Sec. 1304. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE

6,609 words·~30 min read·/statute-compilations/comps-18105/sec-1304

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

## SEC. 1304 ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE ###

(a)New Projects Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1258; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by adding at the end the following:" “(406) Buckeye, arizona.—$12,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Buckeye, Arizona. “(407) Flagstaff, arizona.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for water reclamation, withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Flagstaff, Arizona. “(408) Glendale, arizona.—$5,200,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Glendale, Arizona. “(409) Page, arizona.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Page, Arizona. “(410) Sahuarita, arizona.—$4,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, in the town of Sahuarita, Arizona. “(411) Tohono o’odham nation, arizona.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Tohono O’odham Nation, Arizona. “(412) Tucson, arizona.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water reclamation and recycled water systems), Tucson, Arizona. “(413) Winslow, arizona.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of Winslow, Arizona. “(414) Adelanto, california.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Adelanto, California. “(415) Aptos, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Aptos, California. “(416) Sacramento and san joaquin rivers, bay-delta, california.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta watershed, California. “(417) Bishop, california.—$2,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Bishop, California. “(418) Bloomington, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Bloomington, California. “(419) Butte county, california.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection in Butte County, California. “(420) California city, california.—$1,902,808 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of California City, California. “(421) Carson, california.—$11,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the City of Carson, California. “(422) Cedar glen, california.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, in Cedar Glen, California. “(423) Culver city, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in City of Culver City, California. “(424) Colton, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Colton, California. “(425) East san fernando valley, california.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drinking water, and water supply, in the City of Los Angeles, California, including Sun Valley. “(426) Fresno county, california.—$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, and environmental restoration, in Fresno County, California. “(427) Georgetown divide public utility district, california.—$20,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and water storage, for communities served by the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, California. “(428) Grand terrace, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Grand Terrace, California. “(429) Hayward, california.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the city of Hayward, California. “(430) Hollister, california.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Hollister, California. “(431) Kern county, california.—$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Kern County, California. “(432) Lake county, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Lake County, California. “(433) Lake tahoe basin.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the communities within the Lake Tahoe Basin in Nevada and California. “(434) La quinta, california.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of La Quinta, California. “(435) Lakewood, california.—$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Lakewood, California. “(436) Lawndale, california.—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lawndale, California. “(437) Lone pine, california.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Lone Pine, California. “(438) Lomita, california.—$5,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the city of Lomita, California. “(439) Los banos, california.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Los Banos, California. “(440) Los olivos, california.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Los Olivos, California. “(441) Lynwood, california.—$12,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Lynwood, California. “(442) Madera county, california.—$27,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in Madera County, California. “(443) Milpitas, california.—$15,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Milpitas, California. “(444) Montecito, california.—$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in the town of Montecito, California. “(445) Oakland-alameda estuary, california.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems and water quality enhancement, Oakland-Alameda Estuary, Oakland and Alameda Counties, California. “(446) Oxnard, california.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, conservation, water reuse and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection, in the city of Oxnard, California. “(447) Patterson, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and environmental restoration, in the city of Patterson, California. “(448) Pomona, california.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in Pomona, California. “(449) Rohnert park, california.—$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of Rohnert Park, California. “(450) Salinas, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Salinas, California. “(451) San benito county, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Benito County, California. “(452) San buenaventura, california.—$18,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water reclamation, City of San Buenaventura, California. “(453) San diego county, california.—$200,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in San Diego County, California. “(454) South gate, california.—$5,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in the city of South Gate, California. “(455) San luis obispo county, california.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water supply, in San Luis Obispo County, California. “(456) Stanislaus county, california.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Stanislaus County, California. “(457) Tijuana river valley watershed, california.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Tijuana River Valley Watershed, California. “(458) Tulare county, california.—$20,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, and environmental restoration, in Tulare County, California. “(459) Watsonville, california.—$28,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Watsonville, California. “(460) Yolo county, california.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and stormwater management, in Yolo County, California. “(461) Yorba linda water district, california.—$6,500,000 for water and water supply infrastructure in communities served by the Yorba Linda Water District, California. “(462) El paso county, colorado.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and stormwater management, El Paso County, Colorado. “(463) Fremont county, colorado.—$50,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, in Fremont County, Colorado. “(464) East hampton, connecticut.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Hampton, Connecticut. “(465) East lyme, connecticut.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of East Lyme, Connecticut. “(466) Rehoboth beach, lewes, dewey, bethany, south bethany, fenwick island, delaware.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Rehoboth Beach, Lewes, Dewey, Bethany, South Bethany, and Fenwick Island, Delaware. “(467) Wilmington, delaware.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Wilmington, Delaware. “(468) Pickering beach, kitts hummock, bowers beach, south bowers beach, slaughter beach, prime hook beach, milton, milford, delaware.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pickering Beach, Kitts Hummock, Bowers Beach, South Bowers Beach, Slaughter Beach, Prime Hook Beach, Milton, and Milford, Delaware. “(469) Broward county, florida.—$50,000,000 for water and water-related infrastructure, including stormwater management, water storage and treatment, surface water protection, and environmental restoration, in Broward County, Florida. “(470) Deltona, florida.—$31,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the City of Deltona, Florida. “(471) Longboat key, florida.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the Town of Longboat Key, Florida. “(472) Marion county, florida.—$10,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including water supply, in Marion County, Florida. “(473) Oviedo, florida.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the city of Oviedo, Florida. “(474) Osceola county, florida.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, and environmental restoration, in Osceola County, Florida. “(475) Central florida.—$45,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Brevard County, Orange County, and Osceola County, Florida. “(476) Coastal georgia, georgia.—$50,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management and water supply), in Bryan, Camden, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, and McIntosh Counties, Georgia. “(477) Muscogee, henry, and clayton counties, georgia.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), Muscogee, Henry, and Clayton Counties, Georgia. “(478) Cobb county, georgia.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Cobb County, Georgia. “(479) Dekalb county, georgia.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in DeKalb County, Georgia. “(480) Porterdale, georgia.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and environmental restoration in the city of Porterdale, Georgia. “(481) Burley, idaho.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water treatment, in the city of Burley, Idaho. “(482) Belvidere, illinois.—$17,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Belvidere, Illinois. “(483) Calumet city, illinois.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Calumet City, Illinois. “(484) Dupage county, illinois.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the village of Clarendon Hills, Illinois. “(485) Fox river, illinois.—$9,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water storage and treatment, in the villages of Lakemoor, Island Lake, and Volo, and McHenry County, Illinois. “(486) German valley, illinois.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of German Valley, Illinois. “(487) Lasalle, illinois.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, drinking water, water treatment, and environmental restoration, in the city of LaSalle, Illinois. “(488) Rockford, illinois.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the city of Rockford, Illinois. “(489) Savanna, illinois.—$2,000,000 for water and water supply infrastructure, including drinking water, in the city of Savanna, Illinois. “(490) Sherrard, illinois.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water and water treatment, in the village of Sherrard, Illinois. “(491) Wyandotte county and kansas city, kansas.—$35,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas. “(492) Brownsville, kentucky.—$14,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Brownsville, Kentucky. “(493) Monroe, louisiana.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water supply, and drinking water, in the city of Monroe, Louisiana. “(494) Pointe celeste, louisiana.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, in Pointe Celeste, Louisiana. “(495) Easthampton, massachusetts.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater treatment plant outfalls), Easthampton, Massachusetts. “(496) Franklin, massachusetts.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Franklin, Massachusetts. “(497) Northampton, massachusetts.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including pump stations, Hockanum Road, Northampton, Massachusetts. “(498) Winthrop, massachusetts.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Winthrop, Massachusetts. “(499) Milan, michigan.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and drinking water, in the city of Milan, Michigan. “(500) Southeast michigan.—$58,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, in Genesee, Macomb, Oakland, Wayne, and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan. “(501) Elysian, minnesota.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Elysian, Minnesota. “(502) Le sueur, minnesota.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the city of Le Sueur, Minnesota. “(503) Byram, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Byram, Mississippi. “(504) Columbia, mississippi.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water quality enhancement and water supply, in the city of Columbia, Mississippi. “(505) Diamondhead, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and drainage systems, Diamondhead, Mississippi. “(506) Hancock county, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Hancock County, Mississippi. “(507) Laurel, mississippi.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Laurel, Mississippi. “(508) Madison, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Madison, Mississippi. “(509) Moss point, mississippi.—$11,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Moss Point, Mississippi. “(510) Olive branch, mississippi.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, water quality enhancement, and water supply, in the city of Olive Branch, Mississippi. “(511) Pearl, mississippi.—$7,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), drainage systems, and water quality enhancement, Pearl, Mississippi. “(512) Picayune, mississippi.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Picayune, Mississippi. “(513) Starkville, mississippi.—$6,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including drinking water, water treatment, water quality enhancement, and water supply, in the city of Starkville, Mississippi. “(514) Laughlin, nevada.—$29,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Laughlin, Nevada. “(515) Nye county, nevada.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water wellfield and pipeline in the Pahrump Valley), Nye County, Nevada. “(516) Pahrump, nevada.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Pahrump, Nevada. “(517) Storey county, nevada.—$10,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Storey County, Nevada. “(518) New hampshire.—$25,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, New Hampshire. “(519) Belmar, new jersey.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management in Belmar Township, New Jersey. “(520) Cape may county, new jersey.—$40,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, desalination, and facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Cape May County, New Jersey. “(521) Colesville, new jersey.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Colesville, New Jersey. “(522) Deptford township, new jersey.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Deptford Township, New Jersey. “(523) Lacey township, new jersey.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and stormwater management, in Lacey Township, New Jersey. “(524) Merchantville, new jersey.—$18,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Merchantville, New Jersey. “(525) Park ridge, new jersey.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Park Ridge, New Jersey. “(526) Washington township, new jersey.—$3,200,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. “(527) Bernalillo, new mexico.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the town of Bernalillo, New Mexico. “(528) Bosque farms, new mexico.—$10,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Bosque Farms, New Mexico. “(529) Carmel, new york.—$3,450,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Carmel, New York. “(530) Dutchess county, new york.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Dutchess County, New York. “(531) Kings county, new york.—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in Kings County, New York. “(532) Mohawk river and tributaries, new york.—$100,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, surface water resource protection, environmental restoration, and related infrastructure, in the vicinity of the Mohawk River and tributaries, including the counties of Albany, Delaware, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Otsego, Saratoga, Schoharie, and Schenectady, New York. “(533) Mount pleasant, new york.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Mount Pleasant, New York. “(534) New rochelle, new york.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), New Rochelle, New York. “(535) Newtown creek, new york.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the vicinity of Newtown Creek, New York City, New York. “(536) New york county, new york.—$60,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in New York County, New York. “(537) Orange county, new york.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Orange County, New York. “(538) Sleepy hollow, new york.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Sleepy Hollow, New York. “(539) Ulster county, new york.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Ulster County, New York. “(540) Ramapo, new york.—$4,000,000 for water infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in the town of Ramapo, New York. “(541) Rikers island, new york.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) on Rikers Island, New York. “(542) Yorktown, new york.—$10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Yorktown, New York. “(543) Canton, north carolina.—$41,025,650 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the town of Canton, North Carolina. “(544) Fairmont, north carolina.—$7,137,500 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the town of Fairmont, North Carolina. “(545) Murphy, north carolina.—$1,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in the town of Murphy, North Carolina. “(546) Robbinsville, north carolina.—$3,474,350 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Robbinsville, North Carolina. “(547) Weaverville, north carolina.—$4,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the town of Weaverville, North Carolina. “(548) City of akron, ohio.—$5,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including drainage systems), City of Akron, Ohio. “(549) Apple creek, ohio.—$350,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Apple Creek, Ohio. “(550) Ashtabula county, ohio.—$1,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply and water quality enhancement), Ashtabula County, Ohio. “(551) Bloomingburg, ohio.—$6,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), Bloomingburg, Ohio. “(552) Brooklyn heights, ohio.—$170,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the village of Brooklyn Heights, Ohio. “(553) Chagrin falls regional water system, ohio.—$3,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the villages of Bentleyville, Chagrin Falls, Moreland Hills, and South Russell, and the Townships of Bainbridge, Chagrin Falls, and Russell, Ohio. “(554) Cuyahoga county, ohio.—$11,500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including combined sewer overflows), Cuyahoga County, Ohio. “(555) East cleveland, ohio.—$13,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including stormwater management), East Cleveland, Ohio. “(556) Erie county, ohio.—$16,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows) in Erie County, Ohio. “(557) Huron, ohio.—$7,100,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Huron, Ohio. “(558) Kelleys island, ohio.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the village of Kelleys Island, Ohio. “(559) North olmsted, ohio.—$1,175,165 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of North Olmsted, Ohio. “(560) Painesville, ohio.—$11,800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the City of Painesville, Ohio. “(561) Solon, ohio.—$14,137,341 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management (including combined sewer overflows), in the city of Solon, Ohio. “(562) Summit county, ohio.—$25,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Summit County, Ohio. “(563) Stark county, ohio.—$24,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure, in Stark County, Ohio. “(564) Struthers, ohio.—$500,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including wastewater infrastructure, stormwater management, and sewer improvements), Struthers, Ohio. “(565) Toledo and oregon, ohio.—$10,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the cities of Toledo and Oregon, Ohio. “(566) Vermilion, ohio.—$15,400,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the city of Vermilion, Ohio. “(567) Westlake, ohio.—$750,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in the city of Westlake, Ohio. “(568) Stillwater, oklahoma.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure (including facilities for water storage, withdrawal, treatment, and distribution), in the city of Stillwater, Oklahoma. “(569) Beaverton, oregon.—$10,000,000 for water supply in the city of Beaverton, Oregon. “(570) Clackamas county, oregon.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including combined sewer overflows, in Clackamas County, Oregon. “(571) Washington county, oregon.—$50,000,000 for water infrastructure and water supply in Washington County, Oregon. “(572) Pennsylvania.—$38,600,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, Pennsylvania. “(573) Berks county, pennsylvania.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, drinking water, and water treatment, in Berks County, Pennsylvania. “(574) Chester county, pennsylvania.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, stormwater management, drinking water, and water treatment, in Chester County, Pennsylvania. “(575) Franklin township, pennsylvania.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management, in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania. “(576) Indian creek, pennsylvania.—$50,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure in the boroughs of Telford, Franconia, and Lower Safford, Pennsylvania. “(577) Pen argyl, pennsylvania.—$5,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the borough of Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania. “(578) Chesterfield county, south carolina.—$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure and other environmental infrastructure (including stormwater management), Chesterfield County, South Carolina. “(579) Cheraw, south carolina.—$8,800,000 for water, wastewater, and other environmental infrastructure in the town of Cheraw, South Carolina. “(580) Florence county, south carolina.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Florence County, South Carolina. “(581) Lake city, south carolina.—$15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management in the city of Lake City, South Carolina. “(582) Tipton county, tennessee.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply infrastructure, including facilities for withdrawal, treatment, and distribution, Tipton County, Tennessee. “(583) Tipton, haywood, and fayette counties, tennessee.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including related environmental infrastructure and water supply, in Tipton, Haywood, and Fayette Counties, Tennessee. “(584) Austin, texas.—$50,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Austin, Texas. “(585) Amarillo, texas.—$38,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water storage and treatment systems, in the City of Amarillo, Texas. “(586) Brownsville, texas.—$40,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, in the City of Brownsville, Texas. “(587) Clarendon, texas.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water storage, in the city of Clarendon, Texas. “(588) Quinlan, texas.—$1,250,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in the city of Quinlan, Texas. “(589) Runaway bay, texas.—$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water storage and treatment systems, in the city of Runaway Bay, Texas. “(590) Webb county, texas.—$20,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure and water supply in Webb County, Texas. “(591) Zapata county, texas.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply, in Zapata County, Texas. “(592) King william county, virginia.—$1,300,000 for wastewater infrastructure in King William County, Virginia. “(593) Potomac river, virginia.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, environmental infrastructure, and water quality improvements, in the vicinity of the Potomac River, Virginia. “(594) Chelan, washington.—$9,000,000 for water infrastructure, including water supply, storage, and distribution, in the city of Chelan, Washington. “(595) College place, washington.—$5,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply and storage, in the city of College Place, Washington. “(596) Ferndale, washington.—$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Ferndale, Washington. “(597) Lynden, washington.—$4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and environmental infrastructure, in the city of Lynden, Washington. “(598) Othello, washington.—$14,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, storage, and treatment, and aquifer storage and recovery), in the city of Othello, Washington.” ". ###

(b)Project Modifications ####

(1)Consistency with reports Congress finds that the project modifications described in this subsection are in accordance with the reports submitted to Congress by the Secretary under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (33 U.S.C. 2282d), titled “Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development”, or have otherwise been reviewed by Congress.(2) Modifications.—(A) Alabama.—Section 219(f)(274) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by striking “ $50,000,000 ” and inserting “ $85,000,000 ”.(B) Alameda and contra costa counties, california.—Section 219(f)(80) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1258) is amended by striking “ $25,000,000 ” and inserting “ $45,000,000 ”.(C) Calaveras county, california.—Section 219(f)(86) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended by striking “ $13,280,000 ” and inserting “ $16,300,000 ”.(D) Contra costa county, california.—Section 219(f)(87) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259) is amended—(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking “ water district ” and inserting “ county ”;(ii) by inserting “ $80,000,000, of which not less than ” before “ $23,000,000 ”;(iii) by inserting “ shall be ” after “ $23,000,000 ”; and(iv) by inserting “ service area, and of which not less than $57,000,000 shall be for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and water supply, within the service areas for the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and the Ironhouse Sanitary District, Contra Costa County ” after “ Water District ”.(E) Los angeles county, california.—Section 219(f)(93) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1259; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended—(i) by striking “ $103,000,000 ” and inserting “ $128,000,000 ”; and(ii) by striking “ Santa Clarity Valley ” and inserting “ Santa Clarita Valley ”.(F) Los angeles county, california environmental assistance program.—Section 8319 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3785) is amended—(i) in subsection (d)(3), by adding at the end the following: > > ##### “(E) Exception > > Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 90 percent.” > ; and(ii) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “ $50,000,000 ” and inserting “ $100,000,000 ”.(G) Los osos, california.—(i) Project description.—Section 219(c)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A-219; 121 Stat. 1209) is amended by striking “ Wastewater ” and inserting “ Water and wastewater ”.(ii) Authorization of appropriations for construction assistance.—Section 219(e)(15) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 121 Stat. 1192) is amended by striking “ $35,000,000 ” and inserting “ $43,000,000 ”.(H) San bernardino county, california.—Section 219(f)(101) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1260) is modified by striking “ $9,000,000 ” and inserting “ $24,000,000 ”.(I) South perris, california.—Section 219(f)(52) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “ $50,000,000 ” and inserting “ $100,000,000 ”.(J) Kent, delaware.—Section 219(f)(313) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “ $35,000,000 ” and inserting “ $40,000,000 ”.(K) New castle, delaware.—Section 219(f)(314) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “ $35,000,000 ” and inserting “ $40,000,000 ”.(L) Sussex, delaware.—Section 219(f)(315) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3810) is amended by striking “ $35,000,000 ” and inserting “ $40,000,000 ”.(M) Palm beach county, florida.—Section 219(f)(129) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1261) is amended by striking “ $7,500,000 ” and inserting “ $57,500,000 ”.(N) Atlanta, georgia.—Section 219(e)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking “ $75,000,000 ” and inserting “ $100,000,000 ”.(O) East point, georgia.—Section 219(f)(136) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1261; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “ $15,000,000 ” and inserting “ $20,000,000 ”.(P) Guam.—Section 219(f)(323) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (136 Stat. 3811) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000 ” and inserting “ $35,000,000 ”.(Q) Maui, hawaii.—Section 219(f)(328) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3811) is modified by striking “ $20,000,000 ” and inserting “ $50,000,000 ”.(R) Cook county and lake county, illinois.—Section 219(f)(54) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by striking “ $100,000,000 ” and inserting “ $149,000,000 ”.(S) Forest park, illinois.—Section 219(f)(330) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3811) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000 ” and inserting “ $50,000,000 ”.(T) Madison and st. clair counties, illinois.—Section 219(f)(55) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A-221; 134 Stat. 2718; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended—(i) by inserting “ (including stormwater management) ” after “ wastewater assistance ”; and(ii) by striking “ $100,000,000 ” and inserting “ $150,000,000 ”.(U) South central illinois.—Section 219(f)(333) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended—(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking “ Montgomery and christian counties, illinois ” and inserting “ South central illinois ”; and(ii) by striking “ Montgomery County and Christian County ” and inserting “ Montgomery County, Christian County, Fayette County, Shelby County, Jasper County, Richland County, Crawford County, and Lawrence County ”.(V) Will county, illinois.—Section 219(f)(334) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by striking “ $30,000,000 ” and inserting “ $36,000,000 ”.(W) Baton rouge, louisiana.—Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 121 Stat. 1226; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “ $90,000,000 ” and inserting “ $100,000,000 ”.(X) East atchafalaya basin and amite river basin region, louisiana.—Section 5082(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1226) is amended by striking “ $40,000,000 ” and inserting “ $45,000,000 ”.(Y) Lafourche parish, louisiana.—Section 219(f)(146) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1262) is amended by striking “ $2,300,000 ” and inserting “ $7,300,000 ”.(Z) South central planning and development commission, louisiana.—Section 219(f)(153) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking “ $12,500,000 ” and inserting “ $17,500,000 ”.(AA) Southeast louisiana region, louisiana.—Section 5085(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1228) is amended by striking “ $17,000,000 ” and inserting “ $22,000,000 ”.(BB) Fitchburg, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(336) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “ $20,000,000 ” and inserting “ $30,000,000 ”.(CC) Haverhill, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(337) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “ $20,000,000 ” and inserting “ $30,000,000 ”.(DD) Lawrence, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(338) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “ $20,000,000 ” and inserting “ $30,000,000 ”.(EE) Lowell, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(339) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “ $20,000,000 ” and inserting “ $30,000,000 ”.(FF) Methuen, massachusetts.—Section 219(f)(340) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “ $20,000,000 ” and inserting “ $30,000,000 ”.(GG) Macomb county, michigan.—Section 219(f)(345) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3812) is amended by striking “ $40,000,000 ” and inserting “ $90,000,000 ”.(HH) Michigan.—Section 219(f)(157) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4825; 113 Stat. 336; 121 Stat. 1262; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended—(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking “ Michigan combined sewer overflows ” and inserting “ Michigan ”; and(ii) in subparagraph

(A)by striking “ $85,000,000 ” and inserting “ $160,000,000 ”.(II) Biloxi, mississippi.—Section 219(f)(163) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat, 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1263) is amended by striking “ $5,000,000 ” and inserting “ $10,000,000 ”.(JJ) Desoto county, mississippi.—Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 119 Stat. 282; 119 Stat. 2257; 122 Stat. 1623; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “ $130,000,000 ” and inserting “ $170,000,000 ”.(KK) Jackson, mississippi.—Section 219(f)(167) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1263; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “ $125,000,000 ” and inserting “ $139,000,000 ”.(LL) Madison county, mississippi.—Section 219(f)(351) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000 ” and inserting “ $24,000,000 ”.(MM) Meridian, mississippi.—Section 219(f)(352) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000 ” and inserting “ $26,000,000 ”.(NN) Rankin county, mississippi.—Section 219(f)(354) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “ $10,000,000 ” and inserting “ $24,000,000 ”.(OO) Northern missouri.—Section 8353(d)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3800) is amended by adding at the end: > > ##### “(E) Exception > > Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 14 U.S.C. 2201 note)) shall be 90 percent.” > .(PP) St. louis, missouri.—Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 337; 121 Stat. 1233; 134 Stat. 2718) is amended by striking “ $70,000,000 ” and inserting “ $100,000,000 ”.(QQ) Camden, new jersey.—Section 219(f)(357) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 136 Stat. 3813) is amended by striking “ $119,000,000 ” and inserting “ $143,800,000 ”.(RR) Central new mexico.—Section 593(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 380; 119 Stat. 2255; 136 Stat. 3820) is amended by striking “ $100,000,000 ” and inserting “ $150,000,000 ”.(SS) Kiryas joel, new york.—Section 219(f)(184) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1264) is amended by striking “ $5,000,000 ” and inserting “ $25,000,000 ”.(TT) Queens, new york.—Section 219(f)(377) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3814) is amended by striking “ $119,200,000 ” and inserting “ $190,000,000 ”.(UU) New york city watershed.—Section 552(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3780; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended by adding at the end the following: > > #### “(3) Considerations > > In carrying out this section, the Secretary may consider natural and nature-based infrastructure.” > .(VV) North carolina.—Section 5113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1237) is amended in subsection

(f)by striking “ $13,000,000 ” and inserting “ $50,000,000 ”.(WW) Cleveland, ohio.—Section 219(f)(207) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1265) is amended by striking “ $2,500,000 for Flats East Bank ” and inserting “ $25,500,000 ”.(XX) Cincinnati, ohio.—Section 219(f)(206) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1265) is amended by striking “ $1,000,000 ” and inserting “ $31,000,000 ”.(YY) Midwest city, oklahoma.—Section 219(f)(231) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266; 134 Stat 2719) is amended by striking “ $5,000,000 ” and inserting “ $15,000,000 ”.(ZZ) Woodward, oklahoma.—Section 219(f)(236) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended by striking “ $1,500,000 ” and inserting “ $3,000,000 ”.(AAA) Southwestern oregon.—Section 8359 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3802) is amended—(i) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “ $50,000,000 ” and inserting “ $100,000,000 ”; and(ii) in subsection (f), by inserting “ Lincoln, ” after “ Lane, ”.(BBB) Hatfield borough, pennsylvania.—Section 219(f)(239) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended by striking “ $310,000 ” and inserting “ $3,000,000 ”.(CCC) Northeast pennsylvania.—Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking “ $20,000,000 for water related infrastructure ” and inserting “ $70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply ”.(DDD) Philadelphia, pennsylvania.—Section 219(f)(243) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 Stat. 1266) is amended—(i) by striking “ $1,600,000 ” and inserting “ $3,000,000 ”; and(ii) by inserting “ water supply and ” before “ wastewater ”.(EEE) Phoenixville borough, chester county, pennsylvania.—Section 219(f)(68) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by striking “ $2,400,000 for water and sewer infrastructure ” and inserting “ $10,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater infrastructure and water supply ”.(FFF) Lakes marion and moultrie, south carolina.—Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220; 117 Stat. 1838; 130 Stat. 1677; 132 Stat. 3818; 134 Stat. 2719; 136 Stat. 3818) is amended by striking “ $165,000,000 ” and inserting “ $235,000,000 ”.(GGG) Mount pleasant, south carolina.—Section 219(f)(393) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended by striking “ $7,822,000 ” and inserting “ $20,000,000 ”.(HHH) Smith county, tennessee.—Section 219(f)(395) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3815) is amended by striking “ $19,500,000 ” and inserting “ $69,500,000 ”.(III) Dallas county region, texas.—Section 5140 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1251) is amended in subsection

(i)by striking “ $40,000,000 ” and inserting “ $100,000,000 ”.(JJJ) Texas.—Section 5138 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1250; 136 Stat. 3821) is amended in subsection

(i)by striking “ $80,000,000 ” and inserting “ $200,000,000 ”.(KKK) Western rural water.—Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 Stat. 440; 121 Stat. 1219; 123 Stat. 2851; 128 Stat. 1316; 130 Stat. 1681; 134 Stat. 2719; 136 Stat. 3822) is amended—(i) in subsection (a)—(I) by redesignating paragraphs

(1)and

(2)as paragraphs

(2)and (3), respectively; and(II) by inserting before paragraph

(2)(as so redesignated) the following: > > #### “(1) Non-federal interest > > The term ‘non-Federal interest’ includes an entity declared to be a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico.” > ;(ii) in subsection (c)(1)—(I) by inserting by inserting “ , including natural and nature-based infrastructure ” after “ water-related environmental infrastructure ”;(II) in subparagraph (C), by striking “ and ” at the end; and(III) by adding at the end the following: > > ##### “(E) > > drought resilience measures; and” > ; and(iii) in subsection (i)—(I) in paragraph (1), by striking “ $800,000,000 ” and inserting “ $850,000,000 ”; and(II) in paragraph (2), by striking “ $200,000,000 ” and inserting “ $250,000,000 ”.(LLL) Milwaukee, wisconsin.—Section 219(f)(405) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3816) is amended by striking “ $4,500,000 ” and inserting “ $11,000,000 ”.(3) Effect on authorization.—Notwithstanding the operation of section 6001(e) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016), any project included on a list published by the Secretary pursuant to such section the authorization for which is amended by this subsection remains authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.

Connectionstraces to 3

Traces to 3 documents

statutes-at-large