(1) if the Secretary determines that—

(2) if—

(1) in the section heading, by striking “Flood mitigation and riverine restoration program” and inserting “Shoreline and riverine protection and restoration”;

(2) in subsection (a)—

(3) in subsection (b)—

(4) in subsection (c)—

(5) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:—

(6) in subsection (e)—

(7) by striking subsections (f) through (i) and inserting the following:

(1) new or advanced geospatial information and remote sensing tools for coastal mapping;

(2) best practices for coastal change mapping;

(3) how to most effectively—

(1) PROJECT AREA.—In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall carry out a demonstration project in the coastal region covering the North Carolina coastal waters, connected bays, estuaries, rivers, streams, and creeks, to their tidally influenced extent inland.

(2) SCOPE.—In carrying out the demonstration project, the Secretary shall—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall establish a panel of senior leaders from the Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies that are stakeholders in the coastal mapping program carried out through the Engineer Research and Development Center.

(2) DUTIES.—The panel established under this subsection shall—

(1) the results of the study carried out under this section; and

(2) any geographical areas recommended for additional study.

“(e) Preliminary analysis.—

(1) in subsection (a)(1)—

(2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking “$15,000,000” and inserting “$30,000,000”; and

(3) in subsection (f)—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop, support, and implement public awareness, education, and regular outreach and engagement efforts for potential non-Federal interests with respect to the water resources development authorities of the Secretary, with particular emphasis on—

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

(3) PRIORITIZATION.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall prioritize awareness, education, and outreach and engagement efforts for urban and rural economically disadvantaged communities and Indian Tribes.

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “publish” and inserting “annually publish”; and

(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking “select” and inserting “, subject to the availability of appropriations, annually select”; and

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, in consultation with applicable non-Federal interests, conduct a study at Federal expense to determine the feasibility of carrying out managed aquifer recharge projects to address drought, water resiliency, and aquifer depletion.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the study under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(3) COORDINATION.—In carrying out the study under this subsection, the Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with the heads of other Federal agencies, States, regional governmental agencies, units of local government, experts in managed aquifer recharge, and Tribes.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, the Secretary shall establish a managed aquifer recharge working group within the Corps of Engineers.

(2) COMPOSITION.—In establishing the working group under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that members of the working group have expertise working with—

(3) DUTIES.—The working group established under this subsection shall—

(1) the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), including data collected under such study and any recommendations on managed aquifer recharge opportunities for non-Federal interests, States, local governments, and Tribes;

(2) a status update on the implementation of the recommendations included in the report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources entitled “Managed Aquifer Recharge and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Water Security through Resilience”, published in April 2020 (2020–WP–01); and

(3) an evaluation of the benefits of creating a new or modifying an existing planning center of expertise for managed aquifer recharge, and identify potential locations for such a center of expertise, if feasible.

(1) MANAGED AQUIFER RECHARGE.—The term “managed aquifer recharge” means the intentional banking and treatment of water in aquifers for storage and future use.

(2) MANAGED AQUIFER RECHARGE PROJECT.—The term “managed aquifer recharge project” means a project to incorporate managed aquifer recharge features into a water resources development project.

(1) all floodplain and flowage easements held by the Corps of Engineers; and

(2) other federally held floodplain and flowage easements with respect to which other Federal agencies submit information to the Secretary.

(1) with respect to each floodplain and flowage easement included in the database—

(2) any other information that the Secretary determines appropriate.

(1) increase the flood risk reduction benefits of such systems;

(2) achieve greater flood resiliency; and

(3) restore hydrological and ecological connections with adjacent floodplains that achieve greater environmental benefits without undermining the objectives of paragraphs (1) and (2).

(1) CONSIDERATIONS.—In conducting an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider and identify, with respect to each levee—

(2) PRIORITIZATION.—In conducting an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall prioritize levees—

(3) COORDINATION.—In conducting an assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall coordinate with any non-Federal interest that has financial or operational responsibility for a levee being assessed.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, and periodically thereafter, 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 on the results of the assessment conducted under subsection (a).

(2) INCLUSION.—The Secretary shall include in each report submitted under paragraph (1)—

(1) any dam that is meeting its authorized purposes and that may be a priority for rehabilitation, environmental performance enhancements, or retrofits to add or replace power generation (at a powered or nonpowered dam), and the recommendations of the Secretary for addressing each such dam; and

(2) any dam that does not meet its authorized purposes, has been abandoned or inadequately maintained, or has otherwise reached the end of its useful life, and the recommendations of the Secretary for addressing each such dam, which may include a recommendation to remove the dam.

(1) establish and maintain a database containing an inventory of low-head dams in the United States that includes—

(2) include in the inventory of dams required by section 6 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467d) the information described in paragraph (1).

(A) in paragraph (2)—

(B) in paragraph (4), by striking “$18,500,000” each place it appears and inserting “$23,500,000”;

“(6) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Federal share of the cost of activities described in subsection (b)(2)(C) shall be 100 percent.”; and

(1) serve as a direct line of communication between the Secretary and the applicable Tribal communities; and

(2) ensure consistency in government-to-government relations.

(1) removing barriers to access to, and participation in, Corps of Engineers programs for Tribal communities, including by improving implementation of section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m));

(2) improving outreach to, and engagement with, Tribal communities about relevant Corps of Engineers programs and services;

(3) identifying and engaging with Tribal communities suffering from water resources challenges;

(4) improving, expanding, and facilitating government-to-government consultation between Tribal communities and the Corps of Engineers;

(5) coordinating and implementing all relevant Tribal consultation policies and associated guidelines, including the requirements of section 112 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2356);

(6) training and tools to facilitate the ability of Corps of Engineers staff to effectively engage with Tribal communities in a culturally competent manner, especially in regards to lands of ancestral, historic, or cultural significance to a Tribal community, including burial sites; and

(7) such other issues identified by the Secretary.

(1) the duties of Tribal Liaisons under subsection (b); and

(2) required qualifications for Tribal Liaisons, including experience and expertise relating to Tribal communities and water resource issues, and the ability to carry out such duties.

(1) BONNEVILLE DAM.—The term “Bonneville Dam” means the Bonneville Dam, Columbia River, Oregon, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1038) and the first section and section 2(a) of the Act of August 20, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832, 832(a)).

(2) DALLES DAM.—The term “Dalles Dam” means the Dalles Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).

(3) JOHN DAY DAM.—The term “John Day Dam” means the John Day Dam, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).

(4) VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.—The term “village development plan” means the village development plan required by section 1133(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3782).

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the heads of relevant Federal agencies, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, shall revise and carry out the village development plan for the Dalles Dam to provide replacement villages for each Indian village submerged as a result of the construction of the Bonneville Dam and the John Day Dam.

(2) EXAMINATION.—Before revising and carrying out the village development plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall conduct an examination and assessment of the extent to which Indian villages, housing sites, and related structures were displaced by the construction of the Bonneville Dam and the John Day Dam.

(3) REQUIREMENTS.—In revising the village development plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include, at a minimum—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out subsection (b)(1), the Secretary may acquire land or interests in land for the purpose of providing housing and related assistance.

(2) ADVANCE ACQUISITION.—The Secretary may acquire land or interests in land under paragraph (1) before completing all required documentation and receiving all required clearances for the construction of housing or related improvements on the land.

(3) DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE LAND.—In the event the Secretary determines that land or an interest in land acquired by the Secretary under paragraph (2) is unsuitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary is authorized to dispose of the land or interest in land by sale and credit the proceeds to the appropriation, fund, or account used to purchase the land or interest in land.

“(3) for any organization that—

(1) solicit information from stakeholders on potential projects that may require disposal of contaminated sediments in a confined aquatic disposal facility;

(2) solicit information from the applicable division of the Corps of Engineers on the need for confined aquatic disposal facilities; and

(3) provide an opportunity for public comment.

(1) consult with relevant Federal agencies involved in the beneficial use of dredged material;

(2) solicit and consider input from State and local governments and Indian Tribes, while seeking to ensure a geographic diversity of input from the various Corps of Engineers divisions; and

(3) consider input received from other stakeholders involved in beneficial use of dredged material.

(1) identification of any specific barriers and conflicts that the Secretary determines impede the maximization of beneficial use of dredged material at the Federal, State, and local level, and any recommendations of the Secretary to address such barriers and conflicts;

(2) identification of specific measures to improve interagency and Federal, State, local, and Tribal communications and coordination to improve implementation of section 125(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2326g); and

(3) identification of methods to prioritize the use of dredged material to benefit water resources development projects in areas experiencing vulnerabilities to coastal land loss.

“(e) Funding To review mitigation bank proposals.—

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:

(1) The project for ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River, Bubbly Creek, Illinois, authorized by section 401(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2740).

(2) The project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Willamette River, Oregon, authorized by section 1401(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714).

(3) The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mahoning River, Ohio, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

(4) The project for navigation, South Branch of the Chicago River, Cook County, Illinois, in the vicinity of Collateral Channel.

(5) The project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida Project, Central Everglades Restoration Plan, Florida, in the vicinity of Lake Okeechobee.

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

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

(1) AUTHORITY.—In carrying out subsection (a), and pursuant to the authority under section 4022 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary is authorized to enter into a transaction to carry out prototype projects to support basic, applied, and advanced research needs that are directly relevant to the civil works missions and authorities of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) NOTIFICATION.—Not later than 30 days before the Secretary enters into a transaction under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate of—

(3) REPORT.—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 describing the use of the authority under this subsection.

(4) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided under this subsection shall terminate 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(1) advance the use of natural features and nature-based features, as defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a));

(2) improve the reliability and accuracy of technologies related to water supply;

(3) improve the management of reservoirs owned and operated by the Corps of Engineers; and

(4) lead to future cost savings and advance project delivery timelines.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2) through (4) and subsection (c), the Secretary is authorized to borrow from the Treasury of the United States such amounts as are sufficient to cover any obligations that will be incurred by the Secretary in carrying out capital improvements for the Washington Aqueduct under subsection (a).

(2) LIMITATION.—The amount borrowed by the Secretary under paragraph (1) may not exceed $40,000,000 in any fiscal year.

(3) AGREEMENT.—Amounts borrowed under paragraph (1) may only be used to carry out capital improvements with respect to which the Secretary has entered into an agreement with each customer.

(4) TERMS OF BORROWING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not borrow any amounts under subsection (b) until such time as the Secretary has entered into a contract with each customer under which the customer commits to pay a pro rata share (based on water purchase) of the principal and interest owed to the Secretary of the Treasury under subsection (b).

(2) PREPAYMENT.—Any customer may pay, in advance, the pro rata share of the principal and interest owed by the customer, or any portion thereof, without penalty.

(3) RISK OF DEFAULT.—A customer that enters into a contract under this subsection shall, as a condition of the contract, commit to pay any additional amount necessary to fully offset the risk of default on the contract.

(4) OBLIGATIONS.—Each contract entered into under paragraph (1) shall include such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Treasury may require so that the total value to the Government of all contracts entered into under paragraph (1) is estimated to be equal to the obligations of the Secretary for carrying out capital improvements for the Washington Aqueduct.

(5) OTHER CONDITIONS.—Each contract entered into under paragraph (1) shall—

(1) the District of Columbia;

(2) Arlington County, Virginia; and

(3) Fairfax County, Virginia.

(1) during a period when the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has determined that there is a concentration of microcystin of greater than 8 parts per billion in the waters of Lake Okeechobee resulting from a harmful algal bloom in such lake; and

(2) at or near any of the following structures:

(1) DUDLEYVILLE, ARIZONA.—Project for flood risk management, Dudleyville, Arizona.

(2) CONN CREEK DAM, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, Conn Creek Dam, California.

(3) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including sea level rise, and shoreline stabilization, City of Huntington Beach, California.

(4) NAPA RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for navigation, Federal Channel of Napa River, California.

(5) PETALUMA RIVER WETLANDS, CALIFORNIA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, City of Petaluma, California.

(6) CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, City of Rialto and vicinity, California.

(7) NORTH RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including sea level rise, and ecosystem restoration, North Richmond, California.

(8) UPPER YUBA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, Upper Yuba River, California.

(9) STRATFORD, CONNECTICUT.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management, Stratford, Connecticut.

(10) WOODBRIDGE, CONNECTICUT.—Project for flood risk management, Woodbridge, Connecticut.

(11) FEDERAL TRIANGLE AREA, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—Project for flood risk management, Federal Triangle Area, Washington, District of Columbia, including construction of improvements to interior drainage.

(12) POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—Project for recreational access, including enclosed swimming areas, Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, District of Columbia.

(13) WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA.—Project for water supply, including the identification of a secondary water source and additional water storage capability for the Washington Metropolitan Area, Washington, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.

(14) DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for periodic beach nourishment for the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Duval County shoreline, Florida, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1092; 90 Stat. 2933), for an additional period of 50 years, Duval County Shoreline, Florida.

(15) TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, FLORIDA.—Project for whole island hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Town of Longboat Key, Florida.

(16) LAKE RUNNYMEDE, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Runnymede, Florida.

(17) TAMPA BACK BAY, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, including the use of natural features and nature-based features for protection and recreation, Tampa Back Bay, Florida.

(18) PORT TAMPA BAY AND MCKAY BAY, FLORIDA.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Tampa Bay, Florida, including McKay Bay.

(19) LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida.

(20) CITY OF ALBANY, GEORGIA.—Project for flood risk management, City of Albany, Georgia.

(21) CITY OF EAST POINT, GEORGIA.—Project for flood risk management, City of East Point, Georgia.

(22) FLINT RIVER BASIN HEADWATERS, CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Flint River Basin Headwaters, Clayton County, Georgia.

(23) TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.—Project for periodic beach nourishment for the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Tybee Island, Georgia, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5), for an additional period of 50 years, Tybee Island, Georgia.

(24) WAIKīKī, HAWAII.—Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Waikīkī, Hawaii.

(25) KENTUCKY RIVER AND NORTH FORK KENTUCKY RIVER, KENTUCKY.—Project for flood risk management on the Kentucky River and North Fork Kentucky River near Beattyville and Jackson, Kentucky.

(26) ASSAWOMPSET POND COMPLEX, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and water supply, Assawompset Pond Complex, Massachusetts.

(27) CHARLES RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Charles River, Massachusetts.

(28) CHELSEA CREEK AND MILL CREEK, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, City of Chelsea, Massachusetts.

(29) CONNECTICUT RIVER STREAMBANK EROSION, MASSACHUSETTS, VERMONT, AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.—Project for streambank erosion, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

(30) DEERFIELD RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Deerfield River, Massachusetts.

(31) TOWN OF NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management between Whiting’s and Falls ponds, North Attleborough, Massachusetts.

(32) TOWN OF HULL, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Hull, Massachusetts.

(33) CITY OF REVERE, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood risk management and marsh ecosystem restoration, City of Revere, Massachusetts.

(34) LOWER EAST SIDE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management, Lower East Side Detroit, Michigan.

(35) ELIJAH ROOT DAM, MICHIGAN.—Project for dam removal, by carrying out a disposition study under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), Elijah Root Dam, Michigan.

(36) GROSSE POINTE SHORES AND GROSSE POINTE FARMS, MICHIGAN.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Grosse Pointe Shores and Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan.

(37) SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties, Michigan.

(38) TITTABAWASSEE RIVER WATERSHED, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and related conservation benefits, Tittabawassee River, Chippewa River, Pine River, and Tobacco River, Midland County, Michigan.

(39) SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Wilkinson, Adams, Warren, Claiborne, Franklin, Amite, and Jefferson Counties, Mississippi.

(40) CAMDEN AND GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—Project for tidal and riverine flood risk management, Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.

(41) EDGEWATER, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, Edgewater, New Jersey.

(42) MAURICE RIVER, NEW JERSEY.—Project for navigation and for beneficial use of dredged materials for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration, Maurice River, New Jersey.

(43) NORTHERN NEW JERSEY INLAND FLOODING, NEW JERSEY.—Project for inland flood risk management in Hudson, Essex, Union, Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Warren, Passaic, and Sussex Counties, New Jersey.

(44) RISER DITCH, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, including channel improvements, and other related water resource needs related to Riser Ditch in the communities of South Hackensack, Hasbrouck Heights, Little Ferry, Teterboro, and Moonachie, New Jersey.

(45) ROCKAWAY RIVER, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including bank stabilization, Rockaway River, New Jersey.

(46) TENAKILL BROOK, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, Tenakill Brook, New Jersey.

(47) VERONA, CEDAR GROVE, AND WEST CALDWELL, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management along the Peckman River Basin in the townships of Verona (and surrounding area), Cedar Grove, and West Caldwell, New Jersey.

(48) WHIPPANY RIVER WATERSHED, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, Morris County, New Jersey.

(49) LAKE FARMINGTON DAM, NEW MEXICO.—Project for water supply, Lake Farmington Dam, New Mexico.

(50) MCCLURE DAM, NEW MEXICO.—Project for dam safety improvements and flood risk management, McClure Dam, City of Santa Fe, New Mexico.

(51) BROOKLYN NAVY YARD, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Brooklyn Navy Yard, New York.

(52) UPPER EAST RIVER AND FLUSHING BAY, NEW YORK.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Upper East River and Flushing Bay, New York.

(53) HUTCHINSON RIVER, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Hutchinson River, New York.

(54) MOHAWK RIVER BASIN, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management, navigation, and environmental restoration, Mohawk River Basin, New York.

(55) NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Newtown Creek, New York.

(56) SAW MILL RIVER, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration to address areas in the City of Yonkers and the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson within the 100-year flood zone, Saw Mill River, New York.

(57) MINERAL RIDGE DAM, OHIO.—Project for dam safety improvements and rehabilitation, Mineral Ridge Dam, Ohio.

(58) BRODHEAD CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Brodhead Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.

(59) CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood risk management, Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.

(60) COPLAY CREEK, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood risk management, Coplay Creek, Pennsylvania.

(61) BERKELEY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Berkeley County, South Carolina.

(62) BIG SIOUX RIVER, SOUTH DAKOTA.—Project for flood risk management, City of Watertown and vicinity, South Dakota.

(63) TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE RIVER BASINS, TENNESSEE.—Project to deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species in the Tennessee-Tombigbee River Basins, Tennessee.

(64) EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management for economically disadvantaged communities, as defined by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note), along the United States-Mexico border, El Paso County, Texas.

(65) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY-CHANNEL TO PALACIOS, TEXAS.—Project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-Channel to Palacios, Texas.

(66) SIKES LAKE, TEXAS.—Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Sikes Lake, Texas.

(67) SOUTHWEST BORDER REGION, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management for economically disadvantaged communities, as defined by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note), along the United States-Mexico border in Webb, Zapata, and Starr Counties, Texas.

(68) LOWER CLEAR CREEK AND DICKINSON BAYOU, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, Lower Clear Creek and Dickinson Bayou, Texas.

(69) CEDAR ISLAND, VIRGINIA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and navigation, Cedar Island, Virginia.

(70) BALLINGER CREEK, WASHINGTON.—Project for ecosystem restoration, City of Shoreline, Washington.

(71) CITY OF NORTH BEND, WASHINGTON.—Project for water supply, City of North Bend, Washington.

(72) TANEUM CREEK, WASHINGTON.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Taneum Creek, Washington.

(73) CITY OF HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA.—Project for flood risk management, Huntington, West Virginia.

(1) SHINGLE CREEK AND KISSIMMEE RIVER, FLORIDA.—Modifications to the project for ecosystem restoration and water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Florida, authorized by section 201(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670), for flood risk management.

(2) JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 7002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1364), for outer channel improvements.

(3) CEDAR RIVER, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA.—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.

(4) YABUCOA HARBOR, PUERTO RICO.—Modification to the project for navigation, Yabucoa Harbor, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 3 of the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831, 49 Stat. 1048), for assumption of operations and maintenance.

(5) SALEM RIVER, SALEM COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Salem River, Salem County, New Jersey, authorized by section 1 of the Act of March 2, 1907 (chapter 2509, 34 Stat. 1080), to increase the authorized depth.

(6) EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WASHINGTON.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Everett Harbor and Snohomish River, Washington, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 732), for the Boat Launch Connector Channel.

(7) HIRAM M. CHITTENDEN LOCKS, LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WASHINGTON.—Modifications to the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (also known as Ballard Locks), Lake Washington Ship Canal, Washington, authorized by the Act of June 25, 1910 (chapter 382, 36 Stat. 666), for the construction of fish ladder improvements, including efforts to address elevated temperature and low dissolved oxygen levels in the Canal.

(8) PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Port Townsend, Washington, authorized by section 110 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 169), for the Boat Haven Marina Breakwater.

(1) Project for navigation, Branford Harbor and Stony Creek Channel, Connecticut.

(2) Project for navigation, Guilford Harbor and Sluice Channel, Connecticut.

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

(4) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Miami, Dade County, Florida.

(5) 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, authorized by section 201(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670).

(6) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Chicago Shoreline, Illinois, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664; 128 Stat. 1372).

(7) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, South Central Coastal Louisiana, Louisiana.

(8) Modifications to the project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels–Seagirt Loop Deepening, Maryland, including to a depth of 50 feet.

(9) Project for New York and New Jersey Harbor Channel Deepening Improvements, New York and New Jersey.

(10) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, South Shore of Staten Island, New York.

(11) Project for flood risk management, Rio Grande de Loiza, Puerto Rico.

(12) Project for flood risk management, Rio Guanajibo, Puerto Rico.

(13) Project for flood risk management, Rio Nigua, Salinas, Puerto Rico.

(14) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina.

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

(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 ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, authorized by section 1001(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1051).

(3) Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard A. Hanson Dam, Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 281).

(1) Deepening and widening of the navigation project for Coos Bay, Oregon, authorized by the Act of March 3, 1879 (chapter 181, 20 Stat. 370).

(2) Improvements to segment 1B of the navigation project for Houston Ship Channel Expansion Channel Improvement Project, Harris, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, authorized by section 401(1)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734).

(A) IN GENERAL.—The study for ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River Valley, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, authorized by section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788), is modified to authorize the Secretary to conduct a study for water supply, water flow, and wetland restoration and protection within the scope of the study.

(B) INCORPORATION OF EXISTING DATA.—In carrying out the study described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use, to the extent practicable, any existing data for the project prepared under the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

(1) an estimation of the volume of sediment in the reservoir;

(2) an evaluation of the effects of such sediment on reservoir storage capacity, including a quantification of lost reservoir storage capacity due to the sediment and an evaluation of how such lost reservoir storage capacity affects the allocated storage space for authorized purposes within the reservoir (including, where applicable, allocations for dead storage, inactive storage, active conservation, joint use, and flood surcharge);

(3) the identification of any additional effects of sediment on the operations of the reservoir or the ability of the reservoir to meet its authorized purposes;

(4) the identification of any potential effects of the sediment over the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act on the areas immediately upstream and downstream of the reservoir;

(5) the identification of any existing sediment monitoring and management plans associated with the reservoir;

(6) for any reservoir that does not have a sediment monitoring and management plan—

(7) any opportunities for beneficial use of the sediment in the vicinity of the reservoir.

(1) describe all existing Federal navigation projects that are authorized or constructed to a depth of 55 feet or greater;

(2) describe any Federal navigation project that is likely to seek authorization or modification to a depth of 55 feet or greater during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this section;

(3) estimate—

(4) assess the potential effect of authorizing operation and maintenance of a navigation project to a depth of 55 feet at Federal expense on other Federal navigation operation and maintenance activities, including the potential impact on activities at donor ports, energy transfer ports, emerging harbor projects, and projects carried out in the Great Lakes Navigation System, as such terms are defined in section 102(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2238 note).

(1) a quantification of the expected hopper and pipeline dredging needs of authorized water resources development projects for the 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, including—

(2) an identification of the Federal appropriations for dredging projects and expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for fiscal year 2015 and each fiscal year thereafter;

(3) an identification of the dredging capacity of the domestic hopper and pipeline dredge fleet, including publicly owned and privately owned vessels, in each of the 10 years preceding the date of enactment of this Act;

(4) an analysis of the ability of the domestic hopper and pipeline dredge fleet to meet the expected dredging needs identified under paragraph (1), including an analysis of such ability in each of the following regions—

(5) an identification of the dredging capacity of domestic hopper and pipeline dredge vessels that are under contract for construction and intended to be used at water resources development projects;

(6) an identification of any hopper or pipeline dredge vessel expected to be retired or become unavailable during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this section;

(7) an identification of the potential costs of using either public or private dredging to carry out authorized water resources development projects; and

(8) any recommendations of the Secretary for adding additional domestic hopper and pipeline dredging capacity, including adding public and private dredging vessels to the domestic hopper and pipeline dredge fleet to efficiently service water resources development projects.

(1) enable the Corps of Engineers to carry out water resources development projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner; and

(2) be in the best interests of the United States.

(1) may be provided by the non-Federal interest, as necessary, for the construction of a project for flood risk reduction or hurricane and storm risk reduction in accordance with section 103(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(i));

(2) are being maintained for open space, recreational areas, or preservation of fish and wildlife habitat; and

(3) will continue to be so maintained as part of the project.

(1) a summary of the existing statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements described in such subsection;

(2) a description of the requirements and process the Secretary uses to place an economic value on the lands described in such subsection;

(3) an assessment of whether such requirements and process affect the ability of a non-Federal interest to provide such lands for the construction of a project described in such subsection;

(4) an assessment of whether such requirements and process directly or indirectly encourage the selection of developed lands for the construction of a project, or have the potential to affect the total cost of a project; and

(5) the identification of alternative measures for determining the economic value of such lands that could provide incentives for the preservation of open space, recreational areas, and habitat in association with the construction of a project.

(1) is not needed to carry out the authorized purposes of the Whittier Narrows Dam element of such project; and

(2) could be transferred to the City of Pico Rivera, California, for the replacement of recreational facilities located in such city that were adversely impacted by dam safety construction activities associated with the Whittier Narrows Dam element of such project.

(1) a description of entities that currently use (or have expressed an interest in using) the water provided pursuant to the contract;

(2) an accounting of the current annual costs, including annual operations and maintenance costs, owed by the Metropolitan District to use the water provided pursuant to the contract;

(3) an accounting of any unrecovered capital or operation and maintenance costs incurred by the Federal Government in constructing or maintaining the reservoir to accommodate water supply storage as an authorized purpose of the reservoir;

(4) an accounting of any potential transfer or increase in costs to the Federal Government, to the Metropolitan District, or to any water users that could result from the termination of the contract; and

(5) any additional information that the Secretary determines appropriate for consideration of termination of the contract.

(1) is authorized to—

(2) shall ensure the study and any projects recommended under paragraph (2) will not interfere with the efforts undertaken to carry out the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 132 Stat. 3786).

(1) consult with independent expert scientists and other regional stakeholders with relevant expertise and experience; and

(2) coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies providing oversight for both short- and long-term monitoring of the projects and activities described in subsection (a).

(1) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT.—The term “Central and Southern Florida Project” has the meaning given that term in section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

(2) NORTHERN ESTUARIES.—The term “northern estuaries” means the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Charlotte Harbor, Indian River Lagoon, Lake Worth Lagoon, and St. Lucie River Estuary.

(3) SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM.—

(4) STUDY AREA.—The term “study area” means all lands and waters within—

(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary shall develop, in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsors of the Central and Southern Florida project and any relevant Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, a proposed comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the northern estuaries.

(2) INCLUSIONS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall develop a proposed comprehensive plan that provides for ecosystem restoration within the northern estuaries, including the elimination of harmful discharges from Lake Okeechobee.

(3) SUBMISSION.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress for approval—

(4) INTERIM REPORTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the submission of the proposed comprehensive plan under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall submit to Congress an interim report on the development of the proposed comprehensive plan.

(5) ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES.—Notwithstanding the submission of the proposed comprehensive plan under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall continue to conduct such studies and analyses after the date of such submission as are necessary for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the northern estuaries.

(1) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan projects, as authorized by or pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 121 U.S.C. 1269; 132 U.S.C. 3786);

(2) the review of the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule pursuant to section 1106 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3773) and section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 U.S.C. 2682); and

(3) any additional water resources development projects and studies included in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Plan Integrated Delivery Schedule prepared in accordance with part 385 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations.

(1) an estimated implementation or completion date of the project or study; and

(2) the estimated costs to complete implementation or construction, as applicable, of the project or study.

(1) evaluate the flow frequency probabilities of the Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois River; and

(2) develop updated water surface profiles for such rivers.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a disposition study to determine the Federal interest in, and identify the effects of, deauthorizing hydropower as an authorized purpose, in whole or in part, of the Willamette Valley hydropower project.

(2) CONTENTS.—In carrying out the disposition study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall review the effects of deauthorizing hydropower on—

(3) RECOMMENDATIONS.—If the Secretary, through the disposition study authorized by paragraph (1), determines that hydropower should be removed as an authorized purpose of any part of the Willamette Valley hydropower project, the Secretary shall also investigate and recommend any necessary structural or operational changes at such project that are necessary to achieve an appropriate balance among the remaining authorized purposes of such project or changes to such purposes.

(1) the results of the disposition study on deauthorizing hydropower as a purpose of the Willamette Valley hydropower project; and

(2) any recommendations required under subsection (a)(3).

(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 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with applicable—

(2) USE OF EXISTING DATA AND PRIOR STUDIES.—In conducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate—

(1) the results of the study; and

(2) any recommendations for additional study in specific geographic areas.

(1) COVERED RESERVOIR.—The term “covered reservoir” means a reservoir owned and operated by the Secretary or for which the Secretary has flood control responsibilities under section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709).

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

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall conduct an assessment, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, of opportunities to install and maintain photovoltaic solar panels (including floating solar panels) at covered projects.

(2) CONTENTS.—The assessment conducted under paragraph (1) shall—

(1) any property under the control of the Corps of Engineers; and

(2) any water resources development project constructed by the Secretary or over which the Secretary has financial or operational responsibility.

(1) identify the capacity of the Corps of Engineers to—

(2) identify any limitations or deficiencies at Corps of Engineers facilities that are capable of testing the performance and reliability of coastal flood mitigation systems;

(3) assess any benefits that would result from addressing the limitations or deficiencies identified under paragraph (2); and

(4) provide recommendations for addressing such limitations or deficiencies.

(1) the findings of the Secretary relating to—

(2) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to whether existing requirements or procedures related to such use of covered easements should be revised to reflect the results of the review.

(1) reserves for the Secretary rights in the property that are necessary to construct, operate, or maintain a water resources development project;

(2) provides for appropriate public use of the property, and retains the right of continued use of the property by the owner of the property, to the extent such uses are consistent with purposes of the covered easement;

(3) provides access to the property for oversight and inspection by the Secretary;

(4) is permanently recorded; and

(5) is enforceable under Federal and State law.

(1) describe the forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services provided by the Secretary on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers;

(2) assess whether such services, including efforts to reduce hazardous fuels and to restore and improve forest, rangeland, and watershed health (including the health of fish and wildlife habitats) would be enhanced by authorizing the Secretary to enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non-Federal interest;

(3) describe the process for ensuring that Federal requirements for land management plans for forests on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers remain in effect under good neighbor agreements;

(4) assess whether Congress should authorize the Secretary to enter into a good neighbor agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers, including by assessing any interest expressed by a non-Federal interest to enter into such an agreement;

(5) consider whether implementation of a good neighbor agreement on lands owned by the Corps of Engineers would benefit State and local governments and Indian Tribes that are located in the same geographic area as such lands; and

(6) consult with the heads of other Federal agencies authorized to enter into good neighbor agreements with non-Federal interests.

(1) FOREST, RANGELAND, AND WATERSHED RESTORATION SERVICES.—The term “forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services” has the meaning given such term in section 8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a).

(2) GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT.—The term “good neighbor agreement” means a cooperative agreement or contract (including a sole source contract) entered into between the Secretary and a non-Federal interest to carry out forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services.

(3) LANDS OWNED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—The term “lands owned by the Corps of Engineers” means any land owned by the Corps of Engineers, but does not include—

“(2) REPORT ON ELECTRONIC SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION.—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 quarterly report describing the status of the implementation of this section.”.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and 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 on the results of a study on projects and activities to mitigate fish and wildlife losses resulting from the construction, or operation and maintenance, of an authorized water resources development project.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and 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 on the results of a study on performance metrics for, compliance with, and adequacy in addressing project impacts of, potential mechanisms for fulfilling compensatory mitigation obligations pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Comptroller General shall include in the study under paragraph (1) an analysis of—

(3) UPDATE.—In conjunction with the study under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall review and update the findings and recommendations, including a review of Federal agency compliance with such recommendations, in the report of the Comptroller General entitled, “Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring” and dated September 2005 (GAO–05–898).

(1) an assessment of ways in which the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center can improve the collection of information relating to all commercial maritime activity within the jurisdiction of a port, including the collection and reporting of records of fishery landings and aquaculture harvest; and

(2) recommendations to improve the collection of such information from non-Federal entities, taking into consideration—

(1) investigate the information sharing protocols and procedures between the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency regarding the construction of new Federal flood protection projects;

(2) analyze the timeliness of the integration of information relating to newly constructed flood protection projects into the National Levee Database;

(3) identify any delays between the construction of a new Federal flood protection project and when a policyholder of the National Flood Insurance Program would realize a premium discount due to the construction of a new Federal flood protection project; and

(4) determine whether current information sharing protocols are adversely impacting the ability of the Secretary to perform accurate benefit-cost analysis for future flood risk management activities.

“(a) Purposes.—The purposes of this section are—

“(b) Proposed deauthorization list.—

“(c) Submission of final deauthorization list to congress for congressional review; publication.—

(A) in paragraph (5), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

(A) in paragraph (9), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “the Upper Missouri River Basin and the North Platte River Basin” and inserting “the Upper Missouri River Basin, the North Platte River Basin, and the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint River Basin”; and

(2) in paragraph (2)—

“(31) Salisbury Pond, Worcester, Massachusetts;

“(32) Baisley Pond, New York;

“(33) Legacy Park, Decatur, Georgia; and

“(34) White Rock Lake, Dallas, Texas.”.

“(c) Focus Areas.—In carrying out the demonstration program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall undertake program activities related to harmful algal blooms in—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:

(3) COST SHARING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.

(2) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

(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—

(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) CITY.—The term “City” means the city of Des Moines, Iowa.

(2) FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT.—The term “Flood Protection Project” means the project on the Des Moines River for local flood protection of Des Moines, Iowa, authorized by the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896).

(3) RED ROCK DAM PROJECT.—The term “Red Rock Dam Project” means the project for the Red Rock Dam on the Des Moines River for flood control and other purposes, authorized by the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 896).

(1) That portion of the Red Rock Dam Project consisting of the segment of levee from Station 15+88.8W to Station 77+43.7W shall be transferred to the Flood Protection Project.

(2) The relocated levee improvement constructed by the City, from Station 77+43.7W to approximately Station 20+00, shall be included in the Flood Protection Project.

(1) FLOOD PROTECTION EASEMENTS.—The Secretary is authorized to convey, without consideration, to the City the following easements to become part of the Flood Protection Project in accordance with subsection (b):

(2) ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS.—The Secretary is authorized to convey, without consideration, to the City or to the Des Moines Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation Authority the following easements:

(3) COSTS.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this subsection shall be responsible for all administrative costs associated with the conveyance.

(1) conduct an evaluation of the extent of streambank erosion on the Lower Missouri River; and

(2) develop new methods and techniques for streambank protection, research soil stability, and identify the causes of erosion.

(1) ANALYSIS.—Prior to construction of the interception-rearing complexes under subsection (a), the Secretary shall perform an analysis to identify whether the interception-rearing complexes will—

(2) MITIGATION.—The Secretary may not construct an interception-rearing complex under subsection (a) until the Secretary successfully mitigates any effects described in paragraph (1) with respect to such interception-rearing complex.

“(2) submits the report required by section 318(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022;”.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:

(3) COST SHARING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.

(2) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this section to a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project to be carried out with such assistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:

(3) COST SHARING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.

(2) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSE.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

(1) hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to carry out a drawdown within applicable dam operating plans; or

(2) hydrologic conditions allow the Secretary to carry out a drawdown and sufficient funds are available to the Secretary to carry out any additional activities that may be required to ensure that the drawdown does not adversely affect navigation.

(1) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall use existing coordination and consultation processes to regularly consult with other relevant Federal agencies and States regarding the planning and assessment of water level management actions implemented under this section.

(2) NOTIFICATION.—Prior to carrying out any water level management plan pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall provide notice to the public and to navigation interests and other interested stakeholders.

(1) in subsection (d), by striking “10 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “on December 31, 2026”; and

(2) in subsection (e)(1)(B), by striking “10 years after the date of enactment of this Act” and inserting “December 31, 2026”.

(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and the legal description of any real property or easement 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 is authorized to convey to the City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority, 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 under this subsection is the approximately 176 acres of Federal land located on the following 3 parcels in Rogers County, Oklahoma:

(3) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary shall reserve and retain from any conveyance under this subsection such easements, rights-of-way, and other interests that the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to ensure the continued operation of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project (including Newt Graham Lock and Dam 18) authorized under the comprehensive plan for the Arkansas River Basin by the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218; 60 Stat. 634; 60 Stat. 647; 101 Stat. 1329–112; 117 Stat. 1842).

(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) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority 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.—At such time as new facilities are available to be used as the office for the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary shall convey to the Port of Corpus Christi, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the property described in paragraph (2).

(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The property referred to in paragraph (1) is the land known as Tract 100 and Tract 101, including improvements on that land, in Corpus Christi, Texas, and described as follows:

(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 Port of Corpus Christi shall pay to the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property (including improvements) conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.

“(274) CHANDLER, ARIZONA.—$18,750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Chandler, Arizona.

“(275) PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Pinal County, Arizona.

“(276) TEMPE, ARIZONA.—$37,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation and groundwater recharge, for the City of Tempe, Arizona.

“(277) BELL GARDENS, CALIFORNIA.—$12,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Bell Gardens, California.

“(278) CALIMESA, CALIFORNIA.—$3,500,000 for stormwater management and water supply infrastructure, including groundwater recharge and water recycling, in the city of Calimesa, California.

“(279) COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—$6,165,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the vicinity of Compton Creek, city of Compton, California.

“(280) DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA.—$100,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Downey, California.

“(281) LOMITA, CALIFORNIA.—$4,716,600 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Lomita, California.

“(282) EAST SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in East County, San Diego County, California.

“(283) EASTERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$25,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, for the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Duarte, El Monte, Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, La Verne, Monrovia, San Dimas, and West Covina, and for Avocado Heights, Bassett, and Valinda, California.

“(284) ESCONDIDO CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—$34,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the vicinity of Escondido Creek, city of Escondido, California.

“(285) FONTANA, CALIFORNIA.—$16,000,000 for stormwater management infrastructure in the city of Fontana, California.

“(286) HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA.—$23,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Healdsburg, California.

“(287) INLAND EMPIRE, CALIFORNIA.—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California.

“(288) MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Marin County, California.

“(289) MAYWOOD, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Maywood, California.

“(290) MONTEREY PENINSULA, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, and water supply, on the Monterey Peninsula, California.

“(291) NORTH RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA.—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including coastal flooding resilience measures for such infrastructure, in North Richmond, California.

“(292) ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA.—$40,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling and water supply, in the city of Ontario, California.

“(293) PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Paramount, California.

“(294) PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.—$13,700,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water recycling, in the city of Petaluma, California.

“(295) RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.—$27,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Rialto, California.

“(296) RINCON RESERVATION, CALIFORNIA.—$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure on the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians reservation, California.

“(297) SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water protection and development, including flooding resilience measures for such infrastructure, in Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Solano County, Sacramento County, and Yolo County, California.

“(298) SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.—$270,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water recycling, at the San Francisco International Airport, California.

“(299) SAN JOAQUIN AND STANISLAUS, CALIFORNIA.—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and water supply, in San Joaquin County and Stanislaus County, California.