(1) a riverine discharge of any magnitude or frequency;

(2) inundation, wave attack, and erosion coinciding with a hurricane or coastal storm;

(3) a tide of any magnitude or frequency;

(4) a rainfall event of any magnitude or frequency;

(5) seasonal variation in water levels;

(6) groundwater emergence;

(7) sea level rise;

(8) subsidence; or

(9) any other driver of flood risk affecting the study area.

(1) to maximize combined net benefits for the primary purpose of the study and for water supply, water supply conservation, and drought risk reduction; or

(2) to include 1 or more measures for the purpose of water supply, water supply conservation, or drought risk reduction.

(1) consistent with the civil works mission of the Corps of Engineers, it is the policy of the United States to protect and restore the shorelines, riverbanks, and streambanks of the United States from the damaging impacts of extreme weather events and other factors contributing to the vulnerability of coastal and riverine communities and ecosystems;

(2) the Chief of Engineers shall give priority consideration to the protection and restoration of shorelines, riverbanks, and streambanks from erosion and other damaging impacts of extreme weather events in carrying out the civil works mission of the Corps of Engineers;

(3) to the maximum extent practicable, projects and measures for the protection and restoration of shorelines, riverbanks, and streambanks shall be formulated to increase the resilience of such shores and banks from the damaging impacts of extreme weather events and other factors contributing to the vulnerability of coastal and riverine communities and ecosystems using measures described in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)); and

(4) to the maximum extent practicable, periodic nourishment shall be provided, in accordance with subsection (c) of the first section of the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1056, chapter 960; 33 U.S.C. 426e(c)), and subject to section 156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5f), for projects and measures carried out for the purpose of restoring and increasing the resilience of ecosystems to the same extent as periodic nourishment is provided for projects and measures carried out for the purpose of coastal storm risk management.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332) is amended—

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 269) is amended by striking the item relating to section 212 and inserting the following:

“Sec. 212. Shoreline and riverine protection and restoration.”.

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “One-half of the costs” and inserting “75 percent of the costs”; and

(2) in the undesignated matter following paragraph (3), in the second sentence, by striking “One-half of such costs” and inserting “25 percent of such costs”.

(1) is included in a report of the Chief of Engineers or other decision document for a water resources development project that is specifically authorized by Congress;

(2) is included in a detailed project report (as defined in section 105(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(d)); or

(3) utilizes dredged material from a water resources development project beneficially.

(1) a Federal agency with administrative jurisdiction over Federal land from contributing funds for any portion of the cost of a measure described in subsection (a) that benefits that land; or

(2) the Secretary, at the request of the non-Federal interest for a study for a project for flood or coastal storm risk management, from using funds made available to the Secretary for water resources development investigations to formulate measures to reduce risk to a military installation, if the non-Federal interest shares in the cost to formulate those measures to the same extent that the non-Federal interest is required to share in the cost of the study.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1025 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2226) is repealed.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1193) is amended by striking the item relating to section 1025.

(1) in subsection (a)—

(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) as subsections (c) through (g), respectively;

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

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

(A) in the second sentence, by striking “Surveys and guides” and inserting the following:

(B) in the first sentence—

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(d) Institutions of higher education.—Notwithstanding section 4141 of title 10, United States Code, in carrying out this section, the Secretary may work with an institution of higher education, as determined appropriate by the Secretary.”.

(1) to foster, enhance, and support science, technology, engineering, and math education and awareness; and

(2) to recruit individuals for careers at the Corps of Engineers.

(1) public and nonprofit elementary and secondary schools;

(2) community colleges;

(3) technical schools;

(4) colleges and universities, including historically Black colleges and universities; and

(5) other institutions of learning.

(1) in subsection (a)—

(2) in each of subsections (b) and (c), by striking “flood damage reduction and coastal navigation” each place it appears and inserting “water resources development”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(6) WORK CARRIED OUT BY A NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR.—

(1) in the section heading, by striking “Collaborative”;

(2) in subsection (b), by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and indenting appropriately;

(3) by striking subsection (e);

(4) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (f) as paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5), respectively, and indenting appropriately;

(5) in subsection (a), by striking “of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Secretary is authorized to utilize Army” and inserting the following: “of the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary is authorized to engage in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects, including such projects that are—

(6) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)—

(7) by adding at the end the following:

(1) AUTHORIZATION.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 to complete and maintain a model suite to forecast water levels, account for water level variability, and account for the impacts of extreme weather events and other natural disasters in the Great Lakes.

(2) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this subsection precludes the Secretary from using funds made available under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative established by section 118(c)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7)) for activities described in paragraph (1) for the Great Lakes, if funds are not appropriated for such activities.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out a program (referred to in this subsection as the “program”) to monitor and assess the hydrology of saline lake ecosystems in the Great Basin, including the Great Salt Lake, to inform and support Federal and non-Federal management and conservation activities to benefit those ecosystems.

(2) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall coordinate implementation of the program with relevant—

(3) CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts, grant agreements, and cooperative agreements with institutions of higher education and with entities described in paragraph (2) to implement the program.

(4) UPDATE.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an update on the progress of the Secretary in carrying out the program.

(5) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.—In carrying out the program, the Secretary may use available studies, information, literature, or data on the Great Basin region published by relevant Federal, State, or local entities.

(6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000.

(1) COMMITTEE.—The term “Committee” means the Tribal and Economically Disadvantaged Communities Advisory Committee established under subsection (b).

(2) ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY.—The term “economically disadvantaged community” has the meaning given the term pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; Public Law 116–260).

(3) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term “Indian Tribe” has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).

(1) 5 individuals representing organizations with expertise in environmental policy, rural water resources, economically disadvantaged communities, Tribal rights, or civil rights; and

(2) 5 individuals, each representing a non-Federal interest for a Corps of Engineers project.

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Committee shall provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers to assist the Corps of Engineers in—

(2) MEETINGS.—The Committee shall meet as appropriate to develop and make recommendations under paragraph (1).

(3) REPORT.—Recommendations provided under paragraph (1) shall be—

(1) COMPENSATION.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the members of the Committee shall serve without compensation.

(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the Committee shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Committee.

(3) TREATMENT.—The members of the Committee shall not be considered to be Federal employees, and the meetings and reports of the Committee shall not be considered a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(4) APPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to the Committee.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Committee shall be composed of the members described in paragraph (2), who shall—

(2) REPRESENTATIVES.—The members of the Committee shall include the following:

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Committee shall provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers to assist the Corps of Engineers in—

(2) MEETINGS.—The Committee shall meet as appropriate to develop and make recommendations under paragraph (1).

(3) REPORT.—Recommendations provided under paragraph (1) shall be—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Committee shall be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

(2) COMPENSATION.—Except as provided in paragraph (3), the members of the Committee shall serve without compensation.

(3) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the Committee shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Committee.

(4) TREATMENT.—The members of the Committee shall not be considered to be Federal employees and the meetings and reports of the Committee shall not be considered a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(1) PROJECT.—The term “project” means a single cycle of dredging of an underserved community harbor and the associated placement of dredged material at a beneficial use placement site or disposal site.

(2) UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY HARBOR.—The term “underserved community harbor” means an emerging harbor (as defined in section 210(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(f))) for which—

(1) the local or regional economic benefits; and

(2) (A) the environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the creation of wetland and control of shoreline erosion; or

(1) subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d), as applicable, of section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), for any portion of the cost of the project allocated to flood or coastal storm risk management, ecosystem restoration, or recreation; and

(2) section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)), for the portion of the cost of the project other than a portion described in paragraph (1).

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2026.

(2) SPECIAL RULE.—Not less than 35 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section for each fiscal year shall be used for projects that include the beneficial use of dredged material.

(1) a bipartisan coalition of 19 Western Senators wrote to the Office of Management and Budget on September 17, 2019, in opposition to the proposed rulemaking entitled “Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal & Industrial Water Supply” (81 Fed. Reg. 91556 (December 16, 2016)), describing the rule as counter to existing law and court precedent;

(2) on January 21, 2020, the proposed rulemaking described in paragraph (1) was withdrawn; and

(3) the Corps of Engineers should consult with Western States to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that operation of flood control projects in prior appropriation States is consistent with the principles of the first section of the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1944”) (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701–1) and section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b).

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a Western Water Cooperative Committee (referred to in this section as the “Cooperative Committee”).

(2) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Cooperative Committee is to ensure that Corps of Engineers flood control projects in Western States are operated consistent with congressional directives by identifying opportunities to avoid or minimize conflicts between operation of Corps of Engineers projects and State water rights and water laws.

(3) MEMBERSHIP.—

(4) MEETINGS.—

(5) DUTIES.—The Cooperative Committee shall develop and make recommendations to avoid or minimize conflicts between the operation of Corps of Engineers projects and State water rights and water laws, which may include recommendations for legislation or the promulgation of policy or regulations.

(6) STATUS UPDATES.—

(7) COMPENSATION.—

(8) MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS.—The Cooperative Committee shall maintain records pertaining to operating costs and records of the Cooperative Committee for a period of not less than 3 years.

(1) the Secretary may not reprogram more than 25 percent of the base amount up to a limit of—

(2) $250,000 may be reprogrammed for any continuing study or activity of the Secretary that did not receive an appropriation.

(1) the Secretary may not reprogram more than $150,000 for a project, study, or activity with a base level over $100,000; and

(2) $150,000 may be reprogrammed for any continuing study or activity of the Secretary that did not receive an appropriation for existing obligations and concomitant administrative expenses.

“(a) In general.—The personnel described in subsection (b)”; and

“(b) Personnel described.—The personnel referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

“(3) STUDIES AND PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—A credit described in paragraph (1) for a study or project with multiple non-Federal interests may be applied to the required non-Federal cost share for a study or project of any of those non-Federal interests, subject to the condition that each non-Federal interest for the study or project for which the credit described in paragraph (1) is provided concurs in writing.”;

“(3) CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF EXCESS CREDIT.—The Secretary may approve credit in excess of the non-Federal share for a study or project prior to the identification of each authorized study or project to which the excess credit will be applied, subject to the condition that the non-Federal interest agrees to submit for approval by the Secretary an amendment to the comprehensive plan prepared under paragraph (2) that identifies each authorized study or project in advance of execution of the feasibility cost sharing agreement or project partnership agreement for that authorized study or project.”;

(1) by inserting “, or improvement” after “removal”; and

(2) by inserting “, increase resiliency to extreme weather events,” after “flood risk”.

(1) in paragraph (7), by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “$25,000,000”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to establish a pilot program (referred to in this subsection as the ‘pilot program’) to conduct a multiyear dredging demonstration program to award contracts with a duration of up to 5 years for projects on inland waterways.

“(2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the pilot program shall be—

“(3) DEMONSTRATION.—

“(4) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection affects the responsibility of the Secretary with respect to the construction and operations and maintenance of projects on the inland waterways system.

“(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date on which the first contract is awarded pursuant to the pilot program, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that evaluates, with respect to the pilot program and any contracts awarded under the pilot program—

“(6) SUNSET.—The authority of the Secretary to enter into contracts pursuant to the pilot program shall expire on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.”.

“(10) DEFINITION OF DISCRETE SEGMENT.—In this subsection, the term ‘discrete segment’ means a physical portion of a project or separable element that the non-Federal interest can operate and maintain, independently and without creating a hazard, in advance of final completion of the water resources development project, or separable element thereof.”.

“(1) INCLUSION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘study’ includes watershed assessments.

“(2) APPLICATION.—The Secretary shall apply the waiver amount described in subsection (a) to reduce only the non-Federal share of study costs.”.

“(b) Implementation of policy.—The Secretary shall—

(1) was constructed to enable public use of and access to the reservoir; and

(2) requires repair, restoration, or rehabilitation to function.

(1) to accept and use materials, services, and funds from a non-Federal interest to repair, restore, or rehabilitate the facility; and

(2) to reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal share of the materials, services, or funds.

(1) meet the specifications of the Secretary; and

(2) comply with all applicable laws and regulations that would apply if the materials and services were acquired by the Secretary, including subchapter IV of chapter 31 and chapter 37 of title 40, United States Code, section 8302 of title 41, United States Code, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(1) specifies that the non-Federal interest shall hold and save the United States free from any and all damages that arise from use of materials or services of the non-Federal interest, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors;

(2) requires that the non-Federal interest shall certify that the materials or services comply with all applicable laws and regulations under subsection (c); and

(3) includes any other term or condition required by the Secretary.

(1) include, in the baseline conditions, a prohibition on use of funding for open-lake disposal of dredged material consistent with section 105 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117–103; 136 Stat. 217) ; and

(2) maximize beneficial use of dredged material under the base plan and under section 204(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326(d)).

(1) impose a prohibition on use of funding for open-lake disposal of dredged material; or

(2) require the development or implementation of a dredged material management plan in accordance with subsection (b) if use of funding for open-lake disposal is not otherwise prohibited by law.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Using funds made available to carry out this section, the Secretary is authorized, at Federal expense, to carry out a study to determine the feasibility of a project for flood risk management and related purposes in the Columbia River basin and to report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate with recommendations thereon, including recommendations for a project to potentially reduce the reliance on Canada for flood risk management in the basin.

(2) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall carry out the activities described in this subsection in coordination with other Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to expend funds appropriated for the purpose of satisfying United States obligations under the Columbia River Treaty to compensate Canada for operating Canadian storage on behalf of the United States under such Treaty.

(2) NOTIFICATION.—If the U.S. entity calls upon Canada to operate Canadian reservoir storage for flood risk management on behalf of the United States, which operation may incur an obligation to compensate Canada under the Columbia River Treaty—

(1) COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN.—The term “Columbia River basin” means the entire United States portion of the Columbia River watershed.

(2) COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY.—The term “Columbia River Treaty” means the Treaty relating to cooperative development of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin, signed at Washington January 17, 1961, and entered into force September 16, 1964.

(3) U.S. ENTITY.—The term “U.S. entity” means the entity designated by the United States under Article XIV of the Columbia River Treaty.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall not, solely on the basis of section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280)—

(2) RESUMPTION OF CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall resume construction of any water resources development project for which construction was deferred on the basis of section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) during the period beginning on October 1, 2021, and ending on the date of enactment of this Act.

(1) Project for ecosystem restoration, Mill Creek Levee and Walla Walla River, Oregon.

(2) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Tittabawassee River, Chippewa River, Pine River, and Tobacco River, Michigan.

(3) Project for flood risk management, Southeast Michigan.

(4) Project for flood risk management, McMicken Dam, Arizona.

(5) Project for flood risk management, Ellicott City and Howard County, Maryland.

(6) Project for flood risk management, Ten Mile River, North Attleboro, Massachusetts.

(7) Project for flood risk management and water supply, Fox-Wolf Basin, Wisconsin.

(8) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Thatchbed Island, Essex, Connecticut.

(9) Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina.

(10) Project for flood risk management, Lower Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou, Texas.

(11) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, the Resacas, Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, Texas.

(12) Project for flood risk management, including levee improvement, Papillion Creek, Nebraska.

(13) Project for flood risk management, Offutt Ditch Pump Station, Nebraska.

(14) Project for flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Mohawk River Basin, New York.

(15) Project for coastal storm risk management, Waikiki Beach, Hawaii.

(16) Project for ecosystem restoration and coastal storm risk management, Cumberland and Sea Islands, Georgia.

(17) Project for flood risk management, Wailupe Stream watershed, Hawaii.

(18) Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Hawaii County, Hawaii.

(19) Project for coastal storm risk management, Maui County, Hawaii.

(20) Project for flood risk management, Sarpy County, Nebraska.

(21) Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, including habitat for endangered salmon, Columbia River Basin.

(22) Project for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and recreation, Newport, Kentucky.

(23) Project for flood risk management and water supply, Jenkins, Kentucky.

(24) Project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, Columbus, Kentucky.

(25) Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, South Shore, Long Island, New York.

(26) Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and water supply, Blind Brook, New York.

(27) Project for navigation, Cumberland River, Kentucky.

(28) Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, Great Salt Lake, Utah.

(1) Modifications to the project for navigation, South Haven Harbor, Michigan, for turning basin improvements.

(2) Modifications to the project for navigation, Rollinson Channel and channel from Hatteras Inlet to Hatteras, North Carolina, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174), to incorporate the ocean bar.

(3) Modifications to the project for flood control, Saint Francis River Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172, chapter 188), to provide flood risk management for the tributaries and drainage of Straight Slough, Craighead, Poinsett, and Cross Counties, Arkansas.

(4) Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, authorized by section 7002(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1366), consistent with the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Cedar River Flood Control System Master Plan.

(5) Modifications to the project for navigation, Savannah Harbor, Georgia, without evaluation of additional deepening.

(6) Modifications to the project for navigation, Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii, for navigation improvements and coastal storm risk management.

(7) Modifications to the project for navigation, Port of Ogdensburg, New York, including deepening.

(8) Modifications to the Huntington Local Protection Project, Huntington, West Virginia.

(1) Modifications to the project for flood risk management, North Adams, Massachusetts, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1936”) (49 Stat. 1572, chapter 688; 33 U.S.C. 701h), and section 3 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (commonly known as the “Flood Control Act of 1941”) (55 Stat. 639, chapter 377), for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration.

(2) Project for coastal storm risk management, Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina.

(3) Project for flood and coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration, Boston North Shore, Revere, Saugus, Lynn, Maiden, and Everett, Massachusetts.

(4) Project for flood risk management, De Soto County, Mississippi.

(5) Project for coastal storm risk management, Chicago shoreline, Illinois.

(6) Project for flood risk management, Cave Buttes Dam, Arizona.

(7) Project for flood and coastal storm risk management, Chelsea, Massachusetts, authorized by a study resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the Senate dated September 12, 1969.

(8) Project for ecosystem restoration, Herring River Estuary, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, authorized by a study resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives dated July 23, 1997.

(9) Project for coastal storm risk management, ecosystem restoration, and navigation, Nauset Barrier Beach and inlet system, Chatham, Massachusetts, authorized by a study resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the Senate dated September 12, 1969.

(10) Project for flood risk management, East Hartford Levee System, Connecticut.

(11) Project for flood risk management, Rahway, New Jersey, authorized by section 336 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2712).

(12) Project for coastal storm risk management, Sea Bright to Manasquan, New Jersey.

(13) Project for coastal storm risk management, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.

(14) Project for coastal storm risk management, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.

(15) Project for ecosystem restoration, Fox River, Illinois, authorized by section 519 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2653).

(16) Project for ecosystem restoration, Chicago River, Illinois.

(17) Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Okeechobee, Florida.

(18) Project for ecosystem restoration, Western Everglades, Florida.

(19) Modifications to the project for navigation, Hilo Harbor, Hawaii.

(20) Project for flood risk management, Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina.

(21) Modifications to the project for navigation, Auke Bay, Alaska.

(1) Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577).

(2) Project for coastal storm risk management, Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina, authorized by section 7002(3) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1367).

(3) Anchorage F modifications to the project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4090) and modified by section 1403(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3840).

(4) Project for navigation, Port Everglades, Florida, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1709).

(1) Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

(2) Ouachita-Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.

(3) Project for watershed assessment, Hawaii County, Hawaii.

(1) in subsection (b)—

(2) in subsection (e)—

(3) by adding at the end the following:

(1) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.—The term “categorical exclusion” has the meaning given the term in section 1508.1 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).

(2) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.—The term “environmental assessment” has the meaning given the term in section 1508.1 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).

(3) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.—The term “environmental impact statement” means a detailed written statement required under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

(4) FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.—The term “finding of no significant impact” has the meaning given the term in section 1508.1 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).

(5) NEPA PROCESS.—

(6) PROJECT STUDY.—The term “project study” means a feasibility study for a project carried out pursuant to section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) for which a categorical exclusion, an environmental assessment, or an environmental impact statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(1) NEPA DATA.—

(2) PUBLIC ACCESS TO NEPA REPORTS.—The Secretary shall make publicly available each annual report required under paragraph (1).

(1) the current estimated total project cost of the project exceeds the original estimated total project cost of the project by not less than $50,000,000; or

(2) the current estimated completion date of the project exceeds the original estimated completion date of the project by not less than 5 years.

(1) the implementation by the Corps of Engineers of the final rule issued on April 10, 2008, entitled “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources” (73 Fed. Reg. 19594), including, at a minimum—

(2) opportunities to utilize alternative methods to satisfy mitigation requirements of water resources development projects, including, at a minimum, performance-based contracts.

(1) EVALUATION.—On request and at the expense of the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Secretary shall evaluate the effects of deauthorizing the southernmost 3.5-mile reach of the L–73 levee, Section 2, Osceola County, Florida, on the functioning of the project for flood control and other purposes, Upper St. Johns River Basin, Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176).

(2) REPORT.—In carrying out the evaluation under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out a feasibility study for resiliency and comprehensive improvements or modifications to existing water resources development projects in central and southern Florida, for the purposes of flood risk management, water supply, ecosystem restoration (including preventing saltwater intrusion), recreation, and related purposes.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the feasibility study under paragraph (1), the Secretary—

(1) The Corps of Engineers operates more recreation areas than any other Federal or State agency, apart from the Department of the Interior.

(2) Nationally, visitors to nearly 600 dams and lakes, managed by the Corps of Engineers, spend an estimated $12,000,000,000 per year and support 500,000 jobs.

(3) Lakes managed by the Corps of Engineers are economic drivers that support rural communities.

(1) a list of deferred maintenance projects, including maintenance projects relating to recreational facilities, sites, and associated access roads;

(2) a plan to fund the projects described in paragraph (1) over the 5-year period following the date of enactment of this Act;

(3) a description of efforts made by the Corps of Engineers to coordinate investments in recreational facilities, sites, and associated access roads with—

(4) an assessment of whether the modification of Federal contracting requirements could accelerate the availability of funds for the projects described in paragraph (1).

(1) sustaining operations in response to changing hydrological and climatic conditions;

(2) mitigating the risk of drought or floods, including the loss of storage capacity due to sediment accumulation;

(3) increasing water supply; or

(4) aquatic ecosystem restoration.

(1) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consult with applicable—

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

(1) the results of the study; and

(2) any recommendations on site-specific areas where additional study is recommended by the Secretary.

“(2) REPORT ON WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of completion of the comprehensive plan for Mississippi River water level management under section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives an implementation report on opportunities identified in the comprehensive plan to expand the use of water level management on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System for the purpose of ecosystem restoration.”.

(1) to evaluate the feasibility of modifications to such projects for the purposes of adding Federal hydropower or energy storage development; and

(2) to grant approval for the use of such projects for non-Federal hydropower or energy storage development in accordance with section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the “Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899”) (30 Stat. 1152, chapter 425; 33 U.S.C. 408).

(1) Sutton Dam, Braxton County, West Virginia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).

(2) Hildebrand Lock and Dam, Monongahela County, West Virginia, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 166, chapter 188).

(3) Bluestone Lake, Summers County, West Virginia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).

(4) R.D. Bailey Dam, Wyoming County, West Virginia, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1188).

(5) Stonewall Jackson Dam, Lewis County, West Virginia, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1421).

(6) East Lynn Dam, Wayne County, West Virginia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).

(7) Burnsville Lake, Braxton County, West Virginia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688).

“(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of the non-Federal interest for the study of the Lake Champlain Canal Aquatic Invasive Species Barrier carried out under section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671; 121 Stat. 1150; 134 Stat. 2652), the Secretary shall scope the phase II portion of that study to satisfy the feasibility determination under subsection (a).

“(2) DISPERSAL BARRIER.—A dispersal barrier constructed, maintained, or operated under this section may include—

(1) an assessment of the reasonableness of the formula of the Corps of Engineers for calculating concessionaire rental rates, taking into account the operating margins for sales of food and fuel; and

(2) the process for assessing administrative fees to concessionaires across districts of the Corps of Engineers.

(1) by striking “$20,000,000” and inserting “$52,000,000”; and

(2) by striking “Accomac” and inserting “Accomack”.

(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking “Cook County” and inserting “Cook County and Lake County”; and

(2) by striking “$35,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.

“(93) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—

(1) by striking “$35,000,000 for” and inserting the following:

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(250) MYRTLE BEACH AND VICINITY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$31,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, Myrtle Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.”.

“(251) NORTH MYRTLE BEACH AND VICINITY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$74,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, North Myrtle Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.”.

“(274) HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$19,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, Horry County, South Carolina.”.

“(275) LANE COUNTY, OREGON.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, Lane County, Oregon.”.

“(276) PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$21,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, Placer County, California.”.

“(277) ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, Alameda County, California.”.

“(278) TEMECULA CITY, CALIFORNIA.—$18,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, Temecula City, California.”.

“(279) YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$6,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, Yolo County, California.”.

“(280) CLINTON, MISSISSIPPI.—$13,600,000 for environmental infrastructure, including stormwater management, drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Clinton, Mississippi.”.

“(281) OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including stormwater management, drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Oxford, Mississippi.”.

“(282) MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including stormwater management, drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Madison County, Mississippi.”.

“(283) RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including stormwater management, drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Rankin County, Mississippi.”.

“(284) MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Meridian, Mississippi.”.

“(285) DELAWARE.—$50,000,000 for sewer, stormwater system improvements, storage treatment, environmental restoration, and related water infrastructure, Delaware.”.

“(286) QUEENS, NEW YORK.—$20,000,000 for the design and construction of stormwater management and improvements to combined sewer overflows to reduce the risk of flood impacts, Queens, New York.”.

“(287) GEORGIA.—$75,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, Baldwin County, Bartow County, Floyd County, Haralson County, Jones County, Gilmer County, Towns County, Warren County, Lamar County, Lowndes County, Troup County, Madison County, Toombs County, Dade County, Bulloch County, Gordon County, Walker County, Dooly County, Butts County, Clarke County, Crisp County, Newton County, Bibb County, Baker County, Barrow County, Oglethorpe County, Peach County, Brooks County, Carroll County, Worth County, Jenkins County, Wheeler County, Calhoun County, Randolph County, Wilcox County, Stewart County, Telfair County, Clinch County, Hancock County, Ben Hill County, Jeff Davis County, Chattooga County, Lanier County, Brantley County, Charlton County, Tattnall County, Emanuel County, Mitchell County, Turner County, Bacon County, Terrell County, Macon County, Ware County, Bleckley County, Colquitt County, Washington County, Berrien County, Coffee County, Pulaski County, Cook County, Atkinson County, Candler County, Taliaferro County, Evans County, Johnson County, Irwin County, Dodge County, Jefferson County, Appling County, Taylor County, Wayne County, Clayton County, Decatur County, Schley County, Sumter County, Early County, Webster County, Clay County, Upson County, Long County, Twiggs County, Dougherty County, Quitman County, Meriwether County, Stephens County, Wilkinson County, Murray County, Wilkes County, Elbert County, McDuffie County, Heard County, Marion County, Talbot County, Laurens County, Montgomery County, Echols County, Pierce County, Richmond County, Chattahoochee County, Screven County, Habersham County, Lincoln County, Burke County, Liberty County, Tift County, Polk County, Glascock County, Grady County, Jasper County, Banks County, Franklin County, Whitfield County, Treutlen County, Crawford County, Hart County, Georgia.”.

“(288) MARYLAND.—$100,000,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure, Maryland.”.

“(289) MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN AREA, WISCONSIN.—$4,500,000 for water-related infrastructure, resource protection and development, stormwater management, and reduction of combined sewer overflows, Milwaukee metropolitan area, Wisconsin.”.

“(290) HAWAII.—$75,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, resource protection and development, wastewater treatment, water supply, urban storm water conveyance, environmental restoration, and surface water protection and development, Hawaii.”.

“(291) ALABAMA.—$50,000,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure, Alabama.”.

“(i) Authorization of additional appropriations.—In addition to amounts authorized under subsection (h), there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000, to be divided between the States referred to in subsection (a).”.

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “$435,000,000” and inserting “$490,000,000”; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking “$150,000,000” and inserting “$200,000,000”.

(1) in subsection (b)(2)(C), by striking “planning” and inserting “clean water infrastructure planning, design, and construction”; and

(2) in subsection (g), by striking “$32,000,000” and inserting “$100,000,000”.

(1) in subsection (b), by striking “, as identified by the Texas Water Development Board”;

(2) in subsection (e)(3), by inserting “and construction” after “design work”;

(3) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (i); and

(4) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:

(1) in the section heading, by striking “environmental restoration infrastructure and resource protection development pilot program”; and

(2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:

(1) in the section heading, by striking “Central” and inserting “Northern”;

(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: