 Stat. 1257) is amended by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$40,000,000”.

(14) SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 340(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 110 Stat. 3727; 113 Stat. 320) is amended by striking “$40,000,000” and inserting “$120,000,000”.

(1) The project modification for the State of Missouri, Clarence Cannon Dam and Mark Twain Lake Project Salt River, Missouri.

(2) The project modification for the City of Plattsburg, Smithville Lake, Missouri.

(3) The project modification for the City of Smithville, Smithville Lake, Missouri.

(1) Modification of the project for flood risk management, lower Mississippi River, authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534), to incorporate the Wolf River Backwater and Nonconnah Creek levee systems into the project, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1575; 50 Stat. 881), subject to the determination of the Secretary that such systems meet all requirements applicable to such project.

(2) Modification of the project for flood risk management, Red River below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1219), to incorporate the Cherokee Park Levee into the project, subject to the determination of the Secretary that such levee meets all requirements applicable to such project.

(1) MUDDY RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The separable elements for ecosystem restoration of the project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts, authorized by section 522 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2656), and deauthorized pursuant to section 6001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1345), are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).

(2) EAST CHESTER CREEK, NEW YORK.—Notwithstanding section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), the project for navigation, East Chester Creek, New York, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164; 100 Stat. 4181), and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579(a)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).

(3) CHRISTIANSTED HARBOR, UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.—Notwithstanding section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), the portion of the project for navigation, Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 167), and deauthorized under section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).

(4) CHARLOTTE HARBOR, UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.—Notwithstanding section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), the portion of the project for navigation, Charlotte Amalie (St. Thomas) Harbor, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, authorized by the Act of August 26, 1937 (chapter 832, 50 Stat. 850), and deauthorized under section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).

(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed under this section shall be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section.

(3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with the conveyance.

(4) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed.

(5) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may require that any conveyance under this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the City of Eufaula, Alabama, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in the Department of the Army Lease No. DACW01–2–17–0747, containing 56.76 acres, more or less, and being a part of Tracts L–1268 (26.12 acres), L–1273 (13.71 acres), L–1278 (6.75 acres), and L1279 (10.36 acres) of the Walter F. George Lock and Dam and Lake project.

(2) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(3) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Eufaula, Alabama, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the City of Montgomery, Alabama, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).

(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is the 62.38 acres of land and water under the primary jurisdiction of the Secretary in the R.E. “Bob” Woodruff Project Area that is covered by lease number DACW01–1–05–0037, including the parcels and structure known as “Powder Magazine”.

(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, to include retaining the right to inundate with water any land transferred under this subsection.

(4) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Montgomery, Alabama, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the Massac-Metropolis Port District, Illinois, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any real property located north of the south bank of the Ohio River in Massac County, Illinois, that is associated with the Ohio River Lock and Dam 52.

(2) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(3) CONSIDERATION.—The Massac-Metropolis Port District, Illinois, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than fair market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the City of Clinton, Missouri, without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).

(4) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is a tract of land situated in the S ½ of Section 12 and the N ½ of Section 13, Township 41 North, Range 26 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Henry County, Missouri, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the north line of said S ½ of Section 12 and the easterly right-of-way of State Highway No. 13; thence easterly along the north line of said S ½ to the northeast corner of the W ½ NW ¼ NE ¼ SW ¼ of said Section 12; thence southerly along the east line of said W ½ NW ¼ NE ¼ SW ¼ to the southeast corner thereof; thence easterly along the north line of the S ½ NE ¼ SW ¼ of said Section 12 to the southwest corner of the W ½ NW ¼ NW ¼ SE ¼ of said Section 12; thence in a northeasterly direction to the northeast corner of said W ½ NW ¼ NW ¼ SE ¼ ; thence easterly along the north line of said S ½ to the westerly right-of-way of the County Road; thence in a southeasterly and southerly direction along the westerly right-of-way of said County Road approximately 2500 feet to the center of Deer Creek; thence in a southwesterly direction along the center of said Deer Creek, approximately 3900 feet to the south line of said N ½ of Section 13; thence westerly along the south line of said N ½ to the easterly right-of-way line of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad; thence in a northwesterly direction along the easterly right-of-way of said railroad to the easterly right-of-way of said State Highway No. 13; thence in a northeasterly direction along the easterly right-of-way of said State Highway No. 13 to the point of the beginning; and including a roadway easement for ingress and egress, described as a strip of land 80 feet in width, lying 40 feet on each side of the following described line, the initial extremities of the following described strip being extended or reduced as required to exactly adjoin the boundary lines which they meet, situated in the S ½ of Section 12, Township 41 North Range 26 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Henry County, Missouri, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the center of said Section 12, thence Sl°24’56”W, 1265.52 feet to a point, thence N88°29’02”W, 483.97 feet to the point of beginning of the strip of land herein described; thence in a northeasterly direction along a curve to the right, said curve having an initial tangent bearing of N3°44’4l”E, a radius of 238.73 feet and an interior angle of 61°29’26”, an arc distance of 256.21 feet to a point; thence N65°14’07”E 218.58 feet to a point; thence in a northeasterly direction along a curve to the left, having a radius of 674.07 feet and an interior angle of 36°00’01”, an arc distance of 423.53 feet to a point; thence N29°14’07”E, 417.87 feet to a point; thence northeasterly along a curve to the right, having a radius of 818.51 feet and an interior angle of 14°30’01”, an arc distance of 207.15 feet to a point; thence N43°44’07”E, 57.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of a county road, containing 2,948 acres, more or less; Excluding therefrom a tract of land situated in the S ½ of said Section 12, said Township and Range, described as commencing at the center of said Section 12; thence S1°24’56”W, 1265.52 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land herein described; thence N88°29'02"W, 1122.50 feet; thence S1°43'26"W, 872.62 feet; thence S88°29’02”E, 1337.36 feet; thence Nl°43’26”E, 872.62 feet; thence N88°29’02”W, 214.86 feet to the point of beginning, containing 26.79 acres, more or less. The above described tract contains, in the aggregate, 177.69 acres, more or less.

(2) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(3) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under this subsection is not being used for a public purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary, to the United States.

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the City of Clinton, Missouri, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).

(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is Lot 28 in Old Orchard Addition, a subdivision of the City of Clinton, Henry County, Missouri, containing 0.36 acres, more or less, including any improvements thereon.

(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, including such reservations, terms, and conditions as the Secretary determines necessary to allow the United States to operate and maintain the Harry S. Truman Reservoir Project.

(4) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Clinton, Missouri, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the Tri-County Levee District, Missouri, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).

(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is the part of Sections 1 and 12 Township 45 North Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Montgomery County, Missouri, described as follows: A tract of land being 60’ wide and lying South and East of and adjoining the centerline of the existing levee and being described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of Section 12, thence S 87° 52’ 35” E 587.4’, thence S 01° 29’ 25” W 453.68’ to the point of the beginning; said point being in the center of the levee, thence with the centerline of the levee N 77° 01’ 30” E 164.92’, thence N 74° 26’ 55” E 250.0’, thence N 72° 27’ 55” E 270.0’, thence N 69° 06’ 10” E 300.0’, thence N 66° 42’ 15” E 500.0’, thence N 64° 14’ 30” E 270.0’, thence N 61° 09’ 10” E 800.0’, thence N 60° 58’ 15” E 1724.45’, thence leaving the centerline S 01° 10’ 35” W 69.43’, thence parallel with the above described centerline S 60° 58’ 15” W 1689.62’, thence S 61° 09’ 10” W 801.71’, thence S 64° 14’ 30” W 272.91’, thence S 66° 42’ 15” W 502.55’, thence S 69° 06’ 10” W 303.02’, thence S 72° 27’ 55” W 272.8’, thence S 74° 26’ 55” W 252.39’, thence S 77° 01’ 30” W 181.75’, thence leaving the South side of the levee N 01° 26’ 25” E 61.96’ to the point of beginning and containing 5.89 acres more or less.

(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(4) CONSIDERATION.—The Tri-County Levee District, Missouri, shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

(1) NON-FEDERAL ENTITY.—In this subsection, the term “non-Federal entity” means the Friends of Joseph Barker, Jr., House, a nonprofit organization in the State of Ohio.

(2) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—

(3) DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPERTY.—

(4) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(5) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under this subsection is not being used by the non-Federal entity for a public purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary, to the United States.

(6) REQUIREMENTS.—

(7) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary may reserve and retain from any conveyance under this subsection a right-of-way or any other right that the Secretary determines to be necessary for the operation and maintenance of the authorized Federal channel along the Ohio River.

(8) TREATMENT.—Conveyance to the non-Federal entity under this subsection of property described in paragraph (3)(A)(i) shall satisfy all obligations of the Secretary with respect to such property under—

(9) INAPPLICABILITY.—Subtitle I of title 40, and chapter 4 of title 41, United States Code shall not apply to any conveyance or easement provided under this subsection.

(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the Secretary shall convey, without consideration, to the State of Oregon, acting through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property comprising the Leaburg Fish Hatchery, consisting of approximately 21.55 acres, identified as tracts Q–1500, Q–1501E, and 300E–1 and described in Department of the Army Lease No. DACW57–1–18–0009, together with any improvements on the property.

(2) WATER RIGHTS.—The Secretary may transfer to the State of Oregon, acting through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, any water rights held by the United States that are appurtenant to the property conveyed under this subsection.

(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, including a condition that all of the property conveyed under this subsection be used and maintained by the State of Oregon for the purpose of operating a fish hatchery in perpetuity.

(4) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under this subsection is not being used or maintained by the State of Oregon for the purpose of operating a fish hatchery in perpetuity, all or any portion of the property, including any water rights transferred under this subsection, shall, at the option of the Secretary, revert to the United States.

(5) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—If the State of Oregon does not accept the conveyance under this subsection, the Secretary may dispose of the property, including appurtenant water rights, under subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code.

(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(2) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary is authorized to convey to the receiving entity, without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any land in which the Federal Government has a property interest for the Willamette Falls Locks project, together with any improvements on the land, subject to the requirements of this subsection and in accordance with the Willamette Falls Locks report.

(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

(4) SUBJECT TO EXISTING EASEMENTS AND OTHER INTERESTS.—The conveyance of property under paragraph (2) shall be subject to all existing deed reservations, easements, rights-of-way, and leases that are in effect as of the date of the conveyance.

(5) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under this subsection cease to be held in public ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary, to the United States.

(6) REQUIREMENTS BEFORE CONVEYANCE.—

(7) DEAUTHORIZATION.—Beginning on the date on which the Secretary makes the conveyance under paragraph (2), the Willamette Falls Locks project is no longer authorized.

(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and

(2) by striking subsection (c).