Water Resources Development Act of 2020
Summary
Report 116-460, Part 1, dated July 24, 2020, is the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure report on the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, submitted by DeFazio with additional views and a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate. The committee reports the bill favorably with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. The table of contents lists Title I (General Provisions), Title II (Studies and Reports), Title III (Deauthorizations and Modifications) and Title IV (Water Resources Infrastructure). Section 102 on funding for navigation sets aside not less than 20 percent of funds for emerging harbor projects, not less than 12 percent for projects within the Great Lakes Navigation System, and 10 percent for expanded uses at donor ports.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Crpt Crpt 116Hrpt460 Crpt 116Hrpt460 Pt1
- Case
- Crpt Crpt 116Hrpt460 Crpt 116Hrpt460 Pt1
Cite this document
“Water Resources Development Act of 2020.”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-crpt-116hrpt460-crpt-116hrpt460-pt1/
, SHA-256 fa0ab1c7dbb45ca79b0185a6b211a34c95ae93784f81af2c51d5e7dd9a5370f9.Full text
Union Calendar No. 369
116TH CONGRESS REPT. 116–460
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES !
2d Session Part 1
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2020
JULY 24, 2020.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DEFAZIO, from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 7575]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 7575) to provide for improvements to the
rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the con-
servation and development of water and related resources, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation ............................................................................................. 55
Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 55
Hearings ................................................................................................................... 68
Legislative History and Consideration .................................................................. 69
Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 74
Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 75
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 75
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 75
Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 76
Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 76
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ... 76
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 76
Preemption Clarification ......................................................................................... 76
99–006
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
2
Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 77
Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 77
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 77
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 92
Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 215
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development
Act of 2020’’.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.
TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. Budgetary treatment expansion and adjustment for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Sec. 102. Funding for navigation.
Sec. 103. Annual report to Congress on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Sec. 104. Additional measures at donor ports and energy transfer ports.
Sec. 105. Assumption of maintenance of a locally preferred plan.
Sec. 106. Coast Guard anchorages.
Sec. 107. State contribution of funds for certain operation and maintenance costs.
Sec. 108. Inland waterway projects.
Sec. 109. Implementation of water resources principles and requirements.
Sec. 110. Resiliency planning assistance.
Sec. 111. Project consultation.
Sec. 112. Review of resiliency assessments.
Sec. 113. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 114. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 115. Feasibility studies; review of natural and nature-based features.
Sec. 116. Report on corrosion prevention activities.
Sec. 117. Quantification of benefits for flood risk management projects in seismic zones.
Sec. 118. Federal interest determination.
Sec. 119. Economically disadvantaged community flood protection and hurricane and storm damage reduction
study pilot program.
Sec. 120. Permanent measures to reduce emergency flood fighting needs for communities subject to repetitive
flooding.
Sec. 121. Emergency response to natural disasters.
Sec. 122. Study on natural infrastructure at Corps of Engineers projects.
Sec. 123. Review of Corps of Engineers assets.
Sec. 124. Sense of Congress on multipurpose projects.
Sec. 125. Beneficial reuse of dredged material; dredged material management plans.
Sec. 126. Aquatic ecosystem restoration for anadromous fish.
Sec. 127. Annual report to Congress.
Sec. 128. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program.
Sec. 129. Update on Invasive Species Policy Guidance.
Sec. 130. Report on debris removal.
Sec. 131. Missouri River interception-rearing complex construction.
Sec. 132. Cost and benefit feasibility assessment.
Sec. 133. Materials, services, and funds for repair, restoration, or rehabilitation of projects.
Sec. 134. Levee safety.
Sec. 135. National Dam Safety Program.
Sec. 136. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed pump stations.
Sec. 137. Non-Federal Project Implementation Pilot Program.
Sec. 138. Definition of economically disadvantaged community.
Sec. 139. Cost sharing provisions for territories and Indian Tribes.
Sec. 140. Flood control and other purposes.
Sec. 141. Review of contracting policies.
Sec. 142. Buy America.
Sec. 143. Annual report on status of feasibility studies.
TITLE II—STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies.
Sec. 202. Expedited completions.
Sec. 203. Feasibility study modifications.
Sec. 204. Selma, Alabama.
Sec. 205. Comprehensive study of the Sacramento River, Yolo Bypass, California.
Sec. 206. Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule, Florida.
Sec. 207. Great Lakes Coastal Resiliency Study.
Sec. 208. Rathbun Lake, Chariton River, Iowa.
Sec. 209. Report on the status of restoration in the Louisiana coastal area.
Sec. 210. Lower Mississippi River comprehensive study.
Sec. 211. Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan.
Sec. 212. Lower Missouri Basin Flood Risk and Resiliency Study, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri.
Sec. 213. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River and Rye Harbor, New Hampshire.
Sec. 214. Cougar and Detroit Dams, Willamette River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 215. Port Orford, Oregon.
Sec. 216. Wilson Creek and Sloan Creek, Fairview, Texas.
Sec. 217. GAO study on mitigation for water resources development projects.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Sec. 218. GAO study on application of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures.
Sec. 219. GAO study on administration of environmental banks.
Sec. 220. Study on water supply and water conservation at water resources development projects.
Sec. 221. PFAS review and inventory at Corps facilities.
Sec. 222. Report on recreational facilities.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6631 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
3
TITLE III—DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.
Sec. 302. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine restoration.
Sec. 303. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 304. Lakes program.
Sec. 305. Watercraft inspection stations.
Sec. 306. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program.
Sec. 307. Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program.
Sec. 308. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
Sec. 309. Ouachita-Black River Navigation Project, Arkansas.
Sec. 310. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 311. Lake Isabella, California.
Sec. 312. Lower San Joaquin River flood control project.
Sec. 313. San Diego River and Mission Bay, San Diego County, California.
Sec. 314. San Francisco, California, Waterfront Area.
Sec. 315. Western Pacific Interceptor Canal, Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 316. Rio Grande Environmental Management Program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.
Sec. 317. New London Harbor Waterfront Channel, Connecticut.
Sec. 318. Washington Harbor, District of Columbia.
Sec. 319. Central Everglades, Florida.
Sec. 320. Miami River, Florida.
Sec. 321. Taylor Creek Reservoir and Levee L–73 (Section 1), Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 322. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
Sec. 323. San Juan-Chama project; Abiquiu Dam, New Mexico.
Sec. 324. Pawcatuck River, Little Narragansett Bay and Watch Hill Cove, Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Sec. 325. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 326. Cap Sante Waterway, Washington.
Sec. 327. Regional sediment management.
Sec. 328. Additional assistance for critical projects.
Sec. 329. Project modification authorizations.
Sec. 330. Application of credit.
Sec. 331. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 332. Conveyances.
Sec. 333. Repeals.
TITLE IV—WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE
Sec. 401. Project authorizations.
Sec. 402. Special rules.
Sec. 403. Authorization of projects based on feasibility studies prepared by non-Federal interests.
SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Army.
TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. BUDGETARY TREATMENT EXPANSION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR THE HARBOR MAIN-
TENANCE TRUST FUND.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 14003 of division B of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–
136) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘SEC. 14003. Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing:
‘‘ ‘(H) HARBOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.—If, for any fiscal year, appro-
priations for the Construction, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Oper-
ation and Maintenance accounts of the Corps of Engineers are enacted that
are derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund established under
section 9505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that the Congress
designates in statute as being for harbor operations and maintenance ac-
tivities, then the adjustment for that fiscal year shall be the total of such
appropriations that are derived from such Fund and designated as being for
harbor operations and maintenance activities.’.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect as
if included in the enactment of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136).
SEC. 102. FUNDING FOR NAVIGATION.
(a) FUNDING FOR NAVIGATION.—Section 210 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended, in the section heading, by striking ‘‘AUTHOR-
IZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS’’ and inserting ‘‘FUNDING FOR NAVIGATION’’.
(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HARBOR PROJECTS.—Section 210(c) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(c)) is amended—
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year, of the funds made available under this
section (including funds appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Fund), the Secretary shall make expenditures to pay for operation and mainte-
nance costs of the harbors and inland harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2),
using—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
4
‘‘(A) not less than 20 percent of such funds for emerging harbor projects,
to the extent there are identifiable operations and maintenance needs, in-
cluding eligible breakwater and jetty needs, at such harbor projects;
‘‘(B) not less than 12 percent of such funds for projects that are located
within the Great Lakes Navigation System;
‘‘(C) 10 percent of such funds for expanded uses carried out at donor
ports, as such term is defined in section 2106 of the Water Resources Re-
form and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c); and
‘‘(D) any remaining funds for operation and maintenance costs of any har-
bor or inland harbor referred to in subsection (a)(2) based on an equitable
allocation of such funds among such harbors and inland harbors.’’;
(2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL USES AT EMERGING HARBORS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In each fiscal year, the Secretary may use not more
than $5,000,000 of funds designated for emerging harbor projects under
paragraph (1)(A) to pay for the costs of up to 10 projects for maintenance
dredging of a marina or berthing area, in an emerging harbor, that includes
an area that is located adjacent to, or is accessible by, a Federal navigation
project, subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph.
‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE EMERGING HARBORS.—The Secretary may use funds as au-
thorized under subparagraph (A) at an emerging harbor that—
‘‘(i) supports commercial activities, including commercial fishing oper-
ations, commercial fish processing operations, recreational and sport
fishing, and commercial boat yards; or
‘‘(ii) supports activities of the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating.
‘‘(C) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall require a non-
Federal interest to contribute not less than 25 percent of the costs for main-
tenance dredging of that portion of a maintenance dredging project de-
scribed in subparagraph (A) that is located outside of the Federal naviga-
tion project, which may be provided as an in-kind contribution, including
through the use of dredge equipment owned by non-Federal interest to
carry out such activities.’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(5) EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES.—Nothing in this subsection prohibits the
Secretary from making an expenditure to pay for the operation and mainte-
nance costs of a specific harbor or inland harbor, including the transfer of fund-
ing from the operation and maintenance of a separate project, if—
‘‘(A) the Secretary determines that the action is necessary to address the
navigation needs of a harbor or inland harbor where safe navigation has
been severely restricted due to an unforeseen event; and
‘‘(B) the Secretary provides within 90 days of the action notice and infor-
mation on the need for the action to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Ap-
propriations of the House of Representatives.’’.
(c) PRIORITIZATION.—Section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended by striking subsection (d) and redesignating sub-
sections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively.
(d) ASSESSMENT OF HARBORS AND INLAND HARBORS.—Section 210(d)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (as so redesignated) is amended by
striking ‘‘expanded uses at eligible harbors or inland harbors referred to in sub-
section (d)(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘uses described in paragraphs (1)(C) and (3) of sub-
section (c)’’.
(e) DEFINITIONS.—Section 210(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(as so redesignated) is amended—
(1) by striking paragraphs (6) through (9);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (4) through (6),
respectively;
(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
‘‘(2) EMERGING HARBOR.—The term ‘emerging harbor’ means a harbor or in-
land harbor referred to in subsection (a)(2) that transits less than 1,000,000
tons of cargo annually.
‘‘(3) EMERGING HARBOR PROJECT.—The term ‘emerging harbor project’ means
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
a project that is assigned to an emerging harbor.’’; and
(4) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(C) An in-water improvement, if the improvement—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
5
‘‘(i) is for the seismic reinforcement of a wharf or other berthing
structure, or the repair or replacement of a deteriorating wharf or other
berthing structure, at a port facility;
‘‘(ii) benefits commercial navigation at the harbor; and
‘‘(iii) is located in, or adjacent to, a berth that is accessible to a Fed-
eral navigation project.
‘‘(D) An activity to maintain slope stability at a berth in a harbor that
is accessible to a Federal navigation project if such activity benefits com-
mercial navigation at the harbor.’’.
SEC. 103. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.
Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (26 U.S.C. 9505
note; 106 Stat. 4851) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) by striking ‘‘and annually thereafter,’’ and inserting ‘‘and annually
thereafter concurrent with the submission of the President’s annual budget
request to Congress,’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘Public Works and Transportation’’ and inserting ‘‘Trans-
portation and Infrastructure’’; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(D) A description of the expected expenditures from the trust fund to
meet the needs of navigation for the fiscal year of the budget request.’’.
SEC. 104. ADDITIONAL MEASURES AT DONOR PORTS AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 2106(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Develop-
ment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c(a)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (3)(A)—
(A) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
‘‘(ii) at which the total amount of harbor maintenance taxes collected
(including the estimated taxes related to domestic cargo and cruise pas-
sengers) comprise not less than $15,000,000 annually of the total fund-
ing of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in each of the previous 3
fiscal years;’’;
(B) in clause (iii), by inserting ‘‘(including the estimated taxes related to
domestic cargo and cruise passengers)’’ after ‘‘taxes collected’’; and
(C) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘each of the
previous 3 fiscal years’’;
(2) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2012’’ each place it appears
and inserting ‘‘each of the previous 3 fiscal years’’;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9) and inserting after para-
graph (7) the following:
‘‘(8) HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.—The term ‘Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund’ means the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund established by section
9505 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.’’; and
(4) in paragraph (9), as so redesignated—
(A) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
‘‘(B) at which the total amount of harbor maintenance taxes collected (in-
cluding the estimated taxes related to domestic cargo and cruise pas-
sengers) comprise annually more than $5,000,000 but less than $15,000,000
of the total funding of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in each of the
previous 3 fiscal years;’’;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘(including the estimated taxes re-
lated to domestic cargo and cruise passengers)’’ after ‘‘taxes collected’’; and
(C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2012’’ and inserting
‘‘each of the previous 3 fiscal years’’.
(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 2106 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c) is
amended—
(1) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as sub-
sections (e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) in subsection (e), as so redesignated—
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘2020’’ and inserting ‘‘2030’’; and
(B) by striking paragraph (3).
SEC. 105. ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED PLAN.
Section 204(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(f))
is amended to read as follows:
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
‘‘(f) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—
‘‘(1) ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE.—Whenever a non-Federal interest carries
out improvements to a federally authorized harbor or inland harbor, the Sec-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
6
retary shall be responsible for operation and maintenance in accordance with
section 101(b) if—
‘‘(A) before construction of the improvements—
‘‘(i) the Secretary determines that the improvements are feasible and
consistent with the purposes of this title; and
‘‘(ii) the Secretary and the non-Federal interest execute a written
agreement relating to operation and maintenance of the improvements;
‘‘(B) the Secretary certifies that the project or separable element of the
project is constructed in accordance with applicable permits and appro-
priate engineering and design standards; and
‘‘(C) the Secretary does not find that the project or separable element is
no longer feasible.
‘‘(2) FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE COSTS OF A LOCALLY PRE-
FERRED PLAN.—In the case of improvements determined by the Secretary pursu-
ant to paragraph (1)(A)(i) to deviate from the national economic development
plan, the Secretary shall be responsible for all operation and maintenance costs
of such improvements, as described in section 101(b), including costs in excess
of the costs of the national economic development plan, if the Secretary deter-
mines that the improvements satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1).’’.
SEC. 106. COAST GUARD ANCHORAGES.
The Secretary is authorized to perform dredging at Federal expense within and
adjacent to anchorages on the Columbia River established by the Coast Guard pur-
suant to section 7 of the Act of March 14, 1915 (33 U.S.C. 471), to provide safe an-
chorage for deep draft vessels commensurate with the authorized Federal navigation
channel depth, including advanced maintenance.
SEC. 107. STATE CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS.
In carrying out eligible operations and maintenance activities within the Great
Lakes Navigation System pursuant to section 210 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238) in a State that has implemented any additional
State limitation on the disposal of dredged material in the open waters of such
State, the Secretary may, pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33
U.S.C. 701h), receive from such State, and expend, such funds as may be contrib-
uted by the State to cover the additional costs for operations and maintenance ac-
tivities for a harbor or inland harbor within such State that result from such limita-
tion.
SEC. 108. INLAND WATERWAY PROJECTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 102 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212), 35 percent of the costs of construction of any
project for navigation on the inland waterways shall be paid from amounts appro-
priated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund—
(1) during each of fiscal years 2021 through 2027; and
(2) for a project the construction of which is initiated during such period, in
each fiscal year until such construction is complete.
(b) PRIORITIZATION.—In selecting projects described in subsection (a) for which to
initiate construction during any of fiscal years 2021 through 2027, the Secretary
shall prioritize projects that are included in the most recent 20-year program for
making capital investments developed under section 302(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2251(d)).
SEC. 109. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER RESOURCES PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall issue final agency-specific procedures necessary to implement
the principles and requirements and the interagency guidelines.
(b) DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.—The
procedures required by subsection (a) shall ensure that the Secretary, in the formu-
lation of future water resources development projects—
(1) develops such projects in accordance with—
(A) the guiding principles established by the principles and requirements;
and
(B) the national water resources planning policy established by section
2031(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962–
3(a)); and
(2) fully identifies and analyzes national economic development benefits, re-
gional economic development benefits, environmental quality benefits, and other
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
societal effects.
(c) REVIEW AND UPDATE.—Every 5 years, the Secretary shall review and, where
appropriate, revise the procedures required by subsection (a).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
7
(d) PUBLIC REVIEW, NOTICE, AND COMMENT.—In issuing, reviewing, and revising
the procedures required by this section, the Secretary shall—
(1) provide notice to interested non-Federal stakeholders of the Secretary’s in-
tent to revise the procedures;
(2) provide opportunities for interested non-Federal stakeholders to engage
with, and provide input and recommendations to, the Secretary on the revision
of the procedures; and
(3) solicit and consider public and expert comments.
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) INTERAGENCY GUIDELINES.—The term ‘‘interagency guidelines’’ means the
interagency guidelines contained in the document finalized by the Council on
Environmental Quality pursuant to section 2031 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962–3) in December 2014, to implement the
principles and requirements.
(2) PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS.—The term ‘‘principles and requirements’’
means the principles and requirements contained in the document prepared by
the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to section 2031 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962–3), entitled ‘‘Principles and
Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources’’, and dated March
2013.
SEC. 110. RESILIENCY PLANNING ASSISTANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 206(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
709a(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, to avoid repetitive flooding impacts, to antici-
pate, prepare, and adapt to changing climatic conditions and extreme weather
events, and to withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruption due to the
flood hazards’’ after ‘‘in planning to ameliorate the flood hazard’’.
(b) PRIORITIZING FLOOD RISK RESILIENCY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ECONOMI-
CALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES.—In carrying out section 206 of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a), the Secretary shall prioritize the provision of tech-
nical assistance to support flood risk resiliency planning efforts of an economically
disadvantaged community.
SEC. 111. PROJECT CONSULTATION.
(a) REPORTS REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit the following reports:
(1) The report required under section 1214 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3809).
(2) The report required under section 1120(a)(3) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1643).
(b) CONSULTATION.—
(1) AGENCIES AND TRIBES.—The Secretary shall ensure that all covered com-
munity consultation policies, regulations, and guidance of the Corps of Engi-
neers continue to be implemented, and that consultations with Federal and
State agencies and Indian Tribes required for a water resources development
project are carried out.
(2) COMMUNITIES.—The Secretary shall ensure that any covered communities,
including such communities identified in the reports submitted under sub-
section (a), that are found to be disproportionately or adversely affected are in-
cluded in consultation policies, regulations, and guidance of the Corps of Engi-
neers.
(3) PROJECT PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall ensure that
covered communities are consulted in the development of water resources devel-
opment project planning and construction, for the purposes of achieving envi-
ronmental justice and addressing any disproportionate or adverse effects on
such communities.
(c) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE UPDATES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall update any policies, regulations, and guidance of the
Corps of Engineers related to achieving environmental justice for covered com-
munities.
(2) RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSULTATION.—In carrying out paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall—
(A) consult with a wide array of representatives of covered communities;
and
(B) use the recommendations from the reports submitted under sub-
section (a).
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(d) COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.—The Secretary shall ensure that in carrying out
authorized water resources development projects in, and all other activities of the
Corps of Engineers related to, covered communities, the Corps of Engineers—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
8
(1) promotes the meaningful involvement of such communities in the project
development and implementation, enforcement efforts, and other activities of
the Corps of Engineers;
(2) provides guidance and technical assistance to such communities to in-
crease understanding of the project development and implementation activities,
regulations, and policies of the Corps of Engineers; and
(3) cooperates with State, Tribal, and local governments with respect to activi-
ties carried out pursuant to this subsection.
(e) TRIBAL LANDS AND CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall ensure that in car-
rying out authorized water resources development projects and in all other activities
of the Corps of Engineers, that the Corps of Engineers—
(1)(A) consults with Indian Tribes specifically on any Tribal lands near or ad-
jacent to any activities of the Corps of Engineers, for purposes of identifying
lands of ancestral, cultural, or religious importance; and
(B) cooperates with Indian Tribes to avoid, or otherwise find alternate solu-
tions with respect to, such lands; and
(2)(A) consults with Indian Tribes specifically on any Tribal areas near or ad-
jacent to any activities of the Corps of Engineers, for purposes of identifying
lands, waters, and other resources critical to the livelihood of the Indian Tribes;
and
(B) cooperates with Indian Tribes to avoid, or otherwise find alternate solu-
tions with respect to, such areas.
(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) COMMUNITY OF COLOR.—The term ‘‘community of color’’ means a commu-
nity of individuals who are—
(A) American Indian or Alaska Native;
(B) Asian or Pacific Islander;
(C) Black, not of Hispanic origin; or
(D) Hispanic.
(2) COVERED COMMUNITY.—The term ‘‘covered community’’ means each of the
following:
(A) A community of color.
(B) An economically disadvantaged community.
(C) A rural community.
(D) A Tribal or indigenous community.
(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States, the District
of Columbia, and each of the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the
United States.
SEC. 112. REVIEW OF RESILIENCY ASSESSMENTS.
(a) RESILIENCY ASSESSMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
section, and in conjunction with the development of procedures under section
109 of this Act, the Secretary is directed to review, and where appropriate, re-
vise the existing planning guidance documents and regulations on the assess-
ment of the effects of sea level rise on future water resources development
projects to ensure that such guidance documents and regulations are based on
the best available, peer-reviewed science and data on the current and future ef-
fects of sea level rise on coastal communities.
(2) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall—
(A) coordinate the review with the Engineer Research and Development
Center, other Federal and State agencies, and other relevant entities; and
(B) to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, utilize
data provided to the Secretary by such agencies.
(b) ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS OF SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCY IN FEASIBILITY RE-
PORTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon the request of a non-Federal interest, in carrying out
a feasibility study for a project for flood risk mitigation, hurricane and storm
damage risk reduction, or ecosystem restoration under section 905 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), the Secretary shall con-
sider whether the need for the project is predicated upon or exacerbated by con-
ditions related to sea level rise.
(2) SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCY BENEFITS.—To the maximum extent prac-
ticable, in carrying out a study pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
document the potential effects of sea level rise on the project, and benefits of
the project relating to sea level rise, during the 50-year period after the date
of completion of the project.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
9
SEC. 113. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended by in-
serting ‘‘, and projects that use natural features or nature-based features (as those
terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))),’’ after ‘‘nonstructural projects’’.
SEC. 114. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213)
is amended—
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ‘‘NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECTS’’ and inserting ‘‘PROJECTS USING NONSTRUCTURAL, NATURAL, OR NA-
TURE-BASED FEATURES’’; and
(2) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘nonstructural flood control measures’’ and inserting ‘‘a
flood risk management or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction
measure using a nonstructural feature, or a natural feature or nature-based
feature (as those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))),’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘cash during construction of the project’’ and inserting
‘‘cash during construction for a nonstructural feature if the costs of land,
easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations
for such feature are estimated to exceed 35 percent’’.
SEC. 115. FEASIBILITY STUDIES; REVIEW OF NATURAL AND NATURE-BASED FEATURES.
(a) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 1149(c) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2282 note; 132 Stat. 3787) is amended by striking ‘‘natural
infrastructure alternatives’’ and inserting ‘‘natural feature or nature-based feature
alternatives (as such terms are defined in section 1184 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 2016 (32 U.S.C. 2289a))’’.
(b) SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary
shall include in each feasibility report developed under section 905 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) for a project that contains a flood
risk management or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction element, a sum-
mary of the natural feature or nature-based feature alternatives that were evalu-
ated in the development of the feasibility report, and, if such alternatives were not
included in the recommended plan, an explanation of why such alternatives were
not included into the recommended plan.
SEC. 116. REPORT ON CORROSION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
Not later than 180 days 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, and make publicly available, a report that describes—
(1) the extent to which the Secretary has carried out section 1033 of the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2350);
(2) the extent to which the Secretary has incorporated corrosion prevention
activities (as defined in such section) at water resources development projects
constructed or maintained by the Secretary since the date of enactment of such
section; and
(3) in instances where the Secretary has not incorporated corrosion prevention
activities at such water resources development projects since such date, an ex-
planation as to why such corrosion prevention activities have not been incor-
porated.
SEC. 117. QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFITS FOR FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN SEIS-
MIC ZONES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon the request of the non-Federal interest for a flood risk
management project in a seismic zone, the Secretary shall quantify the seismic haz-
ard risk reduction benefits for the project if the non-Federal interest identifies, and
the Secretary approves, an acceptable methodology to quantify such benefits.
(b) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary shall—
(1) include all associated seismic hazard risk reduction benefits approved by
the Secretary in the calculation of the national economic development benefit-
cost ratio for a flood risk management project in a seismic hazard zone for pur-
poses of plan formulation pursuant to section 905 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986; and
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(2) seek to maximize the combination of flood risk reduction and seismic haz-
ard risk reduction benefits in the formulation of the national economic develop-
ment alternative for such project.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
10
SEC. 118. FEDERAL INTEREST DETERMINATION.
Section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) is
amended by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
‘‘(b) FEDERAL INTEREST DETERMINATION.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In preparing a feasibility report under subsection (a) for a
study that will benefit an economically disadvantaged community, upon request
by the non-Federal interest for the study, the Secretary shall first determine
the Federal interest in carrying out the study and the projects that may be pro-
posed in the study.
‘‘(2) COST SHARE.—The costs of a determination under paragraph (1)—
‘‘(A) shall be at Federal expense; and
‘‘(B) shall not exceed $200,000.
‘‘(3) DEADLINE.—A determination under paragraph (1) shall be completed by
not later than 120 days after the date on which funds are made available to
the Secretary to carry out the determination.
‘‘(4) TREATMENT.—
‘‘(A) TIMING.—The period during which a determination is being com-
pleted under paragraph (1) for a study shall not be included for purposes
of the deadline to complete a final feasibility report under section 1001(a)(1)
of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C.
2282c(a)(1)).
‘‘(B) COST.—The cost of a determination under paragraph (1) shall not be
included for purposes of the maximum Federal cost under section 1001(a)(2)
of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C.
2282c(a)(2)).
‘‘(5) REPORT TO NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—If, based on a determination under
paragraph (1), the Secretary determines that a study or project is not in the
Federal interest because the project will not result, or is unlikely to result, in
a recommended plan that will produce national economic development benefits
greater than cost, but may result in a technically sound and environmentally
acceptable plan that is otherwise consistent with section 904 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281), the Secretary shall issue a
report to the non-Federal interest with recommendations on how the non-Fed-
eral interest might modify the proposal such that the project could be in the
Federal interest and feasible.’’.
SEC. 119. ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY FLOOD PROTECTION AND HURRI-
CANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall establish and implement a pilot program to evaluate opportuni-
ties to address the flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk
reduction needs of economically disadvantaged communities.
(b) PARTICIPATION IN PILOT PROGRAM.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Sec-
retary shall—
(1) publish a notice in the Federal Register that requests from non-Federal
interests proposals for the potential feasibility study of a flood risk management
project or hurricane and storm damage risk reduction project for an economi-
cally disadvantaged community;
(2) upon request of a non-Federal interest for such a project, provide technical
assistance to such non-Federal interest in the formulation of a proposal for a
potential feasibility study to be submitted to the Secretary under the pilot pro-
gram; and
(3) review such proposals and select 10 feasibility studies for such projects to
be carried out by the Secretary, in coordination with the non-Federal interest,
under this pilot program.
(c) SELECTION CRITERIA.—In selecting a feasibility study under subsection (b)(3),
the Secretary shall consider whether—
(1) the percentage of people living in poverty in the county or counties (or
county-equivalent entity or entities) in which the project is located is above the
percentage of people living in poverty in the State, based on census bureau
data;
(2) the percentage of families with income above the poverty threshold but
below the average household income in the county or counties (or county-equiva-
lent entity or entities) in which the project is located is above the percentage
of the same for the State, based on census bureau data;
(3) the percentage of the population that identifies as belonging to a minority
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
or indigenous group in the county or counties (or county-equivalent entity or en-
tities) in which the project is located is above the average percentage in the
State, based on census bureau data; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
11
(4) the project is addressing flooding or hurricane or storm damage effects
that have a disproportionate impact on a rural community or a community of
color (as such term is defined in section 111 of this Act), including Tribal or in-
digenous peoples.
(d) ADMINISTRATION.—Notwithstanding the requirements of section 105(a)(1)(A) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215), the Federal share
of the cost of a feasibility study carried out under the pilot program shall be 100
percent.
(e) GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY.—When selecting feasibility studies under subsection
(b)(3), the Secretary shall consider the geographic diversity among proposed
projects.
(f) STUDY REQUIREMENTS.—Feasibility studies carried out under this subsection
shall, to the maximum extent practical, incorporate natural features or nature-based
features (as such terms are defined in section 1184 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a)), or a combination of such features and non-
structural features, that avoid or reduce at least 50 percent of flood or storm dam-
ages in one or more of the alternatives included in the final alternatives evaluated.
(g) NOTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall notify the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate of the selection of each feasibility study under
the pilot program.
(h) COMPLETION.—Upon completion of a feasibility report for a feasibility study se-
lected to be carried out under this section, the Secretary shall transmit the report
to Congress for authorization, and shall include the report in the next annual report
submitted under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d).
(i) SUNSET.—The authority to commence a feasibility study under this section
shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(j) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years and 10 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available, a report detailing the re-
sults of the pilot program carried out under this section, including—
(1) a description of proposals received from non-Federal interests pursuant to
subsection (b)(1);
(2) a description of technical assistance provided to non-Federal interests
under subsection (b)(2); and
(3) a description of proposals selected under subsection (b)(3) and criteria
used to select such proposals.
(k) STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, and each of the commonwealths, territories, and
possessions of the United States.
SEC. 120. PERMANENT MEASURES TO REDUCE EMERGENCY FLOOD FIGHTING NEEDS FOR
COMMUNITIES SUBJECT TO REPETITIVE FLOODING.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) AFFECTED COMMUNITY.—The term ‘‘affected community’’ means a legally
constituted public body (as that term is used in section 221(b) of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b))—
(A) with jurisdiction over an area that has been subject to flooding in two
or more events in any 10-year period; and
(B) that has received emergency flood-fighting assistance, including con-
struction of temporary barriers by the Secretary, under section 5 of the Act
of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n) with respect to such flood events.
(2) NATURAL FEATURE; NATURE-BASED FEATURE.—The terms ‘‘natural feature’’
and ‘‘nature-based feature’’ have the meanings given those terms in section
1184 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a).
(b) PROGRAM.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out a program to study,
design, and construct water resources development projects through measures
involving, among other things, strengthening, raising, extending, realigning, or
otherwise modifying existing flood control works, designing new works, and in-
corporating natural features, nature-based features, or nonstructural features,
as appropriate to provide flood and coastal storm risk management to affected
communities.
(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, to
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
the maximum extent practical, review and, where appropriate, incorporate nat-
ural features or nature-based features, or a combination of such features and
nonstructural features, that avoid or reduce at least 50 percent of flood or storm
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
12
damages in one or more of the alternatives included in the final alternatives
evaluated.
(3) CONSTRUCTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a project described in
paragraph (1) without further congressional authorization if—
(i) the Secretary determines that the project—
(I) is advisable to reduce the risk of flooding for an affected com-
munity; and
(II) produces benefits that are in excess of the estimated costs;
and
(ii) the Federal share of the cost of the construction does not exceed
$15,000,000.
(B) SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION.—If the Federal share of the cost of a project
described in paragraph (1) exceeds $15,000,000, the Secretary shall submit
the project recommendation to Congress for authorization prior to construc-
tion, and shall include the project recommendation in the next annual re-
port submitted under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and De-
velopment Act of 2014.
(C) FINANCING.—
(i) CONTRIBUTIONS.—If, based on a study carried out pursuant to
paragraph (1), the Secretary determines that a project described in
paragraph (1) will not produce benefits greater than cost, the Secretary
shall allow the affected community to pay, or provide contributions
equal to, an amount sufficient to make the remaining costs of design
and construction of the project equal to the estimated value of the bene-
fits of the project.
(ii) EFFECT ON NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Amounts provided by an af-
fected community under clause (i) shall be in addition to any payments
or contributions the affected community is required to provide toward
the remaining costs of design and construction of the project under sec-
tion 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213).
(4) ABILITY TO PAY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Any cost-sharing agreement for a project entered into
pursuant to this section shall be subject to the ability of the affected com-
munity to pay.
(B) DETERMINATION.—The ability of any affected community to pay shall
be determined by the Secretary in accordance with procedures established
by the Secretary.
(C) EFFECT OF REDUCTION.—Any reduction in the non-Federal share of
the cost of a project described in paragraph (1) as a result of a determina-
tion under this paragraph shall not be included in the Federal share for
purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3).
SEC. 121. EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n) is
amended—
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following—
‘‘(5) FEASIBILITY STUDY.—
‘‘(A) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 180 days after receiving, from a
non-Federal sponsor of a project to repair or rehabilitate a flood control
work described in paragraph (1), a request to initiate a feasibility study to
further modify the relevant flood control work to provide for an increased
level of protection, the Secretary shall provide to the non-Federal sponsor
a written decision on whether the Secretary has the authority under section
216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a) to undertake the re-
quested feasibility study.
‘‘(B) RECOMMENDATION.—If the Secretary determines under subparagraph
(B) that the Secretary does not have the authority to undertake the re-
quested feasibility study, the Secretary shall include the request for a feasi-
bility study in the annual report submitted under section 7001 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014.’’;
(2) in subsection (c)—
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ‘‘LEVEE OWNERS MANUAL’’ and
inserting ‘‘ELIGIBILITY’’;
(B) in paragraph (1), in the heading, by striking ‘‘IN GENERAL’’ and insert-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
ing ‘‘LEVEE OWNER’S MANUAL’’;
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), re-
spectively, and inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
13
‘‘(2) COMPLIANCE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the status of compliance of a non-
Federal interest with the requirements of a levee owner’s manual described
in paragraph (1), or with any other eligibility requirement established by
the Secretary related to the maintenance and upkeep responsibilities of the
non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall consider the non-Federal interest
to be eligible for repair and rehabilitation assistance under this section if
the non-Federal interest—
‘‘(i) enters into a written agreement with the Secretary that identifies
any items of deferred or inadequate maintenance and upkeep identified
by the Secretary prior to the natural disaster; and
‘‘(ii) pays, during performance of the repair and rehabilitation work,
all costs to address—
‘‘(I) any items of deferred or inadequate maintenance and upkeep
identified by the Secretary; and
‘‘(II) any repair or rehabilitation work necessary to address dam-
age the Secretary attributes to such deferred or inadequate mainte-
nance or upkeep.
‘‘(B) ELIGIBILITY.—The Secretary may only enter into one agreement
under subparagraph (A) with any non-Federal interest.
‘‘(C) SUNSET.—The authority of the Secretary to enter into agreements
under paragraph (2) shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after the
date of enactment of this paragraph.’’; and
(D) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated), by striking ‘‘this subsection’’
and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)’’.
SEC. 122. STUDY ON NATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF NATURAL FEATURE AND NATURE-BASED FEATURE.—In this sec-
tion, the terms ‘‘natural feature’’ and ‘‘nature-based feature’’ have the meanings
given those terms in section 1184(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)).
(b) STUDY.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and submit to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, a report on the re-
sults of a study on the consideration by the Secretary of natural infrastructure, nat-
ural features, and nature-based features in the study of the feasibility of projects
for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and eco-
system restoration.
(c) REQUIREMENTS.—The study under subsection (b) shall include—
(1) a description of guidance or instructions issued, and other measures taken,
by the Secretary to consider natural infrastructure, natural features, and na-
ture-based features in project feasibility studies;
(2) an assessment, based on information from relevant Federal and non-Fed-
eral sources, of—
(A) the costs, benefits, and effects associated with natural infrastructure,
natural features, and nature-based features recommended by the Secretary
for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, and
ecosystem restoration; and
(B) the effectiveness of natural infrastructure, natural features, and na-
ture-based features;
(3) an analysis of projects for flood risk management, hurricane and storm
damage risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration that have incorporated nat-
ural infrastructure, natural features, or nature-based features to identify best
practices, including for measuring project benefits and costs;
(4) a description of any statutory, fiscal, regulatory, or other policy barriers
to the appropriate consideration and use of a full array of natural infrastruc-
ture, natural features, and nature-based features in carrying out feasibility
studies and projects; and
(5) any recommendations for changes to law, or to fiscal, regulatory, or other
policies, to improve the use of natural infrastructure, natural features, and na-
ture-based features by the Corps of Engineers in carrying out feasibility studies
and projects.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
SEC. 123. REVIEW OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSETS.
Section 6002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128
Stat. 1349) is amended to read as follows:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
14
‘‘SEC. 6002. REVIEW OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSETS.
‘‘(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Secretary shall conduct an assessment of projects con-
structed by the Secretary for which the Secretary continues to have financial or
operational responsibility.
‘‘(b) INVENTORY.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2020, the Secretary shall, based on the assess-
ment carried out under subsection (a), develop an inventory of projects or portions
of projects—
‘‘(1) that are not needed for the missions of the Corps of Engineers;
‘‘(2) the modification of which, including though the use of natural features
or nature-based features (as those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a)), could improve
the sustainable operations of the project, or reduce operation and maintenance
costs for the project; or
‘‘(3) that are no longer having project purposes adequately met by the Corps
of Engineers, because of deferment of maintenance or other challenges, and the
divestment of which to a non-Federal entity could better meet the local and re-
gional needs for operation and maintenance.
‘‘(c) CRITERIA.—In conducting the assessment under subsection (a) and developing
the inventory under subsection (b), the Secretary shall use the following criteria:
‘‘(1) The extent to which the project aligns with the current missions of the
Corps of Engineers.
‘‘(2) The economic and environmental impacts of the project on existing com-
munities in the vicinity of the project.
‘‘(3) The extent to which the divestment or modification of the project could
reduce operation and maintenance costs of the Corps of Engineers.
‘‘(4) The extent to which the divestment or modification of the project is in
the public interest.
‘‘(5) The extent to which investment of additional Federal resources in the
project proposed for divestment or modification, including investment needed to
bring the project to a good state of repair, is in the public interest.
‘‘(6) The extent to which the authorized purpose of the project is no longer
being met.
‘‘(d) RECOMMENDATIONS OF NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—A non-Federal interest for
a project may recommend that the Secretary include such project in the assessment
or inventory required under this section.
‘‘(e) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon completion of the inventory required by subsection
(b), 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, and make publicly available, a report con-
taining the findings of the Secretary with respect to the assessment and inven-
tory required under this section.
‘‘(2) INCLUSION.—The Secretary shall list in an appendix any recommendation
of a non-Federal interest made with respect to a project under subsection (d)
that the Secretary determines not to include in the inventory developed under
subsection (b), based on the criteria in subsection (c), including information
about the request and the reasons for the Secretary’s determination.’’.
SEC. 124. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MULTIPURPOSE PROJECTS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary, in coordination with non-Federal
interests, should maximize the development, evaluation, and recommendation of
project alternatives for future water resources development projects that produce
multiple project benefits, such as navigation, flood risk management, and ecosystem
restoration benefits, including through the use of natural or nature-based features
and the beneficial reuse of dredged material.
SEC. 125. BENEFICIAL REUSE OF DREDGED MATERIAL; DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
PLANS.
(a) NATIONAL POLICY ON THE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—It is the policy of the United States for the Corps of Engi-
neers to maximize the beneficial reuse, in an environmentally acceptable man-
ner, of suitable dredged material obtained from the construction or operation
and maintenance of water resources development projects.
(2) PLACEMENT OF DREDGED MATERIALS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating the placement of dredged material ob-
tained from the construction or operation and maintenance of water re-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
sources development projects, the Secretary shall consider—
(i) the suitability of the dredged material for a full range of beneficial
uses; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
15
(ii) the economic and environmental benefits, efficiencies, and im-
pacts (including the effects on living coral) of using the dredged mate-
rial for beneficial uses, including, in the case of beneficial reuse activi-
ties that involve more than one water resources development project,
the benefits, efficiencies, and impacts that result from the combined ac-
tivities.
(B) CALCULATION OF FEDERAL STANDARD.—The economic benefits and effi-
ciencies from the beneficial use of dredged material considered by the Sec-
retary under subparagraph (A) shall be included in any determination re-
lating to the ‘‘Federal standard’’ by the Secretary under section 335.7 of
title 33, Code of Federal Regulations for the placement or disposal of such
material.
(b) BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.—
(1) PILOT PROGRAM PROJECTS.—Section 1122 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) is amended—
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘20’’ and inserting ‘‘30’’; and
(B) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘20’’ and inserting ‘‘30’’.
(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary, in
selecting projects for the beneficial reuse of dredged materials under section
1122 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note),
should ensure the thorough evaluation of project submissions from rural, small,
and economically disadvantaged communities.
(c) FIVE-YEAR REGIONAL DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLANS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the District Commander of each district of the
Corps of Engineers that obtains dredged material through the construction or
operation and maintenance of a water resources development project shall, at
Federal expense, develop and submit to the Secretary a 5-year dredged material
management plan in coordination with relevant State agencies and stake-
holders.
(2) SCOPE.—Each plan developed under this subsection shall include—
(A) a dredged material budget for each watershed or littoral system with-
in the district;
(B) an estimate of the amount of dredged material likely to be obtained
through the construction or operation and maintenance of all water re-
sources development projects projected to be carried out within the district
during the 5-year period following submission of the plan, and the esti-
mated timing for obtaining such dredged material;
(C) an identification of potential water resources development projects
projected to be carried out within the district during such 5-year period that
are suitable for, or that require, the placement of dredged material, and an
estimate of the amount of dredged material placement capacity of such
projects;
(D) an evaluation of—
(i) the suitability of the dredged material for a full range of beneficial
uses; and
(ii) the economic and environmental benefits, efficiencies, and im-
pacts (including the effects on living coral) of using the dredged mate-
rial for beneficial uses, including, in the case of beneficial reuse activi-
ties that involve more than one water resources development project,
the benefits, efficiencies, and impacts that result from the combined ac-
tivities; and
(E) the district-wide goals for beneficial reuse of the dredged material, in-
cluding any expected cost savings from aligning and coordinating multiple
projects (including projects across Corps districts) in the reuse of the
dredged material.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENT.—In developing each plan under this subsection, each
District Commander shall provide notice and an opportunity for public com-
ment.
(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Upon submission of each plan to the Secretary
under this subsection, each District Commander shall make the plan publicly
available, including on a publicly available website.
(d) DREDGE PILOT PROGRAM.—
(1) REVISIONS.—Section 1111 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2018 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) is amended—
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘for the operation and maintenance of
harbors and inland harbors’’ and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting the following: ‘‘for the—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
16
‘‘(1) harbors and inland harbors referred to in section 210(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(a)(2)); or
‘‘(2) inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States described in sec-
tion 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804).’’; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘or inland harbors’’ and inserting ‘‘, in-
land harbors, or inland or intracoastal waterways’’.
(2) COORDINATION WITH EXISTING AUTHORITIES.—The Secretary may carry out
the dredge pilot program authorized by section 1111 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 2326 note) in coordination with Federal re-
gional dredge demonstration programs in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 126. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FOR ANADROMOUS FISH.
(a) ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT AND PASSAGE.—Section 206 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(3) ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT AND PASSAGE.—
‘‘(A) MEASURES.—A project under this section may include measures to
improve habitat or passage for anadromous fish, including—
‘‘(i) installing fish bypass structures on small water diversions;
‘‘(ii) modifying tide gates; and
‘‘(iii) restoring or reconnecting floodplains and wetlands that are im-
portant for anadromous fish habitat or passage.
‘‘(B) BENEFITS.—A project that includes measures under this paragraph
shall be formulated to maximize benefits for the anadromous fish species
benefitted by the project.’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(g) PRIORITIZATION.—The Secretary shall give projects that include measures de-
scribed in subsection (a)(3) equal priority for implementation as other projects under
this section.’’.
SEC. 127. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Section 7001(c)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(33 U.S.C. 2282d(c)(4)(B)) is amended—
(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
(3) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
‘‘(ii) the Secretary shall not include proposals in the appendix of the
annual report that otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion in the an-
nual report solely on the basis that the proposals are for the purposes
of navigation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, or munic-
ipal or agricultural water supply; and’’.
SEC. 128. HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a demonstration program to deter-
mine the causes of, and implement measures to effectively detect, prevent, treat,
and eliminate, harmful algal blooms associated with water resources development
projects.
(b) CONSULTATION; USE OF EXISTING DATA AND PROGRAM AUTHORITIES.—In car-
rying out the demonstration program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—
(1) consult with the heads of appropriate Federal and State agencies; and
(2) make maximum use of existing Federal and State data and ongoing pro-
grams and activities of Federal and State agencies, including the activities of
the Secretary carried out through the Engineer Research and Development Cen-
ter pursuant to section 1109 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018
(33 U.S.C. 610 note).
(c) FOCUS AREAS.—In carrying out the demonstration program under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall undertake program activities related to harmful algal blooms
in the Great Lakes, the tidal and inland waters of the State of New Jersey, the
coastal and tidal waters of the State of Louisiana, the waterways of the counties
that comprise the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, and Lake Okeechobee,
Florida.
SEC. 129. UPDATE ON INVASIVE SPECIES POLICY GUIDANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall periodically update the Invasive Species
Policy Guidance, developed under section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
(33 U.S.C. 610) and the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.), in accordance with the most recent National
Invasive Species Council Management Plan developed pursuant to Executive Order
13112.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
17
(b) INCLUSION.—The Secretary may include in the updated guidance invasive spe-
cies specific efforts at federally authorized water resources development projects lo-
cated in—
(1) high-altitude lakes; and
(2) the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins.
SEC. 130. REPORT ON DEBRIS REMOVAL.
Section 1210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3808)
is amended to read as follows:
‘‘SEC. 1210. REPORT ON DEBRIS REMOVAL.
‘‘Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 2020, the Secretary shall submit to Congress and make publicly
available a report that describes—
‘‘(1) the extent to which, during the 10 fiscal years prior to such date of enact-
ment, the Secretary has carried out section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33
U.S.C. 603a);
‘‘(2) how the Secretary has evaluated potential work to be carried out under
that section; and
‘‘(3) the extent to which the Secretary plans to start, continue, or complete
debris removal activities in the 3 years following submission of the report.’’.
SEC. 131. MISSOURI RIVER INTERCEPTION-REARING COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION.
(a) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the effects of any interception-
rearing complex constructed on the Missouri River on—
(1) flood risk management and navigation; and
(2) the population recovery of the pallid sturgeon, including baseline popu-
lation counts.
(b) NO ADDITIONAL IRC CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary may not authorize con-
struction of an interception-rearing complex on the Missouri River until the Sec-
retary—
(1) submits the report required by subsection (a);
(2) acting through the Engineer Research and Development Center, conducts
further research on interception-rearing complex design, including any effects
on existing flows, flood risk management, and navigation; and
(3) develops a plan—
(A) to repair dikes and revetments that are affecting flood risk and bank
erosion; and
(B) to establish, repair, or improve water control structures at the
headworks of constructed shallow water habitat side-channels.
(c) FUTURE IRC CONSTRUCTION.—
(1) PUBLIC COMMENT.—The Secretary shall provide an opportunity for com-
ment from the public and the Governor of each affected State on any proposals
to construct an interception-rearing complex after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(2) PERIOD.—The public comment period required by paragraph (1) shall be
not less than 90 days for each proposal to construct an interception-rearing
complex on the Missouri River.
SEC. 132. COST AND BENEFIT FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5(a)(2)(B) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C.
701n(a)(2)(B)) is amended—
(1) in clause (i)(I), by inserting ‘‘, or provide contributions equal to,’’ after
‘‘pay’’; and
(2) in clause (ii)—
(A) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘AND CONTRIBUTIONS’’ after ‘‘OF PAY-
MENTS’’;
(B) by inserting ‘‘or contributions’’ after ‘‘Non-Federal payments’’; and
(C) by inserting ‘‘or contributions’’ after ‘‘non-Federal payments’’.
(b) CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY.—Section 1161(b) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 701n note) is amended—
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking the ‘‘three fiscal years preceding’’ and inserting ‘‘five fiscal
years preceding’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘last day of the third fiscal year’’ and inserting ‘‘last day
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
of the fifth fiscal year’’;
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, or provide contributions equal to,’’ before
‘‘an amount sufficient’’; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
18
(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
‘‘(2) the Secretary determines that the damage to the structure was not as a
result of negligent operation or maintenance.’’.
SEC. 133. MATERIALS, SERVICES, AND FUNDS FOR REPAIR, RESTORATION, OR REHABILITA-
TION OF PROJECTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In any area covered by an emergency or major disaster declara-
tion declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist-
ance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Secretary is authorized to accept and use ma-
terials, services, and funds, during the period the declaration is in effect, from a
non-Federal interest or private entity to repair, restore, or rehabilitate a federally
authorized water resources development project, and to provide reimbursement to
such non-Federal interest or private entity for such materials, services, and funds,
in the Secretary’s sole discretion, and subject to the availability of appropriations,
if the Secretary determines that reimbursement is in the public interest.
(b) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may only reimburse for the use of
materials or services accepted under this section if such materials or services meet
the Secretary’s specifications and comply with all applicable laws and regulations
that would apply if such materials and services were acquired by the Secretary, in-
cluding sections 3141 through 3148 and 3701 through 3708 of title 40, United States
Code, section 8302 of title 41, United States Code, and the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969.
(c) AGREEMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Prior to the acceptance of materials, services, or funds
under this section, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into
an agreement that specifies—
(A) 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;
(B) the non-Federal interest shall certify that the materials or services
comply with all applicable laws and regulations under subsection (b); and
(C) any other term or condition required by the Secretary.
(2) EXCEPTION.—If an agreement under paragraph (1) was not entered prior
to materials or services being contributed, a non-Federal interest shall enter
into an agreement with the Secretary that—
(A) specifies the value, as determined by the Secretary, of those materials
or services contributed and eligible for reimbursement; and
(B) ensures that the materials or services comply with subsection (b) and
paragraph (1).
SEC. 134. LEVEE SAFETY.
Section 9004 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(d) IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCIES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For each levee included in an inventory established under
subsection (b) or for which the Secretary has conducted a review under sub-
section (c), the Secretary shall—
‘‘(A) identify the specific engineering and maintenance deficiencies, if any;
and
‘‘(B) describe the recommended remedies to correct each deficiency identi-
fied under subparagraph (A), and, if requested by owner of a non-Federal
levee, the associated costs of those remedies.
‘‘(2) CONSULTATION.—In identifying deficiencies and describing remedies for a
levee under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with relevant non-Fed-
eral interests, including by providing an opportunity for comment by those non-
Federal interests.’’.
SEC. 135. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 2 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C.
467) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (4)—
(A) in subparagraph (A)—
(i) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:
‘‘(iii) has an emergency action plan that—
‘‘(I) is approved by the relevant State dam safety agency; or
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
‘‘(II) is in conformance with State law and pending approval by
the relevant State dam safety agency;’’; and
(ii) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
19
‘‘(iv) fails to meet minimum dam safety standards of the State in
which the dam is located, as determined by the State; and
‘‘(v) poses an unacceptable risk to the public, as determined by the
Administrator, in consultation with the Board.’’; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ‘‘under a hydropower project with
an authorized installed capacity of greater than 1.5 megawatts’’ after
‘‘dam’’; and
(2) in paragraph (10)—
(A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR’’ and inserting
‘‘ELIGIBLE SUBRECIPIENT’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘The term ‘non-Federal sponsor’ ’’ and inserting ‘‘The term
‘eligible subrecipient’ ’’.
(b) REHABILITATION OF HIGH HAZARD POTENTIAL DAMS.—
(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—Section 8A(a) of the National Dam Safety
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘to non-Federal spon-
sors’’ and inserting ‘‘to States with dam safety programs’’.
(2) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Section 8A(b) of the National Dam Safety Program
Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(b)) is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
by striking ‘‘for a project may be used for’’ and inserting ‘‘to a State may be used
by the State to award grants to eligible subrecipients for’’.
(3) AWARD OF GRANTS.—Section 8A(c) of the National Dam Safety Program
Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(c)) is amended—
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘non-Federal sponsor’’ and inserting
‘‘State’’; and
(B) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘an eligible high hazard potential
dam to a non-Federal sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘eligible high hazard po-
tential dams to a State’’;
(ii) in subparagraph (B)—
(I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ‘‘PROJECT GRANT’’
and inserting ‘‘GRANT’’;
(II) by striking ‘‘project grant agreement with the non-Federal
sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘grant agreement with the State’’; and
(III) by striking ‘‘project,’’ and inserting ‘‘projects for which the
grant is awarded,’’;
(iii) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
‘‘(C) GRANT ASSURANCE.—As part of a grant agreement under subpara-
graph (B), the Administrator shall require that each eligible subrecipient to
which the State awards a grant under this section provides an assurance,
with respect to the dam to be rehabilitated by the eligible subrecipient, that
the dam owner will carry out a plan for maintenance of the dam during the
expected life of the dam.’’; and
(iv) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘A grant provided under this
section shall not exceed’’ and inserting ‘‘A State may not award a grant
to an eligible subrecipient under this section that exceeds, for any 1
dam,’’.
(4) REQUIREMENTS.—Section 8A(d) of the National Dam Safety Program Act
(33 U.S.C. 467f–2(d)) is amended—
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘to an eligible subrecipient’’ after ‘‘this
section’’;
(B) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ‘‘NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR’’
and inserting ‘‘ELIGIBLE SUBRECIPIENT’’;
(ii) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘the non-
Federal sponsor shall’’ and inserting ‘‘an eligible subrecipient shall,
with respect to the dam to be rehabilitated by the eligible sub-
recipient’’;
(iii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘participate in, and comply
with,’’ and inserting ‘‘demonstrate that the community in which the
dam is located participates in, and complies with,’’;
(iv) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘have’’ and inserting ‘‘beginning
not later than 2 years after the date on which the Administrator pub-
lishes criteria for hazard mitigation plans under paragraph (3), dem-
onstrate that the Tribal or local government with jurisdiction over the
area in which the dam is located has’’; and
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(v) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘50-year period’’ and inserting
‘‘expected life of the dam’’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
20
‘‘(3) HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN CRITERIA.—Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator, in consultation with the
Board, shall publish criteria for hazard mitigation plans required under para-
graph (2)(B).’’.
(5) FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLANS.—Section 8A(e) of the National Dam
Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(e)) is amended—
(A) in paragraph (1)—
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘the non-
Federal sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘an eligible subrecipient’’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘2 years’’
each place it appears; and
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
‘‘(3) PLAN CRITERIA AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT.—The Administrator, in consulta-
tion with the Board, shall provide criteria, and may provide technical support,
for the development and implementation of floodplain management plans pre-
pared under this subsection.’’.
(6) CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.—Section 8A(i)(1) of the National Dam Safe-
ty Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467f–2(i)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘a non-Federal
sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘an eligible subrecipient’’.
SEC. 136. REHABILITATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTED PUMP STATIONS.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) ELIGIBLE PUMP STATION.—The term ‘‘eligible pump station’’ means a pump
station—
(A) constructed, in whole or in part, by the Corps of Engineers for flood
risk management purposes;
(B) that the Secretary has identified as having a major deficiency; and
(C) the failure of which the Secretary has determined would impair the
function of a flood risk management project constructed by the Corps of En-
gineers.
(2) REHABILITATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘rehabilitation’’, with respect to an eligible
pump station, means to address a major deficiency of the eligible pump sta-
tion caused by long-term degradation of the foundation, construction mate-
rials, or engineering systems or components of the eligible pump station.
(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘rehabilitation’’, with respect to an eligible
pump station, includes—
(i) the incorporation into the eligible pump station of—
(I) current design standards;
(II) efficiency improvements; and
(III) associated drainage; and
(ii) increasing the capacity of the eligible pump station, subject to the
condition that the increase shall—
(I) significantly decrease the risk of loss of life and property dam-
age; or
(II) decrease total lifecycle rehabilitation costs for the eligible
pump station.
(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary may carry out rehabilitation of an eligible
pump station, if the Secretary determines that the rehabilitation is feasible.
(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal interest for the eligible pump station shall—
(1) provide 35 percent of the cost of rehabilitation of an eligible pump station
carried out under this section; and
(2) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations asso-
ciated with the rehabilitation described in subparagraph (A), at no cost to the
Federal Government.
(d) AGREEMENT REQUIRED.—The rehabilitation of an eligible pump station pursu-
ant to this section shall be initiated only after a non-Federal interest has entered
into a binding agreement with the Secretary—
(1) to pay the non-Federal share of the costs of rehabilitation under sub-
section (c); and
(2) to pay 100 percent of the operation and maintenance costs of the rehabili-
tated eligible pump station, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Secretary.
(e) TREATMENT.—The rehabilitation of an eligible pump station pursuant to this
section shall not be considered to be a separable element of the associated flood risk
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
management project constructed by the Corps of Engineers.
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $60,000,000, to remain available until expended.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
21
SEC. 137. NON-FEDERAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PILOT PROGRAM.
Section 1043(b) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2026’’;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2026’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(9) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment
of this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue guidance for the implementa-
tion of the pilot program that, to the extent practicable, identifies—
‘‘(i) the metrics for measuring the success of the pilot program;
‘‘(ii) a process for identifying future projects to participate in the pilot
program;
‘‘(iii) measures to address the risks of a non-Federal interest con-
structing projects under the pilot program, including which entity bears
the risk for projects that fail to meet the Corps of Engineers standards
for design or quality;
‘‘(iv) the laws and regulations that a non-Federal interest must follow
in carrying out a project under the pilot program; and
‘‘(v) which entity bears the risk in the event that a project carried
out under the pilot program fails to be carried out in accordance with
the project authorization or this subsection.
‘‘(B) NEW PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may not
enter into a project partnership agreement under this subsection during the
period beginning on the date of enactment of this paragraph and ending on
the date on which the Secretary issues the guidance under subparagraph
(A).’’.
SEC. 138. DEFINITION OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall issue guidance defining the term ‘‘economically disadvantaged
community’’ for the purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In defining the term ‘‘economically disadvantaged commu-
nity’’ under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
utilize the criteria under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 301(a) of the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3161), to the extent that such
criteria are applicable in relation to the development of water resources develop-
ment projects.
SEC. 139. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR TERRITORIES AND INDIAN TRIBES.
Section 1156(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2310(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘inflation’’ and all that follows through the period
at the end and inserting ‘‘on an annual basis for inflation.’’.
SEC. 140. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213)
is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘Except as’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) RENEGOTIATION OF TERMS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary
and the non-Federal interest may renegotiate the terms and conditions of
an eligible deferred payment, including—
‘‘(i) permitting the non-Federal contribution to be made without in-
terest, pursuant to paragraph (1);
‘‘(ii) recalculation of the interest rate;
‘‘(iii) full or partial forgiveness of interest accrued during the period
of construction; and
‘‘(iv) a credit against construction interest for a non-Federal invest-
ment that benefits the completion or performance of the project or sepa-
rable element.
‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE DEFERRED PAYMENT.—An eligible deferred payment agree-
ment under subparagraph (A) is an agreement for which—
‘‘(i) the non-Federal contribution was made with interest;
‘‘(ii) the period of project construction exceeds 10 years from the exe-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
cution of a project partnership agreement or appropriation of funds;
and
‘‘(iii) the construction interest exceeds $45,000,000.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
22
‘‘(C) CREDIT FOR NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to credit any costs in-
curred by the non-Federal interest (including in-kind contributions) to
remedy a design or construction deficiency of a covered project or sepa-
rable element toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the covered
project, if the Secretary determines the remedy to be integral to the
completion or performance of the covered project.
‘‘(ii) CREDIT OF COSTS.—If the non-Federal interest incurs costs or in-
kind contributions for a project to remedy a design or construction defi-
ciency of a project or separable element which has a 100 percent Fed-
eral cost share, and the Secretary determines the remedy to be integral
to the completion or performance of the project, the Secretary is author-
ized to credit such costs to any interest accrued on a deferred non-Fed-
eral contribution.’’.
SEC. 141. REVIEW OF CONTRACTING POLICIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this sec-
tion, the Secretary shall complete a review of the policies, guidelines, and regula-
tions of the Corps of Engineers for the development of contractual agreements be-
tween the Secretary and non-Federal interests and utilities associated with the con-
struction of water resources development projects.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after completing the review under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate, and make publicly available, a report that includes—
(1) a summary of the results of the review; and
(2) public guidance on best practices for non-Federal interest to use when
writing or developing contractual agreements with the Secretary and utilities.
(c) PROVISION OF GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall provide the best practices guid-
ance included under subsection (b)(2) to non-Federal interests prior to the develop-
ment of contractual agreements.
SEC. 142. BUY AMERICA.
With respect to all Corps of Engineers construction and rehabilitation contracts
to be awarded after the date of enactment of this Act, the steel components fur-
nished and delivered under such contracts shall be manufactured or fabricated in
whole or substantial part in the United States with steel produced or made in the
United States, its territories, or possessions.
SEC. 143. ANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
Concurrent with each report submitted under section 7001 of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), the Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works a report that provides
for an accounting of all outstanding feasibility studies being conducted by the Sec-
retary, including, for each such study, its length, cost, and expected completion date.
TITLE II—STUDIES AND REPORTS
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the
following projects for water resources development and conservation and other pur-
poses, as identified in the reports titled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water Re-
sources Development’’ submitted to Congress pursuant to section 7001 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise re-
viewed by Congress:
(1) TONTO CREEK, GILA RIVER, ARIZONA.—Project for flood risk management,
Tonto Creek, Gila River, Arizona.
(2) SULPHUR RIVER, ARKANSAS AND TEXAS.—Project for ecosystem restoration,
Sulphur River, Arkansas and Texas.
(3) CABLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, water sup-
ply, and related benefits, Cable Creek, California.
(4) DEL MAR BLUFFS, CALIFORNIA.—Project for shoreline stabilization, Del Mar
Bluffs, San Diego County, California.
(5) REDBANK AND FANCHER CREEKS, CALIFORNIA.—Project for water conserva-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
tion and water supply, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California.
(6) RIO HONDO CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Rio
Hondo Channel, San Gabriel River, California.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
23
(7) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for coastal storm damage re-
duction, Southern California.
(8) SHINGLE CREEK AND KISSIMMEE RIVER, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem
restoration and water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Osceola
County, Florida.
(9) ST. JOHN’S RIVER AND LAKE JESUP, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restora-
tion, St. John’s River and Lake Jesup, Florida.
(10) WAIMEA RIVER, HAWAII.—Project for flood risk management, Waimea
River, Kauai, Hawaii.
(11) CHICAGO AREA WATERWAYS SYSTEM, ILLINOIS.—Project for ecosystem res-
toration, recreation, and other purposes, Illinois River, Chicago River, Calumet
River, Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River, and other waterways in the
vicinity of Chicago, Illinois.
(12) FOX RIVER, ILLINOIS.—Project for flood risk management, Fox River, Illi-
nois.
(13) LOWER MISSOURI RIVER, KANSAS.—Project for bank stabilization and navi-
gation, Lower Missouri River, Sioux City, Kansas.
(14) TANGIPAHOA PARISH, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk management,
Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana.
(15) KENT NARROWS AND CHESTER RIVER, MARYLAND.—Project for navigation,
Kent Narrows and Chester River, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.
(16) BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for hurricane and storm damage risk
reduction, Boston, Massachusetts, pursuant to the comprehensive study author-
ized under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2).
(17) LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood risk management,
ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Lower St. Croix River, Minnesota.
(18) ESCATAWPA RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for flood risk management
and ecosystem restoration, Escatawpa River, Jackson County, Mississippi.
(19) LONG BEACH, BAY ST. LOUIS AND MISSISSIPPI SOUND, MISSISSIPPI.—Project
for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and flood risk management,
Long Beach, Bay St. Louis and Mississippi Sound, Mississippi.
(20) PASCAGOULA RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for comprehensive water-
shed study, Pascagoula, Mississippi.
(21) TALLAHOMA AND TALLAHALA CREEKS, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for flood risk
management, Leaf River, Jones County, Mississippi.
(22) LOWER OSAGE RIVER BASIN, MISSOURI.—Project for ecosystem restoration,
Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri.
(23) UPPER BASIN AND STONY BROOK (GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN), RARITAN RIVER
BASIN, NEW JERSEY.—Reevaluation of the Upper Basin and Stony Brook portions
of the project for flood control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin,
New Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119), including the evaluation of nonstructural measures to
achieve the project purpose.
(24) LAKE ONTARIO SHORELINE, NEW YORK.—Project for coastal storm resil-
iency, Lake Ontario shoreline, New York.
(25) WADING RIVER CREEK, NEW YORK.—Project for hurricane and storm dam-
age risk reduction, flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restora-
tion, Wading River Creek, New York.
(26) REEL POINT PRESERVE, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation and shoreline
stabilization, Reel Point Preserve, New York.
(27) GOLDSMITH INLET, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, Goldsmith Inlet,
New York.
(28) TUSCARAWAS RIVER BASIN, OHIO.—Project for comprehensive watershed
study, Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.
(29) LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN (TURNING BASIN), OREGON AND WASH-
INGTON.—Project to improve turning basins for the project for navigation, Co-
lumbia River Channel, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section
101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280).
(30) WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood risk management and
levee rehabilitation, greater Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
(31) CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project for tidal- and inland-re-
lated flood risk management, Charleston, South Carolina.
(32) TENNESSEE AND CUMBERLAND RIVER BASINS, TENNESSEE.—Project to
deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species in the Ten-
nessee and Cumberland River Basins, Tennessee.
(33) SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS.—Modification of the project for
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Arthur and Orange County,
Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat.
1184), and authorized as a separable element of the project for Sabine Pass to
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
24
Galveston Bay, authorized by item 3 of section 1401(3) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3838), to reduce the risk of flooding through
the construction of improvements to interior drainage.
(34) PORT OF VICTORIA, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, Port of
Victoria, Texas.
(35) LOWER FOX RIVER BASIN, WISCONSIN.—Project for comprehensive water-
shed study, Lower Fox River Basin, Wisconsin.
(36) UPPER FOX RIVER AND WOLF RIVER, WISCONSIN.—Project for flood risk
management and ecosystem restoration, Upper Fox River and Wolf River, Wis-
consin.
(b) SPECIAL RULE.—The Secretary shall consider any study carried out by the Sec-
retary to formulate the modifications to the project for hurricane and storm damage
risk reduction, Port Arthur and Orange County, Texas, identified in subsection
(a)(33) to be a continuation of the study carried out for Sabine Pass to Galveston
Bay, Texas, authorized by a resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate, approved June 23, 2004, and funded by title IV of division B
of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, under the heading ‘‘Corps of Engineers—
Civil—Department of the Army—Construction’’ (Public Law 115–123; 132 Stat. 76).
SEC. 202. EXPEDITED COMPLETIONS.
(a) FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a feasi-
bility study for each of the following projects, and if the Secretary determines that
the project is justified in a completed report, may proceed directly to preconstruction
planning, engineering, and design of the project:
(1) Project for navigation, St. George Harbor, Alaska.
(2) Project for shoreline stabilization, Aunu‘u Harbor, American Samoa.
(3) Project for shoreline stabilization, Tutuila Island, American Samoa.
(4) Project for flood risk management, Lower Santa Cruz River, Arizona.
(5) Project for flood control, water conservation, and related purposes, Coyote
Valley Dam, California.
(6) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Del Rosa
Channel, city of San Bernardino, California.
(7) Project for flood risk management, Lower Cache Creek, California.
(8) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Mission-
Zanja Channel, cities of San Bernardino and Redlands, California.
(9) Project for shoreline protection, Oceanside, California, authorized pursu-
ant to section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2636; 121 Stat. 1176).
(10) Project for flood risk management, Prado Basin, California.
(11) Project to modify the project for navigation, San Francisco Bay to Stock-
ton, California.
(12) Project to modify the Seven Oaks Dam, California, portion of the project
for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113; 101
Stat. 1329–111; 104 Stat. 4611; 110 Stat. 3713; 121 Stat. 1115), to include water
conservation as an authorized purpose.
(13) Project to modify the project for navigation, Delaware River Mainstem
and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, authorized
by section 101(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4802; 113 Stat. 300; 114 Stat. 2602), to include the construction of a turning
basin located near the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal.
(14) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida Project
Canal 111 (C–111), South Dade County, Florida.
(15) Project for comprehensive hurricane and storm damage risk reduction
and shoreline erosion protection, Chicago, Illinois, authorized by section
101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664; 113
Stat. 302).
(16) Project for flood risk management, Wheaton, DuPage County, Illinois.
(17) Project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation,
Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Kansas, carried out pursuant to the resolution
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives adopted on September 24, 2008 (docket number 2803).
(18) Project for flood control, Amite River and Tributaries east of the Mis-
sissippi River, Louisiana.
(19) Project for coastal storm risk management, Upper Barataria Basin, Lou-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
isiana.
(20) Project to replace the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges, Cape Cod, Massa-
chusetts.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
25
(21) Project to deepen the project for navigation, Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi,
authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4094).
(22) Project for flood risk management, Rahway River Basin, New Jersey.
(23) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Raritan Bay and
Sandy Hook Bay, Highlands, New Jersey.
(24) Project for navigation, Shark River, New Jersey.
(25) Project for flood risk management, Rondout Creek-Wallkill River Water-
shed, New York, carried out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on
May 2, 2007 (docket number 2776).
(26) Project for ecosystem restoration and hurricane and storm damage risk
reduction, Spring Creek South (Howard Beach), Queens, New York.
(27) Project to resolve increased silting and shoaling adjacent to the Federal
channel, Port of Bandon, Coquille River, Oregon.
(28) Project for flood control, 42nd Street Levee, Springfield, Oregon, being
carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
(29) Project for ecosystem restoration, Hood River at the confluence with the
Columbia River, Oregon.
(30) Project for flood risk management, Rio Culebrinas, Puerto Rico.
(31) Project for flood risk management, Rio Grande de Manati, Puerto Rico.
(32) Project for flood risk management, Rio Guayanilla, Puerto Rico.
(33) Project for flood risk management, Dorchester County, South Carolina.
(34) Project for navigation, Georgetown Harbor, South Carolina.
(35) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina.
(36) Project to modify the projects for navigation and other purposes, Old
Hickory Lock and Dam and the Cordell Hull Dam and Reservoir, Cumberland
River, Tennessee, authorized by the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat.
636), to add flood risk management as an authorized purpose.
(37) Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply,
and related purposes, Lower Rio Grande River, Cameron County, Texas, carried
out pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives adopted on May 21, 2003 (docket
number 2710).
(38) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and shoreline ero-
sion protection, Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
(39) Project for flood risk management, Savan Gut Phase II, St. Thomas,
United States Virgin Islands.
(40) Project for flood risk management, Turpentine Run, St. Thomas, United
States Virgin Islands.
(41) Project for navigation, North Landing Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Wa-
terway, Virginia.
(b) POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORTS.—The Secretary shall expedite comple-
tion of a post-authorization change report for the following projects:
(1) Project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona.
(2) Project for flood control, San Luis Rey River, California.
(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida Project
Canal 111 (C–111), South Dade County, Florida.
(4) Project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, Caloosahatchee River C–43, West Basin Storage Reservoir, Florida.
(5) Project for flood risk management, Des Moines Levee System, including
Birdland Park Levee, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa.
(c) WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.—The Secretary shall expedite the
completion of an assessment under section 729 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a), for the following:
(1) Kansas River Basin, Kansas.
(2) Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts.
(d) DISPOSITION STUDY.—The Secretary shall expedite the completion of a disposi-
tion study, carried out under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C.
549a), for the project for Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), California.
SEC. 203. FEASIBILITY STUDY MODIFICATIONS.
(a) SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CALIFORNIA.—Section 142 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930) is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘, and along the ocean shoreline of San Mateo, San Francisco,
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
and Marin Counties,’’ after ‘‘Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’’;
(2) by inserting ‘‘and, with respect to the bay and ocean shorelines of San
Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, the feasibility of and the Federal
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
26
interest in providing measures to adapt to rising sea levels’’ after ‘‘tidal and flu-
vial flooding’’;
(3) by striking ‘‘investigation’’ and inserting in its place ‘‘investigations’’; and
(4) by inserting after ‘‘San Francisco Bay region’’ the following: ‘‘and, with re-
spect to the bay and ocean shorelines and streams running to the bay and ocean
shorelines of San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, the effects of pro-
posed measures or improvements on the local economy; habitat restoration, en-
hancement, or expansion efforts or opportunities; public infrastructure protec-
tion and improvement; stormwater runoff capacity and control measures, in-
cluding those that may mitigate flooding; erosion of beaches and coasts; and any
other measures or improvements relevant to adapting to rising sea levels’’.
(b) SACRAMENTO RIVER, SOUTHERN SUTTER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The study for
flood control and allied purposes for the Sacramento River Basin, authorized by sec-
tion 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), is modified to authorize
the Secretary to conduct a study for flood risk management, southern Sutter County
between the Sacramento River and Sutter Bypass, California.
(c) SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA.—In carrying out the program to implement projects
to restore the Salton Sea, California, authorized by section 3032 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1113; 130 Stat. 1677), the Secretary is
authorized to carry out a study for the construction of a perimeter lake, or a north-
ern or southern subset thereof, for the Salton Sea, California.
(d) NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR AND TRIBUTARIES, NEW YORK AND NEW
JERSEY.—The study for flood and storm damage reduction for the New York and
New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1955
(chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132), and being carried out pursuant to the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113–2), is modified to require the Secretary
to—
(1) evaluate and address the impacts of low-frequency precipitation and sea-
level rise on the study area;
(2) consult with affected communities; and
(3) ensure the study is carried out in accordance with section 1001 of the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c).
SEC. 204. SELMA, ALABAMA.
Not later than 180 days 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 that—
(1) provides an update on the study for flood risk management and riverbank
stabilization, Selma, Alabama, authorized by resolutions of the Committees on
Public Works and Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives on June
7, 1961, and April 28, 1936, respectively, the completion of which the Secretary
was required to expedite by section 1203 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3803); and
(2) identifies project alternatives necessary to—
(A) assure the preservation of cultural and historic values associated with
national historic landmarks within the study area; and
(B) provide flood risk management for economically disadvantaged com-
munities within the study area.
SEC. 205. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER, YOLO BYPASS, CALIFORNIA.
(a) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study
of the Sacramento River in the vicinity of the Yolo Bypass System, California, to
identify actions to be undertaken by the Secretary for the comprehensive manage-
ment of the Yolo Bypass System for the purposes of flood risk management, eco-
system restoration, water supply, hydropower, and recreation.
(b) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTING DATA.—
(1) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consult with the Governor of the State of California, ap-
plicable Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal interests, the Yolo By-
pass and Cache Slough Partnership, and other stakeholders.
(2) USE OF EXISTING DATA AND PRIOR STUDIES.—To the maximum extent prac-
ticable and where appropriate, the Secretary may—
(A) make use of existing data provided to the Secretary by the entities
identified in paragraph (1); and
(B) incorporate—
(i) relevant information from prior studies and projects carried out by
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
the Secretary within the study area; and
(ii) the latest technical data and scientific approaches to changing hy-
drologic and climatic conditions.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
27
(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a),
the Secretary may develop a recommendation to Congress for—
(A) the construction of a water resources development project;
(B) the structural or operational modification of an existing water re-
sources development project;
(C) additional monitoring of, or adaptive management measures to carry
out with respect to, existing water resources development projects, to re-
spond to changing hydrologic and climatic conditions; or
(D) geographic areas within the Yolo Bypass System for additional study
by the Secretary.
(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasibility study carried out pursuant
to a recommendation under paragraph (1)(D) shall be considered to be a con-
tinuation of the comprehensive study authorized under subsection (a).
(d) COMPLETION OF STUDY; REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 3 years after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing—
(1) the results of the comprehensive study conducted under subsection (a), in-
cluding any recommendations developed under subsection (c);
(2) any additional, site-specific areas within the Yolo Bypass System where
additional study for flood risk management or ecosystem restoration projects is
recommended by the Secretary; and
(3) any interim actions relating to existing water resources development
projects undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) YOLO BYPASS SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘Yolo Bypass System’’ means the system
of weirs, levees, bypass structures, and other water resources development
projects in California’s Sacramento River Valley, extending from the Fremont
Weir near Woodland, California, to the Sacramento River near Rio Vista, Cali-
fornia, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (chapter
144; 39 Stat. 949).
(2) YOLO BYPASS AND CACHE CLOUGH PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘‘Yolo Bypass
and Cache Slough Partnership’’ means the group of parties to the Yolo Bypass
and Cache Slough Memorandum of Understanding, effective May 2016, regard-
ing collaboration and cooperation in the Yolo Bypass and Cache Slough region.
SEC. 206. LAKE OKEECHOBEE REGULATION SCHEDULE, FLORIDA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the review of the Lake Okeechobee regulation
schedule pursuant to section 1106 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018
(132 Stat. 3773), the Secretary shall—
(1) evaluate the implications of prohibiting releases from Lake Okeechobee
through the S–308 and S–80 lock and dam structures on the operation of the
lake in accordance with authorized purposes and seek to minimize unnecessary
releases to coastal estuaries; and
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate with the ongoing efforts of
Federal and State agencies responsible for monitoring, forecasting, and notifica-
tion of cyanobacteria levels in Lake Okeechobee.
(b) MONTHLY REPORT.—Each month, the Secretary shall make public a report,
which may be based on the Water Management Daily Operational Reports, dis-
closing the volumes of water deliveries to or discharges from Lake Okeechobee &
Vicinity, Water Conservation Area I, Water Conservation Area II, Water Conserva-
tion Area III, East Coast Canals, and the South Dade Conveyance. Such report shall
be aggregated and reported in a format designed for the general public, using maps
or other widely understood communication tools.
(c) EFFECT.—In carrying out the evaluation under subsection (a)(1), nothing shall
be construed to authorize any new purpose for the management of Lake Okeechobee
or authorize the Secretary to affect any existing authorized purpose, including flood
protection and management of Lake Okeechobee to provide water supply for all au-
thorized users.
SEC. 207. GREAT LAKES COASTAL RESILIENCY STUDY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the comprehensive assessment of water re-
sources needs for the Great Lakes System under section 729 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a), as required by section 1219 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3811), the Secretary shall—
(1) taking into account recent high lake levels within the Great Lakes, assess
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
and make recommendations to Congress on—
(A) coastal storm and flood risk management measures, including meas-
ures that use natural features and nature-based features, as those terms
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
28
are defined in section 1184 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a);
(B) operation and maintenance of the Great Lakes Navigation System, as
such term is defined in section 210 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238);
(C) ecosystem protection and restoration;
(D) the prevention and control of invasive species and the effects of
invasive species; and
(E) recreation associated with water resources development projects;
(2) prioritize actions necessary to protect critical public infrastructure, com-
munities, and critical natural or cultural resources; and
(3) to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, utilize existing
data provided to the Secretary by Federal and State agencies, Indian Tribes,
and other stakeholders, including data obtained through other Federal pro-
grams.
(b) RECOMMENDATIONS; ADDITIONAL STUDY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the comprehensive assessment described in
subsection (a), the Secretary may make a recommendation to Congress for—
(A) the construction of a water resources development project;
(B) the structural or operational modification of an existing water re-
sources development project;
(C) such additional monitoring of, or adaptive management measures to
carry out with respect to, existing water resources development projects, to
respond to changing hydrologic and climatic conditions; or
(D) geographic areas within the Great Lakes System for additional study
by the Secretary.
(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasibility study carried out pursuant
to a recommendation under paragraph (1)(D) shall be considered to be a con-
tinuation of the comprehensive assessment described in subsection (a).
(c) EXEMPTION FROM MAXIMUM STUDY COST AND DURATION LIMITATIONS.—Section
1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c)
shall not apply to any study recommended under subsection (b)(1)(D).
SEC. 208. RATHBUN LAKE, CHARITON RIVER, IOWA.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
a report that evaluates—
(1) the existing allocations of storage space for Rathbun Lake, authorized pur-
suant to the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1262; 121 Stat. 1124), including
the existing allocation for municipal water supply;
(2) the feasibility of expanding the existing allocation of storage for municipal
water supply; and
(3) the affordability of future municipal water supply allocations from
Rathbun Lake, for residential users of such future allocations, at projected fu-
ture costs.
SEC. 209. REPORT ON THE STATUS OF RESTORATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Coastal Lou-
isiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force established by section 7004
of Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1272) shall submit to Con-
gress a report that summarizes the activities and recommendations of the task
force, including—
(1) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities undertaken for
addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and maintenance of the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem; and
(2) financial participation by each agency represented on the Task Force in
conserving, protecting, restoring, and maintaining the coastal Louisiana eco-
system.
SEC. 210. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.
(a) COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the
Lower Mississippi River basin, from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to the Gulf of
Mexico, to identify actions to be undertaken by the Secretary for the com-
prehensive management of the basin for the purposes of flood risk management,
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
navigation, ecosystem restoration, water supply, hydropower, and recreation.
(2) FOCUS AREAS.—In conducting the comprehensive study under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall investigate projects, including—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
29
(A) projects proposed in the comprehensive coastal protection master plan
entitled ‘‘Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast’’
prepared by the State of Louisiana and accepted by the Louisiana Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority (including any subsequent amend-
ments or revisions), including—
(i) Ama sediment diversion;
(ii) Union freshwater diversion;
(iii) increase Atchafalaya flow to Terrebonne; and
(iv) Manchac Landbridge diversion; and
(B) natural features and nature-based features, including levee setbacks
and instream and floodplain restoration.
(b) CONSULTATION AND USE OF EXISTING DATA.—In conducting the comprehensive
study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with applicable Federal,
State, and local agencies, Indian Tribes, non-Federal interests, and other stake-
holders, and, to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, make use
of existing data provided to the Secretary by such parties.
(c) RECOMMENDATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In conducting the comprehensive study under subsection (a),
the Secretary may develop a recommendation to Congress for—
(A) the construction of a water resources development project;
(B) the structural or operational modification of an existing water re-
sources development project;
(C) such additional monitoring of, or adaptive management measures to
carry out with respect to, existing water resources development projects, to
respond to changing conditions; or
(D) geographic areas within the Lower Mississippi River basin for addi-
tional study by the Secretary.
(2) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—Any feasibility study carried out pursuant
to a recommendation under this subsection shall be considered to be a continu-
ation of the comprehensive study required under subsection (a).
(d) COMPLETION OF STUDY; REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 3 years after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing—
(1) the results of the comprehensive study required by this section, including
any recommendations developed under subsection (c); and
(2) any interim actions relating to existing water resources development
projects undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.
SEC. 211. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Secretary shall conduct an assessment of the water re-
sources needs of the Upper Mississippi River under section 729 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a).
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall carry out the assessment under sub-
section (a) in accordance with the requirements in section 1206(b) of Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1686).
SEC. 212. LOWER MISSOURI BASIN FLOOD RISK AND RESILIENCY STUDY, IOWA, KANSAS, NE-
BRASKA, AND MISSOURI.
(a) ADDITIONAL STUDIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), upon the request of the
non-Federal interest for the Lower Missouri Basin study, the Secretary shall ex-
pand the scope of such study to investigate and provide recommendations relat-
ing to—
(A) modifications to projects in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri au-
thorized under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program (authorized by
section 9(b) of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58
Stat. 891)) and the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation
project (authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19,
59 Stat. 19)), including modifications to the authorized purposes of such
projects to further flood risk management and resiliency; and
(B) modifications to non-Federal, publicly owned levees in the Lower Mis-
souri River Basin.
(2) EXCEPTION.—If the Secretary determines that expanding the scope of the
Lower Missouri Basin study as provided in paragraph (1) is not practicable, and
the non-Federal interest for such study concurs in such determination, the Sec-
retary shall carry out such additional studies as are necessary to investigate the
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
modifications described in paragraph (1).
(3) CONTINUATION OF LOWER MISSOURI BASIN STUDY.—The following studies
shall be considered a continuation of the Lower Missouri Basin study:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
30
(A) Any additional study carried out under paragraph (2).
(B) Any study recommended to be carried out in a report that the Chief
of Engineers prepares for the Lower Missouri Basin study.
(C) Any study recommended to be carried out in a report that the Chief
of Engineers prepares for an additional study carried out under paragraph
(2).
(D) Any study spun off from the Lower Missouri Basin study before the
completion of such study.
(E) Any study spun off from an additional study carried out under para-
graph (2) before the completion of such additional study.
(4) RELIANCE ON EXISTING INFORMATION.—In carrying out any study described
in or authorized by this section, the Secretary, to the extent practicable, shall
rely on existing data and analysis, including data and analysis prepared under
section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–
16).
(5) CONSIDERATION; CONSULTATION.—In developing recommendations under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
(A) consider the use of—
(i) structural and nonstructural measures, including the setting back
of levees and removing structures from areas of recurring flood vulner-
ability, where advantageous, to reduce flood risk and damages in the
Lower Missouri River Basin; and
(ii) where such features are locally acceptable, natural features or na-
ture-based features (as such terms are defined in section 1184 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a); and
(B) consult with applicable Federal and State agencies, Indian Tribes,
and other stakeholders within the Lower Missouri River Basin and solicit
public comment on such recommendations.
(6) EXEMPTION FROM MAXIMUM STUDY COST AND DURATION LIMITATIONS.—Sec-
tion 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 2282c) shall not apply to the Lower Missouri Basin study or any study
described in paragraph (3).
(7) PRECONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN.—Upon completion of a
study authorized by this section, if the Secretary determines that a rec-
ommended project, or modification to a project described in paragraph (1), is
justified, the Secretary may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engi-
neering, and design of the project or modification.
(8) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—For the provision of technical assistance to support
small communities and economically disadvantaged communities in the
planning and design of flood risk management and flood risk resiliency
projects in the Lower Missouri River Basin, for each of fiscal years 2021
through 2026, there are authorized to be appropriated—
(i) $2,000,000 to carry out section 206 of the Flood Control Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a), in addition to amounts otherwise authorized to
carry out such section; and
(ii) $2,000,000 to carry out section 22(a)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16), in addition to amounts
otherwise authorized to carry out such section.
(B) CONDITIONS.—
(i) LIMITATIONS NOT APPLICABLE.—The limitations on the use of funds
in section 206(d) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 and section 22(c)(2)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 shall not apply to the
amounts authorized to be appropriated by subparagraph (A).
(ii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this paragraph restricts the
authority of the Secretary to use any funds otherwise appropriated to
carry out section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 or section
22(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 to provide
technical assistance described in subparagraph (A).
(9) COMPLETION OF STUDY; REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 3 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report
detailing—
(A) the results of the study authorized by this section;
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(B) any additional, site-specific areas within the Lower Missouri River
Basin for which additional study for flood risk management projects is rec-
ommended by the Secretary; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
31
(C) any interim actions relating to existing water resources development
projects undertaken by the Secretary during the study period.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) LOWER MISSOURI BASIN STUDY.—The term ‘‘Lower Missouri Basin study’’
means the Lower Missouri Basin Flood Risk and Resiliency Study, Iowa, Kan-
sas, Nebraska, and Missouri, authorized pursuant to section 216 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a).
(2) SMALL COMMUNITY.—The term ‘‘small community’’ means a local govern-
ment that serves a population of less than 15,000.
SEC. 213. PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER AND RYE HARBOR, NEW HAMP-
SHIRE.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a written status update regarding—
(1) efforts to address the impacts of shoaling affecting the project for naviga-
tion, Rye Harbor, New Hampshire, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480); and
(2) the project for navigation, Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, au-
thorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173),
as required to be expedited under section 1317 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–270).
SEC. 214. COUGAR AND DETROIT DAMS, WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON.
(a) REPORT.—Not later than 2 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, and make publicly available, a report providing an initial analysis
of deauthorizing hydropower as a project purpose at the Cougar and Detroit Dams
project.
(b) CONTENTS.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under sub-
section (a)—
(1) a description of the potential effects of deauthorizing hydropower as a
project purpose at the Cougar and Detroit Dams project on—
(A) the operation of the project, including with respect to the other au-
thorized purposes of the project;
(B) compliance of the project with the Endangered Species Act;
(C) costs that would be attributed to other authorized purposes of the
project, including costs relating to compliance with such Act; and
(D) other ongoing studies in the Willamette River Basin; and
(2) identification of any further research needed.
(c) PROJECT DEFINED.—In this section, the terms ‘‘Cougar and Detroit Dams
project’’ and ‘‘project’’ mean the Cougar Dam and Reservoir project and Detroit Dam
and Reservoir project, Willamette River Basin, Oregon, authorized by section 204
of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 179).
SEC. 215. PORT ORFORD, OREGON.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall, at Federal expense, submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a summary report on the research completed and data
gathered by the date of enactment of this Act with regards to the configuration of
a breakwater for the project for navigation, Port Orford, Oregon, authorized by sec-
tion 117 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1822; 106 Stat. 4809), for
the purposes of addressing shoaling issues to minimize long-term maintenance costs.
SEC. 216. WILSON CREEK AND SLOAN CREEK, FAIRVIEW, TEXAS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a written status update regarding efforts to address flood-
ing along Wilson Creek and Sloan Creek in the City of Fairview, Texas.
SEC. 217. GAO STUDY ON MITIGATION FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall—
(1) conduct a study on the mitigation of the impact of water resources devel-
opment projects, including the impact on fish and wildlife, consistent with the
requirements of section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2283), section 307(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2317(a)), and section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Develop-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
ment Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2283a), including—
(A) an evaluation of guidance or instructions issued, and other measures
taken, by the Secretary to ensure successful mitigation of such impacts;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
32
(B) a review of the methods of mitigation, including the use of in-lieu
fees, mitigation banking, and permittee-responsible mitigation, and their
long-term effectiveness of restoring or mitigating ecosystem services im-
pacted by such projects;
(C) a review of how the use of the different mitigation methods for such
projects varies across Corps of Engineers districts;
(D) an assessment of the backlog of mitigation projects, including the
number of mitigation projects pending completion to address such impacts
resulting from constructed water resources development projects;
(E) an evaluation of how the Secretary tracks compliance with the mitiga-
tion requirements across Corps of Engineers districts;
(F) a review of how the mitigation requirements for water resources de-
velopment projects contributes to the resilience of water resources in the
United States;
(G) an assessment of whether mitigation is being done prior to or contem-
poraneously with the construction of projects, as required by section 906 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283);
(H) an evaluation of compliance with section 906(d) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) for the development
of specific mitigation plans for projects, whether such plans were successful
in mitigating the designated impacts of the projects, and, in instances
where such plans were not successful, what actions the Secretary is taking
to modify the plans such that they will be successful; and
(I) an assessment of how the Secretary might take advantage of natural
infrastructure in mitigation planning to reduce flood risks and flood recov-
ery costs for some communities; and
(2) submit to Congress a report that—
(A) describes the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1);
(B) includes recommendations to ensure compliance with and successful
implementation of mitigation requirements for water resources development
projects; and
(C) includes recommendations to ensure existing programs and authori-
ties include the use, to the maximum extent practicable, of natural infra-
structure.
SEC. 218. GAO STUDY ON APPLICATION OF HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND EXPENDI-
TURES.
(a) STUDY.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the operation and
maintenance needs of federally authorized harbor and inland harbor projects, in-
cluding—
(1) an inventory of all federally authorized harbor and inland harbor projects;
(2) an assessment of current uses of such projects (and, to the extent prac-
ticable, the national, regional, and local benefits of such uses), including the
uses listed in section 210(d)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986;
(3) an assessment of the annual operation and maintenance needs associated
with harbors and inland harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2) of section 210
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238), including a
breakdown of such needs for each of the following types of projects—
(A) emerging harbor projects (as defined in such section);
(B) moderate-use harbor projects (as defined in such section on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act);
(C) high-use harbor projects (as defined in such section on the day before
the date of enactment of this Act); and
(D) projects assigned to harbors and inland harbors within the Great
Lakes Navigation System (as defined in such section);
(4) an assessment of any deferred operation and maintenance needs for such
projects;
(5) an assessment of the annual funding level trends for moderate-use harbor
projects (as defined in section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) after the date of enact-
ment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–121),
excluding funds awarded to donor ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy
transfer ports (as such terms are defined in section 2106 of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201));
(6) an assessment of projected needs associated with donor ports, medium-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports (as such terms are defined in sec-
tion 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 2201)); and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
33
(7) an itemization of expenditures provided to donor ports, medium-sized
donor ports, and energy transfer ports under section 2106 of the Water Re-
sources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201).
(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Upon completion of the report under subsection (a),
the Comptroller General shall submit such report to the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on En-
vironment and Public Works of the Senate.
SEC. 219. GAO STUDY ON ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BANKS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study and submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report that analyzes the administration
of section 309 of the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act to
establish an environmental bank (as defined in such section), such that the Sec-
retary—
(1) achieves the objectives of the report of the Chief of Engineers for eco-
system restoration in the Louisiana Coastal Area or the objectives of the com-
prehensive coastal protection master plan entitled ‘‘Louisiana Comprehensive
Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast’’ prepared by the State of Louisiana and
accepted by the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (includ-
ing any subsequent amendments or revisions);
(2) promotes ridge restoration, barrier island restoration, marsh creation, non-
structural risk management, or any other projects authorized, funded, or under-
taken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, pursuant to such
comprehensive coastal protection master plan;
(3) allows for proactive investment in projects by a public or private entity
seeking to generate credits to satisfy responsibilities associated with environ-
mental compliance;
(4) allows for leveraging additional State, Parish, or Federal funds; and
(5) recommends methods for awarding additional credit for high-priority
projects listed in the report and plan described in paragraph (1).
(b) CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS.—In carrying out subsection (a), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall consult with the Secretary, the Lou-
isiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force, the Governor of
Louisiana (or an appointee), and other stakeholders, to the extent practicable.
SEC. 220. STUDY ON WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION AT WATER RESOURCES DE-
VELOPMENT PROJECTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of the Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report that analyzes the benefits and consequences
of including municipal water supply and water conservation as a primary mission
of the Corps of Engineers in carrying out water resources development projects.
(b) INCLUSION.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under sub-
section (a)—
(1) a description of existing water resources development projects with munic-
ipal water supply or water conservation as authorized purposes, and the extent
to which such projects are utilized for such purposes;
(2) a description of existing water resources development projects with respect
to which—
(A) municipal water supply or water conservation could be added as a
project purpose, including those with respect to which a non-Federal inter-
est has expressed an interest in adding municipal water supply or water
conservation as a project purpose; and
(B) such a purpose could be accommodated while maintaining existing au-
thorized purposes;
(3) a description of ongoing water resources development project studies the
authorizations for which include authorization for the Secretary to study the
feasibility of carrying out the project with a purpose of municipal water supply
or water conservation;
(4) an analysis of how adding municipal water supply and water conservation
as a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers would affect the ability of the
Secretary to carry out future water resources development projects; and
(5) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to including municipal
water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of Engi-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
neers.
SEC. 221. PFAS REVIEW AND INVENTORY AT CORPS FACILITIES.
(a) INVENTORY OF PFAS AT CORPS FACILITIES.—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
34
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this
section, and annually thereafter the Secretary shall complete an inventory of
Corps of Engineers civil works facilities that are or may be contaminated, or
could become contaminated, by PFAS.
(2) CONTENTS OF INVENTORY.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary
shall review and identify—
(A) all facilities owned or operated by the Corps of Engineers, for which
there is a civil works function, that are or may be contaminated, or could
become contaminated, by PFAS;
(B) the nature and extent of any such contamination or potential for con-
tamination, including any potential pathways for human exposure to PFAS;
(C) response measures taken to monitor, control, remove, or remediate
PFAS, or otherwise reduce the risk of human exposure to PFAS;
(D) for facilities identified under subparagraph (A), the extent to which
such facilities (or any such contamination or potential for contamination at
such facilities) are related to the civil works functions of the Corps of Engi-
neers;
(E) the extent to which the Secretary, or other entities, may have respon-
sibility for such contamination or potential for contamination; and
(F) for facilities identified under subparagraph (A), the costs to remediate
and reduce the risk of human exposure to PFAS.
(3) COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—To the maximum extent
practicable, the actions taken under this subsection shall supplement and sup-
port work undertaken by other Federal agencies, including actions taken pursu-
ant to the plan published by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, titled ‘‘EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan’’
and dated February 2019.
(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Upon completion of the inventory under paragraph
(1), and annually thereafter concurrent with the President’s annual budget re-
quest to Congress, the Secretary shall submit the inventory to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
(b) PFAS TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH.—
(1) RESEARCH SUPPORT.—The Secretary, acting through the Hazardous Waste
Research Center located at the Engineer Research and Development Center,
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, support the efforts of other Federal
agencies in the development of innovative technologies and methodologies for
the detection, treatment, and cleanup of PFAS associated with Federal facilities,
including groundwater associated with such facilities.
(2) DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS.—Nothing in this subsection is intended to dupli-
cate the activities undertaken by other Federal agencies as identified in sub-
section (a)(3).
(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘PFAS’’ means a perfluoroalkyl sub-
stance or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
SEC. 222. REPORT ON RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
No later than 18 months 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 that contains—
(1) an inventory of all recreational infrastructure and facilities associated
with water resources development projects;
(2) an assessment of the annual operation and maintenance needs associated
with such infrastructure and facilities;
(3) an assessment of deferred operation and maintenance needs for such in-
frastructure and facilities to operate safely at full capacity; and
(4) an assessment of the economic benefits of recreation to local and regional
economies and benefits of sustaining and improving public access at rec-
reational infrastructure and facilities.
TITLE III—DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND
MODIFICATIONS
SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are—
(1) to identify water resources development projects authorized by Congress
that are no longer viable for construction due to—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
35
(A) a lack of local support;
(B) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources; or
(C) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or feasible;
(2) to create an expedited and definitive process for Congress to deauthorize
water resources development projects that are no longer viable for construction;
and
(3) to allow the continued authorization of water resources development
projects that are viable for construction.
(b) PROPOSED DEAUTHORIZATION LIST.—
(1) PRELIMINARY LIST OF PROJECTS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop a preliminary list of each
water resources development project, or separable element of a project, au-
thorized for construction before November 8, 2007, for which—
(i) planning, design, or construction was not initiated before the date
of enactment of this Act; or
(ii) planning, design, or construction was initiated before the date of
enactment of this Act, but for which no funds, Federal or non-Federal,
were obligated for planning, design, or construction of the project or
separable element of the project during the current fiscal year or any
of the 10 preceding fiscal years.
(B) USE OF COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG AND OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE REPORT.—The Secretary may develop the preliminary list
from the comprehensive construction backlog and operation and mainte-
nance reports developed pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a).
(2) PREPARATION OF PROPOSED DEAUTHORIZATION LIST.—
(A) DEAUTHORIZATION AMOUNT.—The Secretary shall prepare a proposed
list of projects for deauthorization comprised of a subset of projects and sep-
arable elements identified on the preliminary list developed under para-
graph (1) that have, in the aggregate, an estimated Federal cost to complete
that is at least $10,000,000,000.
(B) DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL COST TO COMPLETE.—For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the Federal cost to complete shall take into account any
allowances authorized by section 902 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280), as applied to the most recent project schedule
and cost estimate.
(C) INCLUSION OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF ANTIQUATED PROJECTS.—The Sec-
retary shall reduce the amount identified for deauthorization under para-
graph (2)(A) by an amount equivalent to the estimated current value of
each project, or separable element of a project, that is deauthorized by sub-
section (f).
(3) SEQUENCING OF PROJECTS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall identify projects and separable ele-
ments for inclusion on the proposed list of projects for deauthorization
under paragraph (2) according to the order in which the projects and sepa-
rable elements were authorized, beginning with the earliest authorized
projects and separable elements and ending with the latest project or sepa-
rable element necessary to meet the aggregate amount under paragraph
(2)(A).
(B) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—The Secretary may identify projects and sep-
arable elements in an order other than that established by subparagraph
(A) if the Secretary determines, on a case-by-case basis, that a project or
separable element is critical for interests of the United States, based on the
possible impact of the project or separable element on public health and
safety, the national economy, or the environment.
(4) PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSULTATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall solicit comments from the public
and the Governors of each applicable State on the proposed deauthorization
list prepared under paragraph (2)(A).
(B) COMMENT PERIOD.—The public comment period shall be 90 days.
(5) PREPARATION OF FINAL DEAUTHORIZATION LIST.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall prepare a final deauthorization list
by—
(i) considering any comments received under paragraph (4); and
(ii) revising the proposed deauthorization list prepared under para-
graph (2)(A) as the Secretary determines necessary to respond to such
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
comments.
(B) APPENDIX.—The Secretary shall include as part of the final deauthor-
ization list an appendix that—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
36
(i) identifies each project or separable element on the proposed de-
authorization list that is not included on the final deauthorization list;
and
(ii) describes the reasons why the project or separable element is not
included on the final deauthorization list.
(c) SUBMISSION OF FINAL DEAUTHORIZATION LIST TO CONGRESS FOR CONGRES-
SIONAL REVIEW; PUBLICATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the close of the com-
ment period under subsection (b)(4), the Secretary shall—
(A) submit the final deauthorization list and appendix prepared under
subsection (b)(5) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Pub-
lic Works of the Senate; and
(B) publish the final deauthorization list and appendix in the Federal
Register.
(2) EXCLUSIONS.—The Secretary shall not include in the final deauthorization
list submitted under paragraph (1) any project or separable element with re-
spect to which Federal funds for planning, design, or construction are obligated
after the development of the preliminary list under subsection (b)(1)(A) but
prior to the submission of the final deauthorization list under paragraph (1)(A)
of this subsection.
(d) DEAUTHORIZATION; CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—After the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the
date of publication of the final deauthorization list and appendix under sub-
section (c)(1)(B), a project or separable element of a project identified in the
final deauthorization list is hereby deauthorized, unless Congress passes a joint
resolution disapproving the final deauthorization list prior to the end of such
period.
(2) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—A project or separable element of a project identified in
the final deauthorization list under subsection (c) shall not be deauthorized
under this subsection if, before the expiration of the 2-year period referred
to in paragraph (1), the non-Federal interest for the project or separable
element of the project provides sufficient funds to complete the project or
separable element of the project.
(B) TREATMENT OF PROJECTS.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), each
project and separable element of a project identified in the final deauthor-
ization list shall be treated as deauthorized for purposes of the aggregate
deauthorization amount specified in subsection (b)(2)(A).
(3) PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN APPENDIX.—A project or separable element of a
project identified in the appendix to the final deauthorization list shall remain
subject to future deauthorization by Congress.
(e) SPECIAL RULES.—
(1) POST-AUTHORIZATION STUDIES.—A project or separable element of a project
may not be identified on the proposed deauthorization list developed under sub-
section (b), or the final deauthorization list developed under subsection (c), if
the project or separable element received funding for a post-authorization study
during the current fiscal year or any of the 10 preceding fiscal years.
(2) TREATMENT OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.—For purposes of this section, if
an authorized water resources development project or separable element of the
project has been modified by an Act of Congress, the date of the authorization
of the project or separable element shall be deemed to be the date of the most
recent such modification.
(f) DEAUTHORIZATION OF ANTIQUATED PROJECTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any water resources development project, or separable ele-
ment of a project, authorized for construction prior to November 17, 1986, for
which construction has not been initiated prior to the date of enactment of this
Act, or for which funds have not been obligated for construction in the 10-year
period prior to the date of enactment of this Act, is hereby deauthorized.
(2) IDENTIFICATION.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall issue to the Committee on Transportation and In-
frastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate a report that identifies—
(A) the name of each project, or separable element of a project, deauthor-
ized by paragraph (1); and
(B) the estimated current value of each such project or separable element
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
of a project.
(g) ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF INACTIVE WATER RESOURCES DE-
VELOPMENT PROJECTS.—The Secretary or the non-Federal interest may not carry out
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
37
any authorized water resources development project, or separable element of such
project, for which construction has not been initiated in the 20-year period following
the date of the authorization of such project or separable element, until—
(1) the Secretary provides to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a post-authorization change report that updates the
economic and environmental analysis of the project or separable element; and
(2) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Sen-
ate take appropriate action to address any modifications to the economic and
environmental analysis for the project or separable element of the project con-
tained in the post-authorization change report.
(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT.—The term ‘‘post-authorization
change report’’ has the meaning given such term in section 1132(d) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2282e).
(2) POST-AUTHORIZATION STUDY.—The term ‘‘post-authorization study’’
means—
(A) a feasibility report developed under section 905 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282);
(B) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(d)); or
(C) a review conducted under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(33 U.S.C. 549a), including an initial appraisal that—
(i) demonstrates a Federal interest; and
(ii) requires additional analysis for the project or separable element.
(3) WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.—The term ‘‘water resources
development project’’ includes an environmental infrastructure assistance
project or program of the Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 302. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.
Section 560(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2336(f))
is amended by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’.
SEC. 303. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
Section 203(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C.
2269) is amended by striking ‘‘$12,500,000’’ each place it appears and inserting
‘‘$15,000,000’’.
SEC. 304. LAKES PROGRAM.
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–
662, 100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295; 121 Stat. 1076) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(2) in paragraph (28), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semi-
colon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(29) Ellis Pond and Guild Pond, Norwood, Massachusetts; and
‘‘(30) Memorial Pond, Walpole, Massachusetts.’’.
SEC. 305. WATERCRAFT INSPECTION STATIONS.
Section 104(d)(1)(A) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(d)(1)(A))
is amended—
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a semicolon;
(2) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘Arizona River Basins.’’ and inserting ‘‘Arkansas
River Basins; and’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(iv) to protect the Russian River Basin, California.’’.
SEC. 306. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(Public Law 104–303, 110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202; 128 Stat. 1317) is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i) and inserting after sub-
section (g) the following:
‘‘(h) PROJECT CAP.—The total cost of a project carried out under this section may
not exceed $15,000,000.’’; and
(2) in subsection (i) (as so redesignated), by striking ‘‘$40,000,000’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘$60,000,000’’.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(b) OUTREACH AND TRAINING.—The Secretary shall conduct public outreach and
workshops for non-Federal interests to provide information on the Chesapeake Bay
environmental restoration and protection program established under section 510 of
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
38
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, including how to participate in the
program.
SEC. 307. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
Section 1103(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
652(e)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘$22,750,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’.
SEC. 308. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM.
Any Federal funds, regardless of the account from which the funds were provided,
used to carry out construction of the modification to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas
River Navigation System, authorized in section 136 of the Energy and Water Devel-
opment Appropriations Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 1842), shall be considered by the Sec-
retary as initiating construction of the project such that future funds will not re-
quire a new investment decision.
SEC. 309. OUACHITA-BLACK RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, ARKANSAS.
The project for navigation, Ouachita-Black River, Arkansas, authorized by section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (Public Law 86–645), is modified to include
water supply as a project purpose, subject to completion by the Secretary of a feasi-
bility study and any other review necessary for such modification.
SEC. 310. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.
The portion of project for flood control, Sacramento River, California, authorized
by section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 103 Stat. 649;
110 Stat. 3709; 112 Stat. 1841; 113 Stat. 299), consisting of a riverbed gradient res-
toration facility at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake, is no longer author-
ized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 311. LAKE ISABELLA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary, when
evaluating alternative locations for construction of a permanent Isabella Lake Vis-
itor Center by the Corps of Engineers to replace the facility impacted by the Isabella
Dam safety modification project, should afford substantial weight to the site pref-
erence of the local community.
(b) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may acquire such interests in real property as the
Secretary determines necessary or advisable to support construction of the Isabella
Dam safety modification project.
(c) TRANSFER.—The Secretary may transfer any real property interests acquired
under subsection (b) to any other Federal agency or department without reimburse-
ment.
(d) ISABELLA DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION PROJECT DEFINED.—In this section, the
term ‘‘Isabella Dam safety modification project’’ means the dam safety modification
project at the Isabella Reservoir in the San Joaquin Valley, California (authorized
by Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 901)), including the component
of the project relating to construction a visitor center facility.
SEC. 312. LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT.
The Secretary shall align the schedules of, and maximize complimentary efforts,
minimize duplicative practices, and ensure coordination and information sharing
with respect to—
(1) the project for flood risk management, Lower San Joaquin River, author-
ized by section 1401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132
Stat. 3836); and
(2) the second phase of the feasibility study for the Lower San Joaquin River
project for flood risk management, authorized for expedited completion by sec-
tion 1203(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act 2018 (132 Stat. 3803).
SEC. 313. SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The portion of the project for flood control and navigation, San Diego River and
Mission Bay, San Diego County, California, authorized by the Act of July 24, 1946
(chapter 595, 60 Stat. 636), identified in the National Levee Database established
under section 9004 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C.
3303) as the San Diego River 3 segment and consisting of a 785-foot-long segment
of the right bank levee from Station 209+41.75 to its end at Station 217+26.75, as
described in construction plans dated August 30, 1951, is no longer authorized be-
ginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
SEC. 314. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 114 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 59h)
is amended to read as follows:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
39
‘‘SEC. 114. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.
‘‘(a) AREA TO BE DECLARED NONNAVIGABLE.—The following area is declared to be
nonnavigable waters of the United States: All of that portion of the City and County
of San Francisco, California, lying shoreward of a line beginning at the intersection
of the southerly right of way line of Earl Street prolongation with the Pierhead
United States Government Pierhead line, the Pierhead line as defined in the State
of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961; thence
northerly along said Pierhead line to its intersection with a line parallel with and
distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of Pier 30–32;
thence northerly along said parallel line and its northerly prolongation, to a point
of intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly from, the ex-
isting northerly boundary of Pier 30–32; thence westerly along last said parallel line
to its intersection with said Pierhead line; thence northerly along said Pierhead line,
to the intersection of the easterly right of way line of Van Ness Avenue, formerly
Marlette Street, prolongation to the Pierhead line.
‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT THAT AREA BE IMPROVED.—The declaration of nonnavigability
under subsection (a) applies only to those parts of the area described in subsection
(a) that are or will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied or covered by perma-
nent structures and does not affect the applicability of any Federal statute or regu-
lation that relates to filling of navigable waters or to other regulated activities with-
in the area described in subsection (a), including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of
March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401, 403), section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
‘‘(c) INCLUSION OF EMBARCADERO HISTORIC DISTRICT.—Congress finds and de-
clares that the area described in subsection (a) contains the seawall, piers, and
wharves that comprise the Embarcadero Historic District listed on the National
Register of Historic Places on May 12, 2006.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 5052 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 59h–1) is repealed.
SEC. 315. WESTERN PACIFIC INTERCEPTOR CANAL, SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The portion of the project for flood protection on the Sacramento River, authorized
by section 2 of the of March 1, 1917 (chapter 144, 39 Stat. 949; 45 Stat. 539; 50
Stat. 877; 55 Stat. 647; 80 Stat. 1422), consisting of the portion of the levee from
GPS coordinate N2147673.584 E6690904.187 to N2147908.413 E6689057.060 associ-
ated with the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal, is no longer authorized beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 316. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO,
AND TEXAS.
Section 5056(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–
114, 121 Stat. 1213; 128 Stat. 1314) is amended by striking ‘‘2019’’ and inserting
‘‘2029’’.
SEC. 317. NEW LONDON HARBOR WATERFRONT CHANNEL, CONNECTICUT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for navigation, New London Harbor,
Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 13, 1902 (chapter
1079, 32 Stat. 333), described in subsection (b) is no longer authorized beginning
on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) AREA DESCRIBED.—The area referred to in subsection (a) is generally the por-
tion between and around the 2 piers at the State Pier in New London, specifically
the area—
(1) beginning at a point N691263.78, E1181259.26;
(2) running N 35°01’50.75’’ W about 955.59 feet to a point N692046.26,
E1180710.74;
(3) running N 54°58’06.78’’ E about 100.00 feet to a point N692103.66,
E1180792.62;
(4) running S 35°01’50.75’’ E about 989.8 feet to a point N691293.17,
E1181360.78; and
(5) running S 73°51’15.45’’ W about 105.69 feet to the point described in para-
graph (1).
SEC. 318. WASHINGTON HARBOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for navigation, Wash-
ington Harbor, District of Columbia, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (chap-
ter 831, 49 Stat. 1031), is modified to reduce, in part, the authorized dimensions
of the project, such that the remaining authorized dimensions are as follows:
(1) A 200 foot wide, 15 foot deep channel with a center line beginning at a
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
point East 1,317,064.30 and North 440,373.32, thence to a point East
1,316,474.30 and North 440,028.31, thence to a point East 1,315,584.30 and
North 439,388.30, thence to a point East 1,315,259.31 and North 438,908.30.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
40
(2) A transition area 200 foot wide to 300 foot wide, 15 foot deep, with a cen-
ter line beginning at a point East 1,315,259.31 and North 438,908.30 to a point
East 1,315,044.31 and North 438,748.30.
(3) A 300 foot wide, 15 foot deep channel with a centerline beginning a point
East 1,315,044.31 and North 438,748.30, thence to a point East 1,314,105.31
and North 438,124.79, thence to a point East 1,311,973.30 and North
438,807.78, thence to a point East 1,311,369.73 and North 438,577.42, thence
to a point East 1,311,015.73 and North 438,197.57, thence to a point East
1,309,713.47 and North 435,678.91.
(4) A transition area 300 foot wide to 400 foot wide, 15 foot deep to 24 foot
deep, with a center line beginning at a point East 1,309,713.47 and North
435,678.91 to a point East 1,307,709.33 and North 434,488.25.
(5) A 400 foot wide, 24 foot deep channel with a centerline beginning at a
point East 1,307,709.33 and North 434,488.25, thence to a point East
1,307,459.33 and North 434,173.25, thence to a point East 1,306,476.82 and
North 1,306,476.82, thence to a point East 1,306,209.79 and North 431,460.21,
thence to a point at the end of the channel near Hains Point East 1,305,997.63
and North 429,978.31.
SEC. 319. CENTRAL EVERGLADES, FLORIDA.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Central Everglades, authorized by section
1401(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1713), is modi-
fied to include the project for ecosystem restoration, Central and Southern Florida,
Everglades Agricultural Area, authorized by section 1308 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3819), and to authorize the Secretary to carry
out the project as so combined.
SEC. 320. MIAMI RIVER, FLORIDA.
The portion of the project for navigation, Miami River, Florida, authorized by the
Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 925; 59 Stat. 16; 74 Stat. 481; 100 Stat. 4257), begin-
ning at the existing railroad bascule bridge and extending approximately 1,000 lin-
ear feet upstream to an existing salinity barrier and flood control structure, is no
longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 321. TAYLOR CREEK RESERVOIR AND LEVEE L–73 (SECTION 1), UPPER ST. JOHNS RIVER
BASIN, FLORIDA.
The portions of the project for flood control and other purposes, Central and
Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62
Stat. 1176), consisting of the Taylor Creek Reservoir and Levee L–73, Section 1,
within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida, are no longer authorized beginning
on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 322. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall provide 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 plans to modify the Calcasieu River and Pass Dredged Material
Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (December
16, 2010 DMMP/SEIS) to allow for the expansion of Dredged Material Placement
Facilities (DMPFs) 17, 19, 22, D, and E to the lakeside foreshore rock boundaries
during planned rehabilitation of these facilities.
SEC. 323. SAN JUAN-CHAMA PROJECT; ABIQUIU DAM, NEW MEXICO.
(a) ABIQUIU RESERVOIR.—Section 5(b) of Public Law 97–140 (43 U.S.C. 620a note)
is amended by striking ‘‘a total of two hundred thousand acre-feet of’’.
(b) WATER STORAGE AT ABIQUIU DAM, NEW MEXICO.—Section 1 of Public Law
100–522 (43 U.S.C. 620a note) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘200,000 acre-feet of’’;
(2) by inserting ‘‘and San Juan-Chama project’’ after ‘‘Rio Grande system’’;
and
(3) by striking ‘‘, in lieu of the water storage authorized by section 5 of Public
Law 97–140, to the extent that contracting entities under section 5 of Public
Law 97–140 no longer require such storage’’.
(c) WATER STORAGE.—The Secretary shall—
(1) store up to elevation 6230.00 NGVD29 at Abiquiu Dam, New Mexico, to
the extent that the necessary real property interests have been acquired by any
entity requesting such storage; and
(2) amend the March 20, 1986, contract between the United States of America
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (assigned by
the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico to the Albuquerque Bernalillo County
Water Utility Authority) for water storage space in Abiquiu Reservoir to allow
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
41
for storage by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority of
San Juan-Chama project water or native Rio Grande system water up to ele-
vation 6230.00 NGVD29.
(d) STORAGE AGREEMENTS WITH USERS OTHER THAN THE ALBUQUERQUE
BERNALILLO COUNTY WATER UTILITY AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall—
(1) retain or enter into new agreements with entities for a proportionate allo-
cation of 29,100 acre-feet of storage space pursuant to section 5 of Public Law
97–140; and
(2) amend or enter into new storage agreements for storage of San Juan-
Chama project water or native Rio Grande system water up to the space allo-
cated for each entity’s proportionate share of San Juan-Chama water.
(e) OPERATIONS DOCUMENTS.—The Secretary shall amend or revise any existing
operations documents, including the Water Control Manual or operations plan for
Abiquiu Reservoir, as necessary to meet the requirements of this section.
(f) LIMITATIONS.—In carrying out this section, the following limitations shall
apply:
(1) The storage of native Rio Grande system water shall be subject to the pro-
visions of the Rio Grande Compact and the resolutions of the Rio Grande Com-
pact Commission.
(2) The storage of native Rio Grande system water shall only be authorized
to the extent that the necessary water ownership and storage rights have been
acquired by the entity requesting such storage.
(3) The storage of native Rio Grande system water or San-Juan Chama
project water shall not interfere with the authorized purposes of the Abiquiu
Dam and Reservoir project.
(4) Each user of storage space, regardless of source of water, shall pay for any
increase in costs attributable to storage of that user’s water.
SEC. 324. PAWCATUCK RIVER, LITTLE NARRAGANSETT BAY AND WATCH HILL COVE, RHODE
ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT.
Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, that portion of the project for
navigation, Pawcatuck River, Little Narragansett Bay and Watch Hill Cove, Rhode
Island and Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter
19, 59 Stat. 13), consisting of a 10-foot deep, 16-acre anchorage area in Watch Hill
Cove is no longer authorized.
SEC. 325. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is
repealed.
SEC. 326. CAP SANTE WATERWAY, WASHINGTON.
Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the project for navigation, Cap
Sante Waterway and Navigation Channel, Skagit County, Washington, authorized
by the Act of March 2, 1919 (chapter 95, 40 Stat. 1285), is modified to deauthorize
the portion of the project consisting of an approximately 334,434 foot area of the
Federal channel within Anacortes Harbor inside and directly adjacent to the Federal
breakwater and training wall structure, starting at a point with coordinates
N557015.552, E1210819.619, thence running S88 13’2.06’’E approximately 200 feet
to a point with coordinates N557009.330, E1211019.522, thence running S01
46’58.08’’W approximately 578 feet to a point with coordinates N556431.405,
E1211001.534, thence running S49 49’50.23’’W approximately 69 feet to a point with
coordinates N556387.076, E1210949.002, thence running S51 53’0.25’’E approxi-
mately 35 feet to a point with coordinates N556365.662, E1210976.316, thence run-
ning S49 38’58.48’’W approximately 112 feet to a point with coordinates
N556292.989, E1210890.775, thence running N88 13’1.87’’W approximately 109 feet
to a point with coordinates N556296.367, E1210782.226, thence running S46
46’58.97’’W approximately 141 feet to a point with coordinates N556199.527,
E1210679.164, thence running N88 13’1.77’’W approximately 700 feet to a point
with coordinates N556221.305, E1209979.502, thence running N01 46’58.08’’E ap-
proximately 250 feet to a point with coordinates N556471.184, E1209987.280, thence
running S88 13’1.77’’E approximately 815 feet to a point with coordinates
N556445.828, E1210801.886, thence running N01 46’58.08’’E approximately 570 feet
to the point of origin.
SEC. 327. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.
The Secretary shall expedite the activities required to be carried out under section
204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) regarding the
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
use of improvement dredging of the Portsmouth Federal navigation project in Ports-
mouth, New Hampshire, as a source of clean beach fill material to reinforce the
stone revetment at Nantasket Beach, Hull, Massachusetts.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
42
SEC. 328. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS.
(a) CONSISTENCY WITH REPORTS.—Congress finds that the project modifications
described in this section are in accordance with the reports submitted to Congress
by the Secretary under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Develop-
ment Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water Re-
sources Development’’, or have otherwise been reviewed by Congress.
(b) MODIFICATIONS.—
(1) SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(23) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 117 Stat. 1840)
is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(23) SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA.—$45,000,000 for regional water con-
servation, recycling, reliability, and resiliency projects in Placer, El Dorado, and
Sacramento Counties and the San Juan Suburban Water District, California.’’.
(2) SOUTH PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—Section 219(f)(52) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is
amended by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’.
(3) MADISON AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, ILLINOIS.—Section 219(f)(55) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 114
Stat. 2763A–221) is amended by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$45,000,000’’.
(4) SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.—Section 531 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat.
1226) is amended—
(A) in subsection (g), by inserting ‘‘Boyd, Carter, Elliott, Lincoln,’’ after
‘‘Lee,’’; and
(B) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘$40,000,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$80,000,000’’.
(5) DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220;
119 Stat. 282; 119 Stat. 2257; 122 Stat. 1623) is amended by striking
‘‘$75,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$130,000,000’’.
(6) JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Section 219(e)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 1494; 121
Stat. 1258) is amended by striking ‘‘$32,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$57,500,000’’.
(7) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 337; 121 Stat. 1233) is amended
by striking ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$70,000,000’’.
(8) MIDWEST CITY, OKLAHOMA.—Section 219(f)(231) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1266) is
amended by striking ‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$5,000,000’’.
(9) SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 313 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat.
310; 117 Stat. 142; 121 Stat. 1146) is amended—
(A) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ‘‘$200,000,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$400,000,000’’; and
(B) in subsection (h)(2), by inserting ‘‘Beaver, Jefferson,’’ after ‘‘Wash-
ington,’’.
(10) LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Section 219(f)(25) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336;
114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818) is amend-
ed by striking ‘‘$89,550,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$110,000,000’’.
(11) EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS.—Section 219(f)(269) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1268) is amend-
ed by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$75,000,000’’.
(12) WESTERN RURAL WATER.—Section 595 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836;
118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681)
is amended—
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting ‘‘WESTERN RURAL
WATER.’’;
(B) in subsections (b) and (c), by inserting ‘‘Arizona,’’ before ‘‘Idaho’’ each
place it appears; and
(C) in subsection (i), by striking ‘‘for the period beginning with fiscal year
2001, $435,000,000, to remain available until expended.’’ and inserting the
following: ‘‘, to remain available until expended—
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
‘‘(1) for the period beginning with fiscal year 2001, $435,000,000 for Idaho,
Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming; and
‘‘(2) $150,000,000 for Arizona.’’.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
43
(13) CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 571(h) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371; 121 Stat. 1257) is amended by striking
‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’.
(14) SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 340(g) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 110 Stat. 3727; 113 Stat. 320) is amended
by striking ‘‘$40,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$120,000,000’’.
(c) LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.—Section 5032(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–114, 121 Stat. 1205) is amend-
ed by striking ‘‘15’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’.
SEC. 329. PROJECT MODIFICATION AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) WATER SUPPLY.—The following project modifications for water supply, as iden-
tified in the report entitled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Devel-
opment’’ dated February 2019, and submitted to Congress on June 3, 2019, pursu-
ant to section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(33 U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress, are authorized to be carried
out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the recommendations, in-
cluded in such report pursuant to section 301(c) of the Water Supply Act of 1958
(43 U.S.C. 390b(c)):
(1) The project modification for the State of Missouri, Clarence Cannon Dam
and Mark Twain Lake Project Salt River, Missouri.
(2) The project modification for the City of Plattsburg, Smithville Lake, Mis-
souri.
(3) The project modification for the City of Smithville, Smithville Lake, Mis-
souri.
(b) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.—The following project modifications for flood risk
management, as identified in a report entitled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water
Resources Development’’, and submitted to Congress pursuant to section 7001 of the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or other-
wise reviewed by Congress, are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
(1) Modification of the project for flood risk management, lower Mississippi
River, authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534), to in-
corporate the Wolf River Backwater and Nonconnah Creek levee systems into
the project, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688,
49 Stat. 1575; 50 Stat. 881), subject to the determination of the Secretary that
such systems meet all requirements applicable to such project.
(2) Modification of the project for flood risk management, Red River below
Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, authorized by the Act of June
28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1219), to incorporate the Cherokee Park Levee
into the project, subject to the determination of the Secretary that such levee
meets all requirements applicable to such project.
SEC. 330. APPLICATION OF CREDIT.
Section 7007(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1277;
128 Stat. 1226) is amended by inserting ‘‘, or may be applied to reduce the amounts
required to be paid by the non-Federal interest under the terms of the deferred pay-
ment agreements entered into between the Secretary and the non-Federal interest
for the projects authorized by section 7012(a)(1)’’ before the period at the end.
SEC. 331. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) MUDDY RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The separable elements for ecosystem
restoration of the project for flood damage reduction and environmental restora-
tion, Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts, authorized by section
522 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2656), and de-
authorized pursuant to section 6001 of the Water Resources Reform and Devel-
opment Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1345), are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary, subject to subsection (b).
(2) EAST CHESTER CREEK, NEW YORK.—Notwithstanding section 1001 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), the project for navi-
gation, East Chester Creek, New York, authorized by section 101 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164; 100 Stat. 4181), and deauthorized pursu-
ant to section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
579(a)), is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, subject to subsection
(b).
(3) CHRISTIANSTED HARBOR, UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.—Notwithstanding
section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221),
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
the portion of the project for navigation, Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, United
States Virgin Islands, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1950 (64 Stat. 167), and deauthorized under section 1002 of the Water Re-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
44
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), is authorized to be carried
out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).
(4) CHARLOTTE HARBOR, UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.—Notwithstanding
section 1002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221),
the portion of the project for navigation, Charlotte Amalie (St. Thomas) Harbor,
St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, authorized by the Act of August 26,
1937 (chapter 832, 50 Stat. 850), and deauthorized under section 1002 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4221), is authorized to be
carried out by the Secretary, subject to subsection (b).
(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Secretary shall complete and submit to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a post-authorization
change report (as such term is defined in section 1132(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2282e(d)) prior to carrying out a project identi-
fied in subsection (a).
SEC. 332. CONVEYANCES.
(a) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—
(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and the legal
description of any real property to be conveyed under this section shall be deter-
mined 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, includ-
ing 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 activi-
ties carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property con-
veyed. 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 condi-
tions as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate to protect the inter-
ests of the United States.
(b) EUFAULA, ALABAMA.—
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the City of
Eufaula, Alabama, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
the real property described in the Department of the Army Lease No. DACW01–
2–17–0747, containing 56.76 acres, more or less, and being a part of Tracts L–
1268 (26.12 acres), L–1273 (13.71 acres), L–1278 (6.75 acres), and L1279 (10.36
acres) of the Walter F. George Lock and Dam and Lake project.
(2) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(3) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Eufaula, Alabama, shall pay to the Sec-
retary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property
conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
(c) MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA.—
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the City of
Montgomery, Alabama, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and
to the real property described in paragraph (2).
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is the 62.38 acres of land and
water under the primary jurisdiction of the Secretary in the R.E. ‘‘Bob’’ Wood-
ruff Project Area that is covered by lease number DACW01–1–05–0037, includ-
ing the parcels and structure known as ‘‘Powder Magazine’’.
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, to include retaining
the right to inundate with water any land transferred under this subsection.
(4) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Montgomery, Alabama, shall pay to the Sec-
retary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property
conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
(d) OHIO RIVER LOCK AND DAM NUMBER 52, MASSAC COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the Massac-Me-
tropolis Port District, Illinois, all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to any real property located north of the south bank of the Ohio River
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
45
in Massac County, Illinois, that is associated with the Ohio River Lock and
Dam 52.
(2) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(3) CONSIDERATION.—The Massac-Metropolis Port District, Illinois, shall pay
to the Secretary an amount that is not less than fair market value of the prop-
erty conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
(e) CLINTON, MISSOURI.—
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the City of Clin-
ton, Missouri, without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2).
(4) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is a tract of land situated in the
S 1⁄2 of Section 12 and the N 1⁄2 of Section 13, Township 41 North, Range 26
West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Henry County, Missouri, more particu-
larly described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the north
line of said S 1⁄2 of Section 12 and the easterly right-of-way of State Highway
No. 13; thence easterly along the north line of said S 1⁄2 to the northeast corner
of the W 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 of said Section 12; thence southerly along
the east line of said W 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 to the southeast corner thereof;
thence easterly along the north line of the S 1⁄2 NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 of said Section
12 to the southwest corner of the W 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 of said Section
12; thence in a northeasterly direction to the northeast corner of said W 1⁄2 NW
1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4 ; thence easterly along the north line of said S 1⁄2 to the west-
erly right-of-way of the County Road; thence in a southeasterly and southerly
direction along the westerly right-of-way of said County Road approximately
2500 feet to the center of Deer Creek; thence in a southwesterly direction along
the center of said Deer Creek, approximately 3900 feet to the south line of said
N 1⁄2 of Section 13; thence westerly along the south line of said N 1⁄2 to the eas-
terly right-of-way line of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad; thence in a
northwesterly direction along the easterly right-of-way of said railroad to the
easterly right-of-way of said State Highway No. 13; thence in a northeasterly
direction along the easterly right-of-way of said State Highway No. 13 to the
point of the beginning; and including a roadway easement for ingress and
egress, described as a strip of land 80 feet in width, lying 40 feet on each side
of the following described line, the initial extremities of the following described
strip being extended or reduced as required to exactly adjoin the boundary lines
which they meet, situated in the S 1⁄2 of Section 12, Township 41 North Range
26 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Henry County, Missouri, more particu-
larly described as follows: Commencing at the center of said Section 12, thence
Sl°24’56’’W, 1265.52 feet to a point, thence N88°29’02’’W, 483.97 feet to the
point of beginning of the strip of land herein described; thence in a northeast-
erly direction along a curve to the right, said curve having an initial tangent
bearing of N3°44’4l’’E, a radius of 238.73 feet and an interior angle of 61°29’26’’,
an arc distance of 256.21 feet to a point; thence N65°14’07’’E 218.58 feet to a
point; thence in a northeasterly direction along a curve to the left, having a ra-
dius of 674.07 feet and an interior angle of 36°00’01’’, an arc distance of 423.53
feet to a point; thence N29°14’07’’E, 417.87 feet to a point; thence northeasterly
along a curve to the right, having a radius of 818.51 feet and an interior angle
of 14°30’01’’, an arc distance of 207.15 feet to a point; thence N43°44’07’’E, 57.00
feet to the southerly right-of-way line of a county road, containing 2,948 acres,
more or less; Excluding therefrom a tract of land situated in the S 1⁄2 of said
Section 12, said Township and Range, described as commencing at the center
of said Section 12; thence S1°24’56’’W, 1265.52 feet to the point of beginning of
the tract of land herein described; thence N88°29’02″W, 1122.50 feet; thence
S1°43’26″W, 872.62 feet; thence S88°29’02’’E, 1337.36 feet; thence Nl°43’26’’E,
872.62 feet; thence N88°29’02’’W, 214.86 feet to the point of beginning, con-
taining 26.79 acres, more or less. The above described tract contains, in the ag-
gregate, 177.69 acres, more or less.
(2) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(3) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed
under this subsection is not being used for a public purpose, all right, title, and
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
interest in and to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary,
to the United States.
(f) CITY OF CLINTON, OLD ORCHARD ADDITION, MISSOURI.—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
46
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the City of Clin-
ton, Missouri, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
real property described in paragraph (2).
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is Lot 28 in Old Orchard Addi-
tion, a subdivision of the City of Clinton, Henry County, Missouri, containing
0.36 acres, more or less, including any improvements thereon.
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, including such reserva-
tions, terms, and conditions as the Secretary determines necessary to allow the
United States to operate and maintain the Harry S. Truman Reservoir Project.
(4) CONSIDERATION.—The City of Clinton, Missouri, shall pay to the Secretary
an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the property conveyed
under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
(g) TRI-COUNTY LEVEE DISTRICT, MISSOURI.—
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall convey to the Tri-County
Levee District, Missouri, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and
to the real property described in paragraph (2).
(2) PROPERTY.—The property to be conveyed is the part of Sections 1 and 12
Township 45 North Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Montgomery County, Mis-
souri, described as follows: A tract of land being 60’ wide and lying South and
East of and adjoining the centerline of the existing levee and being described
as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of Section 12, thence S 87° 52’ 35’’
E 587.4’, thence S 01° 29’ 25’’ W 453.68’ to the point of the beginning; said point
being in the center of the levee, thence with the centerline of the levee N 77°
01’ 30’’ E 164.92’, thence N 74° 26’ 55’’ E 250.0’, thence N 72° 27’ 55’’ E 270.0’,
thence N 69° 06’ 10’’ E 300.0’, thence N 66° 42’ 15’’ E 500.0’, thence N 64° 14’
30’’ E 270.0’, thence N 61° 09’ 10’’ E 800.0’, thence N 60° 58’ 15’’ E 1724.45’,
thence leaving the centerline S 01° 10’ 35’’ W 69.43’, thence parallel with the
above described centerline S 60° 58’ 15’’ W 1689.62’, thence S 61° 09’ 10’’ W
801.71’, thence S 64° 14’ 30’’ W 272.91’, thence S 66° 42’ 15’’ W 502.55’, thence
S 69° 06’ 10’’ W 303.02’, thence S 72° 27’ 55’’ W 272.8’, thence S 74° 26’ 55’’
W 252.39’, thence S 77° 01’ 30’’ W 181.75’, thence leaving the South side of the
levee N 01° 26’ 25’’ E 61.96’ to the point of beginning and containing 5.89 acres
more or less.
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(4) CONSIDERATION.—The Tri-County Levee District, Missouri, shall pay to
the Secretary an amount that is not less than the fair market value of the prop-
erty conveyed under this subsection, as determined by the Secretary.
(h) JUDGE JOSEPH BARKER, JR., HOUSE, OHIO.—
(1) NON-FEDERAL ENTITY.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘non-Federal entity’’
means the Friends of Joseph Barker, Jr., House, a nonprofit organization in the
State of Ohio.
(2) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (6), the Secretary shall convey to
the non-Federal entity, without consideration, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the property described in paragraph (3)(A).
(B) EASEMENT.—Upon conveyance of the property under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall provide to the non-Federal entity, without consider-
ation, an easement over the property described in paragraph (3)(B) for ac-
cess to the conveyed property for as long as the non-Federal entity is in
legal possession of the conveyed property.
(3) DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPERTY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The property referred to in paragraph (2)(A) is the fol-
lowing (as in existence on the date of enactment of this Act):
(i) JUDGE JOSEPH BARKER, JR., HOUSE.—The tract of land situated in
the State of Ohio, Washington County, on the Ohio River, and being
particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point lo-
cated on the southern right-of-way line of Ohio Route 7, a new corner
to the land now or formerly owned by the United States of America;
thence, leaving the right-of-way of said Route 7 and severing the land
of said United States of America parallel to and approximately 10 feet
easterly of the toe of the existing dredge disposal berm, southeasterly
approximately 326 feet to a point prior to the current Corps of Engi-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
neers access to the dredging spoil area; thence, northeasterly approxi-
mately 480 feet paralleling the top of the slope to the riverbank side
of the house and approximately 25 feet northerly therefrom; thence,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
47
northwest approximately 302 feet to a point in the southern right-of-
way of Ohio Route 7; thence with the right-of-way of said Route 7,
southwesterly approximately 485 feet to the point of beginning, con-
taining approximately 3.51 acres.
(ii) ROAD TRACT.—The tract of land situated in the State of Ohio,
Washington County, on the Ohio River, and being particularly bounded
and described as follows: Beginning at a point located on the southern
right-of-way line of Ohio Route 7, a new corner to the land now or for-
merly owned by the United States of America; thence, leaving the
right-of-way of said Route 7 and severing the land of said United States
of America and with the House Parcel southeasterly 25 feet; thence,
northeast, running parallel to said Route 7 right-of-way, approximately
994 feet to a point of deflection; thence northeasterly 368 feet to a point
beyond the existing fence corner; thence, east 140 feet to the edge of
the existing Willow Island access road; thence with said access road,
northwesterly approximately 62 feet to a point in the southern right-
of-way of Ohio Route 7; thence with the right-of-way of said Route 7,
southwesterly approximately 1,491 feet to the point of beginning, con-
taining approximately 1 acre.
(B) EASEMENT.—The property referred to in paragraph (2)(B) is the fol-
lowing: The tract of land situated in the State of Ohio, Washington County,
on the Ohio River, and being particularly bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point at the intersection of the southern right-of-way of Ohio
Route 7 and the northeast side of the existing Willow Island access road,
a new corner to the land now or formerly owned by the United States of
America; thence, southwest, running with said Route 7 right-of-way, ap-
proximately 30 feet to a point on the southwest side of the existing access
road, and corner to the road tract; thence with said access road and the line
of the road parcel, southeasterly approximately 62 feet to a point; thence
leaving the road parcel and crossing the existing access road northeasterly
approximately 30 feet to a point located on the northeast side of the exist-
ing access road; thence, northwesterly approximately 62 feet, to the point
of beginning, containing approximately 0.04 acre.
(4) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(5) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed
under this subsection is not being used by the non-Federal entity for a public
purpose, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert, at the
discretion of the Secretary, to the United States.
(6) REQUIREMENTS.—
(A) IMPROVEMENTS.—The Secretary shall make such improvements and
alterations to the property described in paragraph (3)(A)(i) as the Secretary,
in consultation with the non-Federal entity and relevant stakeholders, de-
termines to be appropriate to facilitate conveyance of the property and pro-
vision of the easement under this subsection, subject to the condition that
the total cost of those improvements and alterations undertaken by the Sec-
retary shall be not more than $120,000.
(B) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.—Before making a conveyance under
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall—
(i) conduct, with respect to the property to be conveyed, an assess-
ment of the environmental condition of the property, including an in-
vestigation of any potential hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste
present on such property; and
(ii) submit to the non-Federal entity a report describing the results
of such assessment.
(C) REFUSAL BY NON-FEDERAL ENTITY.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—Upon review by the non-Federal entity of the report
under subparagraph (B), the non-Federal entity may elect to refuse the
conveyance under this subsection.
(ii) ELECTION.—An election under clause (i)—
(I) shall be at the sole discretion of the non-Federal entity; and
(II) shall be made by the non-Federal entity by not later than the
date that is 30 days after the date of submission of the report
under subparagraph (B)(ii).
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(D) DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary shall—
(i) notify and coordinate with the non-Federal entity and relevant
stakeholders before carrying out any dredged material placement ac-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
48
tivities associated with the property described in paragraph (3)(A) after
the date on which such property is conveyed under this subsection; and
(ii) in carrying out a dredged material placement activity under
clause (i), act in accordance with Engineer Manual EM 1110–2–5025
(or a subsequent version of that manual).
(7) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.—The Secretary may reserve and retain from any
conveyance under this subsection a right-of-way or any other right that the Sec-
retary determines to be necessary for the operation and maintenance of the au-
thorized Federal channel along the Ohio River.
(8) TREATMENT.—Conveyance to the non-Federal entity under this subsection
of property described in paragraph (3)(A)(i) shall satisfy all obligations of the
Secretary with respect to such property under—
(A) section 306101 of title 54, United States Code; and
(B) section 306108 of title 54, United States Code, with respect to the ef-
fects on the property of dredged material placement activities carried out
by the Secretary after the date of the conveyances.
(9) INAPPLICABILITY.—Subtitle I of title 40, and chapter 4 of title 41, United
States Code shall not apply to any conveyance or easement provided under this
subsection.
(i) LEABURG FISH HATCHERY, LANE COUNTY, OREGON.—
(1) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Subject to the provisions of this subsection,
the Secretary shall convey, without consideration, to the State of Oregon, acting
through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, all right, title, and inter-
est of the United States in and to the real property comprising the Leaburg
Fish Hatchery, consisting of approximately 21.55 acres, identified as tracts Q–
1500, Q–1501E, and 300E–1 and described in Department of the Army Lease
No. DACW57–1–18–0009, together with any improvements on the property.
(2) WATER RIGHTS.—The Secretary may transfer to the State of Oregon, acting
through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, any water rights held by
the United States that are appurtenant to the property conveyed under this
subsection.
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, including a condition
that all of the property conveyed under this subsection be used and maintained
by the State of Oregon for the purpose of operating a fish hatchery in per-
petuity.
(4) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed
under this subsection is not being used or maintained by the State of Oregon
for the purpose of operating a fish hatchery in perpetuity, all or any portion of
the property, including any water rights transferred under this subsection,
shall, at the option of the Secretary, revert to the United States.
(5) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—If the State of Oregon does not accept the conveyance
under this subsection, the Secretary may dispose of the property, including ap-
purtenant water rights, under subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United
States Code.
(j) WILLAMETTE FALLS LOCKS, WILLAMETTE RIVER, OREGON.—
(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(A) REAL ESTATE APPENDIX.—The term ‘‘real estate appendix’’ means Ap-
pendix A of the document published by the District Commander of the Port-
land District of the Corps of Engineers, titled ‘‘Willamette Falls Locks Wil-
lamette River Oregon Section 216 Disposition Study with Integrated Envi-
ronmental Assessment’’.
(B) RECEIVING ENTITY.—The term ‘‘receiving entity’’ means an entity
identified by the State of Oregon, in consultation with the Willamette Falls
Locks Commission, to receive the conveyance under paragraph (2).
(C) WILLAMETTE FALLS LOCKS PROJECT.—The term ‘‘Willamette Falls
Locks project’’ means the project for navigation, Willamette Falls Locks,
Willamette River, Oregon, authorized by the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat.
664, chapter 382).
(D) WILLAMETTE FALLS LOCKS REPORT.—The term ‘‘Willamette Falls
Locks report’’ means the memorandum of the Director of Civil Works with
the subject ‘‘Willamette Falls Locks (WFL), Willamette River Oregon Sec-
tion 216 Disposition Study with Integrated Environmental Assessment
(Study)’’, dated July 11, 2019.
(2) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary is authorized to convey to the
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
receiving entity, without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to any land in which the Federal Government has a prop-
erty interest for the Willamette Falls Locks project, together with any improve-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
49
ments on the land, subject to the requirements of this subsection and in accord-
ance with the Willamette Falls Locks report.
(3) DEED.—The Secretary shall convey the property under this subsection by
quitclaim deed under such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(4) SUBJECT TO EXISTING EASEMENTS AND OTHER INTERESTS.—The conveyance
of property under paragraph (2) shall be subject to all existing deed reserva-
tions, easements, rights-of-way, and leases that are in effect as of the date of
the conveyance.
(5) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed
under this subsection cease to be held in public ownership, all right, title, and
interest in and to the property shall revert, at the discretion of the Secretary,
to the United States.
(6) REQUIREMENTS BEFORE CONVEYANCE.—
(A) PERPETUAL ROAD EASEMENT.—Before making the conveyance under
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall acquire a perpetual road easement from
an adjacent property owner for use of an access road, which easement shall
convey with the property conveyed under such paragraph.
(B) ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.—Before making the conveyance under
paragraph (2), in accordance with the real estate appendix, the Secretary
shall complete a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
(C) HISTORIC PRESERVATION.—The Secretary may enter into a memo-
randum of agreement with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation that identifies actions
the Secretary shall take before making the conveyance under paragraph (2).
(D) REPAIRS.—Before making the conveyance under paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall carry out repairs to address primary seismic and safety
risks in accordance with the recommendations approved in the Willamette
Falls Locks report.
(7) DEAUTHORIZATION.—Beginning on the date on which the Secretary makes
the conveyance under paragraph (2), the Willamette Falls Locks project is no
longer authorized.
SEC. 333. REPEALS.
(a) Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a)
is amended—
(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph
(3) as paragraph (2); and
(2) by striking subsection (c).
(b) Section 6003 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 579c) (and the item relating to such section in the table of contents) are re-
pealed.
(c) Section 1301 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 579d)
(and the item relating to such section in the table of contents) are repealed.
(d) Section 1302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C.
579c–1) (and the item relating to such section in the table of contents) are repealed.
(e) Section 1301 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C.
579d–1) (and the item relating to such section in the table of contents) are repealed.
(f) Section 1302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (33 U.S.C. 579c–
2) (and the item relating to such section in the table of contents) are repealed.
TITLE IV—WATER RESOURCES
INFRASTRUCTURE
SEC. 401. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
The following projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes, as identified in the reports titled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future
Water Resources Development’’ submitted to Congress pursuant to section 7001 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) or oth-
erwise reviewed by Congress, are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary sub-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
stantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in
the respective reports or decision documents designated in this section:
(1) NAVIGATION.—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
50
C.
Date of D.
B.
A. State Report of Estimated
Name Chief of Engi- Costs
neers
1. AK Port of Nome Modifica- May 29, 2020 Federal: $368,173,000
tions Non-Federal: $122,746,000
Total: $490,919,000
2. AK Unalaska (Dutch Har- February 7, Federal: $26,202,750
bor) Channels 2020 Non-Federal: $8,734,250
Total: $34,937,000
3. CT New Haven Harbor May 7, 2020 Federal: $53,489,000
Navigation Improve- Non-Federal: $18,822,000
ment Project Total: $72,311,000
4. NY, New York and New April 23, 2020 Federal: $18,940,000
NJ Jersey Harbor An- Non-Federal: $6,310,000
chorages Total: $25,250,000
5. TX Gulf Intracoastal Wa- October 23, Total: $409,777,000, to be derived 1⁄2
terway, Brazos River 2019 from the general fund of the Treas-
Floodgates and Colo- ury and 1⁄2 from the Inland Water-
rado River Locks ways Trust Fund.
6. TX Houston Ship Channel April 23, 2020 Federal: $462,803,000
Expansion Channel Non-Federal: $414,045,000
Improvement Project, Total: $876,848,000
Harris, Chambers,
and Galveston Coun-
ties
7. TX Matagorda Ship Chan- November 15, Federal: $138,660,000
nel Improvement 2019 Non-Federal: $79,664,000
Project, Port Lavaca Total: $218,324,000
(2) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.—
C.
Date of D.
B.
A. State Report of Estimated
Name Chief of Engi- Costs
neers
1. AZ Little Colorado River at December 14, Federal: $52,462,000
Winslow, Navajo 2018 Non-Federal: $28,249,000
County Total: $80,711,000
2. CA Westminster, East Gar- July 9, 2020 Federal: $314,506,000
den Grove, California Non-Federal: $910,092,000
Flood Risk Manage- Total: $1,224,598,000
ment
3. CT, Westchester County May 7, 2020 Federal: $14,702,500
NY Streams, Byram Non-Federal: $14,702,500
River Basin, Fairfield Total: $29,405,000
County, Connecticut,
and Westchester
County, New York
4. ND Souris River Basin April 16, 2019 Federal: $58,041,750
Flood Risk Manage- Non-Federal: $31,253,250
ment Total: $89,295,000
5. NJ Peckman River Basin April 29, 2020 Federal: $95,022,000
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Non-Federal: $51,166,000
Total: $146,188,000
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
51
C.
Date of D.
B.
A. State Report of Estimated
Name Chief of Engi- Costs
neers
6. NM Middle Rio Grande March 13, 2020 Federal: $190,538,000
Flood Protection, Non-Federal: $102,598,000
Bernalillo to Belen Total: $293,136,000
7. OK Tulsa and West-Tulsa April 23, 2020 Federal: $86,780,000
Levee System, Tulsa Non-Federal: $46,728,000
County Total: $133,508,000
(3) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.—
C.
Date of D.
B.
A. State Report of Estimated
Name Chief of Costs
Engineers
1. DE Delaware Beneficial March 6, 2020 Initial Federal: $53,220,000
Use of Dredged Ma- Initial Non-Federal: $28,660,000
terial for the Dela- Total: $81,880,000
ware River Renourishment Federal: $116,380,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$116,380,000
Renourishment Total: $232,760,000
2. NJ New Jersey Beneficial April 8, 2020 Initial Federal: $80,780,000
Use of Dredged Ma- Initial Non-Federal: $43,500,000
terial for the Dela- Total: $124,280,000
ware River Renourishment Federal: $82,140,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$82,140,000
Renourishment Total: $164,280,000
3. NJ Rahway River Basin, June 9, 2020 Federal: $46,754,000
New Jersey Coastal Non-Federal: $25,175,000
Storm Risk Manage- Total: $71,929,000
ment
4. NY East Rockaway Inlet to August 22, 2019 Initial Federal: $604,203,000
Rockaway Inlet and Initial Non-Federal: $0
Jamaica Bay, Atlan- Total: $604,203,000
tic Coast of New Renourishment Federal: $189,763,000
York Renourishment Non-Federal:
$189,763,000
Renourishment Total: $379,526,000
5. NY Hashamomuck Cove December 9, Initial Federal: $11,549,000
Coastal Storm Risk 2019 Initial Non-Federal: $6,218,000
Management Total: $17,767,000
Renourishment Federal: $23,481,500
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$23,481,500
Renourishment Total: $46,963,000
6. RI Pawcatuck River Coast- December 19, Federal: $37,848,000
al Storm Risk Man- 2018 Non-Federal: $20,379,000
agement Project Total: $58,227,000
7. VA Norfolk Coastal Storm February 5, Federal: $909,040,000
Risk Management 2019 Non-Federal: $489,480,000
Total: $1,398,520,000
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(4) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
52
C.
Date of D.
B.
A. State Report of Estimated
Name Chief of Engi- Costs
neers
1. CO South Platte River and July 29, 2019 Federal: $334,412,000
Tributaries, Adams Non-Federal: $200,406,000
and Denver Counties Total: $534,818,000
2. NY Fire Island Inlet to July 9, 2020 Initial Federal: $1,541,981,000
Montauk Point, New Initial Non-Federal: $0
York Reformulation Total: $1,541,981,000
Renourishment Federal: $742,926,500
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$742,926,500
Renourishment Total: $1,485,853,000
(5) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—
C.
Date of D.
B.
A. State Report of Estimated
Name Chief of Engi- Costs
neers
1. CA Delta Islands and Lev- December 18, Federal: $16,746,395
ees 2018 Non-Federal: $9,016,736
Total: $25,763,131
2. CA Yuba River Ecosystem June 20, 2019 Federal: $65,014,326
Restoration Non-Federal: $35,008,268
Total: $100,022,594
3. FL Comprehensive Ever- April 8, 2020 Federal: $372,232,000
glades Restoration Non-Federal: $368,528,000
Plan, Loxahatchee Total: $740,760,000
River Watershed Res-
toration Project, Mar-
tin and Palm Beach
Counties
4. IL The Great Lakes and May 23, 2019 Federal: $690,643,200
Mississippi River Non-Federal: $172,660,800
Interbasin Study - Total: $863,304,000
Brandon Road, Will
County
5. IL South Fork of the July 9, 2020 Federal: $11,657,000
South Branch of the Non-Federal: $6,277,000
Chicago River, Bub- Total: $17,934,000
bly Creek, Ecosystem
Restoration
6. MD Anacostia Watershed December 19, Federal: $23,171,000
Restoration, Prince 2018 Non-Federal: $12,476,000
George’s County Total: $35,647,000
7. MO St. Louis Riverfront- November 1, Federal: $60,124,000
Meramec River Basin 2019 Non-Federal: $32,375,000
Ecosystem Restora- Total: $92,499,000
tion
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
53
C.
Date of D.
B.
A. State Report of Estimated
Name Chief of Engi- Costs
neers
8. NM Rio Grande, Environ- August 5, 2019 Federal: $16,163,000
mental Management Non-Federal: $8,703,000
Program, Sandia Total: $24,866,000
Pueblo to Isleta
Pueblo, New Mexico
Ecosystem Restora-
tion
9. NY, Hudson-Raritan Estu- May 26, 2020 Federal: $265,320,000
NJ ary Ecosystem Res- Non-Federal: $142,864,000
toration Total: $408,184,000
10. TX Jefferson County Eco- September 12, Federal: $37,615,000
system Restoration 2019 Non-Federal: $20,254,000
Total: $57,869,000
(6) WATER SUPPLY.—
C.
Date of D.
B.
A. State Report of Estimated
Name Chief of Engi- Costs
neers
1. OR Willamette River Basin December 18, Federal: $0
Review Reallocation, 2019 Non-Federal: $0
Total: $0
(7) MODIFICATIONS AND OTHER PROJECTS.—
C. D.
B. Date of
A. State Estimated
Name Decision Costs
Document
1. KY Kentucky Lock June 9, 2020 Total: $1,152,769,000 (to be derived
1⁄2 from the general fund of the
Treasury and 1⁄2 from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund)
2. NC Carolina Beach Inte- June 16, 2020 Federal: $24,205,000
grated Beach Re- Non-Federal: $24,205,000
nourishment Total: $48,410,000
3. NC Wrightsville Beach July 2, 2020 Federal: $53,788,000
Non-Federal: $22,329,000
Total: $76,117,000
Renourishment Federal: $14,553,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$14,553,000
Renourishment Total: $29,106,000
4. TX Corpus Christi Ship May 4, 2020 Federal: $403,000,000
Channel, Deepening Non-Federal: $273,010,000
and Widening and Total: $676,010,000
Barge Shelves
SEC. 402. SPECIAL RULES.
(a) GREAT LAKES AND MISSISSIPPI RIVER INTERBASIN PROJECT, BRANDON ROAD,
WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—The Secretary shall carry out the project for ecosystem
restoration, Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin project, Brandon Road,
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Will County, Illinois, authorized by section 401 of this Act, substantially in accord-
ance with the terms and conditions described in the Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers, dated May 23, 2019, with the following modifications:
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
54
(1) The Federal share of the cost of construction shall be 80 percent.
(2) The Secretary may include the addition or substitution of technologies or
measures not described in the report, as the Secretary determines to be advis-
able.
(b) WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW REALLOCATION STUDY.—The Secretary shall
carry out the project for water supply, Willamette River Basin Review Reallocation,
Oregon, authorized by section 401 of this Act, substantially in accordance with the
terms and conditions described in the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated De-
cember 18, 2019, with the following modifications:
(1) The Secretary shall meet the obligations of the Corps of Engineers under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by complying with the June 2019 NMFS
Willamette Basin Review Study Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Al-
ternative until such time, if any, as it is modified or replaced, in whole or in
part, through the consultation process under section 7(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.
(2) The Secretary may reallocate not more than 10 percent of overall storage
in the joint conservation pool, as authorized by this Act and without further
congressional action, if such reallocation is consistent with the ongoing con-
sultation under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 related to
Willamette Valley System operations.
(3) The Secretary shall ensure that the revised reallocation is not reallocated
from a single storage use, does not seriously affect authorized project purposes,
and does not otherwise involve major operational changes to the project.
(c) CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.—Section 5127 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1242) is amended by striking
‘‘$150,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$232,430,000’’.
SEC. 403. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS BASED ON FEASIBILITY STUDIES PREPARED BY
NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out the following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other purposes, subject to
subsection (b):
(1) FORT PIERCE, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida, as described in
the review assessment of the Secretary, titled ‘‘Review Assessment of St. Lucie
County, Florida Fort Pierce Shore Protection Project Section 203 Integrated
Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment (June 2018)’’ and dated July
2018, at a total cost of $33,107,639, and at an estimated total cost of
$97,958,972 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project.
(2) BAPTISTE COLLETTE BAYOU, LOUISIANA.—The project for navigation,
Baptiste Collette Bayou, Louisiana, as described in the review assessment of
the Secretary, titled ‘‘Review Assessment of Plaquemines Parish Government’s
Section 203 Study Baptiste Collette Bayou Navigation Channel Deepening
Project Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment (January
2017, Amended April 2018)’’ and dated June 2018, at a total cost of $44,920,000.
(3) HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LOUISIANA.—The project for navigation,
Houma Navigation Canal, Louisiana, as described in the review assessment of
the Secretary, titled ‘‘Review Assessment of Houma Navigation Canal Deep-
ening Project Section 203 Integrated Feasibility Report and DRAFT Environ-
mental Impact Statement (June 2018)’’ and dated July 2018, at a total cost of
$253,458,000.
(4) CHACON CREEK, TEXAS.—The project for flood risk management, ecosystem
restoration, and other purposes, Chacon Creek, Texas, as described in the re-
view assessment of the Secretary, titled ‘‘Review Assessment of Chacon Creek,
Texas Section 203 Integrated Feasibility Report and DRAFT Environmental As-
sessment (August 2018)’’ and dated September 2018, at a total cost of
$51,973,000.
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary may only carry out a project authorized under
subsection (a)—
(1) substantially in accordance with the applicable review assessment for the
project submitted by the Secretary under section 203(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, as identified in subsection (a) of this section, and sub-
ject to such modifications or conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate
and identifies in a final assessment that addresses the concerns, recommenda-
tions, and conditions identified by the Secretary in the applicable review assess-
ment; and
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(2) after the Secretary transmits to the Committee on Transportation and In-
frastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate such final assessment.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
55
(c) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 203(c)(1) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231(c)(1)) is amended, in the matter preceding sub-
paragraph (A), by striking ‘‘a report’’ and inserting ‘‘an assessment’’.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 7575, the Water Resources Development Act
of 2020, as amended, is to authorize the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) to carry out water resources development ac-
tivities for the Nation, usually through cost-shared partnerships
with non-Federal sponsors. Activities include projects or studies to
address river and coastal navigation, the reduction of flood and
hurricane storm damage risks, shoreline protection, water supply
and conservation, the restoration and protection of ecosystems and
the environment, and disaster response and recovery.
H.R. 7575, as amended, enhances the Corps’ responsibility to ad-
dress the long-term resiliency of Corps projects, enables the Corps
to address the deferred maintenance of our Nation’s ports and har-
bors, expands the Corps’ ability to identify and implement nature-
based and natural infrastructure components, addresses the afford-
ability of Corps projects for economically disadvantaged and rural
communities, and modernizes aspects of the Corps’ decision-making
structure.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
America enjoys an unparalleled network of natural harbors and
rivers. The ports, channels, locks, dams, and other infrastructure
that support our maritime and waterways transportation system
and provide flood protection for our homes and businesses are vi-
tally important to a healthy national economy, job growth, and
global competitiveness. Ensuring a sound infrastructure network is
a shared responsibility, with Federal and state roles recognized by
our Founding Fathers.
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2020 promotes
the Federal commitment to our Nation’s competitiveness, pros-
perity, and economic growth by maintaining strong maritime trans-
portation infrastructure, ensuring the efficient flow of domestic and
international commerce, and protecting the lives and livelihoods of
the American people in a sustainable manner.
Through WRDA, Congress authorizes the key missions of the
Corps, including developing, maintaining, and supporting the Na-
tion’s economically vital waterway infrastructure and supporting
effective and targeted flood protection and environmental restora-
tion needs. WRDA also provides Congress the opportunity to imple-
ment critical policy reforms and strengthen oversight.
Since 2014, the Committee has returned to regular consideration
of Water Resources Development Acts once each Congress. WRDA
2020 continues the WRDA two-year cycle that provides appropriate
oversight of, and policy direction to, the Administration and the
Corps, including bipartisan changes to how the Corps carries out
vital coastal and inland navigation projects and addresses both the
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
resiliency and affordability of future water resources development
projects.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
56
The Role of Harbors, Harbor Maintenance Needs, and the Inland
Waterways System
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), ocean-
going vessels carry more merchandise trade (measured in tons) to
and from the United States than all other modes combined (air,
trucks, rail, and pipeline).1 This accounts for 80 percent of the total
merchandise trade volume for the country. The dependence of trade
on ports and shipping channels makes the operation and mainte-
nance of these facilities crucial to the U.S. economy.
Congress provided the Corps with authority to construct and
maintain the Nation’s approximately 1,067 Federal harbors and
shipping channels. These ports and harbors are categorized as high
use, moderate, and emerging, and defined by statute (section 210
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; 33 U.S.C. 2238)
based on how much tonnage is transited through individual ports.
According to the Corps, navigation channels at our Nation’s 59
‘‘high use’’ ports are at their authorized depths less than 35 percent
of the time. A ‘‘high use’’ port is a port that handles more than 10
million tons of freight per year. The conditions of midsize or ‘‘mod-
erate’’ harbors (ports that handle between one million and ten mil-
lion tons of cargo) and ‘‘emerging’’ harbors (ports that handle one
million tons or less of cargo annually) are far worse. The dredging
needs of our ports will only continue to grow unless more resources
are devoted to maintenance dredging needs. The opening of the ex-
panded Panama Canal in June 2016 has already increased demand
for larger container ships to call on East and Gulf Coast ports.
In 2016, the Corps estimated the total cost to dredge and main-
tain authorized widths and depths of all Federal navigation
projects is $20.5 billion over the next decade. This estimate in-
cludes:
• $11.5 billion—to achieve authorized dimensions in the next
five years ($2.3 billion annually); and
• $9.0 billion—to maintain authorized dimensions for an ad-
ditional five years ($1.8 billion annually).
Moreover, total navigation needs are likely higher. The Corps’
$20.5 billion estimate includes additional expenses related to navi-
gation (e.g., construction of dredged material placement facilities).
However, this estimate does not likely include all necessary jetty
and breakwater work,2 or other needs identified by ports to main-
tain and expand harbor use nationwide.
The Harbor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund
In 1986, Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT)
to recover the operation and maintenance dredging costs for com-
mercial ports from maritime shippers. The HMT is directly levied
on importers and domestic shippers using coastal or inland ports
as a 0.125 percent ad valorem tax on the value of imported cargo
(i.e., $1.25 per $1,000 value) 3 and is typically passed along to U.S.
1 See CRS Report R43222, ‘‘Harbor Maintenance Finance and Funding,’’ John Frittelli, Sep-
tember 12, 2013.
2 See Testimony of Kristin Meira, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Waterways Associa-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
tion (PNWA) before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Hearing on ‘‘The Cost
of Doing Nothing: Why Investing in our Nation’s Infrastructure Cannot Wait,’’ February 7, 2019.
3 The Harbor Maintenance Tax initially applied to both imported and exported goods; however,
in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that imposition of the tax on exported goods
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
57
taxpayers on the purchase of imported goods or services. These rev-
enues are deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(HMTF) within the U.S. Treasury, from which Congress currently
appropriates funds to the Corps for harbor maintenance dredging.
As noted in Table 1, the HMTF has collected far more revenues
from shippers than Congress has appropriated to the Corps to
maintain our Nation’s harbors. Approximately $10 billion in al-
ready collected revenues sits unused for its intended purpose in the
U.S. Treasury, and according to Congressional Budget Office esti-
mates, based on current expenditure projections, the Trust Fund
balance could almost double in the next decade. As a result, while
shippers continue to pay into the HMTF for promised maintenance
activities, the Federal government has not carried out many of
them.
TABLE 1.—COLLECTIONS TO AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND (IN
BILLIONS)—FISCAL YEARS 2016–2021 4
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
HMT Collections 5 .......................................... $1.38 $1.47 $1.65 $1.76 $1.82 $1.91 (est.)
HMT Appropriations 6 .................................... 1.16 1.23 1.34 1.49 1.63 – – –
Est. EOY Balance in the HMTF .................... 8.78 9.10 9.33 9.30 10.10 – – –
The funds sitting unused in the HMTF would be sufficient to
meet the maintenance dredging needs of all Federally authorized
ports. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(WRRDA 14) (P.L. 113–121) created discretionary appropriations
targets for expenditures from the Trust Fund, increasing each year,
so that by fiscal year 2025 and beyond, 100 percent of the funds
collected for harbor maintenance purposes would go towards re-
quired operation and maintenance activities. In recent fiscal years,
appropriations from the Trust Fund have exceeded the discre-
tionary targets outlined in WRRDA 14; however, Congress has not
yet achieved the goal of full utilization of Trust Fund collections.
The Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has approved legislation
to fully utilize HMT collections for their intended purpose of main-
tenance dredging four times7—the most recent of which (H.R. 2440,
the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act)
was approved by the House under suspension of the rules by a vote
of 296 to 109 (roll call 585) on October, 28, 2019. Similarly, on
March 27, 2020, Congress approved H.R. 748, the CARES Act (Pub.
L. 116–136), which included a provision (section 14003 of division
B) that ensures that Federal appropriations from the Trust Fund
was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. See United States v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360
(1998).
4 Levels obtained from Budget Message of the President, Appendixes (fiscal years 2016–2021).
5 HMT Collections reflects the 0.125% HMT and the HMTF’s earnings on investments.
6 HMT Appropriations reflects the amounts appropriated for the operations and maintenance
costs of U.S. commercial navigation harbors and the amounts appropriated for the operations
and maintenance costs of the Saint Lawrence Seaway that are operated and maintained by the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Corporation. The number does not include any HMT appropriations for
activities on Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries projects or construction related activities cur-
rently eligible from the HMT (e.g. construction of dredged material disposal facilities that are
necessary for the operation and maintenance of any harbor or inland harbor).
7 Section 108 of H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (As Reported to the
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
House, 114th Congress), Section 102 of H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018
(As Reported to the House, 115th Congress), H.R. 2440, the Full Utilization of the Harbor Main-
tenance Trust Fund Act (116th Congress), and Section 101 of H.R. 7575, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2020 (116th Congress).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
58
are not counted against the annual discretionary budget cap up to
the level of the prior year’s deposits to the Trust Fund. However,
legislation to provide full access to the $10 billion currently sitting
idle in the Trust Fund has yet to be enacted into law. Enactment
of such a provision honors our Nation’s long-term commitment to
U.S. shippers and taxpayers for harbor maintenance dredging,
maintains and improves the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and
industry, and creates and sustains thousands of additional con-
struction jobs and jobs dependent on a vibrant and efficient marine
transportation system.
The Inland Waterways System
Inland waterways are a significant component of the Nation’s
maritime transportation system. These waterways carry approxi-
mately one-sixth of the national volume of intercity cargo on 25,000
miles of navigable waters throughout the United States. Of these
waters, approximately 12,000 miles make up the commercially ac-
tive inland and intracoastal waterways which are Federally man-
aged by the Corps.
The Federally managed inland waterway system is comprised of
237 lock chambers at 191 sites and is responsible for ports and wa-
terways in 41 states. The inland waterway system handles approxi-
mately half of all inland waterway freight (and one-twelfth of all
national freight). The Corps plans, develops, operates, and main-
tains the infrastructure of these commercial waterways (e.g., navi-
gation channels, harbors, and locks and dams), and maintains and
regulates the channel depths through dredging and water manage-
ment.
Beyond enabling commercial transportation, the inland water-
ways system may aid in flood control, provide a stable water supply
for nearby communities and industries, at some locations generate
hydropower, offer water recreation, provide for regional economic
development opportunities, and enhance national security capabili-
ties. These waterways are often in ecologically significant areas
and important to the survival of fish and wildlife, including several
listed species.
The Inland Waterways Trust Fund
The inland waterway system is facing significant challenges due
to aging infrastructure. Over half of the structures on the inland
waterways are more than 50 years old and nearly 40 percent are
more than 70 years old. Many of these projects are approaching the
end of their design lives and are in need of modernization or major
rehabilitation. Congress created the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
(IWTF) as a funding mechanism to invest in the construction, oper-
ation, and maintenance of the inland system.
The IWTF was authorized by two separate acts of Congress. The
original authorization was contained in the Inland Waterways Rev-
enue Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–502) (the 1978 Revenue Act).
Under the 1978 Revenue Act, Congress created the IWTF within
the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of supporting the construction
and rehabilitation of structures for navigation on the inland and
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
coastal waterways of the United States. Congress funded the IWTF
with a tax on fuel used in commercial transportation on inland wa-
terways and statutorily defined 26 specific segments of the inland
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
59
and intracoastal waterways as being subject to the tax and being
eligible for construction and rehabilitation expenditures from the
IWTF.
The second piece of enabling legislation was the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662) (WRDA 1986). This
legislation reset the IWTF by a graduated increase in the inland
waterways commercial fuel tax rates, that was statutorily capped
at the current $0.20 per gallon tax; 8 added the Tennessee-
Tombigbee Waterway to the list of fuel-taxed inland and intra-
coastal waterways (now totaling 27 segments); implemented the
current funding and cost-share allocations; and authorized the con-
struction of eight new inland waterways system modernization
projects. Previously authorized projects and uncompleted projects
were allowed to continue at 100 percent Federal funding without
drawing from the IWTF.
As noted in Table 2, appropriations from the IWTF have nearly
matched estimated annual revenues into the IWTF since the in-
crease in diesel tax in 2015. Additionally, as annual revenues de-
posited into the IWTF continue to increase, the Corps has begun
to complete long-standing IWTF-supported projects, including
Olmsted Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, and LaGrange Lock
and Dam on the Illinois River.
TABLE 2.—COLLECTIONS TO AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND (IN
MILLIONS)—FY 2016–2021 9
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021
IWTF Collections ........................................... $111.1 $114.4 $116.8 $121.2 $114.0 $112.0 (est.)
IWTF Appropriations ...................................... 108.0 108.4 112.0 110.7 131.1 – – –
Est. Balance in the IWTF ............................. 57.4 63.4 40.4 33.3 55.0 – – –
In August 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a
report titled ‘‘Importance of Inland Waterways to U.S. Agri-
culture.’’ 10 The report analyzed three investment scenarios for in-
land waterways infrastructure and found that significant addi-
tional investment in the Nation’s inland waterways system is crit-
ical to maintaining the Nation’s global agricultural competitive-
ness.11 And while our inland waterway system moves many other
bulk commodities and raw materials at relatively low cost, WRDA
2020 includes a cost-share change that is intended to aid the con-
struction and rehabilitation of inland waterway projects.
Water Resources Project Resiliency Planning and Investment, Im-
provements to Flood Risk Reduction, and Affordability Chal-
lenges
Most of the Corps’ facilities and infrastructure were constructed
in the early to mid-1900s. For example, approximately 95 percent
of the dams managed by the Corps are more than 30 years old, and
8 The initial $0.20 per gallon diesel tax was increased to $0.29 per gallon by Pub. L. 113–295,
Division B, Title II, Section 205(a). However, unlike the ad valorem tax on imports that funds
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the fuel tax that funds the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
is not adjusted to reflect increases in inflation.
9 Levels obtained from Inland Waterways Users Board Annual Reports and Budget Message
of the President, Appendixes (fiscal years 2016–2021).
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
10 U.S. Department of Agriculture, ‘‘Importance of Inland Waterways to U.S. Agriculture.’’
August 2019. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/ImportanceofInlandWater
waystoUSAgricultureFullReport.pdf
11 Id.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
60
half have reached or exceeded their 50-year project lives. As noted
in witness testimonies before the Committee,12 much of our water
resources related infrastructure is reaching the end of its usable
life and has not been maintained or updated to address the water
resources challenges facing our communities today. Similarly, in
many areas of the country, there is no comprehensive management
of the inter-related systems of dams, levees, and other structures
that protect residents and their economy within a watershed—com-
plexity that can be compounded by observed changes in the fre-
quency and severity of weather events, precipitation patterns, and
drought.
The Corps’ ability to manage its portfolio of aging infrastructure
is coupled with the need to balance multiple authorized purposes
and increased demands on the infrastructure. The Corps’ infra-
structure faces challenges in the frequency in which extreme
weather events are occurring. As noted in witness testimony before
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, ‘‘resil-
iency is not a rigid, monolithic set of standards that can be easily
applied to every situation and every place.’’ 13 How the Corps fac-
tors the frequency of extreme weather events and the role of resil-
iency in the planning, design, construction, and operation and
maintenance of its facilities is crucial both to the long term sus-
tainability of the infrastructure and the communities they protect,
as well as the Corps’ ongoing responsibility to meet the authorized
purposes of Corps projects.
The Committee also received testimony in the challenges facing
economically disadvantaged communities, rural communities, and
tribal communities in addressing local water resources challenges.
For example, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environ-
ment heard from a witness, who expressed concern that ‘‘[con-
tinuing] reliance primarily on economic justification of projects
makes it difficult for those in rural and low-income areas to justify
projects that would give them considerable social and conceivably
health benefits.’’ 14 In response to these identified concerns, WRDA
2020 includes several provisions aimed at addressing the resiliency,
affordability, and process for evaluating future water resources de-
velopment projects.
Implementation of the Principles, Requirements and Guide-
lines
Since 1983, Federal water resources agencies, including the
Corps, have utilized a set of multi-agency guidelines that govern
how Federal agencies plan for, evaluate, and select proposed water
12 See e.g. Testimony of Gerald E. Galloway, PE, PhD, Acting Director, Center for Disaster
Resilience, A. James Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland; testimony of Ann C.
Phillips, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Special Assistant to the Governor of Virginia for
Coastal Adaptation and Protection; and testimony of Melissa Samet, Senior Water Resources
Counsel, National Wildlife Federation before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture, Hearing on ‘‘Concepts for the Next Water Resources Development Act: Promoting Resil-
iency of our Nation’s Water Resources Infrastructure,’’ November 19, 2019.
13 See Testimony of Julie A. Ufner, President, National Waterways Conference, Inc. before the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Hearing on ‘‘Concepts for the Next Water Re-
sources Development Act: Promoting Resiliency of our Nation’s Water Resources Infrastructure,’’
November 19, 2019.
14 See Testimony of Gerald E. Galloway, PE, PhD, Acting Director, Center for Disaster Resil-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
ience, A. James Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland before the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Hearing on ‘‘Concepts for the Next Water Resources Develop-
ment Act: Promoting Resiliency of our Nation’s Water Resources Infrastructure,’’ November 19,
2019.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
61
resources development projects, including projects related to navi-
gation, storm resilience, wetland restoration, and flood prevention.
However, the standards established and used since 1983 (Prin-
ciples and Guidelines) use a narrow set of parameters to evaluate
the benefits of water investments that limit the ability of Federal
agencies to support a broader range of projects for communities.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 called for revi-
sions to the 1983 Principles and Guidelines.15 In 2013, the Council
for Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued these revisions, now called
the Principles, Requirements and Guidelines for Water and Land
Related Resources Implementation Studies (PR&G). The PR&G re-
vise and replace the 1983 Principles and Guidelines and were in-
tended to apply to all Federal water resources agencies to establish
new, comprehensive policy and guidance for Federal investments in
water resources. However, while other Federal agencies have since
adopted the PR&G, the Corps has not yet adopted these revisions.
WRDA 2020 includes language directing the Secretary to issue
agency-specific procedures for adoption of the PR&G. The Corps’
adoption and implementation of the PR&G will increase consist-
ency and compatibility in water resources investment decision
making. The PR&G updates how the Corps analyzes Federal in-
vestments that impact water resources and allows the Corps to
more broadly consider the economic, environmental, and social im-
pacts of a project. Adoption of the PR&G will also promote better
investment of taxpayer dollars by directing the Corps to analyze a
broader range of long-term costs and benefits, will give stake-
holders a greater voice through enhanced collaboration, and will
allow for utilization of resilient approaches to address local water
resources challenges posed by observed changes in the frequency
and severity of weather events, precipitation patterns, and drought.
Affordability of Corps Studies and Projects
During the formulation of WRDA 2020, the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment held several hearings and
roundtables to hear from stakeholders on challenges facing the de-
velopment and implementation of water resources development
projects. A recurring theme during these hearings and roundtables
was concern on the inequitable treatment of communities in ad-
dressing local water resources challenges based on their ability or
economic capability to partner with the Corps. For example, in the
Subcommittee’s November 2019 hearing, a witness highlighted in
his testimony the ‘‘inequitable treatment in providing flood risk re-
duction to low-income communities,’’ which he described as ‘‘most
obvious in low-income areas across the nation and results from the
criteria we use to develop and approve projects and programs.’’ 16
In response, WRDA 2020 contains several provisions that aim at
both increasing the ability of economically disadvantaged commu-
nities, rural communities, and minority and tribal communities to
utilize the Corps in addressing local water resources development
challenges, as well as to ensure that these communities are ac-
15 Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1962–3).
16 See Testimony of Gerald E. Galloway, PE, PhD, Acting Director, Center for Disaster Resil-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
ience, A. James Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland before the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Hearing on ‘‘Concepts for the Next Water Resources Develop-
ment Act: Promoting Resiliency of our Nation’s Water Resources Infrastructure,’’ November 19,
2019.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
62
tively included in discussions related to addressing water resources
development projects and activities that affect them. In this regard,
WRDA 2020 includes:
• A pilot program to evaluate opportunities to address the
flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk
reduction needs, including the needs of economically disadvan-
taged communities.
• Authority that allows the Corps to engage in pre-feasibility
study discussions with non-Federal interests for projects bene-
fitting an economically disadvantaged community.
• Prioritization of existing flood plain management services
authorities under section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960
for economically disadvantaged communities.
Improvements to Flood Risk Reduction
During the formulation of WRDA 2020, the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment held several hearings and
roundtables to hear from stakeholders on challenges facing the de-
velopment and implementation of water resources development
projects. Another recurring theme during these hearings and
roundtables was concern on the repeated flooding impacts on com-
munities and the inadequate maintenance of our Nation’s flood risk
management infrastructure. For example, in the Subcommittee’s
July 2019 hearing, a witness highlighted in his testimony the dev-
astating impacts of the 2019 Missouri River Floods and reminded
that flooding does not discriminate and touches every part of our
Nation.17
To that end, WRDA 2020 includes important river basin-wide
comprehensive flood risk reduction studies for the Lower Missouri
River, Upper and Lower Mississippi River, the Great Lakes, and
the Yolo River. Additionally, this Act provides new authority for
permanent construction solutions for communities that experience
repetitive loss as a result of flooding and allows inactive non-Fed-
eral interests in the P.L. 84–99 program an opportunity to become
eligible for assistance post-disaster, under certain conditions.
Other Policy Matters
The transformative nature of the last three WRDA bills on the
Corps Civil Works Program has provided the Corps and the non-
Federal sponsors with a tremendous number of new opportunities
for advancing projects more quickly. The Committee expects the
Corps to continue to issue implementation guidance on the new
provisions contained in this bill in an expeditious and transparent
manner, and where appropriate, to solicit the view of, and consult
with, a wide array of stakeholders in the formulation of implemen-
tation guidance.
However, the Committee remains concerned that the Corps has
yet to complete implementation guidance on several provisions en-
acted in the last few WRDA bills. For example, the Committee has
received requests related to delayed implementation guidance re-
lated to the following enacted provisions: section 1043(a) of
WRRDA 14; section 3029(a)(1) of WRRDA 14; and section 1176 of
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
17 See Testimony of Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association
before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Hearing on ‘‘Water Resources De-
velopment Acts: Status of Implementation and Assessing Future Needs,’’ July 10, 2019.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
63
WRDA 2016. The Committee expects the Corps to complete imple-
mentation guidance for these and any other WRDA provision en-
acted by Congress within the next 90 days.
The Committee received several requests related to the potential
modification of lock and dam structures on the inland waterways
system to allow for remote operations. The Committee is aware of
an ongoing study being carried out by the Corps examining the au-
tomation of lock and dam structures on the Ohio River Navigation
System. This study will include all 55 locks within the Great Lakes
and Ohio River Division of the Corps, including 19 locks on the
Ohio River and 36 locks on its seven navigable tributaries. Once
initiated, this study is authorized to be carried out at Federal ex-
pense, and the Corps expects the study to last approximately three
years. In carrying out this study, the Committee would remind the
Secretary of recent Congressional action to statutorily declare
Corps lock and dam employees as inherently governmental, and di-
rects the Secretary to examine any potential workforce impacts of
automation and ensure that any recommendations in a completed
study will not result in the loss of jobs for current lock and dam
employees.
The Committee is aware that the Corps has approved and imple-
mented a major deviation for Forecast Informed Reservoir Oper-
ations (FIRO) at Lake Mendocino in the Russian River Valley in
northern California. Since 2014, the Corps has been involved in a
robust interagency group to investigate how weather forecast infor-
mation can inform and improve water management decisions at
Corps reservoirs. The Committee understands that, based on the
results of the major deviation and the ongoing work to improve and
implement forecasting, the Corps has the intent of incorporating
FIRO into water management by updating the Lake Mendocino
water control manual. The Committee reminds the Corps that
there is also an authorized feasibility study for raising the Coyote
Valley Dam at Lake Mendocino (which section 202(a) of WRDA
2020 directs the Corps to expedite completion of) which could pro-
vide further benefits for water supply reliability and environmental
conditions in the Russia River, while still ensuring flood manage-
ment capacity of the reservoir, that could also be part of incor-
porating FIRO into the Lake Mendocino water control manual.
The Committee received several requests related to the Corps’
use of its existing authority to perform advance maintenance of the
Nation’s Federally authorized navigation channels. These channels
are essential to keeping the international supply chain open and
operating efficiently during this period of economic recovery. The
Corps is strongly urged to make optimum use of available authori-
ties to ensure that these waterways are adequately maintained and
able to accommodate global shipping needs and generate economic
benefits during this critical time. The use of advance maintenance
can be particularly impactful in channels with high shoaling areas.
As these areas naturally silt in over time and are especially vulner-
able to the advent of more intense storms, repeated advance main-
tenance efforts may be necessary to guard against depth reductions
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
which can lead to draft restrictions for larger global vessels. The
Corps is encouraged to fully and consistently maintain Federal
channels at their approved advance maintenance depth.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
64
The Committee recognizes the critical importance of water re-
sources development projects to the national, regional, and local
economies of this country. However, many times, finding up-to-date
information about Corps projects and studies is difficult. The Corps
is encouraged to generate annual reports on the status of projects
and studies by Congressional district, and to make these reports
available to the public and accessible online.
During the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environ-
ment’s March 2020 roundtable event in Baldwin Park, California,
the Subcommittee had the opportunity to conduct a site visit of the
dam safety modifications for the Whittier Narrows Dam. At that
same roundtable, the Subcommittee heard testimony on how the
Corps’ dam safety construction activities would negatively impact
certain recreational facilities located in the City of Pico Rivera,
California. While timely completion of the dam safety activities at
Whittier Narrows Dam must remain the Corps highest priority, the
Corps is encouraged to work with the City of Pico Rivera to find
ways to mitigate the project’s impact on the recreational facilities
utilized by the surrounding community.
The Committee has also received an update on efforts to restore
the riverine ecosystem related to the Blackstone River, Rhode Is-
land. The Committee is aware that restoration activities are being
carried out both by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Corps to address
fish passage issue associated with the Main Street Dam, which has
been identified as a potential aquatic ecosystem restoration project
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2330). The Committee encourages the Corps to corrobo-
rate its restoration activities on the Blackstone River with NRCS
and the non-Federal interests to promote a comprehensive aquatic
ecosystem restoration effort on the river.
The Committee has received information from the Corps on the
approximately 2,000 employees of the Corps who wear a Corps’
Park Ranger uniform and perform critical roles for the American
public, including flood fighting, forestry management, fish and
wildlife management, shoreline management, environmental com-
pliance, protecting park boundaries and flowage easements, real es-
tate activities, water safety, sign management, volunteer manage-
ment, fee collection, and visitor center management. Generally
speaking, the Committee does not support any effort to outsource
existing positions carried out by Corps Federal employees, includ-
ing the Corps’ Park Rangers. The Committee is aware of three sep-
arate efforts (in 1984, in 1990, and in 2005) where the Executive
branch as undertaken an A–76 review of Corps Park Rangers,18
and in each instance, Corps leadership has recommended the ex-
emption of Corps Park Rangers from potential outsourcing. In the
last of these A–76 reviews (2003 through 2005), the former Chief
of Engineers, LTG Robert B. Flowers, recommended that the Sec-
retary reclassify the Park Ranger position as an inherently govern-
mental function, based on the Park Rangers’ arrest and regulatory
authorities. The Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to
complete this effort and administratively reclassify the Park Rang-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
18 The A–76 review process is undertaken pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular No. A–76, which establishes Executive branch policy for the competition of com-
mercial activities.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
65
er position as an inherently governmental function, based on pre-
vious reviews of this issue.
Over the past few WRDAs, Congress has enacted several provi-
sions to both encourage interagency partnerships in addressing
local water resources challenges, as well as promoting efforts to,
where appropriate, utilize natural, nature-based, or integrated ef-
forts to address local stormwater challenges. WRDA 2020 builds on
that effort by continuing to promote comprehensive measures to
carry out multi-purpose projects that seek to produce multiple
project benefits. The Committee believes that this comprehensive
approach can also be integrated into Corps construction-related
partnerships with other Federal agencies. The Committee is aware
of a partnership among the Corps, the Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Federally-supported Dallas-Fort Worth Met-
ropolitan Planning Organization, specifically the North Central
Texas Council of Governments, to address local stormwater chal-
lenges associated with regional infrastructure initiatives. The Com-
mittee encourages the Corps to work with other Federal agencies
and State partners in this effort that seeks to prevent adverse im-
pacts to major precipitation events, rather than simply to respond
to such events.
The Committee notes that construction of the project for control,
Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California (114
Stat. 2577; 121 Stat. 1114), was initiated by over $18 million in
non-Federal resources, which included funds from a voter approved
benefit assessment measure; however, the project has not received
Federal construction funding. The Committee encourages the Corps
to initiate a reevaluation study of the project in order to account
for population growth, property values, and any new disaster
threats associated with the project area.
The Committee has heard concern related to the process by
which the Corps procures dredging services on the West Coast, in-
cluding questions on the Corps’ utilization of small business set-
asides for procuring dredging contracts. An amendment (#9), of-
fered and withdrawn by Mr. Garamendi, would have directed the
Corps to develop a report on the aggregate contract award amounts
to small business concerns within each of the mission areas of the
Corps (Civil Works). The Committee directs the Secretary to com-
pile, and transmit to the Committee within 90 days, a report iden-
tifying, by dollar value for each mission area of the Corps’ Civil
Works responsibility, the total number of awards or contracts to
small business concerns (as such term is defined in section 3(a) of
the Small Business Act) for each Division of the Corps over the
past five fiscal years.
The Committee is aware of significant shoreline sloughing and
erosion associated with the Okatibbee Lake, Mississippi project,
caused by severe storms and the resulting changing water levels,
which have the potential to impact infrastructure, damage prop-
erty, and put lives at risk. The Corps is reminded that addressing
shoreline sloughing and erosion at a Corps project, including at lo-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
cations leased by non-Federal entities, is an activity eligible to com-
pete for additional operation and maintenance funding through the
Corps’ budget workplan.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
66
The Success Reservoir Enlargement Project was authorized by
section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
to improve both flood damage protection and water supply. The
Committee encourages the Corps to continue to work expeditiously
to advance this to completion.
The Committee encourages the Corps to expeditiously carry out
its obligation to provide beach nourishment to the shoreline and af-
fected beaches south of the New Buffalo Harbor, as authorized
under section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 (P.L. 87–
874; 76 Stat. 1176).
The Committee encourages the Corps to consult with and gather
comments from Missouri River Basin State Governors and other
stakeholders before determining whether a change or update to the
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual is administrative or
substantial in nature.
The Committee is aware that there is disagreement about wheth-
er the Corps is meeting the Congressional intent of Section 1319
of WRDA 2016 (130 Stat. 1703) and commits to working towards
finding a mutually-agreeable solution regarding the environmental
mitigation features related to the Savannah Harbor Expansion
Project at or below the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam. The
Committee recognizes that the pool of water behind the Dam is
currently utilized for municipal and industrial water supplies for
Augusta, Georgia and North Augusta, South Carolina communities,
as well as local recreational activities. The Committee also recog-
nizes the local communities of the City of Augusta, Georgia, and
the City of North Augusta, South Carolina, are willing to take over
the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam and have passed resolu-
tions in support of legislative language to turn over the New Sa-
vannah Bluff Lock and Dam to the local communities and accom-
modate downstream fish mitigation. The Committee further recog-
nizes that an agreement is currently in place between the Corps,
the Georgia Ports Authority, the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control, the Savannah River Maritime
Commission, and conservation organizations that requires the de-
velopment of a fish passage strategy at New Savannah Bluff Lock
and Dam. The Committee encourages all the parties involved to
continue to work together to resolve the issues related to this
project.
The Committee encourages the Corps to work with non-Federal
interests to credit an equitable value of any real property necessary
to support a project, regardless of how the property was acquired
by the non-Federal interest, provided that such credit is permitted
under current law.
The FY 2020 Corps Work Plan included a new start for a Gen-
eral Investigations study of the Lower Missouri River Basin for the
purpose of flood risk reduction. Section 210 of this Act is intended
to build off this existing authority to expeditiously review both a
comprehensive plan and site-specific solutions to combat flooding in
communities Basin-wide. While this Act specifically and preemp-
tively waives 3x3x3 requirements, the Committee strongly encour-
ages the Corps to complete its studies as expeditiously as possible.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
The Committee renews its focus on the Caño Martı́n Peña Eco-
system Restoration Project planned for urban San Juan, Puerto
Rico. The Committee continues to recognize the significance of this
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
67
project for the economic revitalization, public health, and incidental
flood protection of the eight communities surrounding this histori-
cally important tidal channel as well as for the re-establishment of
the natural tidal exchange between the San Jose Lagoon and the
San Juan Bay, two bodies of water with ecologically significant
habitat for native species and ecosystem function. The Committee
further recognizes the substantial time and effort dedicated across
the past three decades by the non-Federal sponsor to plan this
project in coordination with the Corps, and the meaningful
progress made in recent years to secure its authorization and pre-
pare it for the construction phase. The Committee encourages the
Corps to consider this important project in the formulation of fu-
ture budget requests. The Corps is directed to report to the Com-
mittee no later than 30 days after enactment of this Act on the sta-
tus of, and its future plans, for this project. The report should in-
clude identification of any circumstances that may be
disadvantaging this project from selection as a new construction
start.
The Committee received requests related to the ability of non-
Federal interests to contribute funds to the Corps to assist in the
maintenance of Federal navigation channels. The Committee notes
that the Corps has existing authority to accept non-Federal con-
tributions under section 210 of WRDA 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C.
2238) and section 2106 of WRRDA 14, as amended (33 U.S.C
2238c), as well as separate work authority under 33 U.S.C. 701h,
that allows the Corps to undertake work in connection with dredg-
ing of a Federal navigation project. The Committee encourages the
Corps to utilize these authorities as requested by non-Federal in-
terests.
The Committee received a request related to the legal obligation
of the Corps to obtain easements related to coastal storm risk man-
agement projects that benefit privately-owned beaches and shore-
lines. Section 103(d) of WRDA 86 and the Act of June 28, 1956 (33
U.S.C. 426e(d)) condition Federal financial participation in coastal
storm risk management projects that benefit privately-owned
beaches and shorelines on public use of, and access to, the beach
and shoreline. According to the Corps, since the 1990s, it has re-
quired non-Federal interests for coastal storm risk management
projects involving nourishment of privately-owned beaches to ac-
quire a standard perpetual easement that provides the right of ac-
cess to construct, operate, maintain, periodically renourish, and re-
store the project, but also a right of use and access to the public.
The Committee has heard concerns from communities on the dif-
ficulty in obtaining an easement from each and every private land-
owner associated with a coastal storm risk management project, es-
pecially in areas where multiple owners can own a share of the
properties (e.g. apartment units or condominiums) which can re-
quire non-Federal sponsors to obtain the concurrence of every
owner in the facility. The Committee is committed to the concepts
of public use and access to beaches and shorelines that are finan-
cially-supported by U.S. taxpayers; however, the Committee also
understands the challenges facing local governments in obtaining
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
the necessary approvals for required easements. The Committee
encourages the Corps to work with local governments on ways to
address the legal requirements of obtaining necessary approvals,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
68
while respecting some of the logistical challenges facing local gov-
ernments.
HEARINGS
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 116th Con-
gress—
(1) The following hearings were used to develop or consider H.R.
7575:
On April 10, 2019, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ‘‘The Cost of Doing Nothing:
Why Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
Investment in our Nation’s Waterways Matter.’’ The Subcommittee
received testimony from Rick Goche, Commissioner of the Port of
Bandon; Eugene Seroka, Executive Director of the Port of Los An-
geles; Bonnie Brady, Executive Director of the Long Island Com-
mercial Fishing Association; Kevin Ross, the First Vice President
of The National Corn Growers Association; Phyllis Harden, Legisla-
tive and Special Projects for Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Co.; Peter
H. Stephaich, Chairman of the Campbell Transportation Company;
and Kirsten Wallace, the Executive Director of the Upper Mis-
sissippi River Basin Association. Testimony focused on the role that
ports, harbors, and inland waterways play in our communities and
their economies.
On July 10, 2019, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and En-
vironment held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Water Resources Development
Acts: Status of Implementation and Assessing Future Needs.’’ The
Subcommittee received testimony from the Honorable R.D. James,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works); Major General Scott
A. Spellmon, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emer-
gency Operations; Rob Innis, Plant Manager for Sparrows Point
Lafarge-Holcim; Chad Berginnis, Executive Director of the Associa-
tion of State Floodplain Managers; Tom Waters, Chairman of the
Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association; Julie Hill-Ga-
briel, Vice President for Water Conservation for The National Au-
dubon Society; Derek Brockbank, Executive Director of the Amer-
ican Shore and Beach Preservation Association; Marty Ralph, PhD,
Director of the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes
at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. Testi-
mony focused on the Corps’ implementation of previous Water Re-
source Development Acts and their effect on impacted stakeholders,
as well as potential areas of concern to be considered in future
water resource development bills.
On November 19, 2019, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Concepts for the Next
Water Resources Development Act: Promoting Resiliency of our Na-
tion’s Water Resources Infrastructure.’’ The Subcommittee received
testimony from Dr. Gerald Galloway, Glenn L. Martin Institute
Professor of Engineering at the University of Maryland; Ann Phil-
lips, Special Assistant to the Governor for Coastal Adaptation and
Protection, Commonwealth of Virginia; Ricardo Pineda, Chair of
the Association of State Floodplain Managers; Dr. Louis Gritzo,
Vice President of FM Global Research Manager; Melissa Samet,
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Senior Water Resources Counsel at the National Wildlife Federa-
tion; and Julie Ufner, President of the National Waterways Con-
ference. Testimony examined how concepts of resiliency are incor-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
69
porated in the planning, design, construction, and operation of ex-
isting Corps projects; how existing infrastructure is maintained to
simultaneously address their purposes and prepare for future ex-
treme hydrologic conditions; and where the Corps could further im-
plement resiliency strategies and conference into their Civil Works
portfolio.
On January 9, 2020, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Proposals for a Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2020.’’ The Subcommittee received testi-
mony directly from the Corps on pending or potential project stud-
ies, authorizations, and modifications; as well as on policy initia-
tives that would benefit Corps projects and functions. The wit-
nesses from the Corps were the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, the Honorable R.D. James; and the Chief of Engineers
and Commanding General for the Corps, Lieutenant General Todd
Semonite.
On February 27, 2020, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Proposals for a Water
Resources Development Act of 2020: Members’ Day Hearing.’’ This
hearing featured testimony from Members of Congress on Corps
studies and projects important to their districts and policies di-
rectly impacting their constituents. In total, 47 Members testified
before the Subcommittee, with another 25 also submitting their
testimony for the hearing record.
(2) The following related roundtables were held:
On October 19, 2019, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a roundtable event in Islamorada, Florida enti-
tled, ‘‘America’s Water Resources Infrastructure: Concepts for the
Next Water Resources Development Act.’’ Topics of discussion in-
cluded the unique challenges in navigation and ecosystem restora-
tion that communities face in Florida, and the role that resilient
planning and infrastructure could play in these communities.
On March 6, 2020, the Subcommittee held a roundtable event in
Baldwin Park, California, entitled, ‘‘America’s Water Resources In-
frastructure: Concepts for the Next Water Resources Development
Act.’’ Topics of discussion included the unique water resources chal-
lenges in California related to flood control, water supply, and eco-
system restoration.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION
On July 13, 2020, House Committee on Transportation and In-
frastructure Chairman Peter A. DeFazio (D–OR), Ranking Member
Sam Graves (R–MO), Subcommittee on Water Resources and Envi-
ronment Chairwoman Grace F. Napolitano (D–CA), and Sub-
committee Ranking Member Bruce Westerman (R–AR) introduced
H.R. 7575, the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.
The bill was primarily referred to the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure, and additionally referred to the Com-
mittee on the Budget. Within the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, H.R. 7575 was referred to the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
On July 15, 2020, the Chair discharged the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment from further consideration of
H.R. 7575.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
70
On July 15, 2020, the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure met in open session to consider H.R. 7575 and ordered
the measure to be reported to the House with favorable rec-
ommendation, as amended, by voice vote with a quorum present.
The following amendments were offered:
An amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio (#1); was AGREED TO by
voice vote.
Page 17, beginning on line 4, strike ‘‘a project to which
such section applies’’ and insert ‘‘any project for navigation
on the inland waterways’’.
Page 24, after line 10, insert a new paragraph entitled
‘‘(3) State.’’
Page 26, strike lines 17 through 24 and insert the fol-
lowing:
(2) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘nonstructural flood control measures’’
and inserting ‘‘a flood risk management or hurricane and
storm damage risk reduction measure using a non-
structural feature, or a natural feature or nature-based
feature (as those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C.
2289a(a)),’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘cash during construction of the project’’
and inserting ‘‘cash during construction for a nonstructural
feature if the costs of land, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, and relocations for such
feature are estimated to exceed 35 percent’’.
Page 32, line 17, insert ‘‘(or county-equivalent entity or
entities)’’ after ‘‘counties’’.
Page 32, line 22, insert ‘‘(or county-equivalent entity or
entities)’’ after ‘‘counties’’.
Page 33, line 3, insert ‘‘(or county-equivalent entity or
entities)’’ after ‘‘counties’’.
Page 35, after line 10, insert a new subsection entitled
‘‘(k) State Defined.’’
Page 45, line 9, strike ‘‘; or’’ and insert a period.
Page 45, line 16, strike the period at the end and insert
‘‘; or’’.
Page 45, after line 16, insert the following: ‘‘(3) that are
no longer having project purposes adequately met by the
Corps of Engineers, because of deferment of maintenance
or other challenges, and the divestment of which to a non-
Federal entity could better meet the local and regional
needs for operation and maintenance.
Page 56, line 3, insert ‘‘the coastal and tidal waters of
the State of Louisiana, the waterways of the counties that
comprise the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California,’’
after ‘‘New Jersey,’’.
Page 59, line 4, strike ‘‘Section’’ and insert the following:
(a) In General.—Section Page 59, line 6, strike ‘‘by insert-
ing ‘or contribute’ ’’ and insert ‘‘by inserting ‘, or provide
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
contributions equal to,’ ’’.
Page 59, after line 14, insert a new subsection entitled
‘‘(b) Continued Eligibility.’’
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
71
Page 73, after line 17, insert the following new sections
entitled ‘‘Sec. 139. Cost Sharing Provisions for Territories
and Indian Tribes.’’; and ‘‘Sec. 140. Flood Control and
Other Purposes.’’
Page 76, after line 3, insert a new paragraph entitled
‘‘(16) Boston, Massachusetts.’’
Page 80, after line 14, insert the following: (7) Project for
flood risk management, Lower Cache Creek, California.
Page 80, after line 17, insert the following: (8) Project for
shoreline protection, Oceanside, California, authorized pur-
suant to section 414 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636; 121 Stat. 1176).
Page 82, after line 4, insert the following:
(16) Project for flood control, Amite River and Tribu-
taries east of the Mississippi River, Louisiana.
(17) Project for coastal storm risk management, Upper
Barataria Basin, Louisiana.
(18) Project to replace the Bourne and Sagamore
Bridges, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
Page 82, after line 8, insert the following: (17) Project for
flood risk management, Rahway River Basin, New Jersey.
Page 82, after line 22, insert the following: (21) Project
to resolve increased silting and shoaling adjacent to the
Federal channel, Port of Bandon, Coquille River, Oregon.
Page 84, after line 5, insert the following: (31) Project for
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and shoreline
erosion protection, Bolongo Bay, St. Thomas, United States
Virgin Islands.
Page 94, after line 25, insert a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
207. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River and Rye
Harbor, New Hampshire.’’
Page 96, line 11, strike ‘‘The Secretary’’ and insert the
following: (1) In General. The Secretary
Page 96, after line 18, insert a new paragraph entitled
‘‘(2) Focus Areas.’’
Page 97, line 20, strike ‘‘paragraph (1)(D)’’ and insert
‘‘subsection (c)’’.
Page 111, after line 8, insert the following: (5) an assess-
ment of the annual funding level trends for moderate use
harbor projects (as defined in section 210 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act) after the date of enactment
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2014 (Public
Law 113–121), excluding funds awarded to donor ports me-
dium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports (as such
terms are defined in section 2106 of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201));
Page 116, after line 16, insert new sections entitled ‘‘Sec.
219. Report on Recreational Facilities.’’; ‘‘Sec. 220. GAO
Study on Administration of Environmental Banks.’’; and
‘‘Sec. 221. Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule.’’
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Page 144, after line 14, insert a new paragraph entitled
‘‘(3) Madison And St. Clair Counties, Illinois.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Weber (#2) was WITHDRAWN.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
72
At the end of title III of the bill, add a new section enti-
tled ‘‘Sec. ll. Reservoir Management and Operational
Plans for Lower Brazos River Basin.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Pappas (#3) was WITHDRAWN.
Page 73, after line 17, insert a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
139. Clean Water Act Effluent Standards, Pretreatment
Standards, and Water Quality Criteria for PFAS.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick (#4); was WITH-
DRAWN.
Page 73, after line 17, insert a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
139. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basin
Commissions.’’
A point of order was reserved against the amendment by Mr.
DeFazio, but subsequently fell when the amendment was with-
drawn.
An amendment offered by Mr. Garamendi (#5) was NOT
AGREED TO by voice vote.
At the end of title I, add a new section entitled ‘‘SEC.
ll. Transfer of Excess Credit.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Woodall (#6) was WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title I of the bill, add a new section enti-
tled ‘‘Sec. ll. Studies of Constructed Projects.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Garamendi (#7) was WITH-
DRAWN.
At the end of title I, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Repeal of Reprogramming Authority.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#8) was
WITHDRAWN.
Page 175, after line 19, insert a new section entitled
‘‘Sec. 331. Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Garamendi (#9) was WITH-
DRAWN. llAt the end of title I, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Implementation of Small Business Act.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#10) was
WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title III of the bill, add a new section enti-
tled ‘‘Sec. ll. Establishment of National Foundation for
Resilience.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Garamendi (#11) was WITH-
DRAWN.
Page 184, after line 18, insert a new subsection entitled
‘‘(d) Yuba River Ecosystem Restoration Project, California.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Mast (#12) was NOT AGREED TO
by voice vote.
At the end of title III, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Management of the Central and Southern Florida
System.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Mast (#13) was WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title III, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project,
Florida.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Lynch (#14) was WITHDRAWN.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
At the end of title I of the bill, add a new section enti-
tled ‘‘Sec. ll. Deferred Payments.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Mast (#15) was WITHDRAWN.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
73
At the end of title I, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Florida Estuaries.’’
An amendment offered by Ms. Craig (#16) was WITHDRAWN.
Page 175, after line 2, insert a new subsection entitled
‘‘(k) Upper Mississippi River.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#17) was
WITHDRAWN.
Strike section 137 of the bill and insert a new section en-
titled ‘‘Sec. 137. Non-Federal Implementation Program.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Lynch (#18); was AGREED TO by
voice vote.
At the end of title III, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Regional Sediment Management.’’
An amendment offered by Ms. Finkenauer (#19) was AGREED
TO by voice vote.
Page 73, after line 17, insert a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
139. Review of Contracting Policies.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Perry (#20) was AGREED TO by
unanimous consent.
At the end of title I, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Buy America.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Perry (#21) was NOT AGREED
TO by a recorded vote of 2 yeas and 62 nays (Roll Call Vote No.
38).
Strike section 101 and insert a new section 1010 entitled
‘‘Sec. 101. Budgetary treatment of Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Gibbs (#22) was WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title III, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll., Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Gibbs (#23) was WITHDRAWN.
Page 73, after line 17, insert a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
139. National Coastal Mapping Program.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Bost (#24) was WITHDRAWN.
Page 59, line 7, strike ‘‘and’’ at the end. Page 59, after
line 7, insert the following (and redesignate the subse-
quent paragraph accordingly):
(2) in clause (i) by striking clause (II) and inserting the
following:
‘‘(II) the Secretary determines that the damage to the
structure was not a result of negligent operation or main-
tenance.’’; and;
An amendment offered by Mr. Woodall (#25) was WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title II add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Savannah River, South Carolina.
An amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#26) was
WITHDRAWN.
At the end of title I of the bill, add a new section enti-
tled ‘‘Sec. ll. Real Property Interests.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Babin (#27) was AGREED TO by
voice vote.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Page 78, strike lines 18 through 24 and insert a new
paragraph entitled ‘‘(32) Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay,
Texas.’’
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
74
Page 79, strike lines 10 through 18 and insert a new
paragraph entitled ‘‘(b) Special Rule.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#28) was
AGREED TO by voice vote.
Ad at the end of title III a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Garcia of California (#29) was
WITHDRAWN.
Add at the end of title I a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. WIIN Act Amendments.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#30) was
AGREED TO by voice vote.
At the end of title I, add a new section entitled ‘‘Sec.
ll. Annual Report on Status of Feasibility Studies.
An amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#31) was
WITHDRAWN.
Page 186, line 12 insert a new paragraph entitled ‘‘(5)
Port Fourchon, Louisiana.’’
An amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana (#32) was
NOT AGREED TO by voice vote.
Page 175, after line 19, insert a new section entitled
‘‘Section 332. Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.’’
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representa-
tives requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to report
and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the
names of those members voting for and against.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure considered
H.R. 7575 on July 15, 2020, and took the following votes:
An Amendment offered by Mr. Perry (#21) was Not Agreed to: 2
yeas and 62 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 39). The vote was as follows:
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
ROLL CALL VOTE NO. 38
On agreeing to Amendment #21 offered by Mr. Perry
Not Agreed to: 2 yeas and 62 nays.
Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay
Mr. DeFazio, Chair ......................... X Mr. Graves of MO, Ranking Mem- X
ber.
Ms. Norton ..................................... X Mr. Young .....................................
Ms. Johnson of TX ......................... X Mr. Crawford ................................ X
Mr. Larsen of WA .......................... X Mr. Gibbs ...................................... X
Mrs. Napolitano ............................. X Mr. Webster of FL ........................ X
Mr. Lipinski ................................... X Mr. Massie .................................... X
Mr. Cohen ...................................... X Mr. Perry ....................................... X
Mr. Sires ........................................ X Mr. Davis of IL .............................
Mr. Garamendi .............................. X Mr. Woodall .................................. X
Mr. Johnson of GA ......................... X Mr. Katko ...................................... X
Mr. Carson of IN ........................... X Mr. Babin ..................................... X
Ms. Titus ....................................... X Mr. Graves of LA .......................... X
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Mr. Maloney of NY ......................... X Mr. Rouzer .................................... X
Mr. Huffman .................................. X Mr. Bost ........................................ X
Ms. Brownley of CA ....................... X Mr. Weber of TX ...........................
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
75
Representative Yea Nay Representative Yea Nay
Ms. Wilson of FL ........................... X Mr. LaMalfa .................................. X
Mr. Payne ...................................... X Mr. Westerman ............................. X
Mr. Lowenthal ................................ X Mr. Smucker ................................. X
Mr. DeSaulnier ............................... X Mr. Mitchell .................................. X
Ms. Plaskett .................................. X Mr. Mast ....................................... X
Mr. Lynch ....................................... X Mr. Gallagher ............................... X
Mr. Carbajal .................................. X Mr. Palmer .................................... X
Mr. Brown of MD ........................... X Mr. Fitzpatrick .............................. X
Mr. Espaillat .................................. X Miss González-Colón of PR .......... X
Mr. Malinowski .............................. X Mr. Balderson ............................... X
Mr. Stanton ................................... X Mr. Spano ..................................... X
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell ..................... X Mr. Stauber .................................. X
Mrs. Fletcher ................................. X Mrs. Miller .................................... X
Mr. Allred ....................................... X Mr. Pence ..................................... X
Ms. Davids of KS .......................... X Mr. Garcia of CA .......................... X
Ms. Finkenauer .............................. X
Mr. Garcı́a of IL ............................. X
Mr. Delgado ................................... X
Mr. Pappas .................................... X
Ms. Craig ....................................... X
Mr. Rouda ...................................... X
Mr. Lamb ....................................... X
Vote Total: 2 62
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s over-
sight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements
of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Rep-
resentatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office. The
Committee has requested but not received from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit au-
thority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.
The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such estimate and
statement to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its re-
ceipt by the Committee.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost estimate provided
by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not made available to the
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman of
the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the Con-
gressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
76
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goal
and objective of this legislation is to provide authorization for
Corps studies and projects within the key missions of the Corps, in-
cluding developing, maintaining, and supporting the Nation’s water
resources development infrastructure for navigation, flood protec-
tion, and environmental restoration needs. Additionally, the legisla-
tion is intended to increase the ability of the Nation’s infrastruc-
ture, waterways, and localities to respond to and recover from ex-
treme weather events and recurring flooding. Finally, H.R. 7575, as
amended, will increase equities and eligibilities in the Corps’ pri-
mary mission areas for economically disadvantaged communities,
rural communities, and tribal or minority communities, for the pur-
poses of equal protection and access, as well as environmental jus-
tice.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision of H.R.
7575, as amended, establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
Federal government known to be duplicative of another federal pro-
gram, a program that was included in any report from the Govern-
ment Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of
Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified
in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED
TARIFF BENEFITS
In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule XXI.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
An estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the Un-
funded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the Com-
mittee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman of the
Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the Congres-
sional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the
report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a
statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is in-
tended to preempt state, local, or tribal law. The Committee finds
that H.R. 7575, as amended, does not preempt any state, local, or
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
tribal law.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
77
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or
accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Con-
gressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1).
SECTION–BY–SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title; Table of contents
This section provides that this bill may be cited as the ‘‘Water
Resources Development Act of 2020’’; and includes a table of con-
tents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined
This section defines the term ‘‘Secretary’’ as the Secretary of the
Army.
TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. Budgetary treatment expansion and adjustment for the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
This section provides authority to appropriate additional funds
for harbor maintenance needs from the existing balance in the Har-
bor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The current estimate of the
balance in the trust fund is approximately $10 billion.
Sec. 102. Funding for navigation
This section establishes a new framework for annual allocation
of operation and maintenance expenditures from the HMTF. This
section establishes new targets for emerging harbors, donor ports,
and Great Lakes Harbors. This section also allows for additional
expanded uses for emerging harbors and donor ports.
Sec. 103. Annual report to Congress on the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund
This section ensures that the annual report to Congress on the
HMTF is submitted concurrently with the President’s annual budg-
et request to Congress.
Sec. 104. Additional measures at donor ports and energy transfer
ports
This section reauthorizes discretionary appropriations to provide
payments to donor ports, medium-sized donor ports, and energy
transfer ports. This authority is extended through fiscal year 2030.
This section also allows for a rolling eligibility for donor ports, me-
dium-sized donor ports, and energy transfer ports based on prior
three years of cargo shipments.
Sec. 105. Assumption of maintenance of a locally preferred plan
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
This section authorizes the Corps to assume operation and main-
tenance responsibilities for navigation projects carried out by non-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
78
Federal interests where project improvements deviate from the na-
tional economic development plan.
Sec. 106. Coast Guard anchorages
This section provides the Corps with the authority to maintain
U.S. Coast Guard designated anchorages on the Columbia River.
Sec. 107. State contribution of funds for certain operation and
maintenance costs
This section provides the Corps with the authority to accept and
expend funds from a state within the Great Lakes Navigation Sys-
tem to cover the additional costs for operations and maintenance
activities as a result of a state’s implementation of any additional
limitation on the disposal of dredged material in the state’s open
waters.
Sec. 108. Inland waterways projects
This section authorizes a modification to the cost share of con-
struction or major rehabilitation of any inland waterways project to
65 percent from the general fund of the Treasury and 35 percent
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund through fiscal year 2027.
Inland waterways projects that receive construction appropriations
during this time carry the modified cost share through project com-
pletion. This section also directs the Secretary to prioritize inland
waterways projects included in the most recent Inland and Inter-
coastal Twenty-Year Capital Investment Strategy.
Sec. 109. Implementation of water resources principles and require-
ments
This section directs the Corps to issue final agency procedures for
the Principles, Requirements and Guidelines (PR&G), pursuant to
section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The
PR&G serves as the basis for the Corps’ evaluation of project bene-
fits and costs. The Corps is required to solicit, engage, and consider
public and expert comment prior to release of the PR&G, review
the PR&Gs every five years, and inform stakeholders prior to any
revisions for input and guidance.
Sec. 110. Resiliency planning assistance
This section amends the Corps’ Floodplain Management Service
program to allow the Corps to provide technical assistance to non-
Federal interests and other Federal agencies for greater resiliency
planning. Additionally, this section directs the Corps to prioritize
technical assistance to economically disadvantaged communities.
Sec. 111. Project consultation
This section requires the Corps to complete previously authorized
reports on community and tribal consultation, as well as update
Corps policies on environmental justice considerations and commu-
nity engagement and consultation. It also expands the Corps’ con-
sultation requirements with Tribal or indigenous groups when
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
working on or adjacent to Tribal lands and areas.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
79
Sec. 112. Review of resiliency assessments
This section requires the Corps to update existing planning guid-
ance related to sea level rise based on the best available, peer-re-
viewed science, in coordination with Federal and state agencies.
This section also reiterates the Corps’ discretion to consider bene-
fits accrued over time as a result of sea level rise, and when re-
quested by the non-Federal interest, requires the Secretary to con-
sider whether the need for the project is predicated upon or exacer-
bated by conditions related to sea level rise.
Sec. 113. Small flood control projects
This section allows for natural or nature-based infrastructure
projects to be considered as part of the Section 205 continuing au-
thorities program for small flood risk management projects.
Sec. 114. Conforming amendment
This section clarifies the cost share for natural and nature-based
infrastructure is 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal, in
line with the established cost share for non-structural project alter-
natives.
Sec. 115. Feasibility studies; Review of natural and nature-based
features
This section directs the Corps to include in each flood reduction
and hurricane and storm damage reduction project feasibility study
a summary of any nature-based features that were considered. The
Corps is directed to provide an explanation if nature-based features
are not recommended.
Sec. 116. Report on corrosion prevention activities
This section directs the Corps to report to Congress on corrosion
prevention activities at Corps projects.
Sec. 117. Quantification of benefits for flood risk management
projects in seismic zones
This section requires the Corps to quantify the seismic hazard
risk reduction benefits for flood risk management projects, when
requested by the non-Federal sponsor.
Sec. 118. Federal interest determination
This section directs the Corps to complete a Federal interest de-
termination for feasibility studies with economically disadvantaged
communities, if requested by the non-Federal interest. Additionally,
the Corps is directed to assist non-Federal interests in economically
disadvantaged communities on how to rescope project requests to
ensure that the project is economically justified.
Sec. 119. Economically disadvantaged community flood protection
and hurricane and storm damage reduction study pilot pro-
gram
This section directs the Corps to establish a pilot program to
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
evaluate opportunities to address the flood risk reduction and hur-
ricane and storm damage reduction needs for economically dis-
advantaged communities. The Corps is directed to select 10 studies
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
80
to be carried out at Federal expense, and the pilot program sunsets
10 years after enactment.
Sec. 120. Permanent measures to reduce emergency flood fighting
needs for communities subject to repetitive flooding
This section provides new authority to study, design, and con-
struct water resources projects for communities that have experi-
enced repetitive flooding events and have received emergency flood
fighting assistance under the Corps’ P.L. 84–99 program. The max-
imum Federal share for a project is $15 million and the Corps shall
consider a community’s ability to pay.
Sec. 121. Emergency response to natural disasters
This section provides non-Federal interests with an opportunity
to recommend proposals to the Corps to increase the level of protec-
tion for projects that have received assistance through the P.L. 84–
99 program. Additionally, this section allows inactive non-Federal
interests in the P.L. 84–99 program to be eligible for assistance if
the non-Federal interest agrees to pay, during performance of the
repair or restoration work, all costs to address items of deferred or
inadequate maintenance and all repair or restoration work nec-
essary to address damage attributable to such deficiencies. An inac-
tive non-Federal interest is only eligible to use this authority once,
and this authority sunsets in five years.
Sec. 122. Study of natural infrastructure at Corps of Engineers
projects
This section directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to report to Congress on the Corps’ consideration of natural and na-
ture-based features during project planning.
Sec. 123. Review of Corps of Engineers assets
This section directs the Corps to develop an inventory of projects
which are no longer needed to complete the missions of the Corps.
Additionally, the Corps is directed to identify projects that could
benefit from the addition of nature-based features or other modi-
fications.
Sec. 124. Sense of Congress on multi-purpose projects
This section provides a Sense of Congress that the Corps should
maximize the consideration and evaluation of projects with mul-
tiple benefits.
Sec. 125. Beneficial reuse of dredged material; Dredged material
management plans
This section renews the Congressional commitment to beneficial
reuse of dredged material obtained from Corps projects and in-
creases the authorized number of demonstration projects to 30
projects. Additionally, this section expands the Corps’ consider-
ations when evaluating the placement of dredged materials and
when calculating the economic benefits of dredged material. This
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
section also ensures that the Corps considers small, rural, and eco-
nomically disadvantaged communities when selecting its additional
projects. Lastly, this section increases the coordination of beneficial
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
81
reuse projects by directing the Corps to develop five-year regional
dredged material management plans.
In directing the Corps to maximize the beneficial use of suitable
dredged materials, the Committee does not intend for the Corps to
only consider beneficial reuse efforts within the context of the bene-
ficial reuse pilot projects authorized by section 1122 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016, but to explore opportunities
for the beneficial reuse of suitable materials wherever they may
present themselves. This section provides for enhanced directives to
the Secretary to leverage the value of dredged material in the
course of carrying out maintenance projects. The Committee fur-
ther encourages the Secretary to consider the use of alternative
dredging techniques and equipment that will assure compliance
with new and existing five-year strategic management plans, be en-
vironmentally protective, promote economic activities, and enable
increased beneficial use of dredged material. The Committee is
aware of efforts related to the dredging of the Richmond Outer
Harbor and Pinole Shoal, California, that, the Committee believes,
would be a promising location for employing such activities.
The Committee is also aware that the Corps has selected only 10
of the authorized pilot projects under section 1122 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2016 to carry out beneficial use of
dredged sediment, including the selection of the San Francisco Bay
Pilot Project and development of the project management plan with
the California State Coastal Conservancy. The Committee encour-
ages the Corps to budget for the remaining beneficial reuse pilot
projects authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of
2016 and this Act. The Committee is aware of several potential fu-
ture beneficial reuse projects, including opportunities for beneficial
use of dredged material from the San Joaquin River and the Port
of Stockton for the Delta Islands and Levees Project, as authorized
by Congress.
Subsection (d) of this section amends section 1111 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2018 related to a dredged material
pilot project. This authority was enacted to promote cost-effective
mobilization of Corps dredging assets by allowing the Corps to
work with non-Federal interests in identifying multiple projects in
a geographic region that might be carried out under a single set
of contracts. The Committee is aware that dredging costs can be
the primary cost associated with shoreline protection projects. As
there is so much demand for dredging across the country, mobi-
lizing dredging equipment to a region can be a significant cost be-
fore the actual dredging begins, and section 1111 of WRDA 2018
was enacted to help address this cost. The Committee is aware of
two hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and shoreline pro-
tection projects (the San Clemente Project and the Encinitas-
Solana Beach Project, California) that will potentially be in the
construction phase simultaneously, and encourages the Corps to
consider utilization of the section 1111 authority to allow for co-
ordinated dredging of these projects to potentially reduce overall
project costs. The Committee continues to encourage the Corps to
find opportunities to coordinate planning for the deployment of
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Federal and non-Federal dredges. In sequencing dredging work to
benefit multiple mission sets and providing consistent navigational
certainty, especially in areas of high maritime traffic in our na-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
82
tion’s harbors and waterways, the Corps will benefit the American
economy and restoration efforts alike. The Committee appreciates
the creation of the Gulf Coast Regional Dredge Demonstration Pro-
gram in P.L. 116–94 and requests that the Corps carry out these
programs in conjunction with one another.
Sec. 126. Aquatic ecosystem restoration for anadromous fish
This section amends the section 206 continuing authorities pro-
gram for aquatic ecosystem restoration to include projects that
maximize benefits for anadromous fish. This section directs the
Corps to give projects for anadromous fish habitat and passage
equal priority for implementation as other projects pursued under
section 206.
Sec. 127. Annual Report to Congress
This section requires that the Corps include in the main table of
the Section 7001 Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Re-
sources Development Projects proposed projects for municipal and
agricultural water use.
Sec. 128. Harmful algal bloom demonstration program
This section directs the Corps to carry out a demonstration pro-
gram for detecting, treating, preventing, and eliminating harmful
algal blooms. Additionally, this section directs the Corps to consult
with Federal and state agencies and to maximize the use of exist-
ing data and programs.
Sec. 129. Update on Invasive Species Policy Guidance
This section requires the Corps to update the Invasive Species
Policy Guidance based on the most recent National Invasive Spe-
cies Council Management Plan. The Corps may also include
invasive species management efforts for Corps projects in Alpine
Lakes and the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins in its up-
dated guidance.
Sec. 130. Report on debris removal
This section directs the Corps to report to Congress on activities
related to debris removal in the prior 10 fiscal years, and the ex-
tent to which the Corps plans to start potential debris removal ac-
tivities in the future.
Sec. 131. Missouri River interception-rearing complex construction
This section prohibits the Corps from constructing any additional
interception-rearing complexes on the Missouri River until the
Corps reports on their effects, conducts further research through
the Engineer Research and Development Center, and develops a
plan to repair certain structures affected by erosion. The Corps is
directed to solicit public comments prior to constructing any addi-
tional interception-rearing complexes.
Sec. 132. Cost and benefit feasibility assessment
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
This section clarifies that a non-Federal sponsor may contribute
work to an amount sufficient to make the costs equal to the esti-
mated benefits of repair work done in the P.L. 84–99 program.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
83
The Committee enacted targeted changes to the P.L. 84–99 au-
thority in section 1161 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2018 to allow non-Federal interests the ability to make up the dif-
ferential in cost-benefit analyses for flood control project repairs.
However, the Committee is aware that other potential benefits of
proposed repair projects can also benefit the cost-benefit analyses.
The Corps has confirmed to the Committee that other benefits,
such as navigation benefits, may already be considered in the eco-
nomic analysis for a repair project under P.L. 84–99 (codified at 33
U.S.C. 701n) to the extent such benefits are incidental to flood risk
management benefits. The Committee encourages the Corps to
work with non-Federal interest, using existing authorities and the
authorities provided by the Water Resources Development Act of
2020, in seeking to justify critical flood control project repairs.
Sec. 133. Materials, services, and funds for repair, restoration, or
rehabilitation of projects
This section allows the Corps to reimburse a non-Federal interest
or private party for contributed materials, funds, or services in the
case of emergency or major disaster declarations, if the Corps de-
termines that reimbursement is in the public interest. Any work
contributed under this section must comply with all applicable
Corps laws and regulations regarding acquired materials and serv-
ices.
Sec. 134. Levee safety
This section directs the Corps to identify specific engineering and
maintenance deficiencies for certain levees within the National
Levee Database.
Sec. 135. National dam safety program
This section makes changes to FEMA’s High Hazard Potential
Dam Rehabilitation Program, including making eligible for the pro-
gram hydropower dams that generate less than 1.5 megawatts.
Sec. 136. Rehabilitation of Corps of Engineers constructed pump
stations
This section allows the Corps to make repairs and improvements
to Corps-constructed pump stations with identified major defi-
ciencies and the failure of which would impair the function of flood
risk management projects. This section also requires the Corps to
undertake an inventory of Federally constructed pump stations.
Sec. 137. Non-Federal Project Implementation Pilot Program
This section extends the Non-Federal Project Implementation
Pilot Program until 2026. The Secretary is required to issue imple-
mentation guidance 120 days after enactment of this Act.
Sec. 138. Definition of economically disadvantaged community
This section provides a definition of economically disadvantaged
community for purposes of this Act.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
84
Sec. 139. Cost sharing provisions for territories and indian tribes
This section amends section 1156 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986 to permanently adjust the current cost share
threshold for inflation.
Sec. 140. Flood control and other purposes
This section authorizes the Secretary and the non-Federal inter-
est to enter into negotiations related to the terms of eligible de-
ferred payment agreements.
The Committee acknowledges the deferred interest obligations of
the State of Louisiana from the construction of the Hurricane Pro-
tection System in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This section pro-
vides authority for the Corps and the State to seek to renegotiate
the terms and conditions of deferred payment agreements made
with the Secretary under Section 103(k) of WRDA 1986. The Com-
mittee is aware of the State’s desire to renegotiate the terms of the
West Bank and Vicinity, Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, and
Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Damage Reduction Projects. The
Committee encourages the Corps to work with the State in the im-
plementation of this section, which the State argues will allow the
State to continue make new investments to support resiliency in
both the State’s water resources related infrastructure and eco-
system restoration projects.
Sec. 141. Review of contracting policies
This section directs the Secretary to review the policies, guide-
lines, and regulations of the Corps for the development of contrac-
tual agreements between the Secretary and non-Federal interests
and utilities associated with the construction of water resources de-
velopment projects, and to provide a best practices guide to non-
Federal interests prior to the development of future contractual
agreements.
Sec. 142. Buy America
This section requires that all Corps construction and rehabilita-
tion contracts awarded after the date of enactment of this section
ensure that the steel components furnished and delivered under
such contracts be manufactured or fabricated in whole or substan-
tial part in the United States.
Sec. 143. Annual report on status of feasibility studies
This section requires the Secretary to provide an accounting of
all outstanding Corps feasibility studies being conducted by the
Secretary concurrent with the annual report to Congress under sec-
tion 7001 of the WRRDA 14.
TITLE II—STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies
This section authorizes the Corps to conduct feasibility studies
for 35 projects for water resources development and conservation
and other purposes. These feasibility studies were submitted in a
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development pur-
suant to Section 7001 of the WRRDA 14 or were otherwise re-
viewed by Congress.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
85
Sec. 202. Expedited completions
This section directs the Corps to expedite the completion of 33
feasibility studies currently underway. Upon completion of the
study, if the Corps determines that the project is justified, the
Corps may proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineer-
ing, and design. This section also directs the Corps to expedite the
completion of the following reviews currently underway: post-au-
thorization change reports for five projects, watershed assessments
for two projects, and a disposition study for one project.
Section 202(a) directs the Corps to expedite the completion of the
study for the project for flood risk management, Lower Santa Cruz.
In completing this study, the Corps is directed to consult with, and
seek to address, any concerns of local communities and tribes in
the vicinity of the project.
Section 202(a) also directs the Corps to expedite the completion
of the study for flood risk management, Rahway River Basin, New
Jersey. The Committee is aware that the North Atlantic Division
of the Corps has suggested that further study of this project is not
warranted—a position which is not shared by the non-Federal in-
terest for this project nor the communities this project was author-
ized to protect. The Corps is directed to continue to work with the
non-Federal interest and the surrounding communities in the for-
mulation of an acceptable alternative to the project that would be
in the Federal interest. The Secretary is directed to utilize the au-
thorities included in this Act and the Corps’ own discretion to de-
velop this alternative, as expeditiously as possible, and expects the
Corps to provide the Committee with regular updates on its
progress.
The past three Water Resources Development Acts, in 2014,
2016, and 2018, included provisions similar to section 202 to en-
courage the Corps to expedite completion of ongoing studies related
to water resources development projects. Several of the studies
highlighted in those earlier Acts have resulted in completed Chief’s
Reports and other decision documents that have subsequently been
acted on by Congress, including several Chief’s Reports included in
the Water Resources Development Act of 2020. However, other ex-
pedited studies remain incomplete, including the projects for flood
risk management, for East Hartford and Hartford, Connecticut,
listed in section 1203(a) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2016.19 The Committee expects the Corps to expedite the com-
pletion of all feasibility studies specifically identified by Congress,
as quickly as possible, and, in accordance with such authorities, if
the Secretary determines that the project is justified in the com-
pleted report, to proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engi-
neering, and design of the project.
Sec. 203. Feasibility study modifications
This section directs the Corps to make modifications to the scope
or process of four feasibility studies currently underway.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
19 See Paragraphs 1203(a)(11) and (12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132
Stat. 3803).
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
86
Sec. 204. Selma, Alabama
This section directs the Corps provide an update on the study for
flood risk management and bank stabilization for Selma, Alabama,
including efforts to assure the preservation of cultural and historic
values associated with national historic landmarks within the
study area.
Sec. 205. Comprehensive Study of the Sacramento River, Yolo By-
pass, California
This section directs the Corps to conduct a comprehensive study
of the Sacramento River in the vicinity of the Yolo Bypass System,
California, and make recommendations for potential water re-
sources development projects, modifications of existing water re-
sources development projects, or other measures to respond to
changing hydrologic and climatic conditions in the region.
Sec. 206. Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule, Florida
This section includes direction to the Corps on efforts to manage
water within Lake Okeechobee, Florida.
Sec. 207. Great Lakes coastal resiliency study
This section directs the Corps to expand its comprehensive as-
sessment of water resources needs for the Great Lakes System, and
make recommendations for potential water resources development
projects, modifications of existing water resources development
projects, or other measures to respond to changing hydrologic and
climatic conditions in the region.
Sec. 208. Rathbun Lake, Chariton River, Iowa
This section directs the Corps to submit a report to Congress
that evaluates the existing water storage allocations at Rathbun
Lake and analyze the affordability and costs of future municipal
water supply allocations to users of the system.
Sec. 209. Report on the status of restoration in the Louisiana Coast-
al area
This section directs the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection
and Restoration Task Force to submit a report to Congress that in-
cludes policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities
undertaken for addressing conservation, protection, restoration,
and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, as well as the
financial participation by each agency represented on the Task
Force.
Sec. 210. Lower Mississippi River comprehensive study
This section directs the Corps to submit a report to Congress
that includes the results of a comprehensive study of the Lower
Mississippi Basin and identifies actions the Corps can take for the
comprehensive management of the Basin for the purposes of flood
risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, water supply,
hydropower, and recreation.
Sec. 211. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
This section directs the Corps to conduct an assessment of the
water resources needs of the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
87
Sec. 212. Lower Missouri Basin flood risk and resiliency study,
Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri
This section directs the Corps to expand the scope of the Lower
Missouri Basin study, or otherwise carry out additional studies to
identify site specific flood risk reduction solutions. The section also
requires additional consultation measures for any recommended ac-
tions and specifies that the study is not subject to the traditional
Corps cost and duration limitations.
Sec. 213. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River and Rye Har-
bor, New Hampshire
This section directs the Secretary to issue a written status up-
date to Congress on two authorized Federal navigation projects: the
project for navigation, Rye Harbor, New Hampshire, and the
project for navigation, Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River,
New Hampshire.
Sec. 214. Cougar and Detroit Dams, Willamette River Basin, Or-
egon
This section directs the Corps to submit a report to Congress on
the initial analysis of deauthorizing hydropower as an authorized
project purpose at Cougar and Detroit Dams. For the purposes of
this section, the Detroit Dam project includes all facilities that op-
erate in conjunction with the main Detroit Dam facility, including
the Big Cliff re-regulating dam. In addition, both the Detroit Dam
project and the Cougar Dam project include all related fish man-
agement facilities.
Sec. 215. Port Orford, Oregon
This section directs the Corps to submit a report to Congress re-
garding the configuration of a breakwater for the navigation project
in Port Orford, Oregon in order to address shoaling issues.
Sec. 216. Wilson Creek and Sloan Creek, Fairview, Texas
This section directs the Corps to provide Congress with a status
update on efforts to address flooding along Wilson Creek and Sloan
Creek in the City of Fairview, Texas.
Sec. 217. GAO study on mitigation for water resources development
projects
This section directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study
on the mitigation of fish, wildlife, and environmental impacts re-
sulting from the construction of water resources projects. This sec-
tion further directs the Comptroller General to review the long-
term effectiveness of the various types of mitigation; assess the
backlog of mitigation projects; review how mitigation requirements
might contribute to the resilience of water resources; assess compli-
ance with mitigation requirements and mitigation plans; and pro-
vide recommendations to ensure compliance with and successful
implementation of mitigation requirements for water resources de-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
velopment projects.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
88
Sec. 218. GAO study on application of harbor maintenance trust
fund expenditures
This section directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study
on the operation and maintenance needs of Federally authorized
harbor and inland harbor projects, including the primary uses of
such harbor projects, and annual or deferred operation and mainte-
nance needs.
Sec. 219. GAO study on administration of environmental banks
This section directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study
on the administration of section 309 of the Coastal Wetlands Plan-
ning, Protection and Restoration Act to establish an environmental
bank, as authorized by section 5014 of Pub. L. 114–322.
The Committee recognizes the extraordinary coastal wetlands
loss in south Louisiana and the impact this has on the resiliency
of communities and the ecosystem in this region. WRDA2016 au-
thorized the establishment of Environmental Banks in the coastal
zone of Louisiana for the purpose of demonstrating an alternative,
but complementary method of restoration that advances the goals
of authorized ecosystem restoration projects. The intent of the dem-
onstration is to develop a model whereby environmental mitigation
or remediation efforts can be aggregated to advance a greater envi-
ronmental outcome.
Sec. 220. Study on water supply and water conservation at water
resources development projects
This section directs the Corps to submit a report to Congress
that analyzes the benefits and consequences of including municipal
water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the
Corps when carrying out water resources development projects.
Within the report, the Corps is directed to include an analysis of
how adding municipal water supply and water conservation as a
primary mission may impact the ability of the Corps to carry out
future water resources development projects, and recommendations
related to their inclusion as a primary mission of the Corps.
Sec. 221. PFAS review and inventory at Corps facilities
This section directs the Corps to complete an inventory of Civil
Works facilities that are contaminated or could become contami-
nated by a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) and
submit a report on the results to Congress.
Sec. 222. Report on recreational facilities
This section directs the Corps to prepare and submit to the Com-
mittees an inventory and report on the recreational facilities and
infrastructure associated with water resources development
projects, including an assessment of, and the consequence of, any
deferred maintenance of such facilities and infrastructure.
TITLE III—DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
This section establishes a process that will lead to the deauthor-
ization of at least $10 billion of old, inactive projects, which is the
value of projects authorized in this Act.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
89
Sec. 302. Abandoned and Inactive Noncoal Mine Restoration
This section increases the authorization amounts for the Aban-
doned and Inactive Noncoal Mine Restoration program.
Sec. 303. Tribal Partnership Program
This section increases the per-project authorization level for the
Tribal Partnership Program.
Sec. 304. Lakes Program
This section provides additional eligibility for the Corps’ Lakes
Program.
Sec. 305. Watercraft inspection stations
This section directs the Corps to establish a watercraft inspection
station for the Russian River Basin and makes a technical correc-
tion to WRDA 2018.
Sec. 306. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protec-
tion Program
This section increases the authorization amounts for the Chesa-
peake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program.
This section also directs the Corps to increase outreach and en-
gagement with non-Federal sponsors on projects within the pro-
gram.
Sec. 307. Upper Mississippi River System Environmental Manage-
ment Program
This section increases the authorization amounts for the Upper
Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program.
Sec. 308. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System
This section clarifies that any Federal funds used to carry out
construction of McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System
are considered as initiating construction of the project.
Sec. 309. Ouachita-Black River Navigation Project, Arkansas
This section authorizes water supply as a project purpose for the
Ouachita-Black project after the Corps completes its feasibility
study and review.
Sec. 310. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for flood control
in the Sacramento River, California, consisting of a riverbed gra-
dient restoration facility at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District In-
take.
Sec. 311. Lake Isabella, California
This section provides the Corps with the authority to acquire real
property to support the Isabella Dam Safety Modification Project,
and the ability to transfer this property to any Federal agency
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
without reimbursement.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
90
Sec. 312. Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project
This section aligns the project for flood risk management and the
second phase of the feasibility study for flood risk management in
the Lower San Juaquin River.
Sec. 313. San Diego River and Mission Bay, San Diego County,
California
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for flood control
and navigation in San Diego River and Mission Bay, San Diego
County, California.
Sec. 314. San Francisco, California, Waterfront Area
This section clarifies a declaration of non-navigability for the San
Francisco Waterfront Area.
Sec. 315. Western Pacific Interceptor Canal, Sacramento River,
California
This section deauthorizes a portion of levee in the Sacramento
River Flood Control Project that is associated with the Western Pa-
cific Interceptor Canal.
Sec. 316. Rio Grande Environmental Management Program, Colo-
rado, New Mexico and Texas
This section reauthorizes the Rio Grande Environmental Man-
agement Program through 2029.
Sec. 317. New London Harbor waterfront channel, Connecticut
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for navigation
in New London Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 318. Washington Harbor, District of Columbia
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for navigation
in Washington Harbor, District of Columbia.
Sec. 319. Central Everglades, Florida
This section clarifies that the Corps is directed to carry out the
Everglades Agricultural Area modification (authorized in WRDA
2018) as part of the ongoing Central Everglades Planning Project.
Sec. 320. Miami River, Florida
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for navigation
in Miami River, Florida.
Sec. 321. Taylor Creek Reservoir and Levee L–73 (Section 1), Upper
St. Johns River Basin, Florida
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for flood control
and other purposes in the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 322. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana
This section directs the Secretary to issue a report to the Com-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
mittees on the feasibility of a potential modification to the
Calcasieu River and Pass Dredged Material Management Plan.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
91
Sec. 323. San Juan-Chama Project, Abiquiu Dam, New Mexico
This section would remove the 200,000-acre-foot storage limita-
tion at Abiquiu Reservoir and allow for additional storage of either
San-Juan Chama or native water if the entity requesting the stor-
age acquires the necessary property interests to accommodate the
storage.
Sec. 324. Pawcatuck River, Little Narragansett Bay and Watch Hill
Cove, Rhode Island And Connecticut
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for navigation
in Pawcatuck River, Little Narragansett Bay and Watch Hill Cove,
Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Sec. 325. Harris County, Texas
This section repeals Section 575 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996.
Sec. 326. Cap Sante Waterway, Washington
This section deauthorizes a portion of the project for navigation
in Cap Sante Waterway and Navigation Channel, Skagit County,
Washington.
Sec. 327. Regional sediment management
This section directs the Secretary to expedite regional sediment
management activities related to the Federal navigation project in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, as a source of suitable sediment to
reinforce the stone revetment at Nantasket Beach, Hull, Massachu-
setts.
Sec. 328. Additional assistance for critical projects
This section makes modifications to 14 projects for environmental
infrastructure which were included in the Corps’ Annual Report to
Congress for 2019 and 2020. This section also includes a modifica-
tion to the authority related to the Lowell Creek Tunnel, Alaska,
authorized by section 5032(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2007.
Sec. 329. Project modification authorizations
This section modifies the water supply contracts for three
projects at the request of the non-Federal interest. The section also
makes modifications to two projects for flood risk management.
Sec. 330. Application of credit
This section allows Louisiana Coastal Area project credit to be
applied against obligations by the State of Louisiana related to the
Greater New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduc-
tion System Project.
Sec. 331. Project reauthorizations
This section directs the Corps to study and submit a report to
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Congress on the feasibility of reauthorizing four projects that were
previously deauthorized.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
92
Sec. 332. Conveyances
This section authorizes the Corps to convey real property owned
by the Federal government in the following locations: Eufaula, Ala-
bama; Montgomery, Alabama; Massac County, Illinois; Clinton,
Missouri; Tri-Country Levee District, Missouri; Judge Joseph Bark-
er, Jr., House, Ohio; Leaburg Fish Hatchery, Oregon; and Willam-
ette Falls Locks, Oregon.
In carrying out the requirements of this section, including sub-
section 332(h) relating to the conveyance of the Judge Joseph Bark-
er, Jr. House, Ohio, nothing in this section affects the application
of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Cleanup, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)) to such action.
Sec. 333. Repeals
This section repeals previous WRDA deauthorization provisions.
TITLE IV—WATER RESOURCES INVESTMENTS
Sec. 401. Project authorizations
This section authorizes 34 water resources projects that have
completed technical review by the Corps and are recommended by
the Chief of Engineers. The projects are authorized to be carried
out in accordance with the plan, and subject to the conditions, de-
scribed in the Chief’s Reports. Each of the projects has as its pri-
mary purpose, one of the following: navigation, hurricane and
storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, water supply,
or ecosystem restoration. This section also authorizes four project
modifications for previously authorized projects.
Sec. 402. Special rules
This section provides additional guidance for certain projects.
Sec. 403. Authorization of projects based on feasibility studies pre-
pared by non-federal interests
This section authorizes four water resources development and
conservation projects that were prepared by non-Federal interests
and have undergone review assessments by the Chief of Engineers.
These projects are authorized to be carried out in accordance with
the plan, and subject to the modifications or conditions described
in the review assessments.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omit-
ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics,
and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
SECTION 14003 OF THE CARES ACT
øSEC. 14003. Any discretionary appropriation for the Corps of
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
Engineers derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (not
to exceed the total amount deposited in the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund in the prior fiscal year) shall be subtracted from the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
93
estimate of discretionary budget authority and outlays for any esti-
mate of an appropriations Act under the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 or the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided, That the modi-
fications described in this section shall not take effect until the ear-
lier of January 1, 2021 or the date of enactment of legislation au-
thorizing the development of water resources and shall remain in
effect thereafter.¿
SEC. 14003. Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-
gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(H) HARBOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.—If, for any fiscal
year, appropriations for the Construction, Mississippi River
and Tributaries, and Operation and Maintenance accounts
of the Corps of Engineers are enacted that are derived from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund established under sec-
tion 9505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that
the Congress designates in statute as being for harbor oper-
ations and maintenance activities, then the adjustment for
that fiscal year shall be the total of such appropriations
that are derived from such Fund and designated as being
for harbor operations and maintenance activities.’’.
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
* * * * * * *
TITLE I—COST SHARING
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.
(a) FLOOD CONTROL.—
(1) GENERAL RULE.—The non-Federal interests for a project
with costs assigned to flood control (other than a nonstructural
project) shall—
(A) pay 5 percent of the cost of the project assigned to
flood control during construction of the project;
(B) provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
dredged material disposal areas required only for flood
control and perform all related necessary relocations; and
(C) provide that portion of the joint costs of lands, ease-
ments, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and
relocations which is assigned to flood control.
(2) 35 PERCENT MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION.—If the value of the
contributions required under paragraph (1) of this subsection
is less than 35 percent of the cost of the project assigned to
flood control, the non-Federal interest shall pay during con-
struction of the project such additional amounts as are nec-
essary so that the total contribution of the non-Federal inter-
ests under this subsection is equal to 35 percent of the cost of
the project assigned to flood control.
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(3) 50 PERCENT MAXIMUM.—The non-Federal share under
paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the
project assigned to flood control. The preceding sentence does
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
94
not modify the requirement of paragraph (1)(A) of this sub-
section.
(4) DEFERRED PAYMENT OF AMOUNT EXCEEDING 30 PERCENT.—
If the total amount of the contribution required under
paragaph (1) of this subsection exceeds 30 percent of the cost
of the project assigned to flood control, the non-Federal inter-
ests may pay the amount of the excess to the Secretary over
a 15-year period (or such shorter period as many be agreed to
by the Secretary and the non-Federal interests) beginning on
the date construction of the project or separable element is
completed, at an interest rate determined pursuant to section
106. The preceding sentence does not modify the requirement
of paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.
(b) øNONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS¿ PROJECTS
USING NONSTRUCTURAL, NATURAL, OR NATURE-BASED FEATURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of ønon-
structural flood control measures¿ a flood risk management or
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction measure using a
nonstructural feature, or a natural feature or nature-based fea-
ture (as those terms are defined in section 1184(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016 (33 U.S.C. 2289a(a))), shall
be 35 percent of the cost of such measures. The non-Federal in-
terests for any such measures shall be required to provide all
lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal
areas, and relocations necessary for the project, but shall not
be required to contribute any amount in øcash during construc-
tion of the project¿ cash during construction for a non-
structural feature if the costs of land, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, and relocations for such fea-
ture are estimated to exceed 35 percent.
(2) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION IN EXCESS OF 35 PERCENT.—
At any time during construction of a project, if the Secretary
determines that the costs of land, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, and relocations for the
project, in combination with other costs contributed by the non-
Federal interests, will exceed 35 percent, any additional costs
for the project (not to exceed 65 percent of the total costs of the
project) shall be a Federal responsibility and shall be contrib-
uted during construction as part of the Federal share.
(c) OTHER PURPOSES.—The non-Federal share of the cost as-
signed to other project purposes shall be as follows:
(1) hydroelectric power: 100 percent, except that the mar-
keting of such power and the recovery of costs of constructing,
operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating such projects shall
be in accordance with existing law: Provided, That after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall not submit
to Congress any proposal for the authorization of any water re-
sources project that has a hydroelectric power component un-
less such proposal contains the comments of the appropriate
Power Marketing Adminstrator designated pursuant to section
302 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law
95–91) concerning the appropriate Power Marketing Adminis-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
tration’s ability to market the hydroelectric power expected to
be generated and not required in the operation of the project
under the applicable Federal power marketing law, so that,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
95
100 percent of operation, maintenance and replacement costs,
100 percent of the capital investment allocated to the purpose
of hydroelectric power (with interest at rates established pur-
suant to or prescribed by applicable law), and any other costs
assigned in accordance with law for return from power reve-
nues can be returned within the period set for the return of
such costs by or pursuant to such applicable Federal power
marketing law;
(2) municipal and industrial water supply: 100 percent;
(3) agricultural water supply: 35 percent;
(4) recreation, including recreational navigation: 50 percent
of separable costs and, in the case of any harbor or inland har-
bor or channel project, 50 percent of joint and separable costs
allocated to recreational navigation;
(5) hurricane and storm damage reduction: 35 percent;
(6) aquatic plant control: 50 percent of control operations;
and
(7) environmental protection and restoration: 35 percent; ex-
cept that nothing in this paragraph shall affect or limit the ap-
plicability of section 906.
(d) CERTAIN OTHER COSTS ASSIGNED TO PROJECT PURPOSES.—
(1) CONSTRUCTION.—Costs of constructing projects or meas-
ures for beach erosion control and water quality enhancement
shall be assigned to appropriate project purposes listed in sub-
sections (a), (b), and (c) and shall be shared in the same per-
centage as the purposes to which the costs are assigned, except
that all costs assigned to benefits to privately owned shores
(where use of such shores is limited to private interests) or to
prevention of losses of private lands shall be borne by non-Fed-
eral interests and all costs assigned to the protection of feder-
ally owned shores shall be borne by the United States.
(2) PERIODIC NOURISHMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a project authorized for
construction after December 31, 1999, except for a project
for which a District Engineer’s Report is completed by that
date, the non-Federal cost of the periodic nourishment of
the project, or any measure for shore protection or beach
erosion control for the project, that is carried out—
(i) after January 1, 2001, shall be 40 percent;
(ii) after January 1, 2002, shall be 45 percent; and
(iii) after January 1, 2003, shall be 50 percent.
(B) BENEFITS TO PRIVATELY OWNED SHORES.—All costs
assigned to benefits of periodic nourishment projects or
measures to privately owned shores (where use of such
shores is limited to private interests) or to prevention of
losses of private land shall be borne by the non-Federal in-
terest.
(C) BENEFITS TO FEDERALLY OWNED SHORES.—All costs
assigned to the protection of federally owned shores for
periodic nourishment measures shall be borne by the
United States.
(e) APPLICABILITY.—
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) IN GENERAL.—This section applies to any project (includ-
ing any small project which is not specifically authorized by
Congress and for which the Secretary has not approved fund-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
96
ing before the date of enactment of this Act), or separable ele-
ment thereof, on which physical construction is initiated after
April 30, 1986, as determined by the Secretary, except as pro-
vided in paragraph (2). For the purpose of the preceding sen-
tence, physical construction shall be considered to be initiated
on the date of the award of a construction contract.
(2) EXCEPTIONS.—This section shall not apply to the Yazoo
Basin, Mississippi, Demonstration Erosion Control Program,
authorized by Public Law 98–8, or to the Harlan, Kentucky, or
Barbourville, Kentucky, elements of the project authorized by
section 202 of Public Law 96–367.
(f) DEFINITION OF SEPARABLE ELEMENT.—For purposes of this
Act, the term ‘‘separable element’’ means a portion of a project—
(1) which is physically separable from other portions of the
project; and
(2) which—
(A) achieves hydrologic effects, or
(B) produces physical or economic benefits, which are
separately identifiable from those produced by other por-
tions of the project.
(g) DEFERRAL OF PAYMENT.—(1) With respect to the projects list-
ed in paragraph (2), no amount of the non-Federal share required
under this section shall be required to be paid during the three-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) The projects referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, Tensas Basin, Louisiana and
Arkansas, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946;
(B) Eight Mile Creek, Arkansas, authorized by Public Law
99–88; and
(C) Rocky Bayou Area, Yazoo Blackwater Area, Yazoo Basin,
Mississippi, authorized by the Flood Control Act approved Au-
gust 18, 1941.
(h) ASSIGNED JOINT AND SEPARABLE COSTS.—The share of the
costs specified under this section for each project purpose shall
apply to the joint and separable costs of construction of each project
assigned to that purpose, except as otherwise specified in this Act.
(i) LANDS, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, DREDGED MATERIAL DIS-
POSAL AREAS, AND RELOCATIONS.—Except as provided under sec-
tion 906(c), the non-Federal interests for a project to which this
section applies shall provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way,
and dredged material disposal areas required for the project and
perform all necessary relocations, except to the extent limited by
any provision of this section. The value of any contribution under
the preceding sentence shall be included in the non-Federal share
of the project specified in this section.
(j) AGREEMENT.—
(1) REQUIREMENT FOR AGREEMENT.—Any project to which
this section applies (other than a project for hydroelectric
power) shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests have
entered into binding agreements with the Secretary to pay 100
percent of the operations, maintenance, and replacement and
rehabilitation costs of the project, to pay the non-Federal share
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
of the costs of construction required by this section, and to hold
and save the United States free from damages due to the con-
struction or operation and maintenance of the project, except
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
97
for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States
or its contractors.
(2) ELEMENTS OF AGREEMENT.—The agreement required pur-
suant to paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with the require-
ments of section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1818) and shall provide for the rights and duties of the United
States and the non-Federal interest with respect to the con-
struction, operation, and maintenance of the project, including,
but not limited to, provisions specifying that, in the event the
non-Federal interest fails to provide the required non-Federal
share of costs for such work, the Secretary—
(A) shall terminate or suspend work on the project un-
less the Secretary determines that continuation of the
work is in the interest of the United States or is necessary
in order to satisfy agreements with other non-Federal in-
terests in connection with the project; and
(B) may terminate or adjust the rights and privileges of
the non-Federal interest to project outputs under the
terms of the agreement.
(k) PAYMENT OPTIONS.—øExcept as¿
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this sec-
tion, the Secretary may permit the full non-Federal contribu-
tion to be made without interest during construction of the
project or separable element, or with interest at a rate deter-
mined pursuant to section 106 over a period of not more than
thirty years from the date of completion of the project or sepa-
rable element. Repayment contracts shall provide for recalcula-
tion of the interest rate at five-year intervals.
(2) RENEGOTIATION OF TERMS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a non-Federal inter-
est, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest may renego-
tiate the terms and conditions of an eligible deferred pay-
ment, including—
(i) permitting the non-Federal contribution to be
made without interest, pursuant to paragraph (1);
(ii) recalculation of the interest rate;
(iii) full or partial forgiveness of interest accrued
during the period of construction; and
(iv) a credit against construction interest for a non-
Federal investment that benefits the completion or per-
formance of the project or separable element.
(B) ELIGIBLE DEFERRED PAYMENT.—An eligible deferred
payment agreement under subparagraph (A) is an agree-
ment for which—
(i) the non-Federal contribution was made with in-
terest;
(ii) the period of project construction exceeds 10 years
from the execution of a project partnership agreement
or appropriation of funds; and
(iii) the construction interest exceeds $45,000,000.
(C) CREDIT FOR NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to cred-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
it any costs incurred by the non-Federal interest (in-
cluding in-kind contributions) to remedy a design or
construction deficiency of a covered project or separable
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
98
element toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
covered project, if the Secretary determines the remedy
to be integral to the completion or performance of the
covered project.
(ii) CREDIT OF COSTS.—If the non-Federal interest in-
curs costs or in-kind contributions for a project to rem-
edy a design or construction deficiency of a project or
separable element which has a 100 percent Federal cost
share, and the Secretary determines the remedy to be
integral to the completion or performance of the project,
the Secretary is authorized to credit such costs to any
interest accrued on a deferred non-Federal contribu-
tion.
(l) DELAY OF INITIAL PAYMENT.—At the request of any non-Fed-
eral interest the Secretary may permit such non-Federal interest to
delay the initial payment of any non-Federal contribution under
this section or section 101 for up to one year after the date when
construction is begun on the project for which such contribution is
to be made. Any such delay in initial payment shall be subject to
interest charges for up to six months at a rate determined pursu-
ant to section 106.
(m) ABILITY TO PAY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any cost-sharing agreement under this sec-
tion for a feasibility study, or for construction of an environ-
mental protection and restoration project, a flood control
project, a project for navigation, storm damage protection,
shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or recreation, or an ag-
ricultural water supply project, shall be subject to the ability
of the non-Federal interest to pay.
(2) CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES.—The ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accord-
ance with criteria and procedures in effect under paragraph (3)
on the day before the date of enactment of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2000; except that such criteria and
procedures shall be revised, and new criteria and procedures
shall be developed, not later than December 31, 2007 to reflect
the requirements of such paragraph (3).
(3) REVISION OF CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES.—In revising cri-
teria and procedures pursuant to paragraph (2), the Sec-
retary—
(A) shall consider—
(i) per capita income data for the county or counties
in which the project is to be located; and
(ii) the per capita non-Federal cost of construction of
the project for the county or counties in which the
project is to be located; and
(B) may consider additional criteria relating to the non-
Federal interest’s financial ability to carry out its cost-
sharing responsibilities, to the extent that the application
of such criteria does not eliminate areas from eligibility for
a reduction in the non-Federal share as determined under
subparagraph (A).
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(4) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Notwithstanding subsection (a),
the Secretary may reduce the requirement that a non-Federal
interest make a cash contribution for any project that is deter-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
99
mined to be eligible for a reduction in the non-Federal share
under criteria and procedures in effect under paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3).
(n) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—
(1) PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF EXCESS CONTRIBU-
TIONS.—The Secretary may not—
(A) solicit contributions from non-Federal interests for
costs of constructing authorized water resources projects or
measures in excess of the non-Federal share assigned to
the appropriate project purposes listed in subsections (a),
(b), and (c); or
(B) condition Federal participation in such projects or
measures on the receipt of such contributions.
(2) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary’s au-
thority under section 903(c).
* * * * * * *
TITLE II—HARBOR DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 203. STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BY
NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.
(a) SUBMISSION TO SECRETARY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A non-Federal interest may undertake a
federally authorized feasibility study of a proposed water re-
sources development project and submit the study to the Sec-
retary.
(2) GUIDELINES.—To assist non-Federal interests, the Sec-
retary, as soon as practicable, shall issue guidelines for feasi-
bility studies of water resources development projects to pro-
vide sufficient information for the formulation of the studies.
(b) REVIEW BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall review each fea-
sibility study received under subsection (a)(1) for the purpose of de-
termining whether or not the study, and the process under which
the study was developed, each comply with Federal laws and regu-
lations applicable to feasibility studies of water resources develop-
ment projects.
(c) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—
(1) REVIEW AND SUBMISSION OF STUDIES TO CONGRESS.—Not
later than 180 days after the date of receipt of a feasibility
study of a project under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives øa report¿ an assess-
ment that describes—
(A) the results of the Secretary’s review of the study
under subsection (b), including a determination of whether
the project is feasible;
(B) any recommendations the Secretary may have con-
cerning the plan or design of the project; and
(C) any conditions the Secretary may require for con-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
struction of the project.
(2) LIMITATION.—The completion of the review by the Sec-
retary of a feasibility study that has been submitted under
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
100
subsection (a)(1) may not be delayed as a result of consider-
ation being given to changes in policy or priority with respect
to project consideration.
(d) CREDIT.—If a project for which a feasibility study has been
submitted under subsection (a)(1) is authorized by a Federal law
enacted after the date of the submission to Congress under sub-
section (c), the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of construction of the project an amount equal to the
portion of the cost of developing the study that would have been
the responsibility of the United States if the study had been devel-
oped by the Secretary.
(e) REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—
(1) REVIEW.—The Secretary may accept and expend funds
provided by non-Federal interests to undertake reviews, in-
spections, certifications, and other activities that are the re-
sponsibility of the Secretary in carrying out this section.
(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—At the request of a non-Federal
interest, the Secretary shall provide to the non-Federal interest
technical assistance relating to any aspect of a feasibility study
if the non-Federal interest contracts with the Secretary to pay
all costs of providing such technical assistance.
(3) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by non-Federal interests
under this subsection shall not be eligible for credit under sub-
section (d) or reimbursement.
(4) IMPARTIAL DECISIONMAKING.—In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted from
a non-Federal interest will not affect the impartial decision-
making of the Secretary, either substantively or procedurally.
(5) SAVINGS PROVISION.—The provision of technical assist-
ance by the Secretary under paragraph (2)—
(A) shall not be considered to be an approval or endorse-
ment of the feasibility study; and
(B) shall not affect the responsibilities of the Secretary
under subsections (b) and (c).
SEC. 204. CONSTRUCTION OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.
(a) WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DEFINED.—In this
section, the term ‘‘water resources development project’’ means a
project recommendation that results from—
(1) a feasibility report, as such term is defined in section
7001(f) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014;
(2) a completed feasibility study developed under section 203;
or
(3) a final feasibility study for water resources development
and conservation and other purposes that is specifically au-
thorized by Congress to be carried out by the Secretary.
(b) AUTHORITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A non-Federal interest may carry out a fed-
erally authorized water resources development project, or sepa-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
rable element thereof—
(A) in accordance with a plan approved by the Secretary
for the project or separable element; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
101
(B) subject to any conditions that the Secretary may re-
quire, including any conditions specified under section
203(c)(3).
(2) CONDITIONS.—Before carrying out a water resources de-
velopment project, or separable element thereof, under this
section, a non-Federal interest shall—
(A) obtain any permit or approval required in connection
with the project or separable element under Federal or
State law, except as provided in paragraph (3); and
(B) ensure that a final environmental impact statement
or environmental assessment, as appropriate, for the
project or separable element has been filed.
(3) PERMIT EXCEPTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—For a project described in subsection
(a)(1) or subsection (a)(3), or a separable element thereof,
with respect to which a written agreement described in
subparagraph (B) has been entered into, a non-Federal in-
terest that carries out a project under this section shall not
be required to obtain any Federal permits or approvals
that would not be required if the Secretary carried out the
project or separable element unless significant new cir-
cumstances or information relevant to environmental con-
cerns or compliance have arisen since development of the
project recommendation.
(B) WRITTEN AGREEMENT.—For purposes of this para-
graph, a written agreement shall provide that the non-
Federal interest shall comply with the same legal and
technical requirements that would apply if the project or
separable element were carried out by the Secretary, in-
cluding all mitigation required to offset environmental im-
pacts of the project or separable element as determined by
the Secretary.
(C) CERTIFICATIONS.—Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), if a non-Federal interest carrying out a project under
this section would, in the absence of a written agreement
entered into under this paragraph, be required to obtain a
certification from a State under Federal law to carry out
the project, such certification shall still be required if a
written agreement is entered into with respect to the
project under this paragraph.
(4) DATA SHARING.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—If a non-Federal interest for a water
resources development project begins to carry out that
water resources development project under this section,
the non-Federal interest may request that the Secretary
transfer to the non-Federal interest all relevant data and
documentation under the control of the Secretary with re-
spect to that water resources development project.
(B) DEADLINE.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
the Secretary shall transfer the data and documentation
requested by a non-Federal interest under subparagraph
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(A) not later than the date that is 90 days after the date
on which the non-Federal interest so requests such data
and documentation.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
102
(C) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this paragraph obligates
the Secretary to share any data or documentation that the
Secretary considers to be proprietary information.
(c) STUDIES AND ENGINEERING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—When requested by an appropriate non-
Federal interest, the Secretary shall undertake all necessary
studies, engineering, and technical assistance on construction
for any project to be undertaken under subsection (b), and pro-
vide technical assistance in obtaining all necessary permits for
the construction, if the non-Federal interest contracts with the
Secretary to furnish the United States funds for the studies,
engineering, or technical assistance on construction in the pe-
riod during which the studies, engineering, or technical assist-
ance on construction are being conducted.
(2) NO WAIVER.—Nothing in this section may be construed to
waive any requirement of section 3142 of title 40, United
States Code.
(3) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by non-Federal interests
under this subsection shall not be eligible for credit or reim-
bursement under subsection (d).
(4) IMPARTIAL DECISIONMAKING.—In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted from
a non-Federal interest will not affect the impartial decision-
making of the Secretary, either substantively or procedurally.
(d) CREDIT OR REIMBURSEMENT.—
(1) GENERAL RULE.—Subject to paragraph (3), a project or
separable element of a project carried out by a non-Federal in-
terest under this section shall be eligible for credit or reim-
bursement for the Federal share of work carried out on a
project or separable element of a project if—
(A) before initiation of construction of the project or sep-
arable element—
(i) the Secretary approves the plans for construction
of the project or separable element of the project by
the non-Federal interest;
(ii) the Secretary determines, before approval of the
plans, that the project or separable element of the
project is feasible; and
(iii) the non-Federal interest enters into a written
agreement with the Secretary under section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), in-
cluding an agreement to pay the non-Federal share, if
any, of the cost of operation and maintenance of the
project; and
(B) the Secretary determines that all Federal laws and
regulations applicable to the construction of a water re-
sources development project, and any conditions identified
under subsection (b)(1)(B), were complied with by the non-
Federal interest during construction of the project or sepa-
rable element of the project.
(2) APPLICATION OF CREDIT.—The Secretary may apply credit
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
toward—
(A) the non-Federal share of authorized separable ele-
ments of the same project; or
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
103
(B) subject to the requirements of this section and sec-
tion 1020 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014, at the request of the non-Federal interest, the
non-Federal share of a different water resources develop-
ment project.
(3) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary may only apply credit or
provide reimbursement under paragraph (1) if—
(A) Congress has authorized construction of the project
or separable element of the project;
(B) the Secretary certifies that the project has been con-
structed in accordance with—
(i) all applicable permits or approvals; and
(ii) this section; and
(C) in the case of reimbursement, appropriations are pro-
vided by Congress for such purpose.
(4) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall regularly monitor and
audit any water resources development project, or separable
element of a water resources development project, constructed
by a non-Federal interest under this section to ensure that—
(A) the construction is carried out in compliance with the
requirements of this section; and
(B) the costs of the construction are reasonable.
(5) DISCRETE SEGMENTS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may authorize credit or
reimbursement under this subsection for carrying out a
discrete segment of a federally authorizedwater resources
development project, or separable element thereof, before
final completion of the project or separable element if—
(i) except as provided in clause (ii), the Secretary de-
termines that the discrete segment satisfies the re-
quirements of paragraphs (1) through (4) in the same
manner as the project or separable element; and
(ii) notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A)(ii), the Sec-
retary determines, before the approval of the plans
under paragraph (1)(A)(i), that the discrete segment is
technically feasible and environmentally acceptable.
(B) DETERMINATION.—Credit or reimbursement may not
be made available to a non-Federal interest pursuant to
this paragraph until the Secretary determines that—
(i) the construction of the discrete segment for which
credit or reimbursement is requested is complete; and
(ii) the construction is consistent with the authoriza-
tion of the applicable water resources development
project, or separable element thereof, and the plans
approved under paragraph (1)(A)(i).
(C) WRITTEN AGREEMENT.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—As part of the written agreement
required under paragraph (1)(A)(iii), a non-Federal in-
terest to be eligible for credit or reimbursement under
this paragraph shall—
(I) identify any discrete segment that the non-
Federal interest may carry out; and
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(II) agree to the completion of the water re-
sources development project, or separable element
thereof, with respect to which the discrete seg-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
104
ment is a part and establish a timeframe for such
completion.
(ii) REMITTANCE.—If a non-Federal interest fails to
complete a water resources development project, or
separable element thereof, that it agreed to complete
under clause (i)(II), the non-Federal interest shall
remit any reimbursements received under this para-
graph for a discrete segment of such project or sepa-
rable element.
(D) DISCRETE SEGMENT DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the
term ‘‘discrete segment’’ means a physical portion of a
water resources development project to be carried out, or
separable element thereof—
(i) described by a non-Federal interest in a written
agreement required under paragraph (1)(A)(iii); and
(ii) that the non-Federal interest can operate and
maintain, independently and without creating a haz-
ard, in advance of final completion of the water re-
sources development project, or separable element
thereof.
(e) NOTIFICATION OF COMMITTEES.—If a non-Federal interest no-
tifies the Secretary that the non-Federal interest intends to carry
out a project, or separable element thereof, under this section, the
Secretary shall provide written notice to the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives
concerning the intent of the non-Federal interest.
ø(f) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Whenever a non-Federal in-
terest carries out improvements to a federally authorized harbor or
inland harbor, the Secretary shall be responsible for operation and
maintenance in accordance with section 101(b) if—
ø(1) before construction of the improvements—
ø(A) the Secretary determines that the improvements
are feasible and consistent with the purposes of this title;
and
ø(B) the Secretary and the non-Federal interest execute
a written agreement relating to operation and mainte-
nance of the improvements;
ø(2) the Secretary certifies that the project or separable ele-
ment of the project is constructed in accordance with applicable
permits and appropriate engineering and design standards;
and
ø(3) the Secretary does not find that the project or separable
element is no longer feasible.¿
(f) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—
(1) ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE.—Whenever a non-Federal
interest carries out improvements to a federally authorized har-
bor or inland harbor, the Secretary shall be responsible for op-
eration and maintenance in accordance with section 101(b) if—
(A) before construction of the improvements—
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(i) the Secretary determines that the improvements
are feasible and consistent with the purposes of this
title; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
105
(ii) the Secretary and the non-Federal interest execute
a written agreement relating to operation and mainte-
nance of the improvements;
(B) the Secretary certifies that the project or separable
element of the project is constructed in accordance with ap-
plicable permits and appropriate engineering and design
standards; and
(C) the Secretary does not find that the project or sepa-
rable element is no longer feasible.
(2) FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE COSTS OF A LO-
CALLY PREFERRED PLAN.—In the case of improvements deter-
mined by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i) to devi-
ate from the national economic development plan, the Secretary
shall be responsible for all operation and maintenance costs of
such improvements, as described in section 101(b), including
costs in excess of the costs of the national economic development
plan, if the Secretary determines that the improvements satisfy
the requirements of paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 210. øAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS¿ FUNDING FOR
NAVIGATION.
(a) TRUST FUND.—There are authorized to be appropriated out of
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, established by section 9505
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, for each fiscal year such
sums as may be necessary to pay—
(1) 100 percent of the eligible operations and maintenance
costs of those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated
and maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation for such fiscal year; and
(2) up to 100 percent of the eligible operations and mainte-
nance costs assigned to commercial navigation of all harbors
and inland harbors within the United States.
(b) GENERAL FUND.—There are authorized to be appropriated out
of the general fund of the Treasury of the United States for each
fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to pay the balance of
all eligible operations and maintenance costs not provided by pay-
ments from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under this sec-
tion.
(c) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HARBOR PROJECTS.—
ø(1) IN GENERAL.—To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary shall make expenditures to pay for operation and
maintenance costs of the harbors and inland harbors referred
to in subsection (a)(2), including expenditures of funds appro-
priated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, based on an
equitable allocation of funds among all such harbors and in-
land harbors.¿
(1) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year, of the funds made
available under this section (including funds appropriated from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund), the Secretary shall make
expenditures to pay for operation and maintenance costs of the
harbors and inland harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2),
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
using—
(A) not less than 20 percent of such funds for emerging
harbor projects, to the extent there are identifiable oper-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
106
ations and maintenance needs, including eligible break-
water and jetty needs, at such harbor projects;
(B) not less than 12 percent of such funds for projects
that are located within the Great Lakes Navigation System;
(C) 10 percent of such funds for expanded uses carried
out at donor ports, as such term is defined in section 2106
of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c); and
(D) any remaining funds for operation and maintenance
costs of any harbor or inland harbor referred to in sub-
section (a)(2) based on an equitable allocation of such funds
among such harbors and inland harbors.
(2) CRITERIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In determining an equitable allocation
of funds under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
(i) consider the information obtained in the assess-
ment conducted under subsection (e);
(ii) consider the national and regional significance of
harbor operations and maintenance; and
(iii) as appropriate, consider national security and
military readiness needs.
(B) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not allocate funds
under paragraph (1) based solely on the tonnage transiting
through a harbor.
ø(3) EMERGING HARBOR PROJECTS.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of this subsection, in making expenditures
under paragraph (1) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall al-
locate for operation and maintenance costs of emerging harbor
projects an amount that is not less than 10 percent of the
funds made available under this section for fiscal year 2012 to
pay the costs described in subsection (a)(2).¿
(3) ADDITIONAL USES AT EMERGING HARBORS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In each fiscal year, the Secretary may
use not more than $5,000,000 of funds designated for
emerging harbor projects under paragraph (1)(A) to pay for
the costs of up to 10 projects for maintenance dredging of
a marina or berthing area, in an emerging harbor, that in-
cludes an area that is located adjacent to, or is accessible
by, a Federal navigation project, subject to subparagraphs
(B) and (C) of this paragraph.
(B) ELIGIBLE EMERGING HARBORS.—The Secretary may
use funds as authorized under subparagraph (A) at an
emerging harbor that—
(i) supports commercial activities, including commer-
cial fishing operations, commercial fish processing op-
erations, recreational and sport fishing, and commer-
cial boat yards; or
(ii) supports activities of the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operating.
(C) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall
require a non-Federal interest to contribute not less than 25
percent of the costs for maintenance dredging of that por-
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
tion of a maintenance dredging project described in sub-
paragraph (A) that is located outside of the Federal naviga-
tion project, which may be provided as an in-kind contribu-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
107
tion, including through the use of dredge equipment owned
by non-Federal interest to carry out such activities.
(4) MANAGEMENT OF GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION SYSTEM.—To
sustain effective and efficient operation and maintenance of
the Great Lakes Navigation System, including any navigation
feature in the Great Lakes that is a Federal responsibility with
respect to operation and maintenance, the Secretary shall
manage all of the individually authorized projects in the Great
Lakes Navigation System as components of a single, com-
prehensive system, recognizing the interdependence of the
projects.
(5) EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES.—Nothing in this subsection
prohibits the Secretary from making an expenditure to pay for
the operation and maintenance costs of a specific harbor or in-
land harbor, including the transfer of funding from the oper-
ation and maintenance of a separate project, if—
(A) the Secretary determines that the action is necessary
to address the navigation needs of a harbor or inland har-
bor where safe navigation has been severely restricted due
to an unforeseen event; and
(B) the Secretary provides within 90 days of the action
notice and information on the need for the action to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Com-
mittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
ø(d) PRIORITIZATION.—
ø(1) PRIORITY.—
ø(A) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year, if priority funds
are available, the Secretary shall use at least 10 percent
of such funds for emerging harbor projects.
ø(B) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—For each fiscal year,
of the priority funds available, the Secretary shall use—
ø(i) not less than 5 percent of such funds for under-
served harbor projects; and
ø(ii) not less than 10 percent of such funds for
projects that are located within the Great Lakes Navi-
gation System.
ø(C) UNDERSERVED HARBORS.—In determining which un-
derserved harbor projects shall receive funds under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall consider—
ø(i) the total quantity of commerce supported by the
water body on which the project is located; and
ø(ii) the minimum width and depth that—
ø(I) would be necessary at the underserved har-
bor project to provide sufficient clearance for fully
loaded commercial vessels using the underserved
harbor project to maneuver safely; and
ø(II) does not exceed the constructed width and
depth of the authorized navigation project.
ø(2) EXPANDED USES.—
ø(A) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE HARBOR OR INLAND HARBOR
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the term ‘‘eligible harbor or
inland harbor’’ means a harbor or inland harbor at which
the total amount of harbor maintenance taxes collected in
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
108
the immediately preceding 3 fiscal years exceeds the value
of the work carried out for the harbor or inland harbor
using amounts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
during those 3 fiscal years.
ø(B) USE OF EXPANDED USES FUNDS.—
ø(i) FISCAL YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2024.—For each of
fiscal years 2015 through 2024, of the priority funds
available, the Secretary shall use not less than 10 per-
cent of such funds for expanded uses carried out at an
eligible harbor or inland harbor.
ø(ii) SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEARS.—For fiscal year
2025 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary
shall use not less than 10 percent of the priority funds
available for expanded uses carried out at an eligible
harbor or inland harbor.
ø(C) PRIORITIZATION.—In allocating funds under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall give priority to projects at
eligible harbors or inland harbors for which the difference,
calculated in dollars, is greatest between—
ø(i) the total amount of funding made available for
projects at that eligible harbor or inland harbor from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in the imme-
diately preceding 3 fiscal years; and
ø(ii) the total amount of harbor maintenance taxes
collected at that harbor or inland harbor in the imme-
diately preceding 3 fiscal years.
ø(3) REMAINING FUNDS.—
ø(A) IN GENERAL.—For each of fiscal years 2015 through
2024, if after fully funding all projects eligible for funding
under paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B)(i), priority funds made
available under those paragraphs remain unobligated, the
Secretary shall use those remaining funds to pay for oper-
ation and maintenance costs of any harbor or inland har-
bor referred to in subsection (a)(2) based on an equitable
allocation of those funds among the harbors and inland
harbors.
ø(B) CRITERIA.—In determining an equitable allocation
of funds under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall—
ø(i) use the criteria specified in subsection (c)(2)(A);
and
ø(ii) make amounts available in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (1)(A).
ø(4) EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES.—Nothing in this subsection
prohibits the Secretary from making an expenditure to pay for
the operation and maintenance costs of a specific harbor or in-
land harbor, including the transfer of funding from the oper-
ation and maintenance of a separate project, if—
ø(A) the Secretary determines that the action is nec-
essary to address the navigation needs of a harbor or in-
land harbor where safe navigation has been severely re-
stricted due to an unforeseen event; and
ø(B) the Secretary provides within 90 days of the action
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
notice and information on the need for the action to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Com-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Jul 26, 2020 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR460P1.XXX HR460P1
109
Full text truncated for size; the complete document is in the PDF above.File and source
- File
- CRPT_crpt-116hrpt460_crpt-116hrpt460-pt1.pdf
- Size
- 824,924 bytes
- SHA-256
- fa0ab1c7dbb45ca79b0185a6b211a34c95ae93784f81af2c51d5e7dd9a5370f9
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov