Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2022
Summary
This is Senate Report 117-36 of the 117th Congress, 1st Session, Calendar No. 115, titled Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2022, from the Committee on Appropriations, ordered to be printed August 4, 2021. Mrs. Feinstein reports on S. 2605, making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and recommends that the bill do pass. The report lists a total of the bill as reported to the Senate of $56,865,791,000 in new obligational authority, compared with $49,524,875,000 in 2021 appropriations. The contents list titles for the Department of Defense-Civil, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy.
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 117Srpt36 Crpt 117Srpt36
- Case
- Crpt Crpt 117Srpt36 Crpt 117Srpt36
Cite this document
“Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2022.”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-crpt-117srpt36-crpt-117srpt36/
, SHA-256 50db7f71059e08d00265fe9809ca03226f6d6291b1f4c38522281a8ab3a86369.Full text
Calendar No. 115
117TH CONGRESS REPORT
" SENATE !
1st Session 117–36
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS
BILL, 2022
AUGUST 4, 2021.—Ordered to be printed
Mrs. FEINSTEIN, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2605]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2605) mak-
ing appropriations for energy and water development and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for
other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the
bill do pass.
New obligational authority
Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $56,865,791,000
Amount of 2021 appropriations ............................... 49,524,875,000
Amount of 2021 budget estimate ............................ 55,472,849,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to—
2021 appropriations .......................................... ∂7,340,916,000
2022 budget estimate ........................................ ∂1,392,942,000
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
45–272 PDF
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6664 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4
Title I:
Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers—Civil:
Investigations ..................................................................................... 11
Construction ....................................................................................... 20
Mississippi River and Tributaries .................................................... 30
Operation and Maintenance .............................................................. 32
Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 54
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 54
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 54
Expenses ............................................................................................. 54
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) .......... 55
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program ................. 55
General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil ..................................... 56
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 57
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 58
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 68
Gross Appropriation ........................................................................... 68
California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 68
Policy and Administration ................................................................. 69
General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 69
Title III:
Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ............................................... 75
Sustainable Transportation ...................................................................... 77
Renewable Energy ..................................................................................... 81
Corporate Support ..................................................................................... 90
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response .................. 91
Energy Delivery Grid Operations Technology ........................................ 94
Nuclear Energy .......................................................................................... 97
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 108
Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 108
SPR Petroleum Account ............................................................................ 108
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 108
Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 108
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup ..................................................... 108
Science ........................................................................................................ 109
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ........................................ 116
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program .................................. 117
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program ............. 117
Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program ................................................ 118
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs ......................................... 118
Departmental Administration .................................................................. 119
Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 120
Weapons Activities .................................................................................... 120
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 122
Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 123
Federal Salaries and Expenses ................................................................ 123
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
(2)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5905 Sfmt 5905 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
3
Page
Title III—Continued
Department of Energy—Continued
Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 123
Defense Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommis-
sioning .................................................................................................... 124
Other Defense Activities ........................................................................... 125
Power Marketing Administrations:
Operations and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administra-
tion ................................................................................................... 125
Operations and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administra-
tion ................................................................................................... 125
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance, West-
ern Area Power Administration .................................................... 125
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund ................. 125
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................. 126
General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 154
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 155
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 155
Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 156
Denali Commission ................................................................................... 156
Northern Border Regional Commission ................................................... 156
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission .............................................. 156
Southwest Border Regional Commission ................................................. 157
Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 157
Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 158
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 159
General Provisions ........................................................................................... 159
Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 160
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ................................................................................................................... 161
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ................................................................................................................... 162
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the
Senate ................................................................................................................... 162
Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 165
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Item ........................................ 166
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 176
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5905 Sfmt 5905 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
4
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for fiscal
year 2022, beginning October 1, 2021 and ending September 30,
2022, for energy and water development, and for other related pur-
poses. It supplies funds for water resources development programs
and related activities of the Corps of Engineers’ civil works pro-
gram in title I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Rec-
lamation and Central Utah Project in title II; for the Department
of Energy’s energy research and development activities, including
environmental restoration and waste management, and the atomic
energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security Adminis-
tration in title III; and for independent agencies and commissions,
including the Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional
Authority, Denali Commission, Northern Border Regional Commis-
sion, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The fiscal year 2022 budget estimates for the bill total
$53,624,824,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The rec-
ommendation of the Committee totals $53,625,000,000. This is
$176,000 above the budget estimates and $1,873,000,000 above the
enacted appropriation for the prior fiscal year. The bill also rec-
ommends $450,000,000 in emergency appropriations.
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS
To develop this recommendation, the Committee held two budget
hearings in June 2021 in connection with the fiscal year 2022
budget requests. The hearings provided officials from the agencies
with an opportunity to present the administration’s most pressing
priorities to the Committee.
INTRODUCTION
The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for the high-
est priority activities across the agencies funded in the bill. The
recommendation includes funds for critical water infrastructure, in-
cluding our Nation’s inland waterways, ports, and harbors; agricul-
tural water supply and drought relief in the West; groundbreaking
scientific research and development, including world-class super-
computing; support for the Nation’s nuclear weapons, non-prolifera-
tion, and nuclear Navy programs; and critical economic develop-
ment.
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
TITLE I
CORPS OF ENGINEERS–CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL
OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $8,700,000,000 for the Corps of En-
gineers [Corps]. The Committee’s recommendation sets priorities by
supporting our Nation’s water infrastructure. Specifically, for the
eighth consecutive year, the Committee recommendation provides
adequate appropriations to utilize all of the estimated fiscal year
2022 revenues from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund [IWTF].
INTRODUCTION
The Corps’ Civil Works mission is to provide quality, responsive
engineering services to the Nation in peace and war. Approxi-
mately 23,000 civilians and about 290 military officers are respon-
sible for executing the Civil Works mission. This bill only funds the
Civil Works functions of the Corps.
The Corps maintains our inland waterways, keeps our ports
open, manages a portion of our drinking water supply, provides
emission-free electricity from dams, restores aquatic ecosystems,
looks after many of our recreational waters, helps manage the river
levels during flooding, provides environmental stewardship, and
provides emergency response to natural disasters. The annual net
economic benefit generated by the Corps’ civil works mission is es-
timated to be $89,000,000,000, which equates to a return of about
$12.00 for every $1.00 expended.
The Corps’ responsibilities include:
—Navigation systems, including 13,000 miles of coastal naviga-
tion channels, 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 239 lock
chambers, and 1,067 harbors, which handle over 2.4 billion
tons of cargo annually;
—Flood risk management infrastructure, including 718 dams,
12,400 miles of levees, and multiple hurricane and storm dam-
age risk reduction projects along the coast;
—Municipal and industrial water supply storage at 136 projects
spread across 25 States;
—Environmental stewardship, infrastructure, and ecosystem res-
toration;
—Recreation for approximately 262 million recreation visits per
year to Corps projects;
—Regulation of waters under Federal statutes; and
—Maintaining hydropower capacity of nearly 24,000 megawatts
at 75 projects.
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
(5)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
6
BUDGET STRUCTURE CHANGES
The fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Corps proposed nu-
merous structural changes, including the creation of two new ac-
counts—Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] and IWTF; the
shifting of various studies and projects between accounts and busi-
ness lines; and the consolidation of certain line items. The Com-
mittee rejects all such proposed changes and instead recommends
funding for the requested studies and projects in the manner in
which funding has traditionally been provided. Unless expressly
noted, the Committee recommends studies and projects remain at
the funding levels included in the budget request, but in different
accounts than in the budget request. In particular:
—Projects requested in the HMTF account are shown in the Con-
struction, Mississippi River and Tributaries, or Operation and
Maintenance accounts, as appropriate;
—Sand mitigation projects requested in the HMTF account are
shown in the Construction account;
—Interagency and International Support activities is not consoli-
dated within the Coordination with Other Water Resource
Agencies remaining item in Investigations;
—Disposition studies will continue to be funded under the re-
maining item line Disposition of Completed Projects in the In-
vestigations account;
—Tribal Partnership projects will continue to be funded under
the Tribal Partnership Program remaining item line in the In-
vestigations account as well as in the remaining line item in
the Construction account, and these amounts may also be used
to cover necessary administrative expenses prior to agreement
execution;
—Inspection of Completed Works, Project Condition Surveys, and
Scheduling of Reservoir Operations will continue to be funded
under States instead of consolidated into a national program as
requested in the Operation and Maintenance account and the
HMTF account; and
—Inspection of Completed Works will continue to be funded
under the individual States instead of consolidated into a na-
tional program as requested in the Mississippi River and Trib-
utaries account.
If the Corps proposes budget structure changes in future fiscal
years, the proposal shall be accompanied by a display of the fund-
ing request in the traditional budget structure.
CONTINUING RESOLUTION APPORTIONMENT
For the purposes of continuing resolutions starting in fiscal year
2018, the Office of Management and Budget changed the long-
standing policy by which funding is apportioned to the Civil Works
program of the Corps. Under the new policy, funding within an in-
dividual account was apportioned separately for amounts from the
general fund of the Treasury and from various trust funds. The
Committee has long intended the Corps to have the flexibility to
address projects most in need of funding under a continuing resolu-
tion. The creation of artificial accounting distinctions has the po-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
tential to cause serious impediments to the efficient and effective
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
7
implementation of the Civil Works program. For example, work on
many navigation projects is limited by environmental or other reg-
ulatory windows. Further limitations imposed by separately appor-
tioning HMTF monies could cause serious disruptions to the eco-
nomic activity that depends on these navigation channels.
For these reasons, the Committee disagrees with the change in
apportionment policy and directs the Administration to follow the
previous policy during any continuing resolutions that may occur in
this or any future fiscal years.
DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION
The CARES Act (Public Law 116–136) made certain changes to
the methods by which funds from the HMTF are treated under dis-
cretionary budget rules. The Committee recommends an estimated
$2,050,000,000 in accordance with these changes. This funding will
enable the Corps to make significant progress on the backlog of
dredging needs. Meeting these needs, including deeper drafts to ac-
commodate the move toward larger ships, will be essential if the
Nation is to remain competitive in international markets and to
continue advancing economic development and job creation domes-
tically.
Additionally, the Water Resources Development Act [WRDA] of
2020 made certain changes to the methods by which funds for
donor and energy transfer ports under section 2106(c) of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act [WRRDA] of 2014 are
treated under discretionary budget rules. The Committee rec-
ommends $50,000,000 for these purposes.
INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM
The Committee is disappointed and perplexed by the budget re-
quest’s proposal to not fund any ongoing work and only spend
$52,150,000 of the estimated $115,000,000 of deposits for fiscal
year 2022 into the IWTF. The Corps shall continue to prioritize
funding for ongoing construction projects. The inland waterways
system is essential for national security and for sustaining our
global economic competitiveness as it serves as an integral compo-
nent of the Nation’s intermodal transportation system. Waterways
are more efficient compared to alternative forms of freight trans-
portation because barge transport allows for the movement of more
cargo per shipment. Barges on the inland system transport many
commodities including coal, petroleum, grain, and other farm prod-
ucts. The importance of modernizing inland waterway infrastruc-
ture is so important to these commercial users that they advocated
for an increase to the fees they pay into the IWTF in 2014. Con-
gress instituted this increase and took additional actions that al-
lowed for two priority projects, the Olmsted Lock and Dam in Ken-
tucky and the Lower Monongahela in Pennsylvania, to be funded
to completion in fiscal year 2020. The success of this approach and
the strategic importance of the inland waterway system is the rea-
son the Committee does not understand why the administration
would propose to delay progress by eliminating funding for ongoing
construction projects. The budget request disregards the existing
Capital Investment Strategy and the advice and recommendations
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
of industry experts and professional engineers. Therefore, the Com-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
8
mittee recommends appropriations that make full use of all esti-
mated revenues from the IWTF for ongoing construction projects.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING
The Committee recommends funding above the budget request
for Investigations, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Mis-
sissippi River and Tributaries, Regulatory, and Expenses. This
funding is for additional work (including new starts) that either
was not included in the budget request or was inadequately budg-
eted. A study or project may not be excluded from evaluation for
additional funding due to its inconsistency with administration pol-
icy. None of the funds may be used for any item for which the Com-
mittee has specifically denied funding.
The Committee includes the seven new start Investigations
projects and four new start Construction projects proposed in the
budget request without change. The Committee also includes addi-
tional new starts in Investigations and Construction. No further
new starts are recommended in this act.
The Administration is reminded these funds are in addition to its
budget request, and Administration budget metrics shall not be a
reason to disqualify a study or project from being funded. The focus
of the allocation process shall favor the obligation, rather than the
expenditure, of funds for work in fiscal year 2022.
Funding associated with each category of Additional Funding
may be allocated to any eligible study or project, as appropriate,
within that category; funding associated with each subcategory
may be allocated only to eligible studies or projects, as appropriate,
within that subcategory.
Work Plan.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment
of this act, the Corps shall provide to the Committee a work plan
consistent with the following general guidance, as well as the spe-
cific direction the Committee provides within each account: (1) a
detailed description of the rating system(s) developed and used to
evaluate studies and projects; (2) delineation of how these funds
are to be allocated; (3) a summary of the work to be accomplished
with each allocation, including phase of work and the study or
project’s remaining cost to complete (excluding Operation and
Maintenance); and (4) a list of all studies and projects that were
considered eligible for funding but did not receive funding, includ-
ing an explanation of whether the study or project could have used
funds in fiscal year 2022 and the specific reasons each study or
project was considered less competitive for an allocation of funds.
The administration shall not delay apportioning the funding for
Congressionally Directed Spending while developing the work plan
for additional funding. The initiation of construction of an individ-
ually authorized project funded within a programmatic line item
shall not require a new start designation if some amount of con-
struction funding under such programmatic line item was appro-
priated and expended during the previous fiscal year. A study is
not completed until preconstruction engineering and design [PED]
is completed. The Committee urges the Corps within its Flood and
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction mission to strive for a balance
between inland and coastal projects. The Corps is encouraged to
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
support opportunities to restore critical habitat and enhance the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
9
Nation’s economic development, job growth, and international com-
petitiveness.
The following shall not require a new start or new investment
decision and shall be considered ongoing work:
—When moving from feasibility to PED;
—To initiate work on a separable element of a project when con-
struction of one or more separable elements of that project was
initiated previously;
—Any authorized environmental infrastructure project;
—Study or construction activities related to individual projects
authorized under section 1037 of WRRDA;
—Work undertaken to correct a design deficiency on an existing
Federal project; and
—Projects that have previously received construction funding for
authorized work.
INVASIVE CARP
The Corps is undertaking multiple efforts to stop invasive carp
from reaching the Great Lakes. These actions are critical to pro-
tecting the Great Lakes ecosystem and the $7,000,000,000 rec-
reational fishing and $16,000,000,000 boating industries. Last year,
the Corps sent Congress an approved Chief’s Report for a plan to
build a comprehensive suite of measures to counter invasive carp
at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam, a critical choke point to halt
the spread of invasive species in the Illinois River. The Committee
is encouraged to see funding is included in the fiscal year 2022
budget request to continue work on PED.
As the Corps prioritizes projects, it shall consider critical projects
to prevent the spread of invasive species. The Corps is directed to
provide quarterly updates to the Committee on the progress and
status of efforts to prevent the further spread of invasive carp in-
cluding the Brandon Road Recommended Plan and the second
array at the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal; the location and
density of carp populations; the use of emergency procedures pre-
viously authorized by the Congress; and the development, consider-
ation, and implementation of new technological and structural
countermeasures; and the progress on PED work.
The Corps shall continue to collaborate at levels commensurate
with previous years with the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the State of Illinois, and members of the Invasive
Carp Regional Coordinating Committee, including identifying navi-
gation protocols that would be beneficial or effective in reducing
the risk of vessels inadvertently carrying aquatic invasive species,
including invasive carp, through the Brandon Road Lock and Dam
in Joliet, Illinois. Any findings of such an evaluation shall be in-
cluded in the quarterly briefings to the Committees. The Corps is
further directed to implement navigation protocols shown to be ef-
fective at reducing the risk of entrainment without jeopardizing the
safety of vessels and crews. The Corps shall brief the Committee
on such navigation protocols and potential solutions within 30 days
of enactment of this act.
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
10
ADVANCED FUNDS AGREEMENTS
Under the advanced funds authority, the Corps is authorized to
accept, from a State or political subdivision thereof, all funds cov-
ering both the Federal and non-Federal share of total project costs
required to construct an authorized water resources development
project or separable element thereof. Based on the non-Federal
sponsor’s commitment to provide all funds required to construct a
project, or separable element thereof, the Corps may undertake
construction of the project prior to a new start determination re-
lated to Federal funding for the project. In light of a non-Federal
sponsor’s commitment to provide all funding required for construc-
tion of the project, or separable element thereof, the Committee di-
rects that Federal funds shall not be provided for such construc-
tion. Instead, for such projects, any Federal funding may be pro-
vided only after completion of construction, as repayment of the
Federal share of such construction, from funding provided in this
or subsequent acts for reimbursements or repayments, and would
be subject to a new start designation. The Committee does not in-
tend that this direction apply to any project with an advanced
funds project partnership agreement was in place prior to Decem-
ber 20, 2019.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
The Committee included congressionally directed spending, as
defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate. The Committee funded only projects and studies that are
authorized by law. In the interest of providing full disclosure of
funding provided in this Title, all projects requested and funded
are listed in a table accompanying this report. All of the projects
funded in this report have gone through the same rigorous process
and approvals as those proposed by the President.
CONTINUING CONTRACTS
The Corps is authorized by section 621 of title 33, United States
Code to execute its Civil Works projects through the use of a Spe-
cial Continuing Contract Clause as described in Engineering Circu-
lars 11–2-221 and 11–2-222. This permits the Corps to award the
entire contract and fund the contract incrementally until comple-
tion. This acquisition strategy is well-suited to large, multi-year
projects, including those with life safety, national security, or legal
concerns, and is being used successfully at multiple projects nation-
wide. The Administration is directed to resume using its existing
continuing contract authorities in accordance with the general pro-
visions in this act as an efficient approach to managing large,
multi-year projects.
UPDATED CAPABILITIES
Given the nature of the Civil Works program, the Committee un-
derstands the assumptions made in the budget request regarding
the amount of work that can be accomplished in fiscal year 2022
for a particular project can change for a number of unforeseen rea-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
sons. The Committee expects updated capabilities will be addressed
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
11
and adjusted during conference using the latest data available at
that time.
REPROGRAMMING
The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation pro-
vided in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116–94).
REPORTING REQUIREMENT
The Corps shall provide a quarterly report to the Committee,
which includes the total budget authority and unobligated balances
by year for each program, project, or activity, including any prior
year appropriations.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall provide
a quarterly report to the Committee, which includes the total budg-
et authority and unobligated balances by year for each activity
funded in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) account, including any prior year appropriations.
INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $153,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 105,837,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 153,000,000
The Committee recommends $153,000,000 for Investigations.
Funding in this account is used to develop feasibility studies and
conduct PED to address the Nation’s water infrastructure needs, in
support of project authorization.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The table below displays the budget request and the Committee’s
recommendation for Investigations:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
ALABAMA
CLAIRBORNE AND MILLERS FERRY LOCKS AND DAMS (FISH PASSAGE), LOWER ALA-
BAMA RIVER, AL ........................................................................................................ 600 600
TENNESSEE TOMBIGBEE AND BLACK WARRIOR TOMBIGBEE DEEPENING STUDY, AL &
MS .............................................................................................................................. ........................ 400
ALASKA
AKUTAN HARBOR NAVIGATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, AK ................................................... 100 ........................ †
ELIM SUBSISTENCE HARBOR, AK ................................................................................... 2,000 2,000
LOWELL CREEK FLOOD DIVERSION, AK .......................................................................... ........................ 3,000
ARIZONA
LITTLE COLORADO RIVER, WINSLOW, AZ ........................................................................ ........................ 500
CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA (CHANNELS), CA ............................................ 565 ........................ †
LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA .................................................... 1,693 1,693
LOWER CACHE CREEK, CA ............................................................................................. ........................ 2,000
LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT) ................................. 600 600
LOWER SAN JOAQUIN (LATHROP & MANTECA), CA ........................................................ ........................ 200
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
MURRIETA CREEK, CA (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT) ........................................... 600 600
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
12
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
IMPERIAL STREAMS SALTON SEA, CA ............................................................................ ........................ 200
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE (OCEANSIDE), CA ....................................................... ........................ 750
SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA ............................................................................................... ........................ 200
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE (SANTA CLARA COUNTY), CA ........................ ........................ 1,600
CONNECTICUT
HARTFORD, CT & EAST HARTFORD, CT .......................................................................... ........................ 200
COLORADO
ADAMS & DENVER SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CO ............................................................... ........................ 400
FLORIDA
CENTRAL & SOUTHERN FLORIDA (C&SF) FLOOD RESILIENCY (SECTION 216) STUDY,
FL ............................................................................................................................... 500 500
HAWAII
HONOLULU HARBOR MODIFICATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, HI .......................................... ........................ 800
IDAHO
BOISE RIVER, GARDEN CITY, ADA COUNTY, ID .............................................................. 500 500
ILLINOIS
CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL (GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT) ....................................... 500 500
IL RIVER 519 FOX RIVER DAMS RESTORATION, IL ........................................................ ........................ 250
GREAT LAKES COASTAL RESILIENCY STUDY, IL, IN, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA and WI ......... 500 500
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES—MISSISSIPPI RIVER AQUATIC NUISANCE
SPECIES, IL, IN, OH & WI .......................................................................................... 4,940 4,940
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION), IL 700 ........................ ‡
UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER FLOODING & RESTORATION, IL .......................................... ........................ 1,525
KANSAS
LOWER MISSOURI RIVER BASIN, KS, MO and IA ........................................................... 600 600
LOUISIANA
PORT FOURCHON BELLE PASS CHANNEL, LA ................................................................. ........................ 1,500
MICHIGAN
ALTAMAHA RIVER, OCONEE RIVER AND OCMULGEE RIVERS, BELLVILLE POINT HAR-
BOR, DARIEN HARBOR, FANCY BLUFF CREEK, SAPELO HARBOR, SATILLA RIVER
AND ST MARYS RIVER WATERWAYS, MI .................................................................... 100 ........................ †
MINNESOTA
ST ANTHONY FALLS, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ................................................................. 250 ........................ †
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION),
MN .............................................................................................................................. 1,650 ........................ ‡
MISSOURI
LITTLE BLUE RIVER BASIN, JACKSON COUNTY, MO ....................................................... 600 600
LOWER MISSOURI BASIN—BRUNSWICK L–246, MO ...................................................... ........................ 500
LOWER MISSOURI BASIN—HOLT COUNTY, MO, DONIPHAN COUNTY, KS ...................... ........................ 300
LOWER MISSOURI BASIN—JEFFERSON CITY L–142, MO ............................................... ........................ 300
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY BACK BAYS, NJ ......................................................................................... 750 750
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ .......................................................... ........................ 1,125
PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ............................................................................................ ........................ 500
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ ................................................. ........................ 750
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB–BASIN, NJ ................................................ ........................ 300
NEW YORK
HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NY & NJ ................................ ........................ 1,200
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
NEW YORK—NEW JERSEY HARBOR AND TRIBUTARIES, NY and NJ .............................. 1,450 1,450
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
13
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
SPRING CREEK SOUTH, JAMAICA BAY (HOWARD BEACH), QUEENS, NY ........................ 500 500
NORTH CAROLINA
WILMINGTON NAVIGATION HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, NC ............................................... ........................ 500
OHIO
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................... 300 ........................ ‡
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................... 300 ........................ ‡
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ................................................................................................ 300 ........................ ‡
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH .................................................................................................. 300 ........................ ‡
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ................................................................................................. 300 ........................ ‡
OKLAHOMA
ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION, MKARNS 12–FT CHANNEL, OK ..................................... ........................ 500
OPTIMA LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 200 ........................ †
OREGON
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY 2024 IMPLEMENTATION, OR & WA ....................................... 10,000 ........................ ‡
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR .................................................... ........................ 732
PUERTO RICO
CAÑO MARTIN PEÑA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, PR ..................................................... 2,150 2,150
RHODE ISLAND
LITTLE NARRAGANSETT BAY, RI ..................................................................................... 500 500
SOUTH CAROLINA
PORT ROYAL HARBOR, SC .............................................................................................. 342 ........................ †
WACCAMAW RIVER, HORRY COUNTY, SC ....................................................................... 500 500
SOUTH DAKOTA
WATERTOWN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT, SD ................................................................. ........................ 200
TENNESSEE
HATCHIE/LOOSAHATCHIE, MISSISSIPPI RIVER MILE 775–736 HABITAT RESTORATION,
TN & AR ..................................................................................................................... 600 600
TEXAS
ARKANSAS–RED RIVER CHLORIDE CONTROL, AREA VIII, TX .......................................... 343 ........................ †
CITY OF EL PASO, TX ..................................................................................................... 600 600
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ......................................................... 200 ........................ †
GIWW—BRAZOS RIVER FLOODGATES & COLORADO RIVER LOCKS, TX ......................... 6,932 6,932
WESTSIDE CREEKS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, SAN ANTONIO, TX ............................... 2,340 2,340
VIRGIN ISLANDS
SAVAN GUT PHASE II, ST THOMAS, VI ............................................................................ 3,777 3,777
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA RIVER TURNING BASIN NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, WA & OR ................. ........................ 200
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA ................................. ........................ 250
WEST VIRGINIA
KANAWHA RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY, WV ....................................................................... ........................ 500
WISCONSIN
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................. 300 ........................ ‡
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................... 300 ........................ ‡
MENOMINEE RIVER DEEPENING, WI ............................................................................... ........................ 200
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
OTTER CREEK WATERSHED WETLAND RESTORATION, WI ............................................... 75 ........................ †
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
14
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—INVESTIGATIONS—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
WYOMING
LITTLE GOOSE CREEK, SHERIDAN, WY ........................................................................... 500 500
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES .................................................................... 50,857 55,814
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK ................................................................... ........................ 9,513
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ...................................................................... ........................ ........................
FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................
SHORE PROTECTION ....................................................................................................... ........................ ........................
NAVIGATION .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................
COASTAL AND DEEP-DRAFT ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................
INLAND ............................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ...................................................................... ........................ ........................
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ......................................................... ........................ ........................
ACCESS TO WATER DATA ............................................................................................... 325 325
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI–CADD ............................................ 250 250
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................ 1,500 3,000
COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE AGENCIES .......................................... 450 450
DISPOSITION OF COMPLETED PROJECTS ........................................................................ ........................ 1,657
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES .................................................................................... 80 80
FERC LICENSING ............................................................................................................. 100 100
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ..................................................................................................... 275 275
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES .......................................................................... 15,400 15,400
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES .................................................................................................... 500 500
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES .................................................................................... 100 100
INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 75 75
INVENTORY OF DAMS ..................................................................................................... 400 400
NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................... 6,500 6,500
NATIONAL SHORELINE MANAGEMENT STUDY ................................................................. ........................ 1,500
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ................................................................................ 7,000 11,000
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 3,500 3,500
PRECIPITATION STUDIES ................................................................................................. 150 150
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................ 75 75
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 15,000 35,000
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS .................................................... 50 50
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................... 750 750
STREAM GAGING ............................................................................................................. 1,500 1,500
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 1,000 1,000
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM .................................................................................... ........................ 4,036
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS .......................................................................... 54,980 97,186
GRAND TOTAL .................................................................................................... 105,837 153,000
† Funded in remaining items
‡ Funded in a remaining item in another account
* Includes funds requested in Projects Listed Under States within this account
Arkansas Red River Chloride.—The Committee rejects the budget
request to fund a disposition study of this project. The Corps is di-
rected to brief the Committee within 60 days of enactment on the
status of the project.
Bubbly Creek.—The Committee is disappointed that negotiations
between the Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Department of Justice over remaining liability concerns have yet to
produce an outcome that will allow the project to move forward.
The Committee urges the parties to expedite a resolution and di-
rects the Corps to brief the Committee within 90 days of enact-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ment.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
15
Chicago River.—The Committee urges the Corps to work with
the City of Chicago River Ecology and Governance Task Force to-
wards a comprehensive ecosystem restoration project for the res-
toration of the Chicago River. The Corps is encouraged to consider
including funding for this study in future budget submissions.
Chicago Shoreline.—The Committee remains concerned that lake
levels in the Great Lakes are predicted to surpass record high lev-
els and strongly encourages the Corps to reevaluate the conclusions
of the original feasibility report to assess Federal interest in pro-
viding additional coastal protection along the Chicago shoreline.
The Committee reminds the Corps that the Chicago Shoreline can
be a focus area of the Great Lakes Resiliency Study.
Coastal Field Data Collection.—The Committee strongly supports
this program and the Corps’ commitment to collect and maintain
wave data, water level data, and other data critical to making in-
formed decisions in our coastal areas. The Committee is concerned
about the ability of the Corps to meets its obligation to maintain
this critical capability at the proposed funding levels. Therefore,
the Committee recommends an additional $1,500,000 above the
budget request amount of $1,500,000 to continue data collection
and research on the impact of extreme storms in coastal regions.
Additionally, with the funds provided, the committee encourages
the Corps to evaluate the readiness of the unique facilities and
equipment necessary to support this effort and to include increased
funding in future budget submissions in order to revitalize and
modernize facilities and equipment in support of this program.
Flood Policy in Urban Areas.—The Committee has continually
requested the Flood Policy in Urban Areas report as detailed in by
section 1211 of America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (Public
Law 115–270) [AWIA 2018]. The Corps is reminded that this report
can be completed using existing funds and encourages the Corps to
include reporting requirements in future budget submissions, if
needed. The Committee directs the Corps, to provide a briefing on
the findings of this report within 45 days of enactment.
Inland Navigation Modernization Projects.—The Corps is urged
to continue PED activities on inland modernization projects to pre-
vent delays to project delivery and prepare projects for construc-
tion.
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System [MKARNS].—
The MKARNS is an established Marine Highway for waterborne
commerce, relieving our Nation’s highways and bridges from addi-
tional congestion and wear and tear. MKARNS supports economic
activity across a 12-State region, moving 11 million tons of com-
merce worth $4,000,000,000 annually. MKARNS is a vital corridor
for agriculture commerce (soybeans and wheat) and aggregate com-
modities (sand, gravel, and rock) from the Gulf Coast to the Mid-
West. Farmers and ranchers rely on its availability year round to
move crops to markets in all seasons and facilitate the movement
of fertilizer domestically to prepare for the growing season each
year.
MKARNS needs to be deepened with a consistent 12-foot naviga-
tion channel to provide tow drafts that are more compatible with
navigation on the Mississippi River. The current disparity results
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
in less efficient barge operations and higher transportation costs.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
16
The Committee understands this project has capability to complete
economic impacts and environmental updates and strongly urges
the Corps to prioritize this effort in fiscal year 2022 to continue
construction as soon as practicable. The Committee continues to
encourage the Corps to provide funds for non-structural activities,
such as channel deepening, with low annual funding needs in years
where appropriated funds for IWTF cost shared projects are suffi-
cient to accommodate such projects without impacting ongoing con-
struction projects. The Corps shall brief the Committee within 90
days of enactment of this act on section 159 of WRDA 2020.
Finally, the Committee encourages the Corps to prioritize inland
waterways projects consistent with the update to the Capital In-
vestment Strategy, pursuant to section 2002(d) of WRRDA 2014.
McMicken Dam, Arizona.—The Committee recognizes the impor-
tance of the McMicken Dam project in providing flood protection to
the region, including Luke Air Force Base, which delivers national
security benefits to the Nation. The Corps is reminded to consider
the value of national security in prioritizing and formulating stud-
ies and projects.
New York-New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries Study.—The Com-
mittee appreciates that the budget request includes $1,450,000 to
continue this study. The Committee expects the Corps to vigorously
engage community groups and incorporate impacts of low-fre-
quency precipitation and impacts of sea level rise in the study. The
Corps is directed to brief the Committee within 45 days of enact-
ment of this act on how it plans to follow these steps.
North Atlantic Division Report on Hurricane Barriers and Har-
bors of Refuge.—The Committee continues to express the impor-
tance of the North Atlantic Division report on hurricane barriers
and harbors of refuge mandated under Section 1218 of AWIA 2018.
The Corps is reminded that this report can be completed using ex-
isting funds and encourages the Corps to include reporting require-
ments in future budget requests, if needed. Within 90 days of en-
actment of this act, the Corps shall brief the Committee on the sta-
tus and path forward for the report.
Planning Assistance to States.—The Corps is reminded that this
program encompasses many types of studies and technical assist-
ance dealing with a number of water resource issues, including but
not limited to, sediment management, coastal resilience, State
water planning, water distribution, and water supply evaluations.
Puget Sound Nearshore Study.—The Committee encourages the
Corps to proceed with the tiered implementation strategy using all
existing authorities as outlined in the Puget Sound Nearshore Eco-
system Restoration Project Feasibility Study, Completion Strategy
Guidance dated June 2015. The Corps is directed to recognize the
Puget Sound Nearshore Study as the feasibility component for the
purposes of section 544 of WRDA 2000 (Public Law 106–541). The
Committee notes that the Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation Act (Public Law 114–332) [WIIN Act] authorized con-
struction of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration
Project. The Committee reminds the Corps that consistent with the
direction in this report no new start, new investment decision, or
new phase decision shall be required to continue this project in
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
PED.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
17
Research and Development—Future Work.—The Committee ap-
preciates and recognizes the value of research topics currently
being addressed by the Army Engineer Research and Development
Center [ERDC] towards advancing the Civil Works missions of the
Corps. The Committee understands that the ERDC and the Corps
have identified a series of critical research categories that will ad-
vance the efficient implementation of the Civil Works mission and
provide value to the Nation. The Committee also understands that
responding to these research needs can benefit the Corps by
leveraging the expertise of universities through partnerships. The
Committee directs the ERDC, within 90 days of enactment of this
act, to brief the Committee on future research needs (including
multi-year funding requirements) and potential university partner-
ships related to its strategic goals.
Research and Development—Biopolymers.—The Committee rec-
ommends $6,000,000 of additional funding to continue research on
the use of biopolymers to rehabilitate civil works structures, reduce
the costs of rehabilitating and maintaining these structures, and
increase resiliency of these structures against potential threats.
With continued funding, the Committee understands this effort will
be completed in 2 years.
Research and Development—Flood and Coastal Systems.—The
Committee recognizes the importance of ensuring the integrity of
our Nation’s flood control systems and employing the most effective
technologies to identify potential deficiencies in these systems. The
Committee recommends $5,000,000 to utilize partnerships to re-
search and develop advanced technology to automate assessment
and inspection of flood control systems for the purpose of identi-
fying levee deficiencies, such as slope instability, settlement and
seepage, and ensuring the safety of the surrounding areas and com-
munities. Within 90 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall
provide to the Committee a proposal for this effort including a de-
tailed scope of work with a breakdown of research activities, work
to be performed by the Corps and academia, specific deliverables,
and schedule and funding requirements. Additionally, the Com-
mittee is interested in how this work can contribute to existing op-
erations and maintenance activities and how potential cybersecu-
rity concerns can be addressed.
Research and Development—Freshwater Intrusion.—The Com-
mittee recognizes the need to develop tools to assess, forecast, and
proactively manage the hydrodynamic and environmental impacts
of large-scale freshwater intrusion into the Mississippi Sound and
surrounding waters. These consistent freshwater intrusions have
been detrimental to the Mississippi Sound and the U.S. blue econ-
omy. The Corps is encouraged to partner with academia with ex-
pertise in coastal processes and ocean and hydrodynamic modeling
to develop these tools.
Research and Development—Geophysical Modeling.—Rising sea
levels and the increasing severity and frequency of weather events
continues to impact coastlines, rivers, and related habitats. Addi-
tional funding of $4,000,000 is provided to continue research using
geophysical computational modeling. The Committee understands
that with continued funding this effort will be completed in 3
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
years.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
18
Research and Development—Oyster Restoration.—The Committee
recognizes the importance of sustainable oyster reefs for maintain-
ing healthy ecosystems, protecting coastal infrastructure and sup-
porting commercial fisheries. Recent restoration efforts have not
achieved the intended success for U.S. oyster populations, and the
identification of effective restoration strategies remains a critical
gap. The Committee recommends additional funding of $2,600,000
to continue the oyster reef restoration research and understands
this effort will be completed in fiscal year 2022.
Research and Development—Polymer Composites.—The Com-
mittee recognizes that polymer composites have wide-ranging prov-
en characteristics including lightweight, high strength, corrosion
resistance, and long-term durability that could translate to in-
creased safety for inland waterways infrastructure. The Committee
supports investigating the value of incorporating polymer compos-
ites into infrastructure applications in navigable waterways. With-
in 90 days of enactment of this act, the Corps shall provide to the
Committee a proposal for this effort including a detailed scope of
work, a breakdown of research activities, work to be performed by
the Corps and academia, specific deliverables, and schedule and
funding requirements.
Research and Development—Subsurface Drains.—The Committee
understands the use of subsurface drain systems as a flood risk re-
duction measure or coastal storm risk reduction measure are cur-
rently not considered during project development. Within 90 days
of enactment of this act, the Corps shall brief the Committee on re-
search and development opportunities of subsurface drain systems
pursuant to section 227 of WRDA 2020.
Research and Development—Urban Flood Damage Reduction and
Stream Restoration in Arid Regions.—The Committee recommends
additional funds of $2,000,000 to continue the work on the manage-
ment of water resources projects that promote public safety, reduce
risk, improve operational efficiencies, reduce flood damage in arid
and semi-arid regions, sustain the environment, and position our
water resources systems to be managed as systems that are adapt-
able to the implications of a changing climate. The research and
development program shall also continue its focus on science and
technology efforts to address needs for resilient water resources in-
frastructure. The Committee understands that with continued
funding this effort will be complete in 3 years.
Shore Protection Easements.—The Committee notes the impor-
tance of periodic restoration of the Shore Protection Projects and
their significance for the protection of public safety, public infra-
structure, native vegetation and wildlife, as well as economy sta-
bility in oceanfront communities. The Committee understands the
challenges facing local governments in obtaining the necessary ap-
provals for required easements when no work will be performed on
the property for which the easement is being required. The Com-
mittee encourages the Corps to work with local governments to in-
corporate flexibility in project agreement language that allows for
incremental acquisition of easements necessary for scheduled nour-
ishments.
South Atlantic Coastal Study.—The Committee acknowledges the
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
importance of engaging state, local, and tribal officials throughout
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
19
the study process to ensure the methodology, focus, and results are
implementable by states and communities. The Corps shall consult
with industry groups, academia, and non-governmental organiza-
tions who can provide specialized expertise and coordinate appro-
priate attention and interest in the study’s design and implementa-
tion from relevant stakeholders, including coastal state agencies,
local officials, and private coastal scientists and engineers. The
Committee encourages the Corps to consider near-shore marine
habitats including coral reefs and oyster reefs, as well as the cur-
rent and projected effects of authorized Corps environmental res-
toration programs and projects, including South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration, within the scope of this comprehensive study.
Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries Project.—The Com-
mittee is aware the project area was flooded with record high crests
overflowing the Des Plaines River, resulting in damage to more
than 3,200 residents. The Committee urges the Corps to cooperate
with the non-Federal sponsor to advance work on the flood features
of this project.
Tenkiller Ferry Lake.—Nothing in Section 204(b)(2)(H) of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260) is to
be construed as to require a water reallocation study.
Water Quality and Salinity Impacts on Oyster Reefs.—The Com-
mittee encourages the Corps, when conducting or reviewing envi-
ronmental assessments or environmental impact statements for
navigation or coastal restoration projects in areas where oyster
reefs exist, to consider water quality and salinity impacts on those
reefs and, when appropriate, to mitigate any negative impacts.
Additional Funding.—The Corps is directed to allocate these ad-
ditional funds in accordance with the direction in the front matter
under the heading ‘‘Additional Funding’’. The Corps is reminded
that activities related to innovative materials, as required under
section 1208 of AWIA 2018, are eligible for funding under the Re-
search and Development remaining item. The Committee urges the
Corps to prioritize any authorized projects that would reduce flood
risks to vulnerable communities, have been authorized based on
their ability to reduce life safety risks, have been classified by the
Corps as having a high risk of levee failure and life loss in the last
five fiscal years, and whose failure would cause a release of haz-
ardous materials from a Superfund site. Additionally, the Corps
shall comply with the following direction in allocating funds rec-
ommended for Investigations:
—When evaluating ongoing studies for funding, the Corps shall
consider completing or accelerating ongoing studies or initi-
ating new studies that will enhance the Nation’s economic de-
velopment, job growth, and international competitiveness; are
for projects located in areas that have suffered recent natural
disasters; are for projects that protect life and property; or are
for projects to address legal requirements;
—The Corps is urged to consider any national security benefits
a project may provide when allocating this funding; and
—The Corps shall include appropriate requests for funding in fu-
ture budget submissions for PED and new feasibility studies
initiated in fiscal year 2022. The Corps shall prepare the budg-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
et to reflect study completions, defined as completion of PED.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
20
CONSTRUCTION
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $2,692,645,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,792,378,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,002,003,000
The Committee recommends $3,002,003,000 for Construction.
Funding in this account is used for construction, major rehabilita-
tion, and related activities for water resources development projects
having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, water sup-
ply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other attendant
benefits to the Nation. Funds to be derived from the HMTF will be
applied to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Dis-
posal Facilities Program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s
recommendation for Construction:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS–CONSTRUCTION
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
ARKANSAS
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, THREE RIVERS, AR ........... 96,850 149,000 *
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, NATOMAS BASIN, CA ....................................... 156,915 156,915
CALAVERAS COUNTY, SECTION 219, CA ........................................................................ ........................ 1,300
CITY OF NORWALK, SECTION 219, CA ............................................................................ ........................ 250
DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA ............................................................................................. ........................ 250
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ....................................................... ........................ 1,000
MILLS MEMORIAL PARK RECYCLED WATER, SECTION 219, CA ..................................... ........................ 3,790
NEW RIVER, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CA ............................................................................... ........................ 650
ROSEVILLE-PCWA COOPERATIVE WATER RALIABILITY, CA ............................................. ........................ 75
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN, LOWER SAN JOAQUIN, CA ................................................. 15,000 15,000
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA ................................................................................................. 17,900 17,900
WHITTIER NARROWS, CA (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................................ 219,591 219,591
COLORADO
SECTION 219, CROWLEY COUNTY, CO ........................................................................... ........................ 7,000
DELAWARE
DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE .............................................................................. ........................ 1,200
DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, DE ..................................... ........................ 4,000
DELAWARE COAST, REHOBOTH BEACH TO DEWEY BEACH, DE ..................................... ........................ 7,650
FLORIDA
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (EVERGLADES), FL .................................... 350,000 350,000
GEORGIA
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA .............................................................................. 24,000 24,000
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN ..................................................................... ........................ 9,100 *
CHICAGO SANITARY & SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS, IL ...................................... 12,948 12,948
MADISON & ST CLAIR COUNTIES, IL .............................................................................. ........................ 6,025
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER—ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM, IL, IA, MN, MO & WI .................... ........................ 45,100
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO and WI ................................ 33,170 33,170
INDIANA
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
INDIANA HARBOR, CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY, IN .................................................... ........................ 18,395 *
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
21
CORPS OF ENGINEERS–CONSTRUCTION—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
IOWA
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND & SD ........ 8,075 8,075
LOUISIANA
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ................................................................................... ........................ 9,000 *
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ........................................... 6,000 6,000
SOUTHWEST COASTAL LOUISIANA HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA ................................... ........................ 10,000
MARYLAND
ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD .................... 30,000 30,000
ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD ............................................................................................... ........................ 600 *
CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION & PROTECTION, MD, VA & PA ....... ........................ 5,750
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD and VA ...................................................... 3,880 3,880
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, CUMBERLAND, MD & RIDGELEY, WV ............................. ........................ 390
MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD ............................................................................... ........................ 37,500
POPLAR ISLAND, MD ....................................................................................................... ........................ 4,200 *
MICHIGAN
SAULT STE MARIE (REPLACEMENT LOCK), MI ................................................................ 480,000 480,000
MINNESOTA
SECTION 596, ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, CITY OF BIWABIK, MN .................. ........................ 2,000
SECTION 596, ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, VIRGINIA STREET, MN ................... ........................ 2,000
MISSOURI
MONARCH CHESTERFIELD, MO ....................................................................................... ........................ 12,600
NEW JERSEY
DELWARE BAY COASTLINE, OAKWOOD BEACH, NJ ......................................................... ........................ 5,000
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ ........................................................ ........................ 17,000
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB–BASIN, NJ ................................................ 30,000 30,000
TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ .................................................................. ........................ 15,500
NEW MEXICO
ACEQUIAS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, NM ...................................................... ........................ 9,060
NORTH CAROLINA
CAROLINA BEACH AND VICINITY, NC ............................................................................. ........................ 11,550
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ............................................................................................. ........................ 22,000 *
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC ............................................................................................. ........................ 9,295
NORTH DAKOTA
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ....................................................................................................... 136,496 136,496
OHIO
OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI, OH ............................................................................... ........................ 600
OKLAHOMA
TULSA AND WEST TULSA LEVEE SYSTEM ....................................................................... ........................ 13,789
OREGON
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ................................................................. 25,609 25,609
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ............................................................. ........................ 6,200
PENNSYLVANIA
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION (MONTGOMERY LOCK), PA .................................................... ........................ 20,100
SOUTH CAROLINA
LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SC ............................................................................... ........................ 18,000
VERMONT
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN (SECTION 542), VT ................................................................. ........................ 5,500
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
22
CORPS OF ENGINEERS–CONSTRUCTION—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
VIRGINIA
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA (DEEPENING) ................................................... 83,700 83,700
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID (CRFM) ............................................ 3,575 38,375
DALLES TRIBAL VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WA ....................................................... ........................ 1,200
MOUNT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ................................................................ 29,749 29,749
PUGET SOUND & ADAJACENT WATER RESTORATION (SPENCER ISLAND), WA ............... ........................ 5,000
WEST VIRGINIA
SHEPHERDSTOWN WATER WORKS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, SECTION 571, WV .............. ........................ 1,668
MARRTOWN SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION, SECTION 219, WV ...................................... ........................ 3,200
WHEELING ELM RUN, WV ............................................................................................... ........................ 546
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES .................................................................... 1,750,510 2,205,441
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING
FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION ...................................................................... ........................ 154,000
FLOOD CONTROL .................................................................................................... ........................ 91,975
SHORE PROTECTION .............................................................................................. ........................ 20,000
NAVIGATION .................................................................................................................... ........................ 190,000
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND REVENUES ...................................................... ........................ 56,945
OTHER AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES ...................................................................... ........................ 35,000
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE ......................................................... ........................ 60,000
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................... ........................ 50,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ............................................................................. ........................ 26,000
BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL PILOT PROGRAM (SEC 1122) ....................... ........................ 4,300
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA ...................................................................................... ........................ (3600)
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ..................................................... 1,000 15,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204) ........................................... 1,000 10,000 *
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION 14) ..................... ........................ 10,000
GLOUCESTER CITY SEAWALL (CAMDEN COUNTY), NJ ........................................... ........................ (100)
GRAND RIVER BANK STREET, CITY OF PLAINESVILLE, OH .................................... ........................ (2600)
KANAWHA RIVER STREAMBANK STABILIZATION, WV ............................................. ........................ (4780)
MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SLOPE STABILIZATION, MD ...................................... ........................ (100)
URI NARRAGANSETT EROSION PROTECTION .......................................................... ........................ (150)
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .................................................................. 1,000 17,000
LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, ELOY LEVEE, AZ ...................................................... ........................ (100)
MCCORMICK WASH, GLOBE, AZ ............................................................................ ........................ (100)
RIVER ROAD, TOWN OF ROSENDALE, NY .............................................................. ........................ (100)
ROSE AND PALM GARDEN WASHES FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, AZ ..................... ........................ (200)
NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107) .......................................................................... ........................ 5,000
PORT OF MUSKEGON, MI ....................................................................................... ........................ (100)
STURGEON POINT, TOWN OF EVANS, NY ............................................................... ........................ (100)
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135) 1,533 11,000
SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) .............................................................................. ........................ 2,000
ROSE LARISA PARK, RI .......................................................................................... ........................ (50)
ROUNDOUT RIVERPORT, CITY OF KINGSTON, NY .................................................. ........................ (100)
WATCH HILL LIGHTHOUSE, RI ................................................................................ ........................ (50)
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ................................... 13,000 13,000
EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ......................................................................................... 15,000 15,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ............................................... 60 60
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ............................................... 275 275
INNOVATIVE FUNDING PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................ 10,000 ........................
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED MINES ........................................................................... ........................ 2,000
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM .................................................................................... ........................ 8,007
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
23
CORPS OF ENGINEERS–CONSTRUCTION—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Project title estimate recommendation
SUBTOTAL ..................................................................................................... 42,868 796,562
TOTAL ............................................................................................................ 1,793,378 3,002,003
* Includes funds requested in other lines or accounts.
Alternative Delivery.—The Committee continues to support alter-
native delivery approaches such as Public Private Partnerships
[P3s] and split delivery methods that leverage public and private
resources to reduce costs and risk to populations by delivering in-
frastructure sooner. The use of P3s and split delivery methods
demonstrates a viable strategy to help address the Corps’ backlog
of projects while reducing scheduling and funding risk to the Fed-
eral Government. The Committee encourages the Corps to continue
the rulemaking process for the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act [WIFIA]. The Corps is reminded that projects which
use an alternative delivery approach are eligible to compete for ad-
ditional funding recommended in this account.
Advanced Measures.—The Corps is encouraged to fully use the
authorities granted to it under the Advanced Measures program to
mitigate impacts expected to occur in the Great Lakes Basin as a
result of record-high and near-record-high water levels.
Aquatic Plant Control Program.—Of the funding recommended
for the Aquatic Plant Control Program, $1,000,000 shall be for ac-
tivities for monitoring, surveys, and control of flowering rush and
hydrilla. Additionally, $7,000,000 shall be for nationwide research
and development to address invasive aquatic plants, within which
the Corps is encouraged to support cost-shared aquatic plant man-
agement programs. Particularly, the Corps is encouraged to evalu-
ate and address prevention, of new infestations of hydrilla in the
Connecticut River Basin. Finally, $15,000,000 shall be for
watercraft inspection stations and rapid response as authorized in
section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958, equally distrib-
uted to carry out subsections (d)(1)(A)(i), (d)(1)(A)(ii), and
(d)(1)(A)(iii), and $3,000,000 shall be for related monitoring.
Barrow Alaska Coastal Erosion.—The Committee is pleased the
Corps reprogrammed funding to continue PED work for this critical
project in fiscal year 2021 and urges the Corps to expeditiously
complete PED to address the significant risks to life and safety,
threats to the community’s only drinking water source, and risks
from contamination to the environment.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Pilot Program.—The Com-
mittee is pleased to see the Corps’ selection of ten pilot projects
under section 1122 of the WIIN Act to carry out beneficial use of
dredged material including the Resilient San Francisco Bay Pilot
project. The Committee recommends $4,300,000 for the ten pilot
projects selected to date within the ‘‘Beneficial Use of Dredged Ma-
terial Pilot Program.’’ The Corps is further directed to brief the
Committee prior to any effort to solicit or select any additional pilot
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
projects as authorized by AWIA 2018.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
24
Bipartisan Budget Act [BBA] of 2018.—The Committee is frus-
trated with the lack of urgency in completing the BBA 2018 con-
struction projects. The purpose of the supplemental disaster fund-
ing was to accelerate completion of high-priority flood control
projects nationwide, including areas affected by hurricanes Harvey,
Irma, and Maria. The Committee does not understand why the full
cost of the project must be available before starting any construc-
tion especially when discrete elements are ready and there are
funds to complete them. The Corps has never been funded in this
manner and this interpretation does not align with the intent of
Congress—to accelerate construction. The Committee has received
only one of the required quarterly reports on the obligation of funds
and this lack of transparency and collaboration is unacceptable. As
the BBA 2018 program progresses, it is possible that projects will
not be completed within supplemental funds available; the Com-
mittee does not intend for those projects to be delayed. The Corps
shall brief the Committee no later than 30 days of this act enact-
ment of this act on the status of the program and the plan for com-
pletion of projects.
Bird Drive Basin Conveyance, Seepage Collection, and Re-
charge.—The Committee acknowledges the unique opportunity for
Miami-Dade County and the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority
[MDX] to assist in land purchases and swaps to protect a vital
project footprint to implement the Bird Drive Basin Conveyance,
Seepage Collection, and Recharge concept and achieve the goals of
the original Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP]
Bird Drive Recharge Area project. The Committee encourages the
Corps to work with the Department of the Interior and the South
Florida Water Management District to quickly identify a consensus
project footprint between SW 8th Street and the C–1W Canal to
the south, immediately east of Krome Avenue, to enable Miami-
Dade County and MDX to begin necessary land acquisitions in sup-
port of the creation of a West Kendall Everglades Buffer and
progress towards completing an important element of the CERP.
Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project.—The Committee con-
tinues to support this vital project to protect drinking water sup-
plies in eastern Miami-Dade County from saltwater intrusion and
to enhance the coastal and marine ecology of Biscayne Bay and the
offshore coral reef system. The Committee notes support from
Miami-Dade County and the South Florida Water Management
District to incorporate highly treated, reclaimed wastewater as an
additional source of freshwater to assist the rehydration of these
coastal wetlands. The Committee encourages the Corps to consider
the incorporation of this potential source of freshwater into further
study, design, and construction of the project and to evaluate the
potential to use additional volumes of reclaimed wastewater to re-
store freshwater artesian springs within the Bay through under-
ground injection to the shallow, underlying aquifer.
Camp Ellis Beach, Saco, Maine.—The Committee is pleased the
Corps has accepted a letter of support from the City of Saco mak-
ing them the non-Federal sponsor of the Camp Ellis Project. The
Committee directs the Secretary to finalize a Project Partnership
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
Agreement between the City of Saco and the Corps and to continue
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
25
the collaborative effort to address the continued erosion at Camp
Ellis Beach.
Caño Martin Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project, San Juan,
Puerto Rico.—The Committee renews its focus on the Caño Martin
Peña Ecosystem Restoration Project planned for urban San Juan,
Puerto Rico. The Committee continues to recognize the significance
of this project for the economic revitalization, public health, and in-
cidental flood protection of the eight surrounding communities.
This historically important tidal channel will re-establish the nat-
ural 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 co-
ordination with the Corps and the meaningful progress made in re-
cent years to secure its authorization and ready it for the construc-
tion phase. The Committee is concerned over lost opportunities and
delays arising with the absence of funds being allocated to start
construction of this critical project. Accordingly, the Committee en-
courages the Corps to prioritize funding for this project in future
budget requests and to work with the non-Federal sponsor to ad-
vance the project to the next phase at the earliest practicable op-
portunity.
Central Everglades Planning Project [CEPP].—The Committee
recognizes the importance of restoring America’s Everglades, and
urges the Corps to expedite the required validation reports for PPA
North and PPA New Water, and to begin design and construction
of components for PPA South and PPA New Water as soon as prac-
ticable to complement the efforts of the South Florida Water Dis-
trict. The Committee urges the Corps to design and construct the
recently-authorized Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir
as quickly as possible to utilize the expanded water delivery capa-
bilities of completed PPA South elements.
Central and South Florida Project.—The Committee recognizes
the importance of the Central and South Florida Project and urges
the Corps to maintain continued attention to the need of the South
Florida economy and environment for a functioning flood control
system.
Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Water Resources Restoration
Plan and Oyster Recovery.—The Committee supports the Corps’
Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Water Resources and Restoration
Plan and the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program and en-
courages the Corps to provide sufficient funding in future budget
requests and the fiscal year 2022 work plan.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois.—
No funds recommended in this act may be used for construction of
hydrologic separation measures.
CERP–Indian River Lagoon-South.—The Committee recognizes
the importance of restoring America’s Everglades, and the chal-
lenge of balancing discharges from Lake Okeechobee and harmful
algal blooms in the St. Lucie River and Indian River Lagoon. The
Committee urges the Corps to move on the final construction of the
C–44 Reservoir and to expedite design work on the C–23 and C–
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
24 Reservoirs that, along with the C–44 Reservoir, will serve as
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
26
crucial elements of the Indian River Lagoon-South CERP project to
collect and clean discharges and runoff before they enter the La-
goon.
Columbia River Treaty.—The Corps is directed to brief, in a clas-
sified setting and in coordination with the Department of State,
within 60 days after enactment of this act on the execution plan
for post-fiscal year 2023 for flood control operations as dictated by
the modernized agreement. Further, not later than 90 days after
enactment of this act the Corps shall provide a classified detailed
assessment, in coordination with Department of State, of its fund-
ing requirements and plan for post-fiscal year 2023 for flood control
operations as dictated by the Columbia River Treaty.
Construction Funding Schedules.—A complete and reliable cost
estimate with an out-year funding schedule is essential to under-
standing current funding and future funding requirements within
the Corps’ construction portfolio. A comprehensive outlook of these
dynamic requirements is necessary for Congress to consider and
balance funding allocations annually, and to assess the long-term
effects of new investment decisions. Therefore, within 90 days of
enactment of this act and annually thereafter, the Chief of Engi-
neers shall submit directly to the Committee on Appropriations of
both houses of Congress, a breakdown, by fiscal year, of the full
and efficient Federal funding needs for each ongoing construction
project in the Corps’ Civil Works program. For each project identi-
fied, the Corps shall also provide the total project cost with a
breakdown between the Federal and non-Federal costs, and any ap-
plicable authorization ceiling. For the purposes of this report, an
active project shall mean any project which has received construc-
tion account appropriations, including those funded in a supple-
mental, and has remaining costs to be funded from the Construc-
tion account. These funding requirements shall be based on tech-
nical construction sequencing, and realistic workflow and shall not
be altered to reflect administrative policies and priorities or any as-
sumed limitation on funding available.
Continuing Authorities Program.—The Committee recommends
$70,000,000 for the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP]. CAP is
a useful tool for the Corps to undertake small localized projects
without being encumbered by the lengthy study and authorization
phases typical of most Corps projects. The management of CAP
shall continue consistent with direction provided in previous fiscal
years.
The Corps shall allow for the advancement of flood control
projects in combination with ecological benefits using natural and
nature-based solutions alone, or in combination with, built infra-
structure where appropriate for reliable risk reduction during the
development of projects under section 205 of CAP. Additionally,
within the section 1135 CAP authority, and to the extent already
authorized by law, the Committee encourages the Corps to consider
projects that restore degraded wetland habitat and stream habitat
impacted by construction of Corps levees with executed Feasibility
Cost Share Agreements.
Environmental Infrastructure.—Authorized Environmental Infra-
structure projects shall not require a new start designation. This
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
includes projects in regional authorities that have not received
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
27
funding and projects authorized under section 219 of the WRDA of
1992 (Public Law 102–580), as amended. The Committee reminds
the Corps that Environmental Infrastructure authorities include
caps on Federal participation, but do not provide a guarantee that
the project authorization level will be met. Environmental Infra-
structure projects shall only receive funding if there is a separable
element that can be funded to completion in a fiscal year without
the requirement for continued funding in future years.
Howard Hanson Dam—Additional Water Storage Project
[HAHD–AWSP].—The Committee supports continued efforts to
fully implement the jeopardy Biological Opinion (BiOp) deter-
mining the impact of ongoing operations of Howard Hanson Dam,
including the HAHD–AWSP on ESA-listed species, and specifically
the ongoing work to construct a downstream fish passage facility.
Innovative Funding Partnerships Program.—The budget request
includes $10,000,000 for an Innovative Funding Partnerships Pro-
gram to be used along with funds from non-Federal interests ‘‘in
excess of the non-Federal sponsor’s statutory cost share require-
ments’’ to accelerate certain authorized projects. The Committee is
troubled by what appears to be an avenue to circumvent the per-
formance based budgeting approach the Corps uses to evaluate
projects. It is unclear how equity will be maintained if funding in
excess of legally required cost share is used as a criterion for fund-
ing decisions allowing non-Federal sponsors to contribute funds
and jump the line is contrary to long-standing congressional direc-
tion. The Committee recommends no funds for this proposal. The
Committee notes, however, that any project that could have re-
ceived funding under such a program is eligible to compete for the
additional funding provided in this account based on the project
performance criteria described in this report.
Lake Champlain Watershed.—The Lake Champlain Watershed is
an officially designated resource of national significance that spans
the States of New York and Vermont and into Canada. The Com-
mittee reminds the Corps that section 542 of WRDA of 2000 (Public
Law 106–541) as amended, authorizes the Corps to provide assist-
ance to non-Federal interests to address a range of environmental
issues in the Lake Champlain Watershed in Vermont and New
York.
New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, Georgia and South Caro-
lina.—The Committee maintains interest in the New Savannah
Bluff Lock and Dam and recognizes the long standing challenges
of the project. The Committee encourages the Corps to work with
all stakeholders towards a mutually beneficial resolution that will
ensure waters levels for existing activities and functions are main-
tained, as detailed in section 1319 of the WIIN Act.
Non-Federal Implementation Pilot Program.—Due to ongoing
concerns initially expressed in the fiscal year 2020 Senate Report,
the Corps shall notify the Committee upon receiving any proposal
from a non-Federal interest requesting to utilize the section
1043(b) of WRRDA authority. The Corps shall not negotiate or
enter into a project partnership agreement to transfer funds to a
non-Federal interest utilizing this authority unless approval is re-
ceived from the Committee on Appropriations of both Houses of
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
Congress. None of the funds recommended in this act shall be used
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
28
under this authority for a project where construction has been
started but not completed. The Corps shall brief the Committees
not later than 45 days after enactment of this act on activities car-
ried out under the section 1043 pilot program, including the Corps’
implementation guidance and any existing or potential agreements.
Prioritization of Projects in Drought-Stricken Areas.—The Com-
mittee urges the Corps to prioritize any authorized projects that
would alleviate water supply issues in areas that have been af-
flicted by severe droughts in the last four fiscal years, to include
projects focused on the treatment of brackish water.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration [SFER].—For fiscal year
2022, the Committee directs the Corps to make publicly available
a comprehensive snapshot of all SFER cost share accounting down
to the project level and directs the Corps to ensure the accuracy of
all budget justification sheets that inform SFER Integrated Finan-
cial Plan documents by September 30, 2022.
The Dalles Dam, Tribal Housing.—The Committee is aware that
the work on the Village Development Plan is partially complete.
The Corps is encouraged to complete the Village Development Plan
in consultation with affected Columbia River tribes and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs.
Tulsa and West-Tulsa Levee System [TWTLS].—The Committee
recognizes that TWTLS-protected area is home to a substantial
population of elderly and low income residents, and the TWTLS
was classified by the Corps as a high risk of failure and life loss
in 2019. Therefore, the Committee has provided additional funding
and urges the Corps to expeditiously continue progress on this crit-
ical project.
Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program [UMRR], Quincy
Bay.—Over the past 70 years, river traffic has led to the environ-
mental degradation of Quincy Bay. Therefore the Committee en-
courages the Corps to prioritize the environmental restoration
project in Quincy Bay near Quincy, Illinois as a Tier 1 project for
immediate commencement through the UMMR Program.
Upper St. Anthony Falls.—The Committee is concerned that the
Corps is attempting to divest the entire Federal project at once and
encourages the Corps to continue to operate and maintain the lock.
The Corps is further reminded that the Upper St. Anthony Falls
project remains an authorized Federal project until there is a will-
ing non-Federal partner for the disposition study.
Additional Funding.—The Corps shall allocate these additional
funds in accordance with the direction in the front matter under
the heading ‘‘Additional Funding’’. The Corps shall not condition
these funds, or any funds appropriated in this act, on a non-Fed-
eral interest paying more than their required share in any phase
of a project. Of the additional funds recommended in this account
for flood and storm damage reduction, navigation, and other au-
thorized project purposes (excluding environmental infrastructure),
the Corps shall allocate not less than $35,000,000 to authorized re-
imbursements for projects with executed project partnership agree-
ments and that have completed construction or where non-Federal
sponsors intend to use the funds for additional water resource de-
velopment activities. Of the additional funding provided in this ac-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
count for environmental restoration or compliance and other au-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
29
thorized project purposes, the Corps shall allocate not less than
$25,000,000 for multistate ecosystem restoration programs for
which a comprehensive restoration plan is in development or has
been completed. Of the additional funding recommended in this ac-
count for flood and storm damage reduction and flood control, the
Corps shall allocate not less than $25,558,000 to continue construc-
tion of projects that principally address drainage in urban areas.
When allocating the additional funding provided in this account,
the Corps is encouraged to evaluate authorized reimbursements in
the same manner as if the projects were being evaluated for new
or ongoing construction and shall consider giving priority to the fol-
lowing:
—Benefits of the funded work to the national economy;
—Extent to which the work will enhance national, regional, or
local economic development;
—Number of jobs created directly by the funded activity;
—Ability to obligate the funds allocated within the calendar year,
including consideration of the ability of the non-Federal spon-
sor to provide any required cost share;
—Ability to complete the project, separable element, or project
phase with the funds allocated;
—Legal requirements, including responsibilities to Tribes;
—For flood and storm damage reduction projects (including au-
thorized nonstructural measures and periodic beach renourish-
ments): Population, safety of life, economic activity, or public
infrastructure at risk, as appropriate; the severity of risk of
flooding or the frequency with which an area has experienced
flooding; and preservation of historically significant commu-
nities, culture, and heritage;
—For shore protection projects, projects in areas where there is
risk to life and public health and safety, and risk of environ-
mental contamination;
—For navigation projects, the number of jobs or level of economic
activity to be supported by completion of the project, separable
element, or project phase;
—For projects cost shared with the IWTF, the economic impact
on the local, regional, and national economy if the project is
not funded, as well as discrete elements of work that can be
completed within the funding provided in this line item;
—For other authorized project purposes and environmental res-
toration or compliance projects, the beneficial use of dredged
material; and
—For environmental infrastructure, projects in rural commu-
nities, projects with greater economic impact, projects in coun-
ties or parishes with high poverty rates, projects owed past re-
imbursements, and projects that provide backup raw water
supply in the event of an emergency.
The Committee recommendation includes the full use of all esti-
mated fiscal year 2022 annual revenues in the IWTF to ensure on-
going construction projects proceed with an efficient funding pro-
file. Funds recommended herein for inland waterways shall only be
available for ongoing construction projects. The Corps shall allocate
all funds recommended in the IWTF Revenues remaining item
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
along with the statutory cost share from funds provided in the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
30
Navigation line item prior to allocating the remainder of funds in
the Navigation line item.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $380,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 269,688,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 380,000,000
The Committee recommends $380,000,000 for Mississippi River
and Tributaries. Funds recommended in this account are for plan-
ning, construction, and operation and maintenance activities asso-
ciated with water resource projects located in the lower Mississippi
River Valley from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.
The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s
recommendation:
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Item estimate recommendation
INVESTIGATIONS
RUNNING REELFOOT BAYOU, TN .................................................................................... 600 600
SUBTOTAL, INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................................... 600 600
CONSTRUCTION
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAIN STEM (LMRMS) .......................................................... 800 800
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ............................................... 14,300 14,300
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO and TN ........................................ 17,450 17,450
MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA ......................................................................................... ........................ 19,333
YAZOO BASIN, DELTA HEADWATERS, MS ....................................................................... ........................ 12,900
YAZOO BASIN, UPPER YAZOO, MS ................................................................................. ........................ 12,000
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ............................................................... ........................ 20,750
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 32,550 97,533
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MAIN STEM (LMRMS) .......................................................... 30,922 30,922
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ............................................... 77,500 77,500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO &TN ............................................. 11,593 11,593
BAYOU METO BASIN, AR ................................................................................................ ........................ 24,000
GRAND PARAIRIE REGION, AR ........................................................................................ ........................ 13,000
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ....................................................................... ........................ 540 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ....................................................................... ........................ 252 †
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ................................................................. 75 75
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ................................................................. 40 40
RED–OUACHITA RIVER BASIN LEVEES, AR &LA ............................................................. 87 87
ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO ........................................................................................ 9,600 9,600
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ................................................. 2,455 2,455
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ....................................................................................... 1,100 1,100
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ........................................................................ ........................ 20 †
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ....................................................................... ........................ 35 †
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ...................................................................... 48 48
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ....................................................................... ........................ 3,952 †
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ............................................................... 140 140
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ..................................................................................... 1,940 1,940
OLD RIVER, LA ................................................................................................................ 52,020 52,020
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ................................................................. 2,990 2,990
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS .............................................................................................. ........................ 932 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ...................................................................... ........................ 202 †
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ............................................................................................... ........................ 942 *
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ............................................................................ 6,070 6,070
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ................................................................... 224 224
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
31
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Committee
Item estimate recommendation
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ....................................................................................... 5,362 5,362
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS .................................................................................... 365 365
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ................................................................................ 5,482 5,482
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS ...................................................................................... 900 900
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ................................................................................... 7,632 7,632
YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ................................................................................... 450 450
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS .................................................... 290 290
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ............................................................... 727 727
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS ..................................................................................... 450 450
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ...................................................................... ........................ 136 †
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .................................................................................................. 6,863 6,863
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ....................................................................... ........................ 28 †
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ....................................................................... ........................ 2,338 *
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................. 225,325 271,702
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK ................................................................... ........................ 3,667
DREDGING ....................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................
FLOOD CONTROL ............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ..................................................................................... ........................ ........................
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ...................................................................... 6,498 6,498
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION ................................................................................... 90 ........................
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ......................... 4,625 ........................
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ...................................................................... 11,213 10,165
TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES .................................................. 269,688 380,000 †
* Includes funds requested in other accounts.
† Includes funds requested in remaining items.
Lower Mississippi River Main Stem.—The budget request pro-
poses to consolidate several activities across multiple States into
one line item. The Committee rejects this change and instead rec-
ommends continuing to fund these activities as separate line items.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—When allocating the ad-
ditional funding recommended in this account, the Corps shall con-
sider giving priority to completing or accelerating ongoing work
that will enhance the Nation’s economic development, job growth,
and international competitiveness, or to studies or projects located
in areas that have suffered recent natural disasters. The Corps
shall use such sums as are necessary to carry out remaining
unconstructed features of projects authorized by law, in response to
recent flood disasters. While this funding is shown under remain-
ing items, the Corps shall use these funds in investigations, con-
struction, and operation and maintenance, as applicable.
The Committee recognizes the importance of erosion control in
headwater streams and tributaries, and the environmental, water
quality, and sediment reduction benefits it provides downstream.
When allocating additional funds recommended in this account, the
Corps is directed to give adequate consideration to cooperative
projects addressing watershed erosion, sedimentation, flooding, and
environmental degradation. Of the additional funds recommended
in this account, the Corps shall allocate not less than $3,000,000
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
for dredging of ports and harbors.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
32
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $3,849,655,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 2,502,901,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,682,797,000
The Committee recommends $4,682,797,000 for Operation and
Maintenance. Funding in this account is used to fund operations,
maintenance, and related activities at water resource projects that
the Corps operates and maintains. These activities include dredg-
ing, repair, and operation of structures and other facilities, as au-
thorized in the various river and harbor, flood control, and water
resources development acts. Related activities include aquatic plant
control, monitoring of completed projects where appropriate, re-
moval of sunken vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne
commerce statistics.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The table below displays the budget request and Committee’s
recommendation for Operation and Maintenance:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
ALABAMA
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL ............................................................................................ 15,252 23,632
BAYOU CODEN, AL .......................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000
BAYOU LA BATRE, AL ..................................................................................................... ........................ 5,008 *
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ............................................................. 24,652 27,852
BON SECOUR RIVER, AL ................................................................................................. ........................ 4,493
DAUPHIN ISLAND BAY, AL .............................................................................................. ........................ 3,000
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ............................................................................. 6,745 6,745
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ....................................................................... ........................ 180 †
MOBILE HARBOR, AL ...................................................................................................... ........................ 63,212 *
PERDIDO PASS CHANNEL, AL ......................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ................................................................................ ........................ 150 *
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL .................................................................... ........................ 85 †
TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL & MS ....................... 1,800 1,800
TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS .......................................................... 28,986 32,986
WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA ............................................................... 10,676 10,676
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL ................................................................. ........................ 90 *
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................. ........................ 11,370 *
CHENA RIVER LAKES FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, NORTH POLE, AK .............................. 6,921 6,921
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................... ........................ 1,055 *
ELFIN COVE, AK .............................................................................................................. ........................ 2,660 *
HOMER HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................................... ........................ 785 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ....................................................................... ........................ 200 †
LOWELL CREEK TUNNELL (SEWARD), AK ........................................................................ 75 75
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................. ........................ 665 *
NOME HARBOR, AK ......................................................................................................... ........................ 2,434 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ................................................................................ ........................ 750 *
AMERICAN SAMOA
ANUU HARBOR, AS ......................................................................................................... ........................ 2,921 *
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ ............................................................................................................. 1,600 1,600
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ....................................................................... ........................ 175 †
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ................................................................................................. 1,936 1,936
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
33
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ .................................................................... ........................ 112 †
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ............................................................................................. 445 445
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................... 8,956 8,956
BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ......................................................................... 7,460 7,460
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ............................................................................................. 1,998 1,998
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ................................................................................................. 9,525 9,525
DEGRAY LAKE, AR .......................................................................................................... 6,587 6,587
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................ 1,846 1,846
DIERKS LAKE, AR ............................................................................................................ 1,488 1,488
GILLHAM LAKE, AR ......................................................................................................... 1,430 1,430
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ............................................................................................... 7,947 7,947
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ....................................................................... ........................ 540 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ....................................................................... ........................ 929 †
MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR .................................... 56,136 56,136
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................... 2,831 2,831
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ............................................................................. 5,691 5,691
NIMROD LAKE, AR .......................................................................................................... 2,267 2,267
NORFORK LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................ 6,572 6,572
OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ................................................................................................... ........................ 15 *
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA ....................................................................... 12,065 12,065
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS ....................................................................................... ........................ 5 *
WHITE RIVER, AR ............................................................................................................ 25 25
YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ................................................................................................ ........................ 127 *
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ................................................................................................. 6,400 6,400
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA ...................................................................... 2,295 2,295
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA .................................................................................... ........................ 15,016 *
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ............................................................... 8,200 8,200
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ............................................... 9,524 9,524
FARMINGTON DAM, CA ................................................................................................... 525 525
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA .................................................................................. 7,495 7,495
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ................................................................................ ........................ 4,700 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ....................................................................... ........................ 3,410 †
ISABELLA LAKE, CA ........................................................................................................ 3,440 3,440
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ................................................................. 20,220 20,220
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA .................................................................................... 835 835
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ................................................................................................. 1,101 1,101
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA .............................................................................................. ........................ 3,600 *
NAPA RIVER, CA ............................................................................................................. ........................ 4,750 *
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA .................................................................................................... 6,390 6,390
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA ....................................................... 2,480 2,480
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................... ........................ 25,634 *
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................ ........................ 1,790 *
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ....................................................................................................... 3,930 3,930
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ................................................................................ ........................ 840 *
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................ ........................ 13,179 *
SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ............................................................... ........................ 3,875 *
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA .................................. 990 990 *
SACRAMENTO RIVER (SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL), CA ................................................. ........................ 190 *
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ................................................... 1,018 1,018 ...
SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (LTMS), CA ..................... ........................ 450 *
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ........................................... ........................ 3,883 *
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ........................................................................................ ........................ 5,275 *
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER (PORT OF STOCKTON), CA ............................................................. ........................ 7,425 *
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA ........................................................... ........................ 600 *
SAN RAFAEL CREEK, CA ................................................................................................. ........................ 6,750 *
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA ......................................................................................... 6,572 6,572
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................... ........................ 3,640 *
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................. ........................ 540 *
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
34
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ................................................................... ........................ 1,623 †
SUCCESS LAKE, CA ........................................................................................................ 2,972 2,972
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA ............................................................................................. ........................ 5,880 *
TERMINUS DAM (LAKE KAWEAH), CA ............................................................................. 5,750 5,750
VENTURA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................... ........................ 5,516 *
YUBA RIVER, CA ............................................................................................................. 200 1,755 *
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO .................................................................................................. 662 662
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO ...................................................................................................... 1,937 1,937
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO .............................................................................................. 1,487 1,487
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO ....................................................................... ........................ 314 †
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ....................................................................................... 9,594 9,594
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ................................................................... 2,023 2,023
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ........................................................................................................ ........................ 530 †
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ................................................................................................... 643 643
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ......................................................................................... 833 833
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................ 558 558
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT .................................................................................................... 1,317 1,317
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ....................................................................... ........................ 970 †
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ....................................................................................... 816 816
NEW HAVEN HARBOR, CT ............................................................................................... ........................ 401 *
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ....................................................................................... 585 585
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ................................................................................ ........................ 1,100 *
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT ............................................................................ 597 597
THOMASTON DAM, CT ..................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT ............................................................................................ 890 890
WESTPORT HARBOR & SAUGATUCK RIVER, CT .............................................................. ........................ 2,810
DELAWARE
INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, DE ................................................................................. ........................ 30 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE ....................................................................... ........................ 2 †
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DE & MD .......... ........................ 19,130 *
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY DELAWARE BAY ....................................... ........................ 150 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ................................................................................ ........................ 225 *
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE .............................................................................................. ........................ 8,950 *
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC ....................................................................... ........................ 39 †
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) ........................................... ........................ 1,175 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ................................................................................ ........................ 30 *
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC ............................................................................................. ........................ 25 *
FLORIDA
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................ ........................ 2,215 *
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL .......................................................................... 22,243 23,854 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ........................................................................ ........................ 1,003 †
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ............................................. 4,380 4,380
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................ ........................ 7,155 *
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA ................................... 8,501 8,501
MANATEE HARBOR, FL .................................................................................................... ........................ 680 *
MIAMI HARBOR, FL ......................................................................................................... ........................ 180 *
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ......................................................................................... 1,365 3,710 *
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL .............................................................................................. ........................ 5,120 *
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................ ........................ 40 *
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL .................................................................................... ........................ 180 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ................................................................................. ........................ 1,275 *
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ............................................................................... ........................ 3,449 *
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL .................................................................... ........................ 100 †
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (EVERGLADES), FL .................................... 8,950 8,950
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
35
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
TAMPA HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................................ ........................ 12,472 *
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL .................................................................. ........................ 80 *
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ..................................................................................................... 9,164 9,164
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & FL ............................. 1,459 1,459
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA ...................................................................... 3,739 3,739
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ............................................................................................... ........................ 7,778 *
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ................................................................ 12,441 12,441
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ........................................................................................ 8,504 8,504
HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC ............................................................................................. 13,090 13,090
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ....................................................................... ........................ 196 †
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC ............................................................................ 11,206 11,206
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ................................................................................ ........................ 76 *
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ........................................................... 9,541 9,541
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ................................................................................................. ........................ 33,053 *
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ........................................................................ ........................ 148 *
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL .......................................................................... 8,354 8,354
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT DEEP DRAFT HARBOR, OAHU, HI ........................................................ 300 300
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ........................................................................ ........................ 797 †
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ................................................................................. ........................ 709 *
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ................................................................................................... 1,245 1,245
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ............................................................................ 3,063 3,063
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ........................................................................ ........................ 466 †
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID .................................................................................................... 2,366 2,366
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID .................................................................... ........................ 750 †
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN ......................................................................... ........................ 5,009 *
CARLYLE LAKE, IL ........................................................................................................... 14,360 14,360
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL ..................................................................................................... ........................ 16,823 *
CHICAGO RIVER, IL ......................................................................................................... 635 635
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ........................................................................................ 541 541
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN ............................................................... 64,614 64,614
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN ............................................................... 2,183 2,183
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ........................................................................ ........................ 2,787 †
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL .................................................................................. 4,383 4,383
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL ...................................................................................... ........................ 1,190 *
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL .................................................................................................... 17,965 17,965
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION), IL 80,667 80,667 *
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION), IL 34,951 34,951
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ................................................................................. ........................ 103 *
REND LAKE, IL ................................................................................................................ 12,797 12,797
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ................................................. ........................ 398 *
WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL .................................................................................................. ........................ 11 *
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN ..................................................................................................... 3,157 3,157
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ..................................................................................... ........................ 1,561 *
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ................................................................................................... 1,335 1,335
CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN ............................................................................................ 1,467 1,467
INDIANA HARBOR, IN ...................................................................................................... ........................ 8,196 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ........................................................................ ........................ 1,264 †
J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ........................................................................................... 2,051 2,051
MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN .......................................................................................... ........................ 10 *
MONROE LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................... 1,479 1,479
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ................................................................................................. 1,915 1,915
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
PATOKA LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................ 1,446 1,446
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
36
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN ................................................................................. ........................ 197 *
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN ...................................................................................................... 3,282 3,282
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ................................................ ........................ 81 *
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ..................................................................................................... 6,170 6,170
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ........................................................................ ........................ 1,202 †
MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO & NE ............................... 47,406 47,406
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS ....................................................................................... ........................ 2 *
RATHBUN LAKE, IA ......................................................................................................... 3,254 3,254
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ..................................................................... 27,728 27,728
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA .................................................................................................... 19,500 19,500
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS .......................................................................................................... 2,763 2,763
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ............................................................................................. 1,925 1,925
EL DORADO LAKE, KS ..................................................................................................... 675 675
ELK CITY LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................... 1,310 1,310
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ..................................................................................................... 4,214 4,214
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS ....................................................................................................... 1,089 1,089
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ....................................................................... ........................ 2,132 †
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ................................................................... 1,764 1,764
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................... 1,974 1,974
MARION LAKE, KS ........................................................................................................... 1,812 1,812
MELVERN LAKE, KS ........................................................................................................ 2,667 2,667
MILFORD LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................... 2,589 2,589
PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ........................................................................ 1,247 1,247
PERRY LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................. 3,069 3,069
POMONA LAKE, KS .......................................................................................................... 2,951 2,951
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS .................................................................... ........................ 774 †
TORONTO LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................... 694 694
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ................................................................................................ 12,373 13,673
WILSON LAKE, KS ........................................................................................................... 1,902 1,902
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ............................................................... 19,522 19,522
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................................... 3,228 3,228
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ................................................................................................ ........................ 1,977 *
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ...................................................................................................... 2,812 2,812
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ................................................................................................... 2,220 2,220
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ....................................................................................................... 1,484 1,484
DEWEY LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................ 2,096 2,096
ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY ........................................................................... ........................ 935 *
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY & IN ........................................................ 63 63
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................ 2,515 2,515
GRAYSON LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................ 1,867 1,867
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY .................................................................................. 2,776 2,776
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY .................................................................................................. 3,643 3,643
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ....................................................................... ........................ 1,192 †
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ................................................................................................ 5,891 5,891
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ................................................................................................ 1,443 1,443
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY ............................................................ 291 291
NOLIN LAKE, KY .............................................................................................................. 3,647 3,647
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH ........................................................... 55,307 55,307
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA & WV ...................................... 7,563 7,563
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY .................................................................................................... 1,919 1,919
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS ....................................................................................... ........................ 5 *
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ................................................................................................. 4,541 4,541
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................................. 1,503 1,503
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY .................................................................. 17,476 17,476
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ..................................................................................................... 2,503 2,503
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
37
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF & BLACK, LA ................................. ........................ 16,296 *
BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ..................................................................................... ........................ 6,200 *
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA .................................................................................... 1,494 1,494
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ......................................... ........................ 6,185 *
BAYOU PIERRE, LA ......................................................................................................... 33 33
BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA .................................................................................. ........................ 25 *
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA ..................................................................... ........................ 50,030 *
BAYOU TECHE, LA .......................................................................................................... ........................ 1,150 *
CADDO LAKE, LA ............................................................................................................. 186 186
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ................................................................................... ........................ 20,500 *
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ................................................................................................ ........................ 3,634 *
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ............................................................................. 70,715 70,715
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ..................................................................................... ........................ 12,593 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ....................................................................... ........................ 978 †
J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ........................................................................... 27,764 27,764
LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ..................................................................................... ........................ 1,332 *
MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ............................................................................................ ........................ 208 *
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA .................................................................................................. ........................ 10,880 *
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA .................................................................. ........................ 19,755 *
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LA ................................ ........................ 126,000 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ................................................................................ ........................ 51 *
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA .............................................................................. ........................ 200 *
WALLACE LAKE, LA ......................................................................................................... 318 318
WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA ................................................................. ........................ 10 *
WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA ........................... ........................ 15 *
MAINE
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME ................................................................................. ........................ 1,050 *
GEORGE’S RIVER, ME ..................................................................................................... ........................ 75 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME ...................................................................... ........................ 121 †
JOSIAS RIVER, ME .......................................................................................................... ........................ 150 †
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ............................................................................... ........................ 1,100 *
SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME ............................................................................................... ........................ 5,850 *
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ............................................... ........................ 22 *
ISLE AU HAUT THOROUGHFARE, ME ............................................................................... ........................ 100
WELLS HARBOR, ME ....................................................................................................... ........................ 4,296 *
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ................................................... ........................ 20,385 *
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................................................................. ........................ 720 *
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ......................................................................... 219 219
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD ...................................................................... ........................ 89 †
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV .......................................................................... 2,488 2,488
OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD ....................................... ........................ 510 *
POCOMOKE RIVER, MD ................................................................................................... ........................ 8
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ............................................................................... ........................ 600 *
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ................................................................... ........................ 123 †
WICOMICO RIVER, MD .................................................................................................... ........................ 4,300 *
MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA .................................................................................................. 823 823
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ..................................................................................................... 1,054 1,054
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................................. 722 722
CAPE COD CANAL, MA .................................................................................................... 1,793 24,216 *
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ................................................ 401 401
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ............................................................................................. 371 371
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA ............................................................................................ 758 758
GREEN HARBOR, MA ...................................................................................................... ........................ 2,749 *
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA ............................................................................................ 793 793
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA ...................................................................... ........................ 450 †
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
38
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ................................................................................................... 887 887
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA .................................................................................................... 821 821
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER, MA ........................ 537 537
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ............................................................................... ........................ 1,490 *
MERRIMACK SPUR JETTY, MA ............................................................................... ........................ (240)
PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MA ................................................................................................ ........................ 6 *
TULLY LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................. 984 984
WEST HILL DAM, MA ....................................................................................................... 934 934
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ...................................................................................................... 752 752
MICHIGAN
ALPENA HARBOR, MI ...................................................................................................... ........................ 5 *
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI .................................................................................. ........................ 243 *
CHEBOYGAN HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................... ........................ 6 *
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI .............................................................................................. ........................ 570 *
DETROIT HARBOR, MI ..................................................................................................... ........................ 7,645 *
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR AND GRAND RIVER, MI ............................................................ ........................ 3,934 *
HARBOR BEACH HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................... ........................ 1,320 *
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... ........................ 516 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ....................................................................... ........................ 329 †
INLAND ROUTE, MI ......................................................................................................... ........................ 52 *
KAWKAWLIN DREDGING, MI ............................................................................................ 570 570
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI ............................................................................................ 10 1,279 *
LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................ ........................ 1,007 *
MANISTEE HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................. ........................ 4,111 *
MANISTIQUE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................... ........................ 1,332 *
MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................... ........................ 5 *
MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND WI .................................................................................. ........................ 5 *
MONROE HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................... ........................ 1,137 *
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................ ........................ 1,711 *
ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................... ........................ 1,136 *
PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................... ........................ 1,505 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ................................................................................ ........................ 828 *
ROUGE RIVER, MI ........................................................................................................... ........................ 1,133 *
SAGINAW RIVER, MI ........................................................................................................ ........................ 3,844 *
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ................................................................................................... 214 214
SOUTH BEACH, MI .......................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000
SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................ ........................ 500 *
ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ....................................................................................................... ........................ 1,653 *
ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................. ........................ 1,068 *
ST MARYS RIVER, MI ...................................................................................................... 2,702 58,361 *
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ................................................ ........................ 2,217 *
WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................... ........................ 500 *
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE—WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD .......................................................... 318 318
DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI ....................................................................... 400 6,847 *
GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MN ........................................................................................ ........................ 25 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN ...................................................................... ........................ 565 †
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN ............................................................ 1,150 1,150
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .................................................................................................. ........................ 265 *
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION),
MN .............................................................................................................................. 104,193 104,193 *
ORWELL LAKE, MN .......................................................................................................... 565 565
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ............................................................................... ........................ 104 *
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN ............................................................................................ 206 206
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ........................................... 6,576 6,576
ST PAUL SMALL BOAT HARBOR, MN .............................................................................. ........................ 500
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ............................................... ........................ 428 *
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
TWO HARBORS, MN ........................................................................................................ ........................ 31 *
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
39
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
MISSISSIPPI
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS .............................................................................. 290 290
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ................................................................................................. ........................ 9,536 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ...................................................................... ........................ 103 †
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS ........................................................................................ ........................ 32 *
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ..................................................................................................... 2,152 2,152
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ............................................................................................ ........................ 6,287 *
PEARL RIVER, MS & LA .................................................................................................. 140 140
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ............................................................................... ........................ 155 *
ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS ................................................................................................. ........................ 1,687 *
WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS ................................................................ ........................ 40 *
YAZOO RIVER, MS .......................................................................................................... ........................ 32 *
MISSOURI
CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO ..................................................................................... ........................ 791 *
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ................................................. 11,301 11,301
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ................................................................................................. 4,639 4,639
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ............................................................... 14,482 14,482
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ...................................................................... ........................ 1,563 †
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ...................................................................................... 1,345 1,345
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ............................................................................................... 948 948
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO &
IL ................................................................................................................................ 35,279 35,279
NEW MADRID COUNTY HARBOR, MO .............................................................................. ........................ 520 *
NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889) ......................................................................... ........................ 92 *
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ......................................................................................... 4,704 4,704
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ............................................................................... ........................ 5 *
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ................................................................... ........................ 174
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO .................................................................................................... 2,033 2,033
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO .................................................. ........................ 234 *
STOCKTON LAKE, MO ...................................................................................................... 5,817 5,817
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO & AR ......................................................................................... 9,693 9,693
MONTANA
FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ......................................................................................... 6,017 6,017
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT ....................................................................... ........................ 191 †
LIBBY DAM, MT .............................................................................................................. 1,744 1,744
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ................................................................... ........................ 130 †
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD ............................................... 10,093 10,093
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE ............................................................................................ 9,151 9,151
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ....................................................................... ........................ 785 †
MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ........................................ 117 117
PAPILLION CREEK, NE .................................................................................................... 1,196 1,196
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ............................................................................. 1,337 1,337
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ....................................................................... ........................ 50 †
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA ...................................................................................... 1,435 1,435
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV .................................................................... 591 591
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH ................................................................................................... 865 865
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH .................................................................................... 826 826
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH .............................................................................................. 890 890
HOPKINTON—EVERETT LAKES, NH ................................................................................. 1,933 1,933
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED, NH ................................................................................... ........................ 111 †
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ................................................................................................ 1,204 1,204
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ................................................................................ ........................ 350 *
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH .......................................................................................... 1,253 1,253
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
40
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ...................................................................................................... ........................ 760 *
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ................................................................................................. ........................ 300 *
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ................................................................................. ........................ 15 *
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE ........................................ ........................ 41,823 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ........................................................................ ........................ 382 †
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ .................................................................................................. ........................ 375 *
MAURICE RIVER, NJ ........................................................................................................ ........................ 4,010 *
NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ ................................................................. ........................ 985 *
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ................................................. ........................ 24,825 *
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ............................................................. 600 600
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ................................................................................. ........................ 2,175 *
SALEM RIVER, NJ ............................................................................................................ ........................ 100 *
SHARK RIVER, NJ ............................................................................................................ ........................ 1,150 *
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM .......................................................................................................... 6,378 6,378
COCHITI LAKE, NM .......................................................................................................... 2,962 2,962
CONCHAS LAKE, NM ....................................................................................................... 3,808 3,808
GALISTEO DAM, NM ........................................................................................................ 685 685
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM ...................................................................... ........................ 526 †
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ............................................................................................... 1,102 1,102
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM ............ 1,994 1,994
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM .................................................................................. 1,502 1,502
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ................................................................... ........................ 270 †
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ................................................................................................... 937 937
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM ...................................... 1,006 1,006
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY .......................................................................................................... 716 716
ARKPORT DAM, NY ......................................................................................................... 559 559
BARCELONA HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................... ........................ 1,150
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY .................................................................. ........................ 200 *
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ................................................ ........................ 10,600 *
BRONX RIVER, NY .......................................................................................................... ........................ 250 *
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY .................................................................................................... ........................ 20,908
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY ............................................................................................ ........................ 19,525 *
CATTARAUGUS BREAKWATER, NY ................................................................................... ........................ 1,000
DUNKIRK HARBOR, NY .................................................................................................... ........................ 5,930 *
EAST RIVER, NY .............................................................................................................. ........................ 5 *
EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY ........................................................................................... ........................ 11,500 *
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY .................................................................................................. ........................ 712 *
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ....................................................................... ........................ 25
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ..................................................................................... ........................ 24,880 *
GREAT KILLS HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................. ........................ 100 *
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) .......................................................................................... ........................ 4,810 *
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C) .......................................................................................... ........................ 2,350 *
JONES INLET, NY ............................................................................................................ ........................ 19,025 *
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY .................................................................................... ........................ 7,900 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ....................................................................... ........................ 1,464 †
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY ............................................................................................... 5,799 5,799
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY & NJ ....................................................... ........................ 5 *
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ .......................................................... ........................ 87,980 *
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................. ........................ 7,885 *
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) .......................................................... ........................ 12,591 *
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS) ........................... ........................ 2,059 *
OSWEGO HARBOR, NY .................................................................................................... ........................ 5,606 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ................................................................................ ........................ 2,468 *
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................... ........................ 5,010 *
ROUNDOUT HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................ ........................ 200 *
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ................................................ 980 980
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
41
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ............................................... ........................ 597 *
WEST ARROWHEAD BREAKWATER, NY ............................................................................ ........................ 300
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY .............................................................................................. 832 832
NORTH CAROLINA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC ...................................................................... 5,950 5,950
B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ....................................................................... 2,077 2,077
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC .................................................................. 151 480 *
FALLS LAKE, NC .............................................................................................................. 3,189 3,189
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC ....................................................................... ........................ 209 †
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC .................................................................................. ........................ 3,296 *
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ....................................................................................... ........................ 8,340 *
NEW RIVER INLET, NC .................................................................................................... ........................ 390 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ................................................................................ ........................ 700 *
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC .............................................................................................. ........................ 1,700 *
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ............................................................................................. ........................ 1,120 *
W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC .................................................................... 4,025 4,025
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ............................................................................................. ........................ 25,260 *
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN HALEY, ND ...................................................................................................... 351 351
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ......................................................................... 18,609 18,609
HOMME LAKE, ND ........................................................................................................... 409 409
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND ....................................................................... ........................ 311 †
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND .................................................................... 1,689 1,689
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ....................................................................................................... 615 615
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ................................................................... ........................ 128 †
SOURIS RIVER, ND ......................................................................................................... 381 381
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ............................................... ........................ 125 *
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH .................................................................................................. 5,454 5,454
ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................... ........................ 457 *
BERLIN LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................... 3,554 3,554
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH .............................................................................................. 2,928 2,928
CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ....................................................................................... 1,958 1,958
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................... ........................ 10,020 *
CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ................................................................................................ ........................ 2,764 *
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH .................................................................................................. 2,057 2,057
DELAWARE LAKE, OH ...................................................................................................... 4,364 4,364
DILLON LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................ 3,335 3,335
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH .................................................................................................. ........................ 3,880 *
HURON HARBOR, OH ...................................................................................................... ........................ 8 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH ....................................................................... ........................ 984 †
LORAIN HARBOR, OH ...................................................................................................... ........................ 2,317 *
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH .............................................................. 235 235
MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH .............................................................. 1,805 1,805
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................................... 4,610 4,610
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH ...................................................................................... 24,813 24,813
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ................................................................. 558 558
OHIO–MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH ....................................................................... 1,490 1,490
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH .................................................................................................. 2,578 2,578
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ................................................................................ ........................ 340 *
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ............................................................... 56 56
SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ................................................................................................. ........................ 1,163 *
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ............................................... ........................ 230 *
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ..................................................................................................... ........................ 6,929 *
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ................................................................................................... 984 984
VERMILION HARBOR, OH ................................................................................................ ........................ 5,700 *
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................... 4,875 4,875
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH ........................................................................................ 2,221 2,221
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
42
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................... 525 525
BIRCH LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................. 847 847
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ................................................................................................. 3,267 3,267
CANTON LAKE, OK .......................................................................................................... 2,207 2,207
COPAN LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................ 1,885 1,885
EUFAULA LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................... 16,618 16,618
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK .................................................................................................. 5,195 5,195
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK .................................................................................................. 1,163 1,163
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ....................................................................................... 454 454
HEYBURN LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................ 817 817
HUGO LAKE, OK .............................................................................................................. 1,896 1,896
HULAH LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................. 1,908 1,908
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ....................................................................... ........................ 310 †
KAW LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................ 2,833 2,833
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................... 4,874 4,874
MCCLELLAN–KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK .................................... 37,629 37,629
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................ 5,221 5,221
OPTIMA LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 198 198
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ............................................... 163 163
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK .................................................................................................... 1,745 1,745
SARDIS LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................ 1,556 1,556
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ................................................................... ........................ 1,750 †
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................ 5,130 5,130
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK ........................................................................................... 11,990 11,990
WAURIKA LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................... 2,796 2,796
WISTER LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................... 988 988
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ..................................................................................................... 1,674 1,674
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR .................................................................................................... 1,385 1,385
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ........................................................................ 1,937 8,994 *
CHETCO RIVER, OR ........................................................................................................ ........................ 954 *
COLES RIVER HATCHERY, APPLEGATE & LOST CREEK, OR ........................................... ........................ 1,819
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ................................................................. ........................ 41,061 *
COOS BAY, OR ................................................................................................................ ........................ 7,951 *
COOS BAY (MAJOR MAINTENANCE), OR ......................................................................... ........................ 32,720
COQUILLE RIVER, OR ...................................................................................................... ........................ 619 *
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR ............................................................................................ 2,415 2,415
COUGAR LAKE, OR .......................................................................................................... 2,756 2,756
DEPOE BAY, OR .............................................................................................................. ........................ 71 *
DETROIT LAKE, OR .......................................................................................................... 1,720 1,720
DORENA LAKE, OR .......................................................................................................... 3,326 3,326
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ..................................................................................................... 248 248
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR .................................................................................................... 2,423 2,423
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ................................................................................................... 2,939 2,939
GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR .............................................................................. 2,898 2,898
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR .................................................................................................. 1,598 1,598
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR ....................................................................... ........................ 425 †
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ............................................................................ 6,300 6,300
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR .............................................................................................. 3,167 3,167
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................................... 4,810 4,810
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .............................................................................. 14,983 14,983
NEHALEM BAY, OR ......................................................................................................... ........................ 15 *
PORT ORFORD, OR ......................................................................................................... ........................ 459 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ................................................................................ ........................ 477 *
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR ............................................................................... ........................ 2,781 *
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ................................................................... ........................ 104 †
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ....................................................................................................... ........................ 1,049 *
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ............................................... ........................ 10,350 *
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
TILLAMOOK BAY & BAR, OR ........................................................................................... ........................ 172 *
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
43
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
UMPQUA RIVER, OR ........................................................................................................ ........................ 1,183 *
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR ............................................................. 80 80
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR .................................................................. 160 160
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................... 1,189 1,189
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR .................................................................................... ........................ 4,572 *
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ................................................................................................... 9,064 9,064
ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA ................................................................................................. 782 782
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA ...................................................................................... 312 312
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ..................................................................................................... 1,886 1,886
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA .................................................................................................. 4,734 4,734
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ........................................................................................ 1,677 1,677
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ................................................................................................. 2,244 2,244
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA ............................................................................................ 2,348 2,348
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ............................................................................................... 1,260 1,260
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ................................................ ........................ 13,710 *
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA ....................................................................... 2,013 2,013
ERIE HARBOR, PA ........................................................................................................... ........................ 263 *
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ................................................................................. 1,837 1,837
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA ......................................................................................... 1,225 1,225
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA ..................................................... 459 459
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ....................................................................... ........................ 601 †
JOHNSTOWN, PA .............................................................................................................. 3,288 3,288
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ............................................................. 2,362 2,362
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ................................................................................................... 5,308 5,308
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA .......................................................................................... 2,409 2,409
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA .............................................................................................. 18,807 18,807
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV .............................................................. 76,654 76,654
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV ........................................................ 851 851
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ................................................................................ ........................ 177 *
PROMPTON LAKE, PA ...................................................................................................... 1,049 1,049
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ....................................................................................................... 100 100
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA ...................................................................................................... 4,828 4,828
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA .................................................................... ........................ 82 †
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA ................................................................................................... ........................ 100 *
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ........................................................................................... 3,675 3,675 ...
STILLWATER LAKE, PA .................................................................................................... 481 481
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ................................................ ........................ 91 *
TIOGA—HAMMOND LAKES, PA ....................................................................................... 3,000 3,000
TIONESTA LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................ 3,934 3,934
UNION CITY LAKE, PA ..................................................................................................... 626 626
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ......................................................................................... 1,381 1,381
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ......................................................................................... 989 989
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD ......................................................................... 4,345 4,345
PUERTO RICO
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PR ....................................................................... ........................ 150 †
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PR ................................................................................ ........................ 100 *
SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR .................................................................................................. ........................ 3,940 *
RHODE ISLAND
BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR OF REFUGE, RI ........................................................................ ........................ 350 *
FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI ............................................................ 704 929
GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI .......................................................................... ........................ 350 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ........................................................................ ........................ 49 †
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI ................................................................................. ........................ 500 *
PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, RI ........................................................................... ........................ 38,600 *
WOONSOCKET LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, RI ............................................................ 543 668
SOUTH CAROLINA
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC ...................................................................... 4,315 4,315
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
44
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ............................................................................................. ........................ 9,145 *
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .................................................................. ........................ 4,175 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ....................................................................... ........................ 65 †
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ................................................................................ ........................ 875 *
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ................................................................................ 13,412 13,412
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD .................................................................................................. 386 386
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD .................................................................................. 257 257
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ............................................................. 22,264 22,264
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ....................................................................... ........................ 224 †
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN ............................................................................................ 687 687
OAHE DAM AND LAKE OAHE, SD .................................................................................... 13,386 13,386
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ................................................................... ........................ 158 †
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ................................................................................................... 7,806 7,806
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ..................................................................................... 15,984 15,984
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ..................................................................... 8,610 8,610
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ................................................................................................. 8,292 8,292
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ....................................................................... 6,481 6,481
J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ................................................................... ........................ 294 †
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE REGIONAL HARBOR, LAKE COUNTY, TN ................................. ........................ 540 *
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ................................................................................. 11,870 11,870
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ................................................................................ ........................ 5 *
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ................................................................................................... 27,738 27,738
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN .............................................................................................. ........................ 655 *
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................... 2,169 2,169
BARDWELL LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................... 3,972 3,972
BELTON LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................... 4,455 4,455
BENBROOK LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................... 3,091 3,091
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX ......................................................................................... ........................ 4,135 *
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ......................................................................... 3,906 3,906
CANYON LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................... 5,614 5,614
CEDAR BAYOU, TX .......................................................................................................... ........................ 3,150 *
CHANNEL TO HARLINGEN, TX ......................................................................................... ........................ 1,100 *
CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX .................................................................................... ........................ 600 *
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................. ........................ 9,600 *
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX .................................................................................. 10,216 10,216
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX .......................................................... 3,708 3,708
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX .................................................................................................. ........................ 8,015 *
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ........................................................................ ........................ 7,175 *
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ................................................................................. ........................ 130 *
GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX ....................................................................................... ........................ 50 *
GRANGER LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................ 2,628 2,628
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................... 2,607 2,607
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ............................................................................. 29,250 29,250
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ................................................................................................. 1,712 1,712
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ......................................................................................... ........................ 23,750 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ....................................................................... ........................ 1,573 †
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX .................................................................................................. 2,307 2,307
JOE POOL LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................ 6,748 6,748
LAKE KEMP, TX ............................................................................................................... 261 261
LAVON LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................. 3,699 3,699
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX ...................................................................................................... 4,094 4,094
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................... ........................ 4,255 *
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX .............................................................................................. 2,871 2,871
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX .............................................. 2,703 2,703
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX .................................................................................... 1,336 1,336
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................... 1,439 1,439
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
45
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
PROCTOR LAKE, TX ......................................................................................................... 3,393 3,393
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX ................................................................................ ........................ 325 *
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ................................................................................................. 1,570 1,570
SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX ................................................................................. ........................ 8,900 *
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ..................................................................... 7,448 7,448
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX .................................................................... ........................ 592 †
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX .................................................................................................... 3,352 3,352
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ....................................................................................... 2,892 2,892
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ...................................................................................... ........................ 5,500 *
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ............................................................. 3,402 3,402
WACO LAKE, TX .............................................................................................................. 3,961 3,961
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX .................................................................................................... 2,946 2,946
WHITNEY LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................... 7,090 7,090
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX ............................................................................. 5,664 5,664
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ....................................................................... ........................ 40 †
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT .................................................................... ........................ 410 †
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN, VT ....................................................................................................... 986 986
GORDONS LANDING, VT .................................................................................................. ........................ 250 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ....................................................................... ........................ 9 †
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT ........................................................................................... 884 884
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ....................................................................................... 949 949
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT .................................................................................................... 988 988
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ................................................................................................ 817 817
VIRGIN ISLANDS
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VI ........................................................................ ........................ 36 †
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VI ................................................................................. ........................ 50 *
VIRGINIA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ........................................................... 3,015 3,015
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ........................................................... 1,754 1,754
BENNETTS CREEK, VA .................................................................................................... ........................ 420 *
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA .............................................................................................. ........................ 680 *
DAVIS CREEK, VA ........................................................................................................... ........................ 265 *
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA ..................................................................... 2,749 2,749
HAMPTON ROADS DRIFT REMOVAL, VA .......................................................................... ........................ 2,632 *
HAMPTON ROADS PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS, VA .................................. ........................ 130 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ....................................................................... ........................ 381 †
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ........................................................................................... ........................ 8,025 *
JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC ........................................................................................ 12,131 12,131
JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ............................................................ 7,864 7,864
LYNNHAVEN INLET, VA .................................................................................................... ........................ 5,425 *
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ................................................................................................... ........................ 26,700 *
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA ...................................................................... 698 698
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA ......................................................................................................... 4,833 4,833
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ................................................................................ ........................ 1,229 *
RUDEE INLET, VA ............................................................................................................ ........................ 580
WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATIONS, VA ....................................................... ........................ 200 *
YORK RIVER ENTRANCE CHANNEL, VA ........................................................................... ........................ 300 *
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ................................................................................................. 676 676
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLAND,
OR .............................................................................................................................. ........................ 56,665 *
COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR ................................................................. ........................ 849 *
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA ..................................... ........................ 1,894 *
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR ........................... ........................ 1,117 *
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA ............................................................ ........................ 2,513 *
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
46
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
GRAYS HARBOR, WA ....................................................................................................... ........................ 18,851 *
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ........................................................................................... 9,065 9,065
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA .................................................................................. 5,012 5,012
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA ...................................................................... ........................ 1,223 †
LAKE RIVER, WA (PORT OF RIDGEFIELD) ....................................................................... ........................ 124
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ............................................................................. 1,314 11,199 *
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................... 3,133 3,133
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................ 3,559 3,559
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ................................................................... 3,095 3,095
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ................................................................................................... 2,849 2,849
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ........................................................... 918 918
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA .............................................................................................. 13,409 13,049
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ............................................................................... ........................ 810 *
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ................................................................ ........................ 1,276 *
QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA .................................................................................................. ........................ 2,334 *
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ................................................................... ........................ 493 *
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA .................................................................................................... ........................ 378 †
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA ............................................................................................ 299 299
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ............................................... ........................ 53 *
SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA ............................................................................................. ........................ 215
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ..................................................................................... 364 364
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR ........................................................................ 4,033 4,033
WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA ................................................................................. ........................ 3,290 *
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV .................................................................................................. 1,534 1,534
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV .................................................................................................... 2,883 2,883
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ................................................................................................... 2,944 2,944
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ..................................................................................................... 3,098 3,098
ELKINS, WV ..................................................................................................................... 70 70
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV ...................................................................... ........................ 536 †
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ....................................................................... 17,043 23,943
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH .............................................................. 57,656 57,656
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH ........................................................ 2,726 2,726
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV .................................................................................................... 2,760 2,760
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ..................................................................................... 1,832 1,832
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV .............................................................................................. 2,752 2,752
SUTTON LAKE, WV .......................................................................................................... 3,609 3,609
TYGART LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................... 2,351 2,351
WISCONSIN
ASHLAND HARBOR, WI .................................................................................................... ........................ 1,020 *
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ........................................................................................... 1,026 1,026
FOX RIVER, WI ................................................................................................................ 3,444 3,444
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................ ........................ 3,101 *
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ....................................................................... ........................ 45 †
KENOSHA HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................... ........................ 730 *
KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................. ........................ 462 *
MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................... ........................ 830 *
MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................ ........................ 3,112 *
PORT WING HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................ ........................ 25 *
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ................................................................................ ........................ 359 *
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI .................................. 18 629 *
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ................................................ ........................ 408 *
TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI .............................................................................................. ........................ 20
WYOMING
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY ...................................................................... ........................ 70 †
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY ........................................................................................... 1,678 1,678
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ................................................................... ........................ 112 †
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES .................................................. 2,336,969 4,050,405
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
47
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Committee
Item Budget estimate recommendation
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK ................................................................... ........................ ........................
NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................ ........................ 40,000
DEEP–DRAFT HARBOR AND CHANNEL ............................................................................ ........................ 172,052
DONOR AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS ........................................................................ ........................ 50,000
INLAND WATERWAYS ....................................................................................................... ........................ 25,000
SMALL, REMOTE, OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION .................................................. ........................ 60,000
OTHER AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ..................................................................................... ........................ 40,000
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH ..................................................................... 100 17,500
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIP MAINT (FEM) ........................................... ........................ 1,000
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS .............................. ........................ ........................
STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................ 900 900
PERFORMANCE–BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM .............................................. ........................ ........................
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM .......................................................... 1,000 1,000
OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION .......................................................................... 350 350
CIVIL WORKS WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CWWMS) ................................................ 8,000 8,000
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM ........................................................................... 100 10,975
COASTAL OCEAN DATA SYSTEM (CODS) ......................................................................... 2,500 7,500
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ................................................................ 900 900
CYBERSECURITY ............................................................................................................. 4,000 4,000
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE ......................................................................... ........................ 11,000 *
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE .............................................................................. ........................ 14,000 *
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ............................... 1,100 4,300
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) .............................. 5,000 5,000
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS) ................................. 100 6,950
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ............................................................. 100 300
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE .......................................................................................... ........................ 12,500
ELECTRIC VEHICLE FLEET AND CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................... 8,000 8,000
FACILITY PROTECTION .................................................................................................... 4,200 4,200
FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT ................................. 5,400 5,400
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ............................................................ ........................ 795 *
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ...................................................................... 4,000 4,800
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS .............................. 18,000 18,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS .............................................................................. 32,500 ........................ ‡
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS .................................................... 100 12,000
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM ....................................................................... 4,000 15,000
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT) ............................. 10,000 10,000
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ........................................... 5,500 5,500
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY ........................................................................... 4,500 4,500
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ....... 2,500 2,500
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS ............................................ 600 600
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 100 6,700
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS ................................................. 6,000 6,000
REVIEW OF NON–FEDERAL ALTERATIONS OF CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS (SECTION 408) 10,000 10,000
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS .......................................................................... 8,500 ........................ ‡
SOIL MOISTURE AND SNOWPACK MONITORING .............................................................. 5,000 8,000
SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROGRAM (SRP) ......................................................................... 500 500
VETERAN’S CURATION PROGRAM AND COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT ............................. 6,500 6,500
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS .......................................................................... 4,670 4,670
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ....................................................... 500 5,500
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS .......................................................................... 165,220 632,392
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................ 2,502,189 4,682,797
* Includes funds requested in other accounts.
† Requested in remaining items.
‡ Funded under projects listed under states.
Arkansas Red River Chloride Control.—The Committee reminds
the Corps of their existing obligations to continue operations and
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
maintenance activities for the Red River Chloride Control project,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
48
Oklahoma and Texas, at Federal expense and encourages the Corps
to prioritize funding for these projects when allocating additional
funding recommended in this account.
Aquatic Nuisance Control Research.—Harmful Algal Blooms
[HABs] continue to threaten local communities, ecosystems, human
health, drinking water sources, and local outdoor economies across
the Nation. These algae overgrowths produce dangerous toxins in
fresh and marine waters that can sicken or kill people and ani-
mals, create dead zones, and raise treatment costs for drinking
water. The devastating effects of HABs occur across multiple
ecoregions from large freshwater lakes like the Finger Lakes in
New York and Lake Okeechobee in Florida to large inland water-
ways like the Ohio River where a 2015 HAB event persisted for
over a month involving over 700 miles of waterway. The Committee
continues to support the Corps’ efforts to address gaps in critical
HAB research to avoid, detect, and address HAB occurrences.
The additional funding recommended in the Aquatic Nuisance
Control Research remaining item is to supplement and advance
Corps activities to address HABs including: early detection, preven-
tion, and management techniques and procedures to reduce the oc-
currence and impacts of harmful algal blooms in our nation’s water
resources; work with university partners to develop prediction,
avoidance and remediation measures focused on environmental
triggers in riverine ecosystems; and to advance state-of-the-art
UAS based detection, monitoring, and mapping of invasive aquatic
plant species in conjunction with University partners.
Asset Management/FEM.—The Committee is frustrated by the
lack of progress of the Corps in performing a review of their inven-
tory, in accordance with Section 6002 of the WRRDA of 2014, as
has been directed in previous Committee Reports. The Committee
notes that the Corps was previously provided $1,000,000 to carry
out these activities and understands $350,000 is needed in fiscal
year 2022 which has been recommended under Asset Management/
Facilities and Equipment Maintenance [FEM]. The Corps is di-
rected to provide an interim progress report that includes details
on the percentage of this work that has already been done and a
timeline for completion of the inventory to the Committee no later
than 60 days after enactment of this act.
Coastal Inlet Research Program.—The Committee understands
that communities, infrastructure, commerce, and resources that are
tied to the coastal nearshore region are all vulnerable to damage
from extreme coastal events and long-term coastal change. Funding
in addition to the budget request is recommended for the Corps-led,
multi-university effort to identify engineering frameworks to ad-
dress coastal resilience needs; to develop adaptive pathways that
lead to coastal resilience; that measure the coastal forces that lead
to infrastructure damage and erosion during extreme storm events;
and to improve coupling of terrestrial and coastal models. Funding
in addition to the budget request is also recommended for the
Corps to continue work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s National Water Center on protecting the Nation’s
water resources.
Debris Removal.—The Committee reminds the Corps that section
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
1164 of the WIIN Act enhanced the Corps’ authority to remove ‘‘ac-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
49
cumulated snags, obstructions, and other debris located in or adja-
cent to a Federal channel in the interest of navigation, flood con-
trol, or recreation.’’ The Committee encourages the Corps to com-
plete ongoing bridge removal projects; and when removing bridges
and bridge pilings, to consider also removing other pilings and ob-
structions in close proximity to the bridge, and in or adjacent to the
Federal navigation channel pursuant to this authority.
Enhanced Options for Sand Acquisition for Beach Renourishment
Projects.—The Committee urges the Corps to provide States with
guidance and recommendations to implement cost effective meas-
ures and planning for sand management.
Engineering With Nature.—The Committee recommendation in-
cludes $12,500,000 as a new remaining item in this account to sup-
port the Corps’ Engineering with Nature [EWN] initiative. The
Committee is impressed with the positive impact on the environ-
ment and the extensive cost savings this program provides. With
the funds recommended, the Corps is encouraged to continue col-
laboration across research programs on nature-based infrastructure
and with university partners to develop standards, design guid-
ance, and testing protocols to fully evaluate and standardize na-
ture-based and hybrid infrastructure solutions, including those in
drought and fire-prone lands and post-fire recovery areas. Addition-
ally, the Corps is encouraged to expand the EWN initiative to sup-
port science and engineering practices that support long-term resil-
ience and sustainability of water infrastructure and their sup-
porting systems. Funding under this line item is intended for EWN
activities having a national or regional scope or which benefit the
Corps’ broader execution of its mission areas. It is not intended to
replace or preclude the appropriate use of EWN practices at dis-
tricts using project-specific funding, or work performed across other
Corps programs that might involve EWN. The Committee encour-
ages the Corps to identify EWN efforts in future budget requests.
Of the funding recommended, $5,000,000 is included to support on-
going research and advance work with university partners to de-
velop standards, design guidance, and testing protocols to improve
and standardize nature-based and hybrid infrastructure solutions.
Flood and Earthquake Modeling.—Additional funds are rec-
ommended in the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to facili-
tate coordination with the Levee Safety program to develop a plan
for leveraging existing knowledge related to potential seismic con-
cerns relevant to levees. The Corps is encouraged to evaluate
whether earthquake model would aid in assessment and if collabo-
ration with Universities would be beneficial.
Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations.—The Committee is
pleased with the results of FIRO Phases 1 and 2 and is interested
in how the program can be leveraged to other areas. Particularly
if there are regions where different storm types, in addition to At-
mospheric Rivers, are key to heavy rain and flooding (e.g., tropical
storms/hurricanes, large thunderstorm systems), and where longer
forecast lead times may be required. The Corps shall brief the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress no later
than 60 days following enactment on the details of continuing and
potentially expanding FIRO and related efforts. The briefing shall
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
include how FIRO could be expanded to include assessments of at
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
50
least two major systems of dams (representing at least a dozen
dams in total), for which coordination across several dams in the
larger watershed is required and focus on the potential to predict
extreme precipitation and flood to better anticipate to what degree
FIRO might be applicable across reservoirs nationally.
Integrated Navigation Analysis and Systems Enhancements.—
The Committee recommends additional funds in the remaining
item Dredging Data and Lock Performance Monitoring System and
in the remaining item Dredging Operations Technical Support Pro-
gram to continue work laying the foundation for prototype applica-
tions for machine learning techniques as it relates to sedimenta-
tion-dredging patterns, dredging operations trends, and lock oper-
ations, including enhancements to systems to provide additional
analytical capabilities and integrates data across enterprise naviga-
tion systems.
Inspection of Completed Environmental Projects.—The Committee
is concerned about the absence of funding for the Inspection of
Completed Environmental Projects program in the administration’s
budget request. The program is intended to ensure that non-Fed-
eral sponsors operate and maintain aquatic ecosystem restoration
projects in accordance with the Operations, Maintenance, Repair,
Rehabilitation, and Replacement manual, thereby ensuring that
the Federal investment is protected and presumably providing the
benefits intended. The Corps is encouraged to include funding in
future budget requests.
Invasive Species Mitigation.—The Committee recognizes that the
Corps is engaged in a multipronged effort to combat invasive spe-
cies in our country’s waterways and protect the Mississippi River
Basin, which is one of the most valued ecosystems in the world.
The Committee recommends $500,000 for the Corps, in partnership
with other Federal partners, to begin planning, design, initial engi-
neering and project management for construction of carp barriers
in the Mississippi River Basin and the Tennessee-Tombigbee wa-
terway.
Kennebec River Long-Term Maintenance Dredging.—The Com-
mittee continues to support the Memorandum of Agreement signed
in January 2019 denoting responsibilities between the Department
of the Army and the Department of the Navy for the regular main-
tenance of the Kennebec River Federal Navigation Channel. Main-
tenance dredging of the Kennebec is essential to the safe passage
of newly constructed Navy guided missile destroyers to the Atlantic
Ocean. The Committee directs the Secretary to continue its collabo-
ration with the Department of the Navy to ensure regular mainte-
nance dredging of the Kennebec.
Levee Safety Program.—In fiscal year 2020, Congress provided
$15,000,000 to implement levee safety initiatives to meet the re-
quirements under section 3016 of WRRDA. The Committee under-
stands these funds are sufficient to complete Phase II activities.
Low Reservoir Water Level Issues.—The Committee encourages
the Corps to ensure adequate resources to address issues at Corps
projects when low water levels occur, such as additional terrestrial
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
noxious weed control and sediment removal activities.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
51
Mobile Bay Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.—The Committee
encourages the Corps to examine beneficial uses of dredged mate-
rial in Mobile Bay, Alabama.
Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects—Fisheries.—The
Committee is concerned that a reduction in or elimination of navi-
gational lock operations on the Nation’s inland waterways is hav-
ing a negative impact on river ecosystems, particularly the ability
of endangered, threatened, and game fish species to migrate
through waterways, particularly during critical spawning periods.
The Committee notes the success of preliminary research which in-
dicates reduced lock operations on certain Corps-designated low-
use waterways is directly impacting migration and that there are
effective means to mitigate the impacts. The Committee continues
to believe that maximizing the ability of fish to use these locks to
move past the dams has the potential to restore natural and his-
toric long-distance river migrations that may be critical to species
survival. In fiscal year 2021, the Committee recommended funding
to continue this research on the impact of reduced lock operations
on riverine fish.
The Committee understands this research has proven valuable
and, within available funds for ongoing work, directs the Corps to
continue this research at not less than the fiscal year 2021 level.
The goal of the continued funding is to support the ongoing re-
search and, where appropriate, expand the work to look at eco-
system level impacts and additional waterways, lock structures,
lock operation methods, and fish species that will more fully inform
the Corps’ operations.
Monitoring of Completed Navigation Projects—Structural Health
Monitoring.—Of the funding recommended, $4,000,000 shall be to
support the structural health monitoring program to facilitate re-
search to maximize operations, enhance efficiency, and protect
asset life through catastrophic failure mitigation. The Corps is en-
couraged to include funding for these activities in future budget re-
quests.
National Coastal Mapping Program.—Of the additional funds
recommended in the National Coastal Mapping Program remaining
item, $5,000,000 shall be for Arctic coastal mapping needs. The
Committee notes the Corps has responsibility for some mapping
but, in general, does not include shoreline. Before the Corps obli-
gates funds to map shoreline in Alaska, the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works shall provide notice to the Committee.
The notice shall include certification that the effort is coordinated
with NOAA and compliments those efforts.
Recreational Boating.—The Committee encourages the Corps to
complete the ongoing inventory of all federally managed rec-
reational boating infrastructure and facilities. The Committee is in-
terested in the findings related to the assessment of annual oper-
ation and maintenance needs associated with such infrastructure
and facilities, deferred operation and maintenance needs for such
infrastructure and facilities to operate safely at full capacity, oppor-
tunities to expand capacity at existing access points, and economic
impact of recreation to local and regional economies and benefits
of sustaining and improving public access at recreational infra-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
structure and facilities.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
52
Regional Sediment Management.—The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 to continue Corps research and development into en-
hanced forecasting capabilities to implement proactive strategies
for flood risk management to enhance the resiliency of coastal com-
munities and mitigate socioeconomic and environmental con-
sequences of extreme coastal hazards. Funds are also provided to
support cooperative efforts between the Corps and academia to ad-
dress compound flooding issues.
Small, Remote, or Subsistence Harbors.—The Committee empha-
sizes the importance of ensuring that our country’s small and low-
use ports remain functional. The Committee urges the Corps to
consider expediting scheduled maintenance at small and low-use
ports that have experienced unexpected levels of deterioration since
their last dredging. The Committee is concerned that the adminis-
tration’s criteria for navigation maintenance disadvantage small,
remote, or subsistence harbors and waterways from competing for
scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee directs the
Corps to revise the criteria used for determining which navigation
maintenance projects are funded and to develop a reasonable and
equitable allocation under the Operation and Maintenance account.
The Committee supports including criteria to evaluate economic
impact that these projects provide to local and regional economies.
Soil Moisture and Snowpack Monitoring Program.—The Com-
mittee recommends $8,000,000 for the continued fielding of the
Missouri River Snowpack and Soil Moisture Monitoring System.
Providing these capabilities is critical to enabling the Corps to ac-
curately forecast plains snowpack and soil moisture to improve
runoff forecasts that inform management decisions on dam releases
in order to protect Missouri River Basin states from the impacts of
flooding and droughts.
Tuttle Creek Lake, KS.—The additional funding provided is for
Water Injection Dredging efforts.
Water Control Manual Prioritization Report.—The Committee is
pleased to see the Corps start to budget for the update of water
control manuals. However, the Committee is perplexed and dis-
appointed that the prioritized list of manuals that require updating
has not been provided. This is particularly concerning because
funds were provided for this purpose and it appears the Corps has
used this information to budget for these updates. The Corps shall
provide the comprehensive list of water control manuals at Corps-
owned projects located in states where a Reclamation project is also
located, including a prioritized list of needed updates of those
manuals no later than 60 days following enactment.
Water Control Manuals, Section 7 Dams.—Many water control
manuals are decades old and in need of updating, particularly in
light of recent dam disasters and improvements in forecast-in-
formed reservoir operations [FIRO]. Of the additional funds rec-
ommended for Other Authorized Project Purposes $4,000,000 shall
be for water control manual updates for a non-Corps owned high
hazard dam where: (1) the Corps has a responsibility for flood con-
trol operations under section 7 of the Flood Control Act of 1944; (2)
the dam requires coordination of water releases with one or more
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
other high-hazard dams for flood control purposes; and (3) the dam
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
53
owner is actively investigating the feasibility of applying forecast
informed reservoir operations technology.
Water Operations Technical Support.—Funding in addition to the
budget request is recommended for research into atmospheric riv-
ers first funded in fiscal year 2015.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.—The Committee cannot
support a level of funding that does not fund operation and mainte-
nance of our Nation’s aging infrastructure sufficiently to ensure
continued competitiveness in a global marketplace. Federal naviga-
tion channels maintained at only a fraction of authorized dimen-
sions and navigation locks and hydropower facilities being used
well beyond their design life results in economic inefficiencies and
risks infrastructure failure, which can cause substantial economic
losses. The Committee recommendation includes additional funds
for projects and activities to enhance the Nation’s economic growth
and international competitiveness.
Of the additional funds recommended in this account for other
authorized project purposes, not less than $2,000,000 shall be for
efforts to combat invasive mussels at Corps-owned reservoirs.
When allocating the additional funding recommended in this ac-
count, the Corps shall consider giving priority to the following:
—Ability to complete ongoing work maintaining authorized
depths and widths of harbors and shipping channels (including
small, remote, or subsistence harbors), including where con-
taminated sediments are present;
—Ability to address critical maintenance backlog;
—Presence of the U.S. Coast Guard;
—Extent to which the work will enhance national, regional, or
local economic development;
—Extent to which the work will promote job growth or inter-
national competitiveness;
—Number of jobs created directly by the funded activity;
—Ability to obligate the funds allocated within the fiscal year;
—Ability to complete the project, separable element, project
phase, or useful increment of work within the funds allocated;
—Dredging projects that would provide supplementary benefits
to tributaries and waterways in close proximity to ongoing is-
land replenishment projects; and
—Extent to which the work will promote recreation-based bene-
fits, including those created by recreational boating; and
—For harbor maintenance activities:
—Total tonnage handled;
—Total exports;
—Total imports;
—Dollar value of cargo handled;
—Energy infrastructure and national security needs served;
—Designation as strategic seaports;
—Lack of alternative means of freight movement;
—Savings over alternative means of freight movement; and
—Improvements to dredge disposal facilities which will result
in long-term savings, including a reduction in regular main-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
tenance costs.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
54
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $210,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 204,400,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 212,000,000
The Committee recommends $212,000,000 for the Regulatory
Program. The Committee recommends funds above the budget re-
quest to address capacity needs across the Corps related to staffing
shortages in Corps districts. The Corps is encouraged to budget ap-
propriately in order to process permits in a timely fashion.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing shall pre-
clude a non-Federal entity from developing and operating a
pumped storage hydroelectric project in Gregory County, South Da-
kota, utilizing Missouri River water pursuant to a Federal Power
Act license, subject to all otherwise applicable license and permits,
nor limit the entities to which project power can be sold.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $250,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... ...........................
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 260,000,000
The Committee recommends $260,000,000 for the Formerly Uti-
lized Sites Remedial Action Program.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $35,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 35,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,000,000
The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Flood Control and
Coastal Emergencies.
EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $206,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 199,290,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 216,000,000
The Committee recommends $216,000,000 for Expenses. No
funding is recommended for creation of an Office of Congressional
Affairs.
The Expenses appropriation is an administrative and operational
account which supports the technical, administrative and staff su-
pervision functions assigned to Corps Headquarters, the Major
Subordinate Commands [MSCs/division offices]; and the costs of
those elements within four field operating activities providing di-
rect support to those functions. The Expenses appropriation pays
for two categories of requirements—labor and non-labor—to sup-
port the Corps.
The most recent U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency
[USAMAA] staffing analysis was conducted in 2011 to determine
an efficient and effective organizational structure for the Corps,
properly staffed to perform assigned missions and accomplish given
workload under the appropriate command and control. This anal-
ysis identified the need for 980 Full time equivalents [FTE] based
on the needs facing the Corps’ Civil Works program in 2011, which
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
received an annual Civil Works appropriation of $5,100,000,000.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
55
The Corps has been operating with approximately 850 FTE, with
a fiscal year 2020 appropriation of $7,650,000, not accounting for
the over $20,000,000,000 in emergency supplemental funding they
have received over the past 3 years. Thus, the Corps is working
with nearly 130 fewer FTE than recommended and being required
to execute at least 50 percent more work than the initial estimate
was based on.
The additional funds recommended in this account shall be used
to support implementation of the Corps’ Civil Works program, in-
cluding hiring additional FTE. This includes developing and
issuing policy guidance; managing Civil Works program; and pro-
viding national coordination of and participation in forums and
events within headquarters, the division offices, and meeting other
enterprise requirements and operating expenses. The Committee
encourages the Corps to pursue updating the 2011 USMAA staffing
analysis based on current Civil Works needs.
The Committee moved $8,000,000 provided in the budget rec-
ommendation for electric vehicles and charging stations to this ac-
count. These activities align with the replacement and mainte-
nance of the current fleet of vehicles which is conducted as part of
this account.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $4,500,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Office of the As-
sistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
The Committee is concerned about the bureaucratic process for
renewing leases under 10 U.S.C. 2667 and 16 U.S.C. 460d. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to consider the efficiencies
that may be gained by allowing Corps districts to authorize lease
renewals under this section, including lease applications in excess
of 25 years.
The Committee counts on a timely and accessible executive
branch in the course of fulfilling its constitutional role in the ap-
propriations process. The requesting and receiving of basic, factual
information is vital to maintaining a transparent and open gov-
erning process. The Committee recognizes that some discussions in-
ternal to the executive branch are pre-decisional in nature and,
therefore, not subject to disclosure. However, the access to facts,
figures, and statistics that inform these decisions are not subject to
the same sensitivity and are critical to the appropriations process.
The administration needs to do more to ensure timely and complete
responses to these inquiries.
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2020 ............................................................................. $14,200,000
Budget estimate, 2021 ........................................................................... ...........................
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,200,000
The Committee recommends $14,200,000 for the Water Infra-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
structure Finance and Innovation Program.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
56
GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL
Section 101. The bill includes a provision related to reprogram-
ming.
Section 102. The bill includes a provision related to allocation of
funds.
Section 103. The bill includes a provision related to contract
awards and modifications.
Section 104. The bill includes a provision related to the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Section 105. The bill includes a provision related to open lake
disposal of dredged material.
Section 106. The bill includes a provision related to the reorga-
nization or transfer of the Corps of Engineers.
Section 107. The bill includes a provision related to project eligi-
bility for funding.
Section 108. The bill includes a provision related to water re-
allocation studies.
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,000,000
The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for the Central Utah
Project Completion Account, which includes $5,000,000 for the
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission,
$1,550,000 for necessary expenses of the Secretary of the Interior,
and up to $1,850,000 for the Commission’s administrative ex-
penses. This allows the Department of the Interior to develop water
supply facilities that will continue to sustain economic growth and
an enhanced quality of life in the western States, the fastest grow-
ing region in the United States. The Committee remains committed
to complete the Central Utah Project, which would enable the
project to initiate repayment to the Federal Government.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,986,000,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation [Reclamation]. The Committee recommendation sets
priorities by supporting our Nation’s water infrastructure.
INTRODUCTION
In addition to the traditional missions of bringing water and
power to the West, Reclamation continues to develop programs, ini-
tiatives, and activities that will help meet new water needs and
balance the multitude of competing uses of water in the West. Rec-
lamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country, oper-
ating 338 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 140 million
acre-feet. Reclamation projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water
to more than 31 million people each year, and provide 1 out of 5
western farmers with irrigation water for 11 million acres of farm-
land that produce 60 percent of the Nation’s vegetables and 25 per-
cent of its fruits and nuts. Reclamation manages, with partners,
289 recreation sites that have 90 million visits annually.
FISCAL YEAR 2022 WORK PLAN
The Committee recommends funding above the budget request
for Water and Related Resources. Reclamation is directed to submit
a work plan, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this act, to the Committee proposing its allocation of these addi-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
(57)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
58
tional funds. The work plan shall be consistent with the following
general guidance:
—None of the funds may be used for any item for which the
Committee has specifically denied funding;
—The additional funds are recommended for studies or projects
that were either not included in the budget request or for
which the budget request was inadequate;
—Funding associated with a category may be allocated to eligible
studies or projects within that category; and
—Reclamation may not withhold funding from a study or project
because it is inconsistent with administration policy. The Com-
mittee notes that these funds are in excess of the administra-
tion’s budget request, and that administration budget metrics
shall not disqualify a study or project from being funded.
DROUGHT RESILIENCY
The Committee remains intently focused on the need for improv-
ing drought resiliency as well as in finding opportunities for agen-
cies to combine water supply benefits with other mission priorities.
The impacts of the current severe drought in the west display there
is more work to be done. The Committee continues to invest in the
drought resiliency programs authorized in the WIIN Act and be-
lieves a solution to these chronic droughts is a combination of addi-
tional storage, substantial investments in desalination and recy-
cling, improved conveyance, and increased efficiencies in the uses
of water both for agriculture and potable purposes. As the West
has consistently been the fastest growing part of the country, it is
incumbent on Reclamation to lead the way in increasing the water
that is available from year to year and to incentivize more efficient
use of the water that is available.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
The Committee included congressionally directed spending, as
defined in section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate. The Committee funded only projects and studies that are
authorized by law. In the interest of providing full disclosure of
funding provided in this Title, all projects requested and funded
are listed in a table accompanying this report. All of the projects
funded in this report have gone through the same rigorous process
and approvals as those proposed by the President.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $1,521,125,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,379,050,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,832,101,000
The Committee recommends $1,832,101,000 for Water and Re-
lated Resources.
INTRODUCTION
The Water and Related Resources account supports the develop-
ment, management, and restoration of water and related natural
resources in the 17 western States. The account includes funds for
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
59
overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct
studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural
resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with
non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
ARIZONA
AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT
PROJECT ................................................................... ........................ 19,433 ........................ 19,433
COLORADO RIVER BASIN—CENTRAL ARIZONA 20,957 648 20,957 648
PROJECT
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .. 2,303 ........................ 2,303 ........................
SALT RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 649 364 649 364
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT
PROJECT ................................................................... 550 ........................ 550 ........................
YUMA AREA PROJECTS .................................................. 1,025 28,364 1,025 28,364
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT ....................................................... 915 1,401 915 1,401
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT:.
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM UNIT/MOR-
MON ISLAND ............................................................. 1,830 10,937 1,830 10,937
AUBURN–FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ..................................... 35 2,564 35 2,564
DELTA DIVISION ............................................................. 17,586 12,145 17,586 12,145
EAST SIDE DIVISION ...................................................... 1,290 2,772 1,290 2,772
FRIANT DIVISION ........................................................... 1,375 3,761 1,375 3,761
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ......... 20,500 ........................ 20,500 ........................
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ......................... 21,694 370 21,694 370
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY
MAINT PROGRAM ...................................................... ........................ 29,500 ........................ 29,500
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ...................................... 7,450 695 12,450 695
SACRAMENTO RIVER BASIN FLOOD PLAIN REAC-
TIVATION .......................................................... ........................ ........................ (5,000) ........................
SAN FELIPE DIVISION .................................................... 128 68 128 68
CVP SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION .......................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................
SHASTA DIVISION .......................................................... 494 11,190 494 11,190
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ............................................... 10,361 5,230 10,361 5,230
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ................................. 2,251 10,843 2,251 10,843
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ............. 2,604 7,075 3,104 7,075
LOS BANOS CREEK APPRAISAL STUDY ................ ........................ ........................ (500) ........................
ORLAND PROJECT .......................................................... ........................ 923 ........................ 923
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ................................ 2,000 ........................ 2,000 ........................
SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND .................... ........................ ........................ 10,000 ........................
SOLANO PROJECT .......................................................... 1,162 2,535 1,162 2,535
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ............................................. 330 44 830 44
COLORADO
ANIMAS–LA PLATA PROJECT ......................................... 758 4,506 758 4,506
ARMEL UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................. 15 434 15 434
COLLBRAN PROJECT ...................................................... 148 2,686 148 2,686
COLORADO–BIG THOMPSON PROJECT .......................... 265 15,092 265 15,092
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ..................................... 67 133 67 133
FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT .................................. 76 8,880 76 8,880
FRYINGPAN–ARKANSAS PROJECT—ARKANSAS VALLEY
CONDUIT ................................................................... 10,050 ........................ 10,050 ........................
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ....................... 64 1,755 64 1,755
GRAND VALLEY PROJECT .............................................. 193 155 193 155
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY PROJECT ....... ........................ 24,878 ........................ 24,878
MANCOS PROJECT ......................................................... 93 258 93 258
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
NARROWS UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. ........................ 33 ........................ 33
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
60
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ................... 771 2,967 771 2,967
PINE RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 127 361 127 361
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CLOSED BASIN ................. 100 2,950 100 2,950
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT, CONEJOS DIVISION ........... 10 20 10 20
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT .............................................. 711 169 711 169
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ....... 3,250 ........................ 3,250 ........................
IDAHO
BOISE AREA PROJECTS ................................................. 2,753 2,964 2,753 2,964
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY
PROJECT ................................................................... 18,000 ........................ 18,000 ........................
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECT .................................... 880 27 880 27
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ........................................... 2,654 4,557 2,654 4,557
PRESTON BENCH PROJECT ........................................... 13 34 13 34
KANSAS
ALMENA UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................ 18 1,131 18 1,131
BOSTWICK UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. 199 1,243 199 1,243
CEDAR BLUFF UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... 13 452 13 452
GLEN ELDER UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 18 18,519 18 18,519
KANSAS RIVER UNIT, P–SMBP ...................................... ........................ 100 ........................ 100
KIRWIN UNIT, P–SMBP .................................................. 27 387 27 387
WEBSTER UNIT, P–SMBP .............................................. 18 5,010 18 5,010
WICHITA PROJECT—CHENEY DIVISION ......................... 39 398 39 398
WICHITA EQUUS BEDS DIVISION ................................... 10 ........................ 10 ........................
MONTANA
CANYON FERRY UNIT, P–SMBP .................................... 188 8,012 188 8,012
EAST BENCH UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 162 602 162 602
FORT PECK RESERVATION / DRY PRAIRIE RURAL
WATER SYSTEM ........................................................ 17,191 ........................ 17,191 ........................
HELENA VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP .................................... 52 200 52 200
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ............................................. ........................ 1,673 ........................ 1,673
HUNTLEY PROJECT ........................................................ 38 24 38 24
LOWER MARIAS UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................... 536 1,496 536 1,496
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT ................................... 905 22 905 22
MILK RIVER PROJECT .................................................... 400 1,202 400 1,202
MISSOURI BASIN O&M, P–SMBP .................................. 1,015 157 1,015 157
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER SYS-
TEM ........................................................................... 13,504 ........................ 13,504 ........................
SUN RIVER PROJECT ..................................................... 107 373 107 373
YELLOWTAIL UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 105 9,875 105 9,875
NEBRASKA
AINSWORTH UNIT, P–SMBP ........................................... 33 109 33 109
EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY—UTE RES-
ERVOIR ..................................................................... 7,790 ........................ 25,190 ........................
FRENCHMAN–CAMBRIDGE UNIT, P–SMBP .................... 174 2,411 174 2,411
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ............................................... 24 102 24 102
NORTH LOUP UNIT, P–SMBP ......................................... 46 198 46 198
NEVADA
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ........................................... 5,435 5,858 5,435 5,858
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ....... 115 ........................ 115 ........................
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ..................... 595 ........................ 3,655 ........................
NEW MEXICO
CARLSBAD PROJECT ...................................................... 2,794 6,946 2,794 6,946
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ..................................... 20,100 10,530 20,100 10,530
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
RIO GRANDE PROJECT .................................................. 2,391 6,709 2,391 6,709
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
61
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
RIO GRANDE PUEBLOS PROJECT .................................. 1,050 ........................ 1,050 ........................
TUCUMCARI PROJECT .................................................... 15 5 15 5
NORTH DAKOTA
DICKINSON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................ ........................ 838 ........................ 838
GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT, P–SMBP Rural and Non–
Rural Water .............................................................. 24,568 14,891 24,568 14,891
HEART BUTTE UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... 82 1,271 82 1,271
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT ...................................................... 39 243 39 243
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ............................................... 20 904 20 904
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ............................................ 30 681 30 681
NORMAN PROJECT ......................................................... 76 289 76 289
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT .............................................. 52 1,555 52 1,555
WC AUSTIN PROJECT ..................................................... 37 905 37 905
OREGON
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ............................................ 314 499 314 499
DESCHUTES PROJECT .................................................... 429 231 429 231
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ....................................... 721 256 721 256
KLAMATH PROJECT ........................................................ 19,770 4,299 24,770 4,299
KLAMATH, SCADA ACQUISITION ............................ ........................ ........................ (5,000) ........................
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ........ 738 543 738 543
TUALATIN PROJECT ........................................................ 382 1,856 1,682 1,856
SCOGGINS DAM .................................................... ........................ ........................ (1,300) ........................
UMATILLA PROJECT ....................................................... 567 3,100 567 3,100
SOUTH DAKOTA
ANGOSTURA UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 10 882 10 882
BELLE FOURCHE UNIT, P–SMBP ................................... 130 1,507 130 1,507
KEYHOLE UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................... 190 586 190 586
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM .................. 9,220 ........................ 31,134 ........................
MID–DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT .......................... ........................ 13 ........................ 13
MNI WICONI PROJECT ................................................... ........................ 17,010 ........................ 17,010
OAHE UNIT, P–SMBP ..................................................... ........................ 90 ........................ 90
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT ................................................ ........................ 86 ........................ 86
RAPID VALLEY UNIT, P–SMBP ....................................... ........................ 224 ........................ 224
SHADEHILL UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................ 119 715 119 715
TEXAS
BALMORHEA PROJECT ................................................... 4 ........................ 4 ........................
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ........................................... 42 82 42 82
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM 911 ........................ 911 ........................
NUECES RIVER PROJECT ............................................... 52 1,010 52 1,010
SAN ANGELO PROJECT .................................................. 23 680 23 680
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT ........................................................... 109 260 109 260
MOON LAKE PROJECT .................................................... 19 159 19 159
NEWTON PROJECT ......................................................... 56 132 56 132
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ................................................ 195 246 195 246
PROVO RIVER PROJECT ................................................. 3,336 532 3,336 532
SANPETE PROJECT ........................................................ 85 18 85 18
SCOFIELD PROJECT ....................................................... 344 153 344 153
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT .................................... 500 60 500 60
WEBER BASIN PROJECT ................................................ 1,273 942 1,273 942
WEBER RIVER PROJECT ................................................ 108 212 108 212
WASHINGTON
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ........................................... 7,270 20,715 7,770 20,715
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
62
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
ODESSA SUBAREA ................................................ (1,500) ........................ (2,000) ........................
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ...................................... 372 160 372 160
YAKIMA PROJECT ........................................................... 1,887 7,040 1,887 7,040
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 25,500 ........................ 26,450 ........................
WAPATO IRRIGATION PROJECT ............................. (1,040) ........................ (1,990) ........................
WYOMING
BOYSEN UNIT, P–SMBP ................................................ 78 2,235 78 2,235
BUFFALO BILL DAM, DAM MODIFICATION, P–SMBP ...... 9 5,941 9 5,941
KENDRICK PROJECT ...................................................... 79 3,841 79 3,841
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ............................................... 93 2,487 93 2,487
NORTH PLATTE AREA, P–SMBP ..................................... 121 6,787 121 6,787
OWL CREEK UNIT, P–SMBP .......................................... 4 102 4 102
RIVERTON UNIT, P–SMBP ............................................. 12 716 12 716
SHOSHONE PROJECT ..................................................... 34 1,293 34 1,293
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES ................... 333,604 416,742 399,728 416,742
REMAINING ITEMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK
RURAL WATER ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 40,000 ........................
FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS .............................. ........................ ........................ 8,000 ........................
SACRAMENTO RIVER FISH SCREEN ..................... ........................ ........................ (3,900) ........................
UPPER YAKIMA BULL TROUT RESEARCH FACILITY ........................ ........................ (700) ........................
WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY ........................ ........................ ........................ 225,500 ........................
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND COMPLIANCE ...... ........................ ........................ 20,000 ........................
FACILITIES OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REHABILI-
TATION ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,717
AGING INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM ............................. ........................ 1,000 ........................ 1,000
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESOTRATION PROGRAM ........... 1,000 ........................ 1,000 ........................
COLORADO RIVER COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES ................. 21,400 ........................ 21,400 ........................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT,
TITLE I ...................................................................... ........................ 17,574 ........................ 17,574
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT,
TITLE II ..................................................................... 7,000 ........................ 7,000 ........................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SEC-
TION 5 ...................................................................... 3,164 7,469 3,164 7,469
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP), SEC-
TION 8 ...................................................................... 3,322 ........................ 3,322 ........................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT ................................................................... 740 ........................ 500 ........................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM SAFETY PRO-
GRAM ........................................................................ ........................ 1,300 ........................ 1,300
INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION ......... ........................ 182,500 ........................ 182,500
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ...................... ........................ 23,284 ........................ 23,284
EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PRO-
GRAM ........................................................................ ........................ 1,250 9,950 1,250
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM (Bureauwide) ........................................... 2,575 ........................ 2,575 ........................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM (Platte River) ........................................... 4,950 ........................ 4,950 ........................
ENDANGERED SPEC RECOVERY IMPL PROG (Upper
Colo & San Juan Riv Basins) .................................. 5,700 ........................ 5,700 ........................
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .............. 1,711 ........................ 1,711 ........................
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
63
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget estimate Committee recommendation
Project title Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ..................... ........................ 12,727 ........................ 12,727
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES .................................... 2,195 ........................ 2,195 ........................
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS
AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ................................. 10,000 ........................ 10,000 ........................
BLACKFEET SETTLEMENT .............................................. 40,000 ........................ 40,000 ........................
CROW TRIBE RIGHTS .................................................... 12,772 ........................ 12,772 ........................
NAVAJO–GALLUP ............................................................ 51,342 5,000 51,342 5,000
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................ 16,190 ........................ 16,190 ........................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ...... 45,218 ........................ 45,218 ........................
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS .......... ........................ 971 ........................ 971
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM ......................... 20,000 ........................ 20,000 ........................
NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MAR-
KETING ...................................................................... 2,219 ........................ 2,219 ........................
OPERATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ....................... 836 3,264 836 3,264
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ........................................ 3,121 307 3,121 307
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ...................... 610 206 610 206
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ........................... 1,131 ........................ 1,131 ........................
RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINIS-
TRATION .................................................................... 5,508 ........................ 5,508 ........................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM .. 7,850 1,650 19,850 1,650
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ........................ 18,000 ........................ 18,000 ........................
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES ............................................ ........................ 27,500 ........................ 27,500
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL
SUPPORT ................................................................... 80 ........................ 80 ........................
WATERSMART PROGRAM
WATERSMART GRANTS .................................................. 15,000 ........................ 48,000 ........................
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PRO-
GRAM ............................................................... 2,318 ........................ 2,318 ........................
COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ........... 2,250 ........................ 2,250 ........................
BASIN STUDIES .................................................... 13,500 ........................ 13,500 ........................
DROUGHT RESPONSE & COMPREHENSIVE
DROUGHT PLANS ............................................. 16,500 ........................ 25,000 ........................
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE PRO-
GRAM ............................................................... 4,500 ........................ 32,000 ........................
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS ......................... 342,702 286,002 726,912 288,719
TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ..... 676,306 702,744 1,126,640 705,461
GRAND TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RE-
SOURCES ..................................................... ........................ 1,379,050 ........................ 1,832,101
Anadromous Fish Screen Program.—The Committee appreciates
Reclamation’s efforts to devote additional resources to completing
work on the last two remaining priority unscreened diversions on
the Sacramento River, which have been specifically identified as
priorities in the California Natural Resources Agency Sacramento
Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy.
Aging Infrastructure Program.—The majority of Reclamation’s
infrastructure is over 50 years old, which can result in significant
operations and maintenance costs. The Committee is interested in
the benefit the Aging Infrastructure program could provide, par-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ticularly in addressing extraordinary maintenance projects, par-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
64
ticularly in drought prone areas. The Committee does not support
allowing increases or decreases in transfer amounts at this time
and directs Reclamation to report to the Committee prior to obliga-
tion of any of the funds for this purpose a report detailing the im-
plementation of this program and the criteria for evaluating eligi-
ble projects.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program.—The Committee sup-
ports the budget request of $1,000,000 for the Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program to the design, study, and construction of
aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in Reclama-
tion States. Reclamation is directed to report to the Committee
within 60 days after enactment of this act, detailing the plan to im-
plement this program and the criteria for evaluating eligible
projects.
Aquifer Recharge.—Reclamation is directed to work closely with
project beneficiaries to identify and resolve any barriers to aquifer
recharge projects when appropriate while utilizing full authority to
prioritize funds for ongoing projects through completion. Of the
funds recommended in this account above the budget request,
$25,000,000 shall be for Aquifer Storage and Recovery projects fo-
cused on ensuring sustainable water supply and protecting water
quality of aquifers in the Great Plains Region with shared or multi-
use aquifers for municipal, agricultural irrigation, industrial, recre-
ation and domestic users.
Boulder Canyon Project, Dam Fund.—The committee is aware of
the challenges that the Hoover Dam site cleanup maintenance
costs place on the ratepayers. The Committee encourages Reclama-
tion to work with the ratepayers towards a solution within applica-
ble laws. Reclamation is directed to brief the Committee within 60
days of enactment on the challenges, legal obstacles, and potential
solutions related to the cleanup.
CALFED Water Storage Feasibility Studies.—The Committee
strongly encourages Reclamation to expeditiously complete finan-
cial assistance projects requested by the non-Federal sponsors of
the CALED water storage projects to help the projects. The Com-
mittee finds it unacceptable that these agreements have been
under study for over 15 years.
Columbia Basin Project.—The Committee is aware of the Odessa
Groundwater Replacement Program within the Columbia Basin
Project to deliver surface water to the Odessa Subarea. The Sub-
area groundwater is being withdrawn at a rate beyond the aquifer’s
capacity to recharge, and aquifers in the Subarea are quickly de-
clining. The Committee supports Reclamation’s partnership in the
program to provide farmlands in Central and Eastern Washington
with surface water supply through operational changes in the stor-
age and delivery system and urges Reclamation to move forward to
implement the program.
Drought Contingency Plans.—The Committee commends Rec-
lamation, the Department of the Interior, and the seven Colorado
River Basin states for completing drought contingency plans to con-
serve water and reduce risks from ongoing drought for the Upper
and Lower Colorado River basins. The completion of these plans
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
mark a major milestone in protecting a critical water source in the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
65
western United States. The Committee encourages Reclamation to
provide sufficient funding for activities that support these plans.
Friant-Kern Canal.—The Committee encourages the Secretary to
include funding in future budget submissions for construction ac-
tivities related to projects found to be feasible by the Secretary and
which are ready to initiate for the repair of critical Reclamation ca-
nals where operational conveyance capacity has been seriously im-
paired by factors such as age or land subsidence, especially those
that would imminently jeopardize Reclamation’s ability to meet
water delivery obligations.
Klamath Basin Project.—The Committee encourages the Bureau
to continue to collaborate agreements with state agencies to sup-
port groundwater monitoring efforts in the Klamath Basin.
Navajo-Galllup Water Supply Project.—The Committee remains
interested in the progress on this critical project as Reclamation
works to meet the December 2024 completion date. Reclamation is
directed to brief the Committee within 90 days after enactment of
this act, detailing the timeline and cost for the remaining work.
Research and Development: Desalination and Water Purification
Program.—Of the funding recommended for this program,
$12,000,000 shall be for desalination projects as authorized in sec-
tion 4009(a) of Public Law 114–322.
Rural Water Projects.—Voluntary funding in excess of legally re-
quired cost shares for rural water projects is acceptable but shall
not be used by Reclamation as a criterion for allocating additional
funding recommended by the Committee or for budgeting in future
years.
Safety of Dams Act Cost Share.—The Committee reminds Rec-
lamation that not more than 15 percent of dam safety modification
project costs can be allocated for reimbursement to all project pur-
poses and all beneficiaries consistent with Section 4 of Public Law
95–578, as amended.
Salton Sea.—The Committee supports the Memorandum of Un-
derstanding signed between the Department of the Interior and the
California Natural Resources Agency to support management ac-
tivities at the Salton Sea. The Committee encourages Reclamation
to partner with Federal, state, and local agencies and coordinate
use of all existing authorities and funding sources to support the
State of California’s Salton Sea Management Program and reduce
the likelihood of severe health and environmental impacts. Rec-
lamation is directed to brief the Committee within 90 days of the
enactment of this act on Reclamation’s plan for managing the air
quality impacts of the estimated 8.75 square miles of lands it owns
that will emerge from the receding Sea over the next decade.
San Joaquin River Restoration.—Permanent appropriations,
available for the program in fiscal year 2020, shall not supplant
continued annual appropriations, and the Committee encourages
Reclamation to include adequate funding in future budget submis-
sions.
Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Oregon.—The Committee re-
mains concerned about the high risk associated with Scoggins
Dam, and urges Reclamation to work with local stakeholders and
repayment contractors to prioritize this joint project and continue
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
to review measures to protect public safety, water security and the
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
66
economic health of the region. Within 60 days of enactment of this
act, Reclamation shall brief the Committee on the status of the
dam safety activities including a timeline for completion and any
challenges to addressing the safety concerns in the most efficient
manner.
Snow Modeling Data Processing.—Better snow modeling and es-
timates of snow water equivalent may improve water resource deci-
sion-making, specifically for water allocations and flood control. Of
the additional funding recommended in this account, $1,500,000
shall be to support Reclamation’s efforts to support the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture and NOAA efforts to improve real-time
and derived snow water equivalent information such that it can be
immediately used for water resources decision-making. Reclama-
tion is directed to brief the Committee on its plan for how Federal
agencies will coordinate to implement emerging snowpack modeling
technologies, required by October 1, 2021 pursuant to section
1111(d)(1) of Subtitle FF of Public Law 116–260.
St. Mary’s Diversion Dam and Conveyance Works.—The Com-
mittee recognizes the importance of stable water supply to regional
economies and communities and and urges Reclamation to continue
working with local stakeholders to complete its ability to pay study
for the rehabilitation of the St. Mary’s Diversion Dam. The Com-
mittee encourages Reclamation to find innovative methods to reha-
bilitate the Milk River Project without significant financial impacts
for local stakeholders.
Upper Rio Grande Basin Study.—The Committee recognizes the
ecological, economic, cultural, and historic importance of the Upper
Rio Grande Basin and the increasing stress on its water supply.
The Committee encourages a comprehensive approach on water
and reservoir management, operation issues, and climate resiliency
within the Upper Rio Grande Basin (including the Heron, El Vado,
Abiquiu, Cochiti, Jemez Canyon, Elephant Butte, and Caballo
Dams and Reservoirs). Accordingly, Reclamation is directed to brief
the Committee within 90 days of the enactment of this act on the
work that has been done to date. Additionally the briefing shall
identify additional work that can be done to supplement already
completed work and to identify any opportunities to partner with
the National Academies of Sciences.
WaterSMART Program.—The Committee encourages Reclama-
tion to prioritize eligible water conservation projects that will pro-
vide water supplies to meet the needs of threatened and endan-
gered species.
WaterSMART Program: Open Evapotranspiration System.—The
Committee is intrigued by the evapotranspiration in the Central
Valley and California Delta to help measure how much water is
consumed by crops and other plants. Reclamation is encouraged to
utilize the Open Evapotranspiration system designed to provide
real-time and historical evapotranspiration information, primarily
on irrigated crop lands. Reclamation is directed to provide to the
Committee not later than 90 days after enactment of this act a
briefing on the potential application of this system to Reclamation
missions.
WaterSMART Program: Title XVI Water Reclamation & Reuse
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
Program.—Of the funding recommended for this program,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
67
$20,000,000 shall be for water recycling and reuse projects as au-
thorized in section 4009(c) of the WIIN Act.
Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management
Plan.—The Committee supports the Yakima River Basin Inte-
grated Water Resource Management Plan. This innovative water
management plan represents years of collaboration in the Yakima
River Basin among stakeholders including Reclamation, the State
of Washington, the Yakama Nation, irrigators and farmers, con-
servation organizations, recreationists, and local governments to
address water supply needs for agriculture, fish and wildlife, and
municipal use. The Committee encourages Reclamation to move
forward on implementing authorized components of the plan.
Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.—The
Committee recommendation includes funds in addition to the budg-
et request for Water and Related Resources studies, projects, and
activities. Priority in allocating these funds shall be given to ad-
vance and complete ongoing work, including preconstruction activi-
ties, and where environmental compliance has been completed; im-
prove water supply reliability; improve water deliveries; enhance
national, regional, or local economic development; promote job
growth; advance Tribal and nontribal water settlement studies and
activities; or address critical backlog maintenance and rehabilita-
tion activities. Reclamation is encouraged to allocate additional
funding for aquifer recharging efforts to address the ongoing back-
log of related projects. Reclamation is reminded that activities au-
thorized under Indian Water Rights Settlements are eligible to
compete for the additional funding under ‘‘Water Conservation and
Delivery’’. Reclamation shall allocate additional funding provided in
this account consistent with the following direction:
—Of the additional funding recommended under the heading
‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery’’, $134,000,000 shall be for
water storage projects as authorized in section 4007 of the
WIIN Act;
—Of the additional funding recommended under the heading
‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery,’’ $40,000,000 shall be for
implementing the Drought Contingency Plan in the Lower Col-
orado River Basin to create or conserve recurring Colorado
River water that contributes to supplies in Lake Mead and
other Colorado River water reservoirs in the Lower Colorado
Basin or projects to improve the long-term efficiency of oper-
ations in the Lower Colorado River Basin, consistent with the
Secretary’s obligations under the Colorado River Drought Con-
tingency Plan Authorization Act of 2019 (Public Law 116–14)
and related agreements. These water conservation activities
may include well construction and irrigation-related structural
or other measures; programs and projects that result in con-
servation of surface water or groundwater; or improve water
system efficiency, resiliency, reliability, delivery, and convey-
ance, including canal system improvements. None of these
funds shall be used for the operation of the Yuma Desalting
Plant and nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting
existing or future opportunities to augment the water supplies
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
of the Colorado River
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
68
—Of the additional funding recommended under the heading
‘‘Water Conservation and Delivery,’’ not less than $10,000,000,
shall be for construction activities related to projects found to
be feasible by the Secretary and which are ready to initiate for
the repair of critical Reclamation canals where operational con-
veyance capacity has been seriously impaired by factors such
as age or land subsidence, especially those that would immi-
nently jeopardize Reclamation’s ability to meet water delivery
obligations;
—Of the additional funding recommended under the heading
‘‘Environmental Restoration or Compliance’’, not less than
$20,000,000 shall be for activities authorized under sections
4001 and 4010 of the WIIN Act or as set forth in Federal-State
plans for restoring threatened and endangered fish species af-
fected by the operation of Reclamation’s water projects.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $55,875,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 56,499,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 56,499,000
The Committee recommends $56,499,000 for the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund, the same as the budget request. This ap-
propriation is fully offset by collections, resulting in a net appro-
priation of $0.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law
102–575. This fund uses revenues from payments by project bene-
ficiaries and donations for habitat restoration, improvement and
acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the
Central Valley project area of California. Payments from project
beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant Division
surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-Central
Valley Project users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent re-
quired in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and res-
toration payments.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $33,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 33,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,000,000
The Committee recommends $33,000,000 for California Bay-
Delta Restoration, the same as the budget request.
This account funds activities that are consistent with the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18
State and Federal agencies and representatives of California’s
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of
the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply
reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joa-
quin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribu-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
tion system.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
69
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 64,400,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 64,400,000
The Committee recommends $64,400,000 for Policy and Adminis-
tration, the same as the budget request.
This account funds the executive direction and management of
all Reclamation activities, as performed by the Commissioner’s of-
fices in Washington, DC; Denver, Colorado; and five regional of-
fices. The Denver office and regional offices charge individual
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related ad-
ministrative and technical costs. These charges are covered under
other appropriations.
GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Section 201. The bill includes a provision regarding reprogram-
ming.
Section 202. The bill includes a provision regarding the San Luis
Unit and Kesterson Reservoir.
Section 203. The bill includes a provision regarding the Secure
Water Act.
Section 204. The bill includes a provision regarding CALFED
Bay-Delta.
Section 205. The bill includes a provision regarding the Omnibus
Public Land Management Act of 2009.
Section 206. The bill includes a provision regarding the Reclama-
tion States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991.
Section 207. The bill includes a provision regarding the Coopera-
tive Watershed Management Act.
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation sets priorities by supporting the
Office of Science and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-En-
ergy [ARPA–E], leading the world in scientific computing, address-
ing the Federal Government’s responsibility for environmental
cleanup and disposal of used nuclear fuel, keeping large construc-
tion projects on time and on budget, effectively maintaining our nu-
clear weapons stockpile, and supporting our nuclear Navy.
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Department of Energy [Department] is to en-
sure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy,
environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative
science and technology solutions. To accomplish this mission, the
Secretary of Energy [Secretary] relies on a world-class network of
national laboratories, private industry, universities, States, and
Federal agencies, which allows our brightest minds to solve our
Nation’s most important challenges.
The Committee’s recommendation for the Department includes
funding in both defense and non-defense budget categories. Defense
funding is recommended for atomic energy defense activities, in-
cluding the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA],
which manages our Nation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, prevents
proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials, and supports the
Navy’s nuclear fleet; defense environmental cleanup to remediate
the former nuclear weapons complex; and safeguards and security
for Idaho National Laboratory. Non-defense funding is rec-
ommended for the Department’s energy research and development
programs (including nuclear, fossil, renewable energy, energy effi-
ciency, grid modernization and resiliency, and the Office of
Science), power marketing administrations, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, and administrative expenses.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
The Committee’s recommendation includes control points to en-
sure the Secretary spends taxpayer funds in accordance with con-
gressional direction. The Committee’s recommendation also in-
cludes reprogramming guidelines to allow the Secretary to request
permission from the Committee for certain expenditures, as defined
below, which would not otherwise be permissible. The Secretary’s
execution of appropriated funds shall be fully consistent with the
direction provided under this heading and in section 301 of the bill,
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
(70)
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
71
unless the Committee includes separate guidelines for specific ac-
tions in the bill or report.
Prior to obligating any funds for an action defined below as a re-
programming, the Secretary shall notify and obtain approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. The
Secretary shall submit a detailed reprogramming request in accord-
ance with section 301 of the bill, which shall, at a minimum, justify
the deviation from prior congressional direction and describe the
proposed funding adjustments with specificity. The Secretary shall
not, pending approval from the Committee, obligate any funds for
the action described in the reprogramming proposal.
The Secretary is also directed to inform the Committees on Ap-
propriations of both Houses of Congress promptly and fully when
a change in program execution and funding is required during the
fiscal year.
Definition.—A reprogramming includes:
—the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within an
appropriation;
—any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or
organization described in the agency’s budget justification as
presented to and approved by Congress;
—for construction projects, the reallocation of funds from one
construction project identified in the agency’s budget justifica-
tion to another project or a significant change in the scope of
an approved project;
—adoption of any reorganization proposal which includes moving
prior appropriations between appropriations accounts; and
—any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority, or prior
year deobligations.
SEXUAL HARRASSMENT
The Government Accountability Office [GAO] recently released a
report on sexual harassment in NNSA’s nuclear security forces.
The Committee is encouraged that the Department and NNSA
stated they welcome opportunities for continuous improvement,
and that they agreed with the five recommendations in the report.
The Committee also commends NNSA for broadening its focus to
implementing the recommendations beyond the nuclear security
forces to include all Federal employees and contractors across the
NNSA enterprise. To better understand and document the Depart-
ment and NNSA progress in implementing these recommendations,
the Committee requests that the Department and NNSA brief the
Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of both the House
and Senate on the steps taken, progress made, and relevant find-
ings in their efforts to implement the recommendations in the re-
port. These briefings shall take place within 6 months of enactment
of the act and every 6 months thereafter until GAO’s recommenda-
tions are implemented.
COVID–19 RESEARCH DELAYS
The Committee recognizes the potential impacts and delays in re-
search caused by the effects of the COVID–19 pandemic. The Com-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
mittee notes that the Department has taken some steps to engage
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
72
scientific professional societies, universities and colleges, and other
Federal agencies to obtain up to-date information on the impacts
to institutions and research communities to help inform an open,
transparent, and equitable response. However, the Committee is
concerned that this response has been uneven across the Depart-
ment. The Department is encouraged to consider these impacts
within the resources available. The Department is directed to pro-
vide to the Committee not later than 60 days after enactment of
this act a report that details the impacts of the COVID–19 pan-
demic on institutions and research communities. The report shall
outline funding and costs associated with the impacts. Further, the
Department is encouraged to include funding to address the im-
pacts in future budget requests.
CROSSCUTTING INITIATIVES
Grid Modernization.—The Department is directed to continue the
ongoing work among the national laboratories, industry, and uni-
versities to improve grid reliability and resiliency through the stra-
tegic goals of the Grid Modernization Initiative [GMI]. The Com-
mittee recognizes the accomplishments of over 200 partners from
industry, academia, and state governments in these efforts. The
Department shall brief the Committee not later than 90 days after
enactment of this act on the revised GMI strategy, plans to reflect
new decarbonization targets in strategy enhancements, the funding
profiles, portfolio of funding opportunities, programmatic invest-
ments for the Initiative, and the roles and responsibilities of each
participating program office. The Committee supports the Grid
Modernization Laboratory Consortium [GMLC] and continued im-
plementation of the Grid Multi-Year Program Plan [MYPP] to en-
sure coordination across all applied program offices, including the
additions of the Offices of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and
Emergency Response [CESER]; Nuclear Energy [NE]; and Fossil
Energy and Carbon Management [FECM] to the MYPP. The Com-
mittee directs the Department to continue its emphasis on national
energy systems resilience within the context of administration
goals in decarbonization of the power system and related infra-
structures, such as transportation. This shall build on GMI/GMLC
progress in advanced grid modeling and improved grid cyber resil-
ience to address emerging national resilience challenges of the grid
and related energy systems, planned investments in energy storage
to improve grid flexibility and resilience, and advanced sensors and
control paradigms that promise to improve energy system resilience
of the grid of the future. The Committee recognizes the growing im-
portance of training and workforce development to support grid
modernization research and development, and the Committee di-
rects the Department to develop a plan for a pipeline of students,
graduates, and professors to sustain a robust grid modernization
research, design, and operations capability over the long-term.
Carbon Dioxide Removal.—The fiscal year 2020 Act directed the
Department to develop an implementation plan coordinated across
FECM, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [EERE], and the
Office of Science. The Committee is still awaiting this plan and di-
rects the Department to provide the plan immediately after enact-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ment of this act. The Department is directed to include a break-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
73
down of the roles and responsibilities of each participating program
office in the implementation plan. The Department is directed, pur-
suant to section 5001 and 5002 of the Energy Act of 2020, to estab-
lish the Carbon Dioxide Removal Program and Carbon Dioxide Re-
moval Task Force to advance the development and commercializa-
tion of carbon dioxide removal, direct air capture, sequestration,
and any other relevant technologies on a significant scale. The De-
partment is directed to coordinate these activities among FECM,
EERE, and the Office of Science. The Committee supports direct
air capture prize competitions. The Department is directed to pro-
vide to the Committee not later than 30 days after enactment of
this act the report required by section 5002 of the Energy Act of
2020.
The recommendation provides not less than $120,000,000 for re-
search, development, and demonstration of carbon dioxide removal
technologies, including not less than $20,000,000 from EERE, not
less than $50,000,000 from FECM, and not less than $35,000,000
from the Office of Science. Within available funds for carbon diox-
ide removal, the recommendation provides not less than
$75,000,000 for direct air capture.
Equity and Justice.—The Committee supports the Department’s
continuing efforts and progress in implementing the Justice40 Ini-
tiative, Executive Order 13985, and Executive Order 14008. The
Committee supports the Department’s reforms toward addressing
equity and justice issues within the U.S. energy system. In order
to accelerate these reforms at the Department, the Committee di-
rects the Department to survey its current programs, grant-mak-
ing, policies, procedures, and rules to ensure that it is adequately
meeting the clean energy, energy conservation, and energy effi-
ciency needs of low-income, minority, and other marginalized com-
munities. Further, the Department is encouraged to engage with
communities impacted by climate change, air and water pollution,
systemic racism and underinvestment, high energy costs, and eco-
nomic inequality when conducting this survey. The Department is
directed to provide to the Committee not later than 180 days after
enactment of this act a report summarizing its efforts, including
key findings, and a strategy to carry out the direction contained
herein.
Critical Minerals.—The Committee supports the Department’s
coordination of critical minerals activities across the Department
through the Critical Minerals Initiative. The recommendation pro-
vides not less than $146,000,000 for research, development, dem-
onstration, and commercialization activities on the development of
alternatives to, recycling of, and efficient production and use of
critical minerals, including not less than $100,000,000 from EERE,
not less than $25,000,000 from FECM, and not less than
$17,000,000 from the Office of Science. The Department is encour-
aged to carry out these activities pursuant to sections 7001 and
7002 of the Energy Act of 2020.
Industrial Decarbonization.—Nearly 30 percent of greenhouse
gas emissions come from hard-to-reduce industrial sources, includ-
ing heavy road and rail transport, shipping, aviation, chemical pro-
duction, steel and cement production, and heat production. To
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
make progress on climate change, it is necessary to reduce emis-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
74
sions in this sector. The Committee supports the Department’s ef-
forts, aligned with Title VI of the Energy Act of 2020, to foster in-
novations and enable scale up of cost-competitive, low-emissions
technologies. Further, the Committee encourages the Department
to establish an Office of Industrial Emissions Reduction Technology
Development Program as required by the Energy Act of 2020 to
support coordinating research, developing and demonstrating tech-
nologies, and providing commercial applications of technologies
that achieve significant emissions reductions in the industrial sec-
tors.
The recommendation provides not less than $520,000,000 for in-
dustrial decarbonization activities, including not less than
$250,000,000 from EERE, not less than $250,000,000 from FECM,
and not less than $20,000,000 from the Office of Science. The funds
provided are for research, development, and demonstration of tech-
nologies to strengthen the competitiveness of America’s industrial
sector, including low-carbon feedstocks, clean heat alternatives, in-
dustrial carbon capture and removal, and electrification. Not less
than $25,000,000 is provided for low-carbon feedstocks in the steel,
cement, concrete, and other heavy industrial sectors. In addition,
not less than $25,000,000 is provided for clean heat alternatives for
industrial processes.
Further, the Committee supports the continuation of the Depart-
ment’s existing Cooperative Agreements to develop cost sharing
partnerships to conduct basic, fundamental, and applied research
that assist industry in developing, deploying, and commercializing
efficient, low-carbon, nonpolluting energy technologies that could
compete effectively in meeting requirements for clean fuels, chem-
ical feedstocks, electricity, and water resources.
Energy Storage.—The Committee supports the Department’s on-
going efforts for the Energy Storage Grand Challenge [ESGC] ini-
tiative, as well as cost-shared demonstrations of energy storage
technologies. The ESGC builds on the Department’s prior research
and development efforts in storage and will align Energy Storage
research and development efforts to focus on technical, regulatory,
and market issues necessary to achieve the technology goals. The
Department is directed to continue to provide the Committee peri-
odic updates on the ESGC and make publically available a cross-
cutting research and development road-map through 2030 to illus-
trate the ESGC’s goals. This road-map shall be focused on reducing
costs and improving the performance of a diverse set of grid-scale
storage technologies to meet industry needs, improve reliability
and environmental performance of the electricity grid, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
The Committee recognizes that energy storage will play a vital
role in integrating new energy sources while strengthening grid re-
liability and resilience. Energy storage systems are fuel neutral
and help generation connected to the grid become more efficient,
productive, and competitive. The Department is directed to carry
out these activities in accordance with sections 3201 and 3202 of
the Energy Act of 2020. The Department is directed to support
long-duration joint demonstration projects with the Department of
Defense and grants for rural utilities to build microgrids for resil-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
iency. The Department is directed to support competitive pilot dem-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
75
onstration grants, as authorized in section 3201 of the Energy Act
of 2020, for energy storage projects that are wholly U.S.-made,
sourced, and supplied.
The recommendation provides not less than $460,000,000 for en-
ergy storage, including not less than $347,000,000 from EERE, not
less than $80,000,000 from OE, not less than $5,000,000 from
FECM, not less than $4,000,000 from NE, and not less than
$24,000,000 from the Office of Science.
Arctic Energy Office.—The Committee supports the promotion of
research, development, and deployment of electric power technology
that is cost-effective and well-suited to meet the needs of rural and
remote regions of the United States, especially where permafrost is
present or located nearby. The Committee encourages the Arctic
Energy Office [AEO] to continue to bring together assets from
across the Department to work together in collaborative and inno-
vative ways to meet the energy, science, and national security
needs of the United States and its allies in the Arctic. Further, the
AEO is encouraged to lead cross-cutting operations in the Arctic
with a mission to tackle the energy, science, and national security
challenges of the 21st Century. Alaska is home to some of the high-
est energy costs in the nation, making diverse research, develop-
ment, and deployment opportunities more cost-effective to meet the
needs of rural and remote regions of the United States. There are
also a wide variety of energy resources and technologies, both tra-
ditional and innovative, available in Alaska, including more than
200 microgrids.
Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cell Coordination.—The Committee
directs that the Department coordinates its efforts in hydrogen en-
ergy and fuel cell technologies across its various departments and
offices in order to maximize the effectiveness of investments in hy-
drogen-related activities. This coordination shall include EERE,
FECM, NE, OE, the Office of Science, and ARPA–E.
Unmanned Aircraft.—The Committee encourages the Depart-
ment to test the effectiveness of Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Sys-
tems technologies to protect critical Departmental assets.
ENERGY PROGRAMS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $2,861,760,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 4,732,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,896,971,000
The Committee recommends $3,896,971,000 for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. Within available funds, the Committee rec-
ommends $220,000,000 for program direction.
The Department is directed throughout all of its programs to
maintain a balanced portfolio of early-, mid-, and late-stage re-
search, development, demonstration, deployment and other market
transformation activities that will deliver innovative energy tech-
nologies, practices, and information to American consumers and in-
dustry. While Federal investment plays a greater role in early
stage research, the portfolio must be balanced by being inclusive of
Federal investment in mid-to-late research activities, including
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
field evaluation of early-stage technology to provide testing and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
76
data collection in a real-world setting. This includes demonstration,
deployment, and other market transformation activities, including
delineation by account and subaccounts to attract private sector
cost-share that will advance technology to market and provide a
bridge to small businesses, cities, or small utilities with fewer re-
sources and tools to participate in energy infrastructure planning.
The Department is further directed to fully execute the funds ap-
propriated in a timely manner and to keep the Committees on Ap-
propriations of both Houses of Congress apprised of progress in im-
plementing funded programs, projects, and activities.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $3,000,000
for the Energy Transitions Initiative [ETI] to address high energy
costs, reliability, and inadequate infrastructure challenges faced by
island and remote communities. The Committee supports ETI’s ef-
forts to develop a cross-sector initiative alongside community-based
organizations pursuing energy transition efforts that will address
energy challenges, build capacity, accelerate the sharing of best
practices and innovations between similarly-situated regions, and
leverage specialized, local expertise into commercial opportunity.
The Committee directs the Department to continue to support com-
munity-based initiatives by partnering with community-based orga-
nizations, and leverage the Department’s previously-developed tool
to build cost effective, resilient energy infrastructure on island and
remote communities, including in Alaska, Hawaii, New England,
the Caribbean, and elsewhere.
Workforce Development.—The Committee believes there are sig-
nificant clean energy challenges related to the inclusion of students
from underserved institutions in the technology development pro-
grams within the Department’s portfolio of manufacturing, solar,
transportation and grid/energy storage. Clean energy programs can
provide a much more inclusive talent pipeline. Accordingly, the
Committee recommends $5,000,000 to support an expansion of
these efforts through a university which has existing partnerships
with several Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Mi-
nority Serving Institutions, and participants in several Depart-
mental applied energy research programs.
Further, the development of a skilled workforce is critical to the
successful transition to a clean energy economy and deployment
and long-term sustainability of energy efficient and renewable en-
ergy technologies. The Committee encourages EERE to support
training and workforce development programs that assist and sup-
port workers in trades and activities required for the continued
growth of the U.S. energy efficiency and clean energy sectors, with
an emphasis on training programs focused on building retrofit and
construction industries. Furthermore, the Committee encourages
the Department to continue to work with two-year, public commu-
nity, technical colleges, and non-governmental and industry con-
sortia for job training programs, including programs focused on dis-
placed fossil fuel workers, that lead to an industry-recognized cre-
dential in the energy workforce.
Renewable Energy Grid Integration.—To facilitate the oversight
of grid integration activities among renewable energy technologies,
the Committee recommends $40,000,000 to be provided from across
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
the Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Water Power, and Geothermal
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
77
Technologies programs. Further, within available funds, the Com-
mittee recommends $10,000,000 for development and demonstra-
tion of an ‘‘energyshed’’ management system that addresses a dis-
crete geographic area in which renewable sources currently provide
a large portion of electric energy needs, where grid capacity con-
straints result in curtailment of renewable generation, and with
interactive smart meters. The ‘‘energyshed’’ design should achieve
a high level of integration, resilience and reliability among all en-
ergy uses, including both on-demand and long-time energy scales,
transmission and distribution of electricity.
Polyethylene Plastics.—The Committee recommends up to
$5,000,000 for university-led research in order to increase recycling
rates for polyethylene plastics and develop conversion of waste pol-
yethylene to more recyclable and biodegradable plastics.
The Department is directed to provide to the Committee not later
than 30 days after enactment of this act a briefing on the status
of its decarbonization roadmaps in key technology areas to guide
research and development at the Department to achieve signifi-
cant, economical greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050, in-
cluding energy efficiency, process electrification, industrial elec-
trification technologies, and carbon capture.
North American Energy Research.—Within available funds, the
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for a consortium of univer-
sities in the United States that has established agreements with
universities in Canada and Mexico to conduct research on a broad
array of energy sources and topics.
The Department is encouraged to solicit proposals to study the
value potentially derived from construction of a large-scale pumped
storage project of at least 750 MW capacity for grid stability, reli-
ability, and resiliency of the bulk electric system, and for the inte-
gration of intermittent generation resources. Such a study is en-
couraged to include consideration of impacts on the markets and
transmission grids operated by at least one Regional Transmission
Organization or Independent System Operator within which the
proposed project would be located.
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than
$40,000,000 to continue the SuperTruck III program to further im-
prove the energy and freight efficiency of heavy and medium duty
long- and regional-haul vehicles.
Vehicle Technologies.—The Committee recommends $553,114,000
for Vehicle Technologies. The Committee encourages the Depart-
ment to prioritize projects in States where the transportation sector
is responsible for a higher percentage of the State’s total energy
consumption and is the largest source of greenhouse gases.
Battery and Electrification Technologies.—The Committee rec-
ommends $248,000,000 for Battery and Electrification Tech-
nologies. The Committee recognizes the increasing domestic manu-
facturing opportunities for electric battery production for vehicles.
The Committee also encourages the Department to work to expand
domestic manufacturing opportunities for electric vehicle batteries
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
and to further address consumer barriers to adoption.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
78
Within available funding, the Committee recommends not less
than $40,000,000 is provided for Electric Drive Research and not
less than $20,000,000 for the ReCell initiative to improve strategies
to recycle and repurpose batteries, including for use on the elec-
trical grid. The Committee also supports efforts to improve cost,
performance and charging time of plug-in electric vehicles, as well
as further research into reducing the size of vehicle batteries and
reducing cobalt content. Within available funds, the Committee rec-
ommends not less than $25,000,000 for the Vehicle Technologies
Office to expand its partnership with the Advanced Manufacturing
Office on efforts to scale up the domestic battery supply chain, in-
cluding battery manufacturing demonstration projects.
The Committee directs the Department to continue to support
the Clean Cities alternative fuels deployment program focused on
vehicles that can deliver lower greenhouse gas emissions and meet
customer needs, which can include vehicles powered by biofuels,
electricity, hydrogen, natural gas, renewable natural gas, and pro-
pane. Within available funds, the recommendation provides not
less than $60,000,000 for deployment through the Clean Cities pro-
gram, including not less than $40,000,000 for competitive grants,
to support alternative fuel, infrastructure, new mobility, and vehi-
cle deployment activities. When issuing competitive grants in sup-
port of these activities, the Department is encouraged to include
some awards that range from $500,000 to $1,000,000 each and en-
courage at least one Clean Cities coalition partner. The Committee
encourages the Department to ensure balance in the award of
funds to achieve varied aims in fostering broader adoption of clean
vehicles and installation of supporting infrastructure. The Com-
mittee further encourages the Department to prioritize projects
that can contribute the most greenhouse gases reduction. The Com-
mittee encourages the Department to work with the Department of
Transportation and industry on coordinating efforts to deploy elec-
tric vehicle [EV] charging infrastructure. The Committee encour-
ages the Department to explore ways in which the Clean Cities
Program can leverage funding to provide greater support for elec-
trification efforts, including in underserved communities, recog-
nizing the strong emissions reduction and public health benefits de-
livered by electrification.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue improving
the energy efficiency of commercial off-road vehicles, including up
to $5,000,000 for fluid power systems. These funds shall be award-
ed through a competitive solicitation in which university and in-
dustry teams are eligible to apply.
The Committee recommends up to $5,000,000 for research on di-
rect injection, engine technology, and the use of dimethyl ether as
fuel, and encourages continued research and development as appro-
priate in advanced combustion and vehicle engine technology effi-
ciency in propane engines used for light and medium-duty applica-
tions.
The Committee recommends up to $10,000,000 to address tech-
nical barriers to the increased use of natural gas vehicles for
medium- and heavy-duty on-road natural gas engine research and
development, including energy efficiency improvements, emission
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
after-treatment technologies, fuel system enhancements, and new
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
79
engine development, natural gas storage, natural gas engines, and
fueling infrastructure optimizations.
The Committee recognizes novel engine designs can achieve sig-
nificant efficiency improvements and recommends within available
funds up to $10,000,000 to support research and development of
two-stroke opposed-piston engines, to be conducted by industry-led
teams.
The Committee recognizes the need for clarity regarding the
availability, affordability, and reliability of direct current fast char-
gers for electric vehicles. Last year, the Committee directed the De-
partment to produce a report, in partnership with the national lab-
oratories, on the technologies and calculation methods that meet
the tentative code for EV charger metering and testing published
in the National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook
44, Section 3.40. The Committee is still awaiting this report and
directs the Department to provide the report and briefing to the
Committee immediately after enactment of this act.
Bioenergy Technologies.—The Committee recommends
$284,500,000 for Bioenergy Technologies. The Committee encour-
ages the Department to focus on defining and meeting technical
targets that reduce cost of sustainable aviation fuels through the
conversion of low-cost waste carbon as feedstocks. These efforts
shall take into account relevant global supply chains and shall be
coordinated with other Federal agencies, the aviation industry, Na-
tional Labs, and universities.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends up to
$5,000,000 for continued support of the development and testing of
new domestic manufactured low-emission, high-efficiency, residen-
tial wood heaters that supply easily accessed and affordable renew-
able energy and have the potential to reduce the national costs as-
sociated with thermal energy. Further, the Committee recommends
$3,000,000 for research at commercially-relevant processing scales
into affordable wood chip fractionation technologies and other proc-
essing improvements relevant to thermal deoxygenation biorefin-
eries in order to enable economic production of cellulose nanomate-
rials and economic upgrading of hemicelluloses and lignin. High-
value coproducts made from nanocellulose, hemicelluloses, and
lignin can improve the cost structure for biorefineries producing
transportation fuels and thereby help the industry meet the De-
partment’s $3 per gasoline gallon equivalent near-term price target
and move quickly towards $2 per gasoline gallon equivalent.
The Committee directs the Department to sustain the investment
in the development of algal biofuels. Within available funds, the
Committee recommends not less than $40,000,000 for Advanced
Algal Systems to sustain the investment in development of algal
biofuels. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue re-
search and development activities to support carbon dioxide cap-
ture from the atmosphere into highly alkaline solutions using
algae-to-energy technologies. The program is directed to continue
collaboration with the Office of Science and FECM in this area.
The Committee further recommends not less than $100,000,000
for Conversion Technologies. Within available funds, the Com-
mittee recommends not less than $30,000,000 for the Agile Bio-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
Foundry, including $10,000,000 of additional funding to continue
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
80
developing methods and technologies to advance biological engi-
neering, support expanded focus on Artificial Intelligence and Ma-
chine Learning and software development to improve the predictive
design of organisms and pathways and to build tools accessible to
the wider scientific community for the purchase of state-of-tech-
nology instrumentation that will enable better and more expansive
collaborations. Some portion of the additional funding shall be used
to support Directed Funding Opportunities to meet the demand for
collaboration by industry partners.
Further, within available funds for Conversion Technologies, the
Committee recommends $5,000,000 to demonstrate the use of and
improve the efficiency of community-scale digesters with priority
given for projects in States and Tribal areas that have adopted
statutory requirements for the diversion of a high percentage of
food material from municipal waste streams.
Within available funds, the Committee supports research to de-
velop the foundation for scalable techniques to use carbon dioxide
produced in various plants, such as in biorefineries, to produce
higher value fuels, chemicals, or materials.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies.—The Committee rec-
ommends $200,000,000 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies to
maintain a diverse program which focuses on early-, mid-, and late-
stage research and development and technology acceleration in-
cluding market transformation. The Committee encourages regular
consultation with industry to avoid duplication of private-sector ac-
tivities and ensure retention of fuel cell technology and systems de-
velopment in the United States.
The Committee recommends not less than $100,000,000 for
H2@Scale activities to support the development of hydrogen as a
clean energy resource. Of this amount, the Committee recommends
up to $60,000,000 for technologies to advance hydrogen use for
heavy-duty transportation and industrial applications. Hydrogen
can be developed to serve a broad range of applications, including
heavy-duty transportation and as a clean heat source for industry.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than
$45,000,000 for Hydrogen Technologies for efforts to reduce the cost
and improve the performance of hydrogen generation and storage
systems, hydrogen measurement devices for fueling stations, hydro-
gen compressor components, and hydrogen station dispensing com-
ponents. The Department shall continue research on novel onboard
hydrogen tank systems, as well as trailer delivery systems to re-
duce cost of delivered hydrogen. Further, the Department is di-
rected to support research and development activities that reduce
the use of platinum group metals provide improvements in elec-
trodes and membranes and balance-of-plant components and sys-
tems.
The Committee further recommends $10,000,000 for Safety,
Codes, and Standards to maintain a robust program and engage
State and local regulatory and code officials to support their tech-
nical needs relative to infrastructure and vehicle safety. The De-
partment is encouraged to engage on codes and standards for de-
veloping fuel cell and hydrogen markets, such as heavy-duty
trucks. The Department is also encouraged to continue coordination
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
between U.S. and international standard bodies to ensure there is
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
81
one set of open non-proprietary global standards for fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies.
The Committee encourages the Secretary to work with the Sec-
retary of Transportation and industry on coordinating efforts to de-
ploy hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Solar Energy.—The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for
Solar Energy.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends not less than
$60,000,000 for Concentrating Solar Power research, development,
and demonstration to reduce overall system costs, better integrate
subsystem components, develop higher-temperature receivers, and
improve the design of solar collection and thermal energy storage.
The Committee recommends not less than $50,000,000 for Bal-
ance of System Soft Costs efforts focused on reducing the time and
costs for permitting, inspecting, and interconnecting distributed
solar and storage projects installed behind the customer’s meter
through standardized requirements, online application systems,
and grant awards to localities which voluntarily adopt the Solar
Automated Permit Processing platform. Within available funds for
Balance of Systems Soft Costs, $5,000,000 is for the National Com-
munity Solar Partnership program.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends a competi-
tive solicitation for reequipping, expanding, or establishing ad-
vanced solar manufacturing facilities, including not less than
$25,000,000 for a competitive solicitation for advanced solar power
demonstration projects, including perovskite and novel applica-
tions.
The Committee encourages the Department to expand work to
lower barriers to solar adoption for low-income households, renters,
multifamily homes, and racially diverse communities and rec-
ommends not less than $20,000,000 for these activities. This in-
cludes exploring and providing resources on financing and business
models that are well-suited to these households and communities.
The Committee directs the Department to advance demonstra-
tion, field testing, financing, and deployment of distributed solar
and energy storage technologies for households and communities in
Tribal nations that lack connection to the electric grid. The Solar
Energy Technologies Office and OE are directed to collaborate on
issuing these funds.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue work to
improve co-siting of solar photovoltaics with ecosystem restoration
activities and to reduce the environmental impact of solar
photovoltaics.
The Committee also encourages the Department to develop pro-
grams that support a skilled, robust, and diverse solar energy
workforce, including indirect solar workers in jobs related to fi-
nancing and permitting.
Wind Energy.—The Committee recommends $204,870,000 for
Wind Energy.
The Department is directed to give priority to stewarding the as-
sets and optimizing the operations of the Department-owned wind
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
energy research and development facilities. Within available funds,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
82
the Committee recommends not less than $30,000,000 for the Na-
tional Wind Technology Center, and up to $5,000,000 for research
and operations of the Integrated Energy System at Scale, a large-
scale research platform using high-performance computing, mod-
eling and simulation, including improved models that can be used
to understand atmospheric and wind power plant flow physics, and
reliability and grid integration efforts.
The Department is directed to support the advancement of inno-
vative technologies for offshore wind development including fresh-
water, deep water, shallow water, and transitional depth installa-
tions. Further, the Committee recommends not less than
$30,000,000 for the Department to prioritize early-stage research
on materials and manufacturing methods and advanced compo-
nents that will enable high quality wind resources to compete in
the marketplace without the need for subsidies, and on activities
that will accelerate fundamental offshore specific research and de-
velopment such as those that target technology and deployment
challenges unique to U.S. waters. The Department is directed to
provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress not later than 180 days after the enactment of this act
a report that outlines regional and national strategies to accelerate
and maximize the effectiveness, reliability, and sustainability of
U.S. offshore wind deployment and operation with partners from
institutions of higher education, research institutions, national lab-
oratories, the private sector, and state and local governments. The
study shall address the need for expanded work in this area to po-
tentially include an additional offshore wind consortium. In addi-
tion, the Department is directed to support innovative offshore
wind demonstration projects to optimize their development, design,
construction methods, testing plans, and economic value propo-
sition. The Committee recommends not less than $10,000,000 to
support additional project development and pre-construction activi-
ties for offshore wind demonstration projects to help ensure suc-
cess.
The Committee encourages the Department to prioritize distrib-
uted wind technologies that reduce costs and improve performance
and to collaborate with industry to invest in the development and
demonstration of technologies and practices that advance distrib-
uted wind. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$10,000,000 for distributed wind.
Water Power.—The Committee recommends $196,560,000 for
Water Power.
The Department is encouraged to consider the use of existing au-
thorities to waive cost share for water power technology research,
development, demonstration, and deployment activities as appro-
priate.
The Committee recommends $142,000,000 for marine energy.
The Committee recommendation includes not less than $60,000,000
for industry-led competitive solicitations to increase energy cap-
ture, improve reliability, and to assess and monitor environmental
effects of marine energy systems and components at a variety of
scales, including full scale prototypes. The Committee recommends
not less than $24,000,000 for the Powering the Blue Economy ini-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
tiative.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
83
Within available funds, the recommendation provides up to
$20,000,000 to address infrastructure needs at marine energy tech-
nology testing sites.
The Committee is concerned that a lack of dedicated funding
within existing resources and uncertainty in frequency has a
unique impact on university capacity to support needed
foundational research and develop the skilled workforce to accel-
erate development of the marine energy sector. The recommenda-
tion provides up to $24,000,000 for foundational research activities
led by universities and other research institutions affiliated with
the National Marine Energy Centers.
The Committee recommends up to $10,000,000 to address tech-
nology testing infrastructure needs, including planning activities
for the staged development of an ocean current test facility and up-
grades to facilities that provide cost effective open water access for
prototype testing.
The Committee recommends up to $10,000,000 to continue devel-
opment and construction of an open water, fully energetic, grid con-
nected wave energy test facility, and up to $8,000,000 for continu-
ation of the Testing Expertise and Access for Marine Energy Re-
search initiative. The Committee recommends the Department con-
tinue to coordinate with the U.S. Navy and other Federal agencies
on marine energy technology development for national security and
other applications. Within available funds, the Committee rec-
ommends not less than $5,000,000 to continue operations at the At-
lantic Marine Energy Center to accelerate the transition of wave
and tidal energy technologies to market.
The Committee is aware of a growing interest from the private
sector in advancing collaborative projects between recreational ma-
rine manufacturers and national laboratories to support next gen-
eration marine propulsion research, and encourages the Depart-
ment to work with industry stakeholders to address funding bar-
riers to manufacturers who wish to engage with the Department to
advance the testing of alternative fuels, including carbon neutral
sustainable biofuels.
The Committee recognizes the challenges of decarbonizing re-
mote communities and the maritime sector. The Department is en-
couraged to continue to focus on activities addressing the integra-
tion of clean energy systems for remote communities and port elec-
trification, including the demonstration of marine, distributed
wind, solar, energy storage, improved microgrids, and local produc-
tion of zero-carbon fuels.
Within available funds recommended, $5,000,000 shall be used
for the environmental analyses and engineering of potential run-of-
river hydrokinetic facilities at two sites with high electricity costs
and diesel use, as determined by the Secretary. Funding may be
used for such related field work, engineering, and analysis nec-
essary for a future FERC license.
Of the funds available for conventional hydropower and pumped
storage activities, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the
purposes of section 242 and section 243 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
Geothermal Technologies.—The Committee recommends
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
$130,380,000 for Geothermal Technologies. The Department is di-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
84
rected to focus on all stages of research and development, market
transformation activities to advance geothermal strategies, and im-
plementation of the recommendations outlined in the GeoVision
study.
The Committee directs the Department to continue its efforts to
identify and characterize geothermal resources in areas with no ob-
vious surface expressions. Awards for geothermal exploration ac-
tivities, including test drilling, shall recognize the diversity of geo-
logic terrains, resource depths, and exploration costs across the
United States.
The Committee recommends up to $60,380,000 for enhanced geo-
thermal system demonstrations and next-generation geothermal
demonstration projects in diverse geographic areas. The Committee
directs the Department to continue its efforts to identify prospec-
tive geothermal resources in areas with no obvious surface expres-
sions.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Advanced Manufacturing.—The Committee recommends
$560,500,000 for Advanced Manufacturing.
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Manufacturing
Demonstration Facility [MDF] and the Carbon Fiber Technology
Facility. Within available funds for MDF, $5,000,000 is provided
for the development of processes for materials solutions.
The Committee recognizes the significant grid resilience benefits
that distributed-scale highly-efficient natural gas engines can pro-
vide to the nation’s electricity grid and notes the need for more ag-
gressive Federal support for research and development of this
promising technology. Therefore, the Committee recommends
$4,000,000 to be competitively awarded to industry to develop high-
ly efficient natural gas engines to be used in electricity generation.
Preference shall be given to projects that prioritize fast demand re-
sponse and improved integration with building and institution-
based microgrid systems, to further the resiliency of the nation’s
electrical grid.
The Committee recognizes the importance of developing recycla-
ble wind turbine blades and directs the Department to support re-
search and development in innovative approaches to enable manu-
facturing of wind turbine blades with novel thermoplastic resin sys-
tems to create brand new reversible and recyclable thermoplastic
resins for future use in blade manufacturing. Within available
funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for development of
thermoplastic resin systems research.
Within available funds for the Industrial Technical Assistance
program, the Committee recommends $12,000,000 to provide ongo-
ing support for the Combined Heat and Power [CHP] Technical As-
sistance Partnerships [TAPs] and related CHP Technical Partner-
ship activities at the Department, including $5,000,000 for the
TAPs and $7,000,000 for related CHP activities. The Committee
also encourages the Department to prioritize research, develop-
ment, and demonstration of district energy systems and work to ac-
celerate greater deployment of district energy systems in commu-
nities, campuses, industries, and cities nationwide by supporting
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
adaptive regional and local technology, and market opportunities.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
85
The Committee further directs the Department to collaborate with
industry on the potential energy efficiency and energy security
gains to be realized with district energy systems.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends up to
$20,000,000 for the Industrial Assessment Center [IAC] program.
The Committee further directs the Department to apply the addi-
tional funding to support regions that are currently designated as
underserved through the IAC program. Within the funds provided
for the Industrial Assessment Centers, the Committee recommends
up to $4,000,000 for applied technical assistance and the purchase
and pilot testing of innovative technology. This equipment and
technical assistance shall be provided to municipal or industrial en-
tities that face significant water treatment challenges and for
which piloting such technology would be of significant benefit.
The Committee acknowledges the contributions of the Clean En-
ergy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes [CEMIs] program as an
important component of efforts to combat climate change by reduc-
ing carbon emissions from manufacturing, promoting recycling and
conservation, and creating new companies and jobs for a greener
economy. The Committee further believes that the continuation of
Federal participation in the CEMI program is vital in order to
maintain significant private investment and allow the Institutes to
realize the goals for which they were established. Within available
funds, the Committee encourages the Department to continue work
of the CEMIs.
The Committee supports additive manufacturing technologies for
wind energy applications. Within available funds, $4,000,000 to
support additive manufacturing work on large wind blades that
will allow for rapid prototyping, tooling, fabrication, and testing;
$7,000,000 for additive manufacturing of wind turbine components;
and $18,000,000 for advanced wind turbine blade manufacturing
research, including additive composite tip technology, automation,
and sustainability.
The Committee recognizes the important role large-area additive
manufacturing can play in helping to advance the deployment of
building, transportation, and clean energy technologies. The Com-
mittee directs the Department to further foster the partnership be-
tween the national laboratories, universities, and industry to use
bio-based thermoplastics composites, such as micro- and nanocellu-
losic materials, and large-area 3–D printing to overcome challenges
to the cost and deployment of building, transportation, and energy
technologies. In addition, the Committee recommends up to
$20,000,000 to continue the development of additive manufacturing
involving nanocellulosic feedstock materials made from forest prod-
ucts to overcome challenges to the cost and deployment of building,
transportation, and energy technologies, and encourages the De-
partment to leverage expertise and capabilities for large-scale addi-
tive manufacturing through partnerships between universities and
the MDF.
The Committee notes that drying processes consume approxi-
mately 10 percent of the process energy used in the manufacturing
sector and directs that within available funds, up to $10,000,000 is
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
recommended to be used to issue a competitive solicitation for uni-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
86
versity and industry-led teams to improve the efficiency of indus-
trial drying processes.
The Committee recognizes that progress is occurring at the dem-
onstration level of extracting lithium from geothermal brine to cre-
ate lithium chloride, but further research and development is need-
ed to convert the extracted lithium chloride into lithium hydroxide,
one of the final components of lithium-ion batteries. The Com-
mittee recommends $15,000,000 to continue technology develop-
ment to convert lithium chloride from geothermal brine into lith-
ium hydroxide that will inform the design of a commercial-scale fa-
cility that will both extract lithium from geothermal brine and con-
vert the lithium in geothermal brine into the lithium hydroxide.
The Committee recognizes the growing need for the use of more
sustainable chemistry in consumer and commercial products, which
can create significant value as an economic opportunity for U.S.
manufacturing. The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to support
sustainable chemistry research and development. The fiscal year
2021 Act directed the Department to provide a report exploring
how incorporating sustainable chemistry in consumer and commer-
cial manufacturing processes fits within its research and develop-
ment portfolio and can benefit these processes. The Committee is
still awaiting this report and directs the Department to provide the
report to the Committee not less than 30 days after enactment of
this act.
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue to develop
and industrialize a low-cost polymer infiltration process for the fab-
rication of silicon carbide components. The Committee recognizes
the Department’s expertise in developing materials and processes
for very high temperature applications. Silicon carbide ceramic ma-
trix composites are a proven, capable material for high temperature
applications.
The Committee recommends not less than $5,000,000 to apply
the Department the Office of Science’s leadership computing facil-
ity expertise in machine learning to increase efficiencies in large
scale, high rate, aerostructures manufacturing. The Department is
encouraged to leverage best practices from large-scale, high-rate
commercial composite aerostructure manufacturing.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES
The Committee recommends $382,000,000 for Building Tech-
nologies.
Across all of these efforts, where appropriate, the Buildings Tech-
nologies Office is encouraged to collaborate with OE and CESER,
especially including efforts pertaining to improved building-to-grid
interactions and integration of energy storage and renewable en-
ergy. Within available funds for Emerging Technologies, the Com-
mittee encourages the Department to make funding available for
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning [HVAC] and Refrigera-
tion Research, Development and deployment, including heat
pumps, heat pump water heaters and boilers. The Department
shall focus its efforts to address whole building energy performance
and cost issues to inform efforts to advance beneficial electrification
and greenhouse gas mitigation without compromising building en-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ergy performance. The Committee encourages the Department to
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
87
develop strategies and activities to increase adoption of energy-sav-
ing and emissions-saving technologies for low-income households,
multi-family buildings, and minority communities.
Within the amounts provided for the Building Technologies Of-
fice, the recommendation includes not less than $50,000,000 for ad-
vanced HVAC and dehumidification manufacturing scale-up
projects.
Equipment and Building Standards.—The Committee rec-
ommends $62,000,000 for Equipment and Buildings Standards.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Building Energy
Codes Program to increase training, including certifications, and
provide technical assistance to states, local governments, regional
collaboratives, workforce development providers, homebuilders, of-
fice builders, architects and engineers, and other organizations that
develop, adopt, or assist with the adoption or compliance with
model building energy codes and standards to improve energy effi-
ciency and resilience.
The Committee supports continued research to quantify the resil-
ience impacts of energy codes for buildings, occupants, and commu-
nities. Recognizing that the pandemic has presented challenges to
permit processing for building departments reliant on paper-based
systems, the Committee encourages the development of cloud-based
software that can facilitate permit processing for projects that con-
serve energy or promote resilience as well as efforts to help depart-
ments modernize systems.
The Committee directs EERE to carry out the Grid-interactive
Efficient Buildings [GEB] program to ensure that a high level of
energy efficiency is a core element of the program and a baseline
characteristic for GEBs, which are also connected, smart, and flexi-
ble. EERE shall engage with the public and private sectors, includ-
ing the building and manufacturing industries and state and local
governments, to share information on GEB technologies, costs, and
benefits, and to provide information to position American compa-
nies to lead in this area. In addition, EERE is reminded to follow
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and re-
lated guidance in testing and applying relevant existing and emerg-
ing standards developed by non-governmental organizations.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $72,000,000
for the Residential Building Integration program. The Committee
recommends this increase to advance building upgrades and weath-
erization of homes, as well as to advance work in grid-integrated
efficient buildings and inclusion of smart grid systems, demand
flexibility and new initiatives in workforce training to ensure the
technology and research findings reach practitioners. The Com-
mittee encourages funding to be concentrated on industry teams to
facilitate research, demonstrate and test new systems, and facili-
tate widespread deployment and dissemination of information and
best practices through direct engagement with builders, the con-
struction trades, equipment manufacturers, smart grid technology
and systems suppliers, integrators, and state and local govern-
ments and other market transformation activities. Further, the
Committee recommends funding to facilitate deep whole-house en-
ergy efficiency retrofits, including outreach, engagement and train-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ing to private sector contractors, including continuing efforts to ad-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
88
vance smart home technology. The Committee supports continued
efforts to address property rating and valuation in commercial and
residential buildings as a way to improve the transparency of en-
ergy utilization in buildings for persons and companies buying or
leasing property.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue to ex-
plore research and development that can advance future natural
gas and propane gas systems and appliances to meet consumer de-
mand for high efficiency and environmentally friendly products.
The Committee recommends continued research, development, and
market transformation programs on energy efficiency efforts re-
lated to the direct use of natural gas and propane gas in residential
applications, including gas heat pump heating with power genera-
tion and water heating, on-site combined heat and power, and gas
appliance venting, and on site (micro) combined heat and power to
include cooling integration with renewables.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $74,000,000
for the Commercial Building Integration program for core research
and development of more cost-effective integration techniques and
technologies that could help the transition toward deep retrofits. In
addition, the Committee encourages the Department to increase
engagement with private sector stakeholders to develop market-
transforming policies and investments in commercial building ret-
rofits.
The Department is encouraged to prioritize understanding of re-
gional differences in energy systems and their impact on adoption
of transactive energy technologies. The recommendation provides
not less than $30,000,000 for Buildings-to-Grid integration re-
search and development consistent with a transactive energy sys-
tem and in coordination with the OE transactive energy systems
program.
The Committee notes that the Department has missed over 30
legal deadlines related to energy efficiency standards mandated by
Congress. The Committee understands that the Department is
working to complete these rulemakings expeditiously and directs
the Department to finalize these standards as soon as practicable.
The Committee directs the Department to report within 30 days of
enactment of this act on the status of each of these standards, and
any funding or staffing barriers to finalizing these standards.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for the Federal Energy
Management Program. The recommendation provides not less than
$20,000,000 for the Department to continue its work through the
Assisting Federal Facilities with Energy Conservation Technologies
program.
The recommendation provides not less than $2,000,000 for work
force development and the Performance Based Contract National
Resource Initiative. The fiscal year 2020 Act directed the Depart-
ment to provide a report that outlines the types of technical and
financial expertise the Department is suited to provide and in-
cludes an analysis of the available infrastructure work that can be
accomplished through performance-based contracts over a 10-year
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
period and the resources necessary to achieve this goal. The Com-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
89
mittee is still awaiting this report and directs the Department to
provide this report not later than 15 days after enactment of this
act.
The Committee directs the Secretary to establish an improved
process to assist in guiding infrastructure investments through en-
ergy performance contracts management, including, but not limited
to Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utility Energy Sav-
ings Contracts, in order to effectively and efficiently reduce energy
costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve facilities. The
Committee directs the Secretary to ensure the availability of suffi-
cient acquisition FTEs to address energy saving measures, as well
as to streamline and find efficiencies in the approval of projects to
continue to provide climate, resilience, and economic benefits. The
Committee encourages the Secretary to leverage energy savings
performance contracts so capital improvement projects involving
energy systems, energy controls, and building envelopes awarded
in fiscal year 2022 ensure maximum return on investment to the
taxpayer.
WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $508,000,000 for the Weatherization
and Intergovernmental Program.
Within this amount, $398,000,000 is recommended for Weather-
ization, including $375,000,000 for the Weatherization Assistance
Program [WAP] and $8,000,000 for Training and Technical Assist-
ance. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for State Energy
Program [SEP] grants. The Committee encourages the Department
to work with all relevant stakeholders to identify efficiencies for de-
livering weatherization services and examine options to streamline
policies and procedures when other funding sources are utilized in
conjunction with funds from the Department.
The Committee supports WAP’s continued participation in the
interagency working group on Healthy Homes and Energy with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department
is encouraged to further coordinate with the Office of Lead Hazard
Control and Healthy Homes on energy-related housing projects.
The Committee encourages the Department to begin tracking the
occurrence of window replacements, which supports the reduction
of lead-based paint hazards in homes.
The Committee recognizes the importance of providing Federal
funds under the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program to
States and Tribes in a timely manner to avoid any undue delay of
services to eligible low-income households, and to encourage local
high-impact energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives and
energy emergency preparedness. Therefore, the full amount of the
funds recommended for WAP and the SEP shall be obligated to
States, Tribes, and other direct grantees not later than 60 days
after enactment of this act. The Committee is concerned with the
reduction of mission-critical staff at the Office of Weatherization
and Intergovernmental Programs and directs the office to achieve
staffing levels that will allow it to provide robust training, tech-
nical assistance, and oversight for WAP and SEP.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends that
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
$1,000,000 be made available to WAP grant recipients that have
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
90
previously worked with the Department via the Weatherization In-
novation Pilot Program, for the purpose of developing and imple-
menting state and regional programs to treat harmful substances,
including vermiculite.
Weatherization Readiness Fund.—The Committee supports the
creation of a new Weatherization Readiness Fund to enable more
low-income households to receive WAP support by providing funds
to address structural and health and safety issues to reduce the
frequency of deferred homes that are not weatherization ready
when WAP work crews enter the home to perform retrofit services.
Local Government Clean Energy Workforce Program.—The Com-
mittee supports the Local Government Clean Energy Workforce
Program to provide competitive awards, on-site capacity, peer ex-
changes, and technical assistance to support the development and
deployment of transformative clean energy programs that create
good paying jobs working with qualifying local governments and
Tribal Nations, with a focus on energy communities and disadvan-
taged or small-to-medium jurisdictions.
The Department is encouraged to consider projects that imple-
ment best practices to advance energy efficiency adoption, building
and vehicle electrification, grid modernization, distributed elec-
tricity generation, and workforce development at the local level.
These activities shall include work with and support for organiza-
tions that convene and support municipal governments.
CORPORATE SUPPORT
Strategic Programs.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000
for Strategic Programs.
Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends
$8,000,000 for the Energy Materials and Processing at Scale re-
search capability at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Congressionally Directed Spending.—The Committee rec-
ommends $77,047,000 for the following list of projects that provide
for research, development, and demonstration for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy activities or programs. The Committee re-
minds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may
apply to these projects.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
Project Name Recommendation
Accelerating Heat Pump Adoption by Lower–Income Households, AK ................................................................ 420
Asia-Pacific Microgrid Development and Training, HI ........................................................................................ 1,000
Blue Earth County’s Energy Efficiency Project, MN ............................................................................................. 4,330
Built to Last Pilot Project, PA .............................................................................................................................. 2,100
Chicago Clean Energy Retrofits Program, IL ....................................................................................................... 500
Cogency Power Solar Project, CO ......................................................................................................................... 5,000
Community Ductless Heat Pump Co–Op, OR ...................................................................................................... 301
Community of Hope Solar Parking Structure, NM ............................................................................................... 200
Cully Community Solar Pilot, OR ......................................................................................................................... 344
Derry Landfill Solar Project, NH ........................................................................................................................... 500
Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority Hydrokinetic Energy Project, MI ................................................................. 680
Development of an Electric Vehicle Associate’s Degree Curriculum Standards and Educational Materials for
Automotive Educators and Technicians Nationwide, WV ................................................................................ 1,000
District Energy Construction, VT .......................................................................................................................... 5,166
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
DWCPA Solar Energy Project, MI .......................................................................................................................... 200
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
91
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY—Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
Project Name Recommendation
Electric Future for America’s Rural Mobility Stakeholders (E–FARMS), OR ........................................................ 1,500
Electrical Substation for Garrison Oak Business and Technology Park, DE ....................................................... 5,000
Energy Improvements for Rhode Island Schools, RI ........................................................................................... 5,000
Enhanced Biogas Collection and Energy Recovery Project, RI ............................................................................ 2,900
Evanston Accessible Solar Program, IL ............................................................................................................... 500
Expanding Solar Research and Generation for a Brighter Energy Future, VT .................................................... 150
Fuel for Seniors: Energy Efficiency, CT ................................................................................................................ 288
Grid Resilience and Equity in the Energy Transition, MA ................................................................................... 995
Hanover LED Streetlight Conversion, NH ............................................................................................................. 271
Heartland Green Energy and Manufacturing Valley Initiative, OH ...................................................................... 500
Heat Recovery System, AK ................................................................................................................................... 659
Hybrid Solar Testing Platform for Cold Weather Climates, VT ........................................................................... 4,000
Kauai North Shore Energy Resiliency Project, HI ................................................................................................. 1,000
Kivalina Biomass Reactor, AK ............................................................................................................................. 100
Klickitat Valley Health Central Utility Plant Modernization, WA ......................................................................... 2,500
Makushin Geothermal Project, AK ........................................................................................................................ 2,500
Marquette Affordable Solar Clean Energy Planning Grant, MI ........................................................................... 100
Microgrid Integration with Biomass Gasification as a Pathway to Hydrogen Production, NY ........................... 1,000
Municipal Building Upgrades, NY ........................................................................................................................ 303
New Jersey Green Hydrogen Demonstration Project, NJ ....................................................................................... 3,840
Newport Town Office Energy Improvements, NH ................................................................................................. 250
Northeast Kingdom Home Weatherization, VT ..................................................................................................... 500
Off–Grid residential solar project on the Navajo Nation, NM ............................................................................. 1,000
Overland Industrial park Solar Community Project, OH ...................................................................................... 1,500
Oyster River Resiliency Project, NH ..................................................................................................................... 1,150
Reducing Inequity in Access to Solar Power, DE ................................................................................................ 2,000
Rio Arriba County Energy Efficient Vehicle & Solar Charging Stations, NM ...................................................... 1,000
Salisbury Square Redevelopment: Achieving Home Affordability and Energy Resilience via a Microgrid, VT ... 750
San Juan College Clean Hydrogen Workforce Development Program, NM .......................................................... 500
San Juan College Electric Vehicle Technician Certification Program, NM .......................................................... 50
Solar Testbed, WV ................................................................................................................................................ 1,900
Sustainable Energy in Schools and Public Buildings, VT ................................................................................... 1,000
Tacoma Public Utilities EV charging program, WA ............................................................................................. 1,000
Thermal Energy Storage to Support Renewable Energy Deployment, VT ............................................................ 5,000
Twin Lakes Reservoir Floating Solar Study, OH .................................................................................................. 500
Updated Renewable Energy Development Feasibility Study by the Pueblo of Zia, NM ...................................... 250
Utility Upgrades for the Bedford Landfill Solar Project, NH ............................................................................... 500
Vermont Electrification and Clean Energy Deployment, VT ................................................................................. 1,000
WMU Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Secure, Efficient and Sustainable Energy Technology, MI ....... 350
Wood-fiber Insulated Panels for Modular Construction and Retrofit Applications/Energy Efficient Community
Cross-Laminated Timber Demonstration Project, ME ..................................................................................... 2,000
CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $156,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 201,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 177,000,000
The Committee recommends $177,000,000 for the Office of Cy-
bersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response. Within
available funds, the Committee recommends $14,000,000 for pro-
gram direction.
Additional direction related to Department-wide crosscutting ini-
tiatives is provided under the heading Crosscutting Initiatives in
the front matter of the Department of Energy.
CESER was established in 2018 to protect the U.S. from emerg-
ing cyber threats and improve our energy security and infrastruc-
ture. To date, the program has received $461,000,000 in annual ap-
propriations and undergone several internal reorganizations. In
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
2019, the Inspector General Office was notified about several com-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
92
plaints about lack of internal control policies and allegations about
improper use of funds. The Committee is alarmed about the Inspec-
tor General’s findings and directs CESER to follow through with
addressing their recommendations expeditiously. Further, the Com-
mittee is concerned about the longstanding lack of clarity on the
Department’s cyber research and development responsibilities and
directs CESER to coordinate with the OE and relevant applied en-
ergy offices in clearly defining these program activities. Finally, the
Department is directed to include an itemization of funding levels
below the control point in future budget submissions and provide
the Committee quarterly updates on the requests outlined above.
Risk Management Technology and Tools.—The Committee rec-
ommends $112,000,000 for Risk Management Technology Tools.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for
Consequence-driven Cyber-informed Engineering. Within available
funding, the Committee recommends research funds for univer-
sities to develop scalable cyber-physical platforms for resilient and
secure electric power systems that are flexible, modular, self-heal-
ing, and autonomous. This activity shall be conducted in coordina-
tion with OE. The recommendation provides not less than
$5,000,000 to conduct a demonstration program of innovative tech-
nologies, such as technologies for monitoring vegetation manage-
ment to improve grid resiliency from wildfires. The Committee sup-
ports extension of cyber-risk information sharing tools to close re-
maining vulnerabilities in the distribution and transmission sys-
tem. The Committee encourages the Department to continue exist-
ing work within ongoing programs and to invest in research ad-
dressing power system vulnerabilities in supply chain and life cycle
management for critical power system components and advanced
adaptive defensive methods for grid control systems. The Com-
mittee supports Departmental initiatives focused on cybersecurity
risk information-sharing and secure data anonymization and anal-
ysis for both operational and information technology components of
equipment commonly utilized in both the bulk power system and
distribution systems. The Department is encouraged to prioritize
enrolling under-resourced electric utilities in such programs, par-
ticularly rural electric cooperatives and municipally-owned entities.
Response and Restoration.—The Committee recommends
$23,000,000 for Response and Restoration. The Committee places a
high priority on ensuring the protection of the electric grid against
cyberattacks and extreme weather events. The Response and Res-
toration program coordinates a national effort to secure the U.S.
energy infrastructure against all hazards, reduce impacts from dis-
ruptive events, and assist industry with restoration efforts. The
program delivers a range of capabilities including energy sector
emergency response and recovery, including emergency response of
a cyber nature; near-real-time situational awareness and informa-
tion sharing about the status of the energy systems to improve risk
management; and analysis of evolving threats and hazards to en-
ergy infrastructure.
Information Sharing, Partnerships, and Exercises.—The Informa-
tion Sharing, Partnerships, and Exercises program supports energy
sector security and resilience through coordination with govern-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ment and industry partners. This program provides technical as-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
93
sistance that incorporates exercises to strengthen Federal, regional,
state, tribal, and territorial abilities to work together to prepare for
and mitigate the effects of an energy sector emergency and focuses
on training the next generation workforce on energy sector risks.
Congressionally Directed Spending.—The Committee rec-
ommends $5,000,000 for the following list of projects that provide
for research, development, and demonstration for CESER activities
or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost
sharing requirements may apply to these projects.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING FOR CYBERSECURITY, ENERGY SECURITY, AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
Project Name Recommendation
Emerging Threat Information Sharing and Analysis Center, University of Arkansas Little Rock, AR ................ 1,000
Oakland University Cybersecurity Center, MI ....................................................................................................... 2,000
Virtual Cybersecurity Training Simulator, MA ...................................................................................................... 2,000
ELECTRICITY
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $211,720,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 327,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 303,000,000
The Committee recommends $303,000,000 for the Office of Elec-
tricity. Within available funds, the Committee recommends
$20,000,000 for program direction.
The Department is directed to include an itemization of funding
levels below the control point in future budget submissions. Addi-
tional direction related to Department-wide crosscutting initiatives
is provided under the heading Crosscutting Initiatives in the front
matter of the Department of Energy.
TRANSMISSION RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE
The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Transmission Reli-
ability and Resilience.
The Committee supports continued investment in advanced grid
modeling algorithms and tool development to ensure resilient grid
controls and protection systems that meet the challenges of the
emerging smart grid.
In fiscal year 2021, Congress directed the Department to conduct
a case study on regional, wide-spread deployment of dynamic line
rating technologies to assess the potential benefits and costs. The
Committee is still awaiting this case study and directs the Depart-
ment to provide the report immediately.
In fiscal year 2021, Congress directed the Department to provide
a report on ways to maximize utilization of the existing electricity
delivery system by enabling dynamic line ratings, dynamically con-
trolling the flow of electricity, and optimizing electricity delivery
system topology. The Committee is still awaiting this report and di-
rects the Department to provide the report immediately.
In fiscal year 2021, Congress directed the Department to provide
a report summarizing the results of a 12-month non-contact sensor
monitory study. The Committee is still awaiting this report and di-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
rects the Department to provide the report immediately.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
94
The Committee encourages the Department to prioritize funding
to incorporate and expand big data analytics capabilities into the
pre-operational development, assessment, and demonstration of
transmission system situational awareness technologies.
ENERGY DELIVERY GRID OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000
to support research on Silicon Carbide semiconductors.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $10,000,000
for the DarkNet project to explore opportunities for getting the na-
tion’s critical infrastructure off the Internet and shielding the na-
tion’s electricity infrastructure from disruptive cyber penetration,
including expansion of the communications network architecture
and development of cutting-edge networking technologies.
RESILIENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for Resilient Distribu-
tion Systems.
The Committee directs that funds recommended for OE shall
focus on identifying and addressing technical and regulatory bar-
riers impeding grid integration of distributed energy systems to re-
duce energy costs and improve the resiliency and reliability of the
electric grid.
The Committee directs the Department to focus on identifying
and addressing technical and regulatory barriers impeding grid in-
tegration of distributed energy systems to reduce energy costs and
improve the resiliency and reliability of the electric grid.
The Committee supports advanced control concepts and open test
beds for new distribution control tools for enhanced distribution
system resilience.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to
continue efforts to support the integration of sensors into the na-
tion’s electric distribution systems, fundamental research and field
validation of microgrid controllers and systems, and transactive en-
ergy concepts, including studies and evaluations of energy usage
behavior in response to price signals. The Committee places a high
priority on addressing the challenges facing the electric power grid
by developing the innovative technologies, tools, and techniques to
modernize the distribution portion of the electricity delivery sys-
tem. Resilient Distribution Systems pursue strategic investments
to improve reliability, resilience, outage, recovery, and operational
efficiency, building upon previous and ongoing grid modernization
efforts. In addition to emerging fuel technologies for distributed
grids, the Committee directs that fuels commonly available across
the United States, such as propane and other diesel alternatives,
be evaluated.
The recommendation provides not less than $10,000,000 for dem-
onstration projects with the Grid Sensors and Sensor Analytics pro-
gram. The demonstration activities may focus on utilizing data
from advanced sensors that are deployed on existing transmission
and distribution lines to predict or detect vegetation contact to
mitigate wildfires and wildfire impacts. Further, the demonstration
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
activities may focus on measuring the condition of utility poles in
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
95
terms of their position, impacts, the presence of high temperatures,
and measuring the condition of conductors at the attachment
points to utility poles in terms of their position and impacts. Data
from the sensors shall be utilized to provide useful and immediate
analytics to improve the safety of the general public and improve
electrical distribution network performance indices. The dem-
onstration activities may also include a focus on utilizing data from
distribution utilities that have deployed advanced metering infra-
structure.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends up to
$10,000,000 for coordinated research and development of microgrid-
related technologies, with a focus on underserved and Indigenous
communities. The research shall focus on development and deploy-
ment of advanced microgrid-enabling technologies, including re-
newable generation and storage systems, multi-nodal small-scale
high-voltage direct current, advanced demand-side management
strategies, and microgrid control systems. The research will aim to
provide replicable microgrid solutions to address the broad array of
challenges facing underserved and Indigenous communities in re-
mote and islanded regions throughout the United States.
ENERGY STORAGE
The Committee recommends $139,000,000 for Energy Storage,
including $47,000,000 for the Grid Storage Launchpad.
The Committee urges the Department to continue furthering co-
ordination between OE, the Office of Science, EERE and other De-
partment offices to achieve commercially viable grid-scale storage
with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
The recommendation provides not less than $20,000,000 for a
competitive pilot demonstration grant program, as authorized in
section 3201 of the Energy Act of 2020, for energy storage projects
that are wholly U.S.-made, sourced, and supplied. The Department
is directed to include large scale commercial development and de-
ployment of long cycle life, lithium-grid scale batteries and their
components.
The Committee encourages the Department to allocate resources
to provide training and technical assistance to firefighters and code
inspectors on battery storage, such as through scenario-based in-
person or online training.
To continue and further advance the development and dem-
onstration of grid-scale battery energy storage projects with the
funds provided, the Committee directs the Secretary to provide
$5,000,000 to continue a battery storage demonstration project that
is located in areas where grid capacity constraints result in curtail-
ment of renewable generation; improve grid resilience for a public
utility that is regularly affected by weather-related natural disas-
ters; and provide rate reduction and renewable energy benefits to
businesses, farms, and residents in an economically-stressed rural
areas. Direct storage from solar generation may also be incor-
porated.
CYBER R&D
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $5,000,000
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
for university-based research and development of scalable cyber-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
96
physical platforms for hyper-resilient and secure electric power sys-
tems that are flexible, modular, self-healing, and autonomous. This
activity shall be conducted in coordination with CESER.
TRANSFORMER RESILIENCE AND ADVANCED COMPONENTS
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Transformer Resil-
ience and Advanced Components.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to
continue to support research and development for advanced compo-
nents and grid materials for low-cost power flow control devices, in-
cluding both solid-state and hybrid concepts that use power elec-
tronics to control electromagnetic devices and enable improved con-
trollability, flexibility, and resiliency.
The recommendation provides up to $2,500,000 to further assess
composite utility poles in controlled and field tests. In fiscal year
2021, Congress directed the Department to submit to the Com-
mittee a report that assesses the performance of composite poles.
The Committee is still awaiting this report and directs the Depart-
ment to provide the report immediately.
Within available funds, the Department is encouraged to con-
tinue to support research and development for advanced compo-
nents and grid materials for low-cost power flow control devices, in-
cluding both solid-state and hybrid concepts that use power elec-
tronics to control electromagnetic devices and enable improved con-
trollability, flexibility, and resiliency. Because there are limited
viable alternatives to Sulfur Hexafluoride [SF6] in power genera-
tion and transmission equipment above 72kV, the Department is
encouraged to support research and development to advance safe
and effective capture and reuse technologies for the use of SF6 in
components like circuit breakers. Below 72kV power generation
and distribution equipment is fully capable of being designed and
manufactured without SF6 therefore, the Department is directed to
support research and development to advance safe and effective al-
ternatives to SF6, including in circuit breakers, reclosers,
sectionalizers, load break switches, switchgear and gas insulated
lines.
TRANSMISSION PERMITTING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Within available funds, the Committee directs OE to collaborate
with and provide technical assistance to interested states to ensure
state energy officials and state regulatory officials have access to
grid, economic, and emissions modeling related to multi-state
wholesale market design. In addition, states shall be provided mar-
ket governance, planning and policy, and regulatory development
assistance related to the formation, expansion, or improvement of
regional transmission organizations. The Committee believes this
effort should include studying the benefits of interstate sharing of
electric resources to provide reliable and affordable service, plan-
ning for significant additions of new variable electric resources,
major new grid demands presented by state or Federal electrifica-
tion and climate policies, and considering system and fuel inter-
dependencies that create emergency conditions during extreme
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
weather events.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
97
Congressionally Directed Spending.—The Committee rec-
ommends $2,850,000 for the following list of projects that provide
for research, development, and demonstration for Electricity activi-
ties or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory
cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING FOR ELECTRICITY PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
Project Name Recommendation
Cuyahoga County Utility Microgrid Design Project, OH ....................................................................................... 300
Electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure for PUD No 1 of Lewis County, WA ............................. 2,500
Village of Old Brookville Village Hall expansion: 52 kW standby backup generator, NY .................................. 50
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $1,507,600,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 1,850,500,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,590,800,000
The Committee recommends $1,590,800,000 for Nuclear Energy.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends $85,000,000
for program direction. The Committee’s recommendation prioritizes
funding for programs, projects, and activities that will ensure a
strong future for nuclear power in the United States.
Nuclear Energy provides nearly one-fifth of our Nation’s elec-
tricity, and nearly 60 percent of our carbon free electricity. Ad-
vanced nuclear technologies hold promising potential for reliable,
safe, emission-free energy. The Department is encouraged to
prioritize funds for public-private partnerships to demonstrate ad-
vanced reactor designs and fuel types by the late 2020s, including
through the Advanced Reactor Demonstration and Accident Toler-
ant Fuels Programs.
While the Committee supports nuclear energy research and de-
velopment, it recognizes that the accumulation of spent nuclear
fuel presents a challenge to communities accepting new plants. The
Committee also continues to strongly support the recommendations
of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future and
believes that near-term action is needed to address the accumu-
lating inventory of spent nuclear fuel. The Committee supports con-
tinued funding for consolidation of spent nuclear fuel from around
the United States to one or more interim central storage facilities.
Nuclear Energy University Program [NEUP].—Since 2009, the
Department has allocated up to 20 percent of funds appropriated
to Nuclear Energy Research and Development programs to fund
university-led R&D and university infrastructure projects through
an open, competitive solicitation process using formally certified
peer reviewers. The Committee is concerned that the requirements
in section 954(a)(6) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended,
are unnecessarily constraining the implementation of the budget
that develops advanced nuclear fuels and technologies. The Depart-
ment is directed to provide to the Committee, not later than 180
days after enactment of this act, a plan to address these concerns,
as well as an implementation plan for improvements recommended
by the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization. Fur-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ther, the Department is directed to provide to the Committee quar-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
98
terly briefings on the status of NEUP and the university work
being funded.
Integrated University Program.—The Committee recommends
$6,000,000 for the Integrated University Program. The Committee
notes the importance of this program in developing highly qualified
nuclear specialists to meet national needs.
NUCLEAR ENERGY ENABLING TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for Nuclear Energy
Enabling Technology.
Within Nuclear Energy Enabling Technology, the Committee rec-
ommends an additional $3,000,000 to complete the preliminary en-
gineering and design of a secure, separate, and shielded beamline
at the NSLS II at Brookhaven National Laboratory to examine ra-
dioactive materials. Currently, there is no U.S. facility dedicated to
the study of radioactive materials with the high spatial and tem-
poral resolution, superb chemical sensitivity, and unique capabili-
ties offered by the NSLS II. This beamline shall complement and
be compatible with irradiation tests and infrastructure for mate-
rials characterization and sample preparation at Idaho National
Laboratory [INL]. In conjunction with the infrastructure and capa-
bilities at INL, the information on materials in radiation environ-
ments derived from this beamline will be used to improve the reli-
ability, sustain the safety, extend the life of current reactors, and
support development of new advanced reactors.
The Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for inte-
grated energy systems.
Joint Modeling and Simulation Program.—The Committee un-
derstands the importance of modeling and simulation for nuclear
energy applications, and recommends $30,000,000 for the Joint
Modeling and Simulation Program. Use and application of the
codes and tools shall be funded by the end user, not by the Joint
Modeling and Simulation Program.
New Materials Development.—The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 for the New Materials Development program, a new
program to strengthen the pipeline of new materials that can make
the current fleet, as well as new advanced reactors, more resilient
and economically competitive.
FUEL CYCLE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION
The Committee recommends $288,650,000 for Fuel Cycle Re-
search, Development, and Demonstration.
To support availability of high-assay low-enriched uranium
[HALEU] and other advanced nuclear fuels, consistent with section
2001 of the Energy Act of 2020, the recommendation includes
$47,000,000, including $2,000,000 for Mining, Shipping, and Trans-
portation; $25,000,000 for Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability; and
not less than $20,000,000 within Material Recovery and Waste
Form Development.
Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability.—The Committee supports
establishment of an Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability program to
make available small quantities of HALEU in the short term and
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
supports the transition of these activities to the private sector for
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
99
commercial HALEU production and domestic supply chain capabili-
ties for the long term.
The fiscal year 2020 Act directed the Department to provide an
evaluation on the anticipated demand for HALEU, the timing of
that demand, and options for meeting that demand. The Committee
is still awaiting this report. Section 2001(b)(2) of the Energy Act of
2020 requires the Department to submit to Congress a report on
a program to support the availability of HALEU for civilian domes-
tic demonstration and commercial use. The Department is directed
to submit these reports to the Committee not later than 30 days
after enactment of this act and not less than 60 days prior to the
obligation of more than 75 percent of these funds. The Department
is encouraged to disburse these funds on a competitive basis as the
Department progresses its Advanced Nuclear Fuels Availability
program. Further, the Committee encourages the Department to
ensure that all federally-funded transfers and shipments of ura-
nium hexafluoride and depleted uranium hexafluoride, shall to the
extent practicable, use American manufactured shipping cylinders
and transportation casks.
Material Recovery and Waste Form Development.—The Com-
mittee recommends $20,000,000 for Material Recovery and Waste
Form Development, including $10,000,000 to continue work on the
ZIRCEX process to recover Highly Enriched Uranium from used
naval fuel or unirradiated research reactor fuel.
Accident Tolerant Fuels.—The Committee recommends
$110,150,000 for development of nuclear fuels with enhanced acci-
dent-tolerant characteristics to significantly mitigate the potential
consequences of a nuclear accident. The Committee continues to
place a high priority on this program and urges the Department to
maintain focus and priority on achieving results in these efforts.
The recommendation provides not less than $10,000,000 for further
development of silicon carbide ceramic matrix composite fuel clad-
ding for light water reactors. The Committee also remains con-
cerned that funding for the industry-led portions of the Accident
Tolerant Fuels program, and for the testing and development of
higher-enriched and higher-burnup fuels, is not being obligated by
the Department in a timely manner. The Department is directed
to brief its plan to allocate and obligate funds required in this act
and any negative schedule impacts caused by the delays in allo-
cating or obligating funding.
TRISO Fuel and Graphite Qualification.—Within the funds rec-
ommended for Tristructural Isotropic [TRISO] fuels, $10,000,000 is
recommended to continue the transition of TRISO fuel to a mul-
tiple-producer market, ensuring that more than one industry
source would be available to the commercial and government mar-
kets.
REACTOR CONCEPTS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION
The Committee recommends $232,000,000 for Reactor Concepts
Research, Development, and Demonstration.
Advanced Small Modular Reactor Research, Development, and
Demonstration.—The Committee recommends $140,000,000 for on-
going work to support regulatory development, design, and deploy-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ment activities.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
100
Advanced Reactor Technologies.—The Committee recommends up
to $5,000,000 for continued work on Supercritical Transformational
Electric Power Research and Development. The Committee sup-
ports the collaboration between the national laboratories and in-
dustry partners to develop and validate sCO2 power conversion,
specifically for modular micronuclear reactors by spring of 2023.
This work will continue to be coordinated with FECM.
The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for MW-scale reactor
research and development, including $9,000,000 for MARVEL. The
Department is encouraged to move expeditiously on the solicitation
and award of these funds and to streamline its procurement proc-
ess to ensure implementation is not delayed. The fiscal year 2021
Act directed the Department to submit a report outlining a strat-
egy for siting a microreactor at an institution of higher education
with existing infrastructure to support the reactor siting, perform
fundamental research, test enabling technologies and cyber secu-
rity solutions for grid integration, train the future workforce, and
de-risk deployment for future private sector applications. The Com-
mittee is still awaiting this case study and directs the Department
to provide the report immediately.
Advanced Reactor Concepts Industry Awards.—The Advanced Re-
actor Concepts [ARC] program provided a platform to support inno-
vative advanced reactor designs. With the award of funds by the
Department for its comprehensive Advanced Reactor Demonstra-
tion program, ARC funding has become duplicative. Therefore, no
funds are provided for awards under ARC.
Light Water Reactor Sustainability.—The Committee rec-
ommends $45,000,000 for Light Water Reactor Sustainability. The
most cost-effective way for the United States to maintain low-cost,
carbon-free electricity is to safely extend the lives of our Nation’s
existing nuclear reactors from 60 to 80 years. The Committee en-
courages the Department to maximize benefits of the operating
light water reactor fleet under the program.
ADVANCED REACTOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $370,350,000 for the Advanced Re-
actor Demonstration Program to demonstrate multiple advanced
reactor designs.
The primary goal of this program is to focus government and in-
dustry resources on actual construction of real demonstration reac-
tors that are safe and affordable to build and operate in the near
and mid-term. The Committee continues to believe that the only
way the United States will regain its leadership in nuclear energy
is to begin to deploy advanced reactors. The Department is directed
to continue to ensure the program moves forward expeditiously and
within original scope and budget. The Department is directed to
continue to focus resources on partners capable of project delivery
in the next five to seven years. The Committee encourages the De-
partment to consider including the Milestone-Based Demonstration
Projects approach, as authorized in section 9005 of the Energy Act
of 2020, for existing ARDP awards.
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
101
INFRASTRUCTURE
INL Facilities Operations and Maintenance.—The recommenda-
tion provides $290,000,000 for INL Facilities Operations and Main-
tenance to support the reliability and sustainability of the Mate-
rials and Fuels Complex and the Advanced Test Reactor.
ORNL Facilities Operations and Maintenance.—The Committee
recommends $19,000,000 for the continued safe operations and
maintenance of Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s hot cells.
Idaho Sitewide Safeguard and Security.—The recommendation
provides $149,800,000 for Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.
FOSSIL ENERGY AND CARBON MANAGEMENT
Appropriations, 2021 ............................................................................. $750,000,000
Budget estimate, 2022 ........................................................................... 890,000,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................. 850,000,000
The Committee recommends $850,000,000 for Fossil Energy Re-
search and Development. Within available funds, the Committee
recommends $65,800,000 for program direction.
Additional direction related to Department-wide crosscutting ini-
tiatives is provided under the heading Crosscutting Initiatives in
the front matter of the Department of Energy.
The Committee supports the budget request, which refocuses
funding toward industrial emission reduction and climate-centric
activities focused on decarbonization. Further, the Committee is
concerned about the cost of carbon capture, storage, and utilization
projects and encourages the Department to prioritize Carbon Cap-
ture Utilization and Storage [CCUS] funding on projects and re-
search that look to reduce the cost of these technologies for com-
mercial deployment.
National Carbon Capture Center.—The Committee recommends
funding for the National Carbon Capture Center consistent with
the cooperative agreement.
Industrial Decarbonization.—The Committee notes the lack of
commercially viable carbon capture technology available for indus-
trial manufacturers to significantly reduce emissions in a globally
competitive manner. Further, the Committee recommendation sup-
ports research and development on industrial decarbonization and
catalyzing industry-government research partnerships, including
carbon capture, utilization, and storage with an emphasis on reuse
utilization within industry processes and materials; low-carbon
fuels (e.g. hydrogen); transformative technology that will allow
deep industrial decarbonization (including demonstration and de-
ployment at scale); materials efficiency and circular economy; and
carbon intensity definitions and labeling across key product groups.
The Committee supports the budget request to focus on industrial
CCUS pilot and demonstration projects.
Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Commu-
nities and Economic Revitalization.—The Committee supports the
Administration’s efforts to assist coal communities through their
Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities
and Economic Revitalization which is led by the Department. The
Committee directs the Department to include an itemization of
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
funding for these activities in future budget submissions. Within
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
102
available funds, the Committee also encourages the Department to
allocate sufficient funds for the working group’s activities in fiscal
year 2022.
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Systems & Hydrogen.—The recommenda-
tion provides not less than $90,000,000 for the research, develop-
ment, and demonstration of solid oxide fuel cell systems and hydro-
gen production. The committee recognizes the importance of ad-
vancing solid oxide fuel cell systems, especially for distributed and
central power generation electrolysis, combined heat and power,
and storage applications.
Special Recruitment Programs and HBCUs.—The Committee
supports the Department’s efforts to offer undergraduate, graduate,
and post-graduate students majoring in scientific, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics disciplines the opportunity to learn
about programs, policies, and research, development, demonstra-
tion, and deployment initiatives within FECM. Further the Com-
mittee supports the budget request increase for the University
Training and Research, which comprises funding for University
Coal Research, Historically Black Colleges and Universities
[HBCUs], and other Minority Serving Institutions.
Ethane Study.—The Committee directs the Department to pro-
vide a status update and expected timeline for release on their con-
gressionally requested report on ethane production and consump-
tion trends no later than 30 days after the enactment of this act.
CARBON CAPTURE UTILIZATION AND STORAGE AND POWER SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends $527,500,000 for CCUS and Power
Systems.
CCUS is a process that captures carbon dioxide emissions from
sources and either reuses or stores it so it will not enter the atmos-
phere. The potential for these technologies is considerable, and the
use of these technologies will decrease the costs for mitigating cli-
mate change, in addition to deploying clean energy and energy effi-
cient technologies.
The Department is directed to conduct CCUS activities, including
front-end engineering and design studies, large pilot projects, and
demonstration projects that capture and securely store commercial
volumes of carbon dioxide from fossil energy power plants, indus-
trial facilities, or directly from the air consistent with the objectives
of title IV of the Energy Act of 2020.
The Committee supports funding for activities that promote the
reuse of captured carbon dioxide from coal, natural gas, industrial
facilities, direct air capture, and other sources for the production of
fuels and other valuable products. The Committee further encour-
ages the Department to establish and pursue a comprehensive car-
bon sequestration and utilization effort to combine research and de-
velopment capacity and expertise to solve the carbon sequestration
and utilization challenge within 10 years, with the goals of improv-
ing the economics associated with domestic energy production,
achieving optionality in carbon management, and further reducing
carbon dioxide emissions.
The Committee supports the integrated carbon and energy man-
agement activities of the offices of NE, FECM, and EERE and col-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
laboration on high-efficiency electrochemical conversion of fossil re-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
103
sources to monomers and chemicals utilizing nuclear reactor ther-
mal energy.
Carbon Capture.—The recommendation provides $200,000,000
within carbon capture. Within available funds, the Committee rec-
ommends up to $100,000,000 to support front-end engineering and
design studies, large pilot projects, and demonstration projects, in-
cluding for the development of a first-of-its-kind carbon capture
project at an existing natural gas combined cycle plant.
As industrial deployment of CCUS technology expands, the de-
mand for the transportation of captured carbon oxides is antici-
pated to increase significantly. In preparation to meet this demand,
the Department, in collaboration with the Department of Transpor-
tation, is directed to review existing freight transportation infra-
structure and the capacity of the various modes of freight transpor-
tation to provide cost-effective service. The Department is directed
to provide to the Committee not later than 180 days after enact-
ment of this act a report of the findings of the review. This report
shall ensure that anticipated short- and long-term freight transpor-
tation demand associated with the expanded industrial deployment
of CCUS technology is met. Additionally, the report shall include
analysis of locations where CCUS projects are likely to be located
and where carbon sequestration or utilization is likely to occur and
the unique aspects of those areas for freight transportation infra-
structure. Finally, in conducting this review, the Department shall
consult with stakeholders, including representatives from the var-
ious modes of freight transportation.
Carbon Dioxide Removal.—Within available funds, the Com-
mittee recommends $5,000,000 for research, development, and
demonstration activities related to the indirect sequestration of car-
bon dioxide in deep ocean waters.
Within available funds, the recommendation provides $5,000,000
for a competitive solicitation for a study for the development of a
direct air capture facility co-located with a geothermal energy re-
source. Priority for such a grant shall be given to entities that are
engaged in the generation of electricity from geothermal resources.
Carbon Utilization.—The Committee encourages research and
development activities in the Carbon Utilization Program to sup-
port valuable and innovative uses of captured carbon, including bi-
ological utilization by the conversion of carbon dioxide to high-
value products such as chemicals, plastics, building materials, cur-
ing for cement, and the integration of carbon utilization tech-
nologies with fossil fuel power plants, such as biological conversion
systems. Within available funds for Carbon Utilization, not less
than $6,000,000 for a competitive solicitation to conduct tests of
technologies for carbon dioxide absorption integrated with algae
systems for capturing and reusing carbon dioxide to produce useful
fuels and chemicals, giving priority for teams with university par-
ticipants.
Carbon Storage.—Within available funds, the Committee rec-
ommends $85,000,000 for Storage Infrastructure. Within available
funds, the recommendation provides not less than $40,000,000 for
CarbonSAFE. Further, the Committee recognizes the successful
work of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs)
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
and the important role they play in supporting the research and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
104
development of carbon utilization and storage. The Committee rec-
ommends not less than $20,000,000 for the work of RCSPs.
The Department is encouraged to facilitate development and de-
ployment of monitoring technologies at carbon capture utilization
and storage projects, with considerable progress towards commer-
cial implementation (e.g. a Class VI permit, in-hand or pending).
Currently available seismic data with respect to carbon storage can
take several-to-many months for processing, and there are concerns
about the ability to identify low levels of carbon dioxide concentra-
tions in underground storage. Technologies that promise near real-
time results, and/or employ big data, machine learning, and artifi-
cial intelligence are further encouraged to be given particular at-
tention to better address issues such as leak detection, monetiza-
tion of credits, and permit compliance.
In order to mitigate the detrimental effects of climate change and
to meet net-zero goals, it is necessary to accelerate the use of meth-
ods for carbon removal and storage, including the use and manage-
ment of natural systems to sequester carbon and to store it perma-
nently underground via mineralization processes. The Department
is directed to establish a program to support research and develop-
ment of novel, proof-of-principle carbon containment projects with
the goal of finding and de-risking methods and locations to remove
atmospheric carbon dioxide that are effective, safe, low cost, and
scalable. The recommendation provides up to $10,000,000 to sup-
port work at multiple sites, including within significant basalt for-
mations, to pursue research, development, and deployment of car-
bon containment technologies and proximate carbon dioxide cap-
turing systems that also meet regional economic and ecological res-
toration policy goals, such as catastrophic wildfire mitigation and
job creation.
Advanced Energy and Hydrogen Systems.—The recommendation
provides up to $35,000,000 for materials research and development.
The Department is encouraged to support the Advanced
Ultrasupercritical Program to fabricate, qualify, and develop do-
mestic suppliers capable of producing components from high tem-
perature materials. Further, the Department is encouraged to sup-
port the Extreme Environments Materials Multi-Laboratory Con-
sortium and the development of advanced ceramics under the Ma-
terials that Withstand Harsh Environments and Extend Service
Lifetimes. The Department is directed to support the development
of ceramic matrix composite [CMC] materials in accordance with
the CMC Manufacturing Roadmap and section 4005 of the Energy
Act of 2020.
The Committee recognizes the significant grid resilience benefits
that distributed-scale highly-efficient natural gas engines can pro-
vide to the Nation’s electricity grid. The Committee encourages
FECM to jointly issue a competitive solicitation to industry with
OE with the goal to develop highly efficient natural gas engines to
be used in electricity generation. Further, preference is encouraged
to be given to projects that prioritize fast demand response and im-
proved integration with building and institution-based micro-grid
systems.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue expand-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
ing its research and demonstration capabilities toward production,
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
105
storage, transport and utilization of hydrogen. This work shall
focus on net-negative carbon hydrogen production from modular
gasification and co-gasification of mixed wastes, biomass, and tradi-
tional feedstocks, solid oxide electrolysis cell technology develop-
ment, carbon capture, advanced turbines, natural gas-based hydro-
gen production, hydrogen pipeline infrastructure, and subsurface
hydrogen storage.
The Committee recognizes the value in the production of carbon-
neutral chemicals in decarbonizing the industrial sector. Therefore,
the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for a laboratory dem-
onstration project for carbon-neutral methanol synthesis from di-
rect air capture and carbon-free hydrogen production.
The Committee encourages continued work on coal and coal bio-
mass to both liquids and solids activities and encourages the De-
partment to focus on research and development to improve cost and
efficiency of coal-to-fuels technology implementation and
polygeneration.
Crosscutting Research.—The recommendation includes
$1,000,000 for research, development, and commercialization of
value-added natural gas technologies by supporting university re-
search and pilot projects for rural economic development focusing
on research in green fuels, solid oxide cells and modular reactors
for natural gas upgrading, especially in smaller and more remote
wells.
Minerals Sustainability.—The Mineral Sustainability subpro-
gram will support domestic supply chain networks required for the
economically, environmentally, and geopolitical sustainable produc-
tion of critical minerals. The Committee remains concerned that
the United States continues to import most of its rare earth ele-
ments needs from overseas and believes that finding near-term and
future domestic sources is a top national security priority.
Within available funds, the Committee directs the Department to
continue its external agency activities to develop and test advanced
separation technologies and accelerate the advancement of commer-
cially viable technologies for the recovery of rare earth elements
and minerals from byproduct sources. The Committee expects re-
search to support pilot-scale and experimental activities for near-
term applications, which encompass the extraction and recovery of
rare earth elements and minerals. The Committee encourages the
Department to continue investments to accelerate the advancement
of commercially viable technologies for the recovery of rare earth
elements and critical minerals, including from lignite. Further, the
Committee encourages the Department to fund a more detailed as-
sessment of lignite resources and to devise cost-effective methods
of removing rare earths from lignite.
The Committee directs the Department to continue the Carbon
Ore, Rare Earths, and Critical Minerals [CORE–CM] Program,
from within available funds.
Within available funds, the Committee recommends up to
$6,000,000 for the Department, in collaboration with the Depart-
ment of Commerce, and U.S. Geological Survey, to pilot a research
and development project to enhance the security and stability of
the rare earth element supply chain. Research shall include ap-
amozie on DSK123TN23PROD with REPORTS
proaches to mining of domestic rare earth elements that are critical
VerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Aug 05, 2021 Jkt 045272 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 U:\SR036.XXX SR036
106
to U.S. technology development and manufacturing, as well as em-
phasize environmentally responsible mining practices. The Depart-
ment is encouraged to partner with universities in these efforts.
Supercritical Transformational Electric Power [STEP] Genera-
tion.—Within available funds, the Committee supports efforts, con-
sistent with the current cooperative agreement, to complete the
necessary design and construction of the 10–MW pilot and to con-
duct the necessary testing for the facility. The Committee remains
concerned about repeated cost overruns for the project, and the De-
partment is directed to brief the Committee prior to any change to
scope or cost profile of the project. The recommendation provides
additional funds for competitively awarded research and develop-
ment activities, coordinated with NE and EERE to advance the use
of supercritical power cycles and related research.
NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES
Full text truncated for size; the complete document is in the PDF above.File and source
- File
- CRPT_crpt-117srpt36_crpt-117srpt36.pdf
- Size
- 1,396,873 bytes
- SHA-256
- 50db7f71059e08d00265fe9809ca03226f6d6291b1f4c38522281a8ab3a86369
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov