Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Changes from December 22, 2021 to March 17, 2022

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: ~~December 22, 2021~~March 17, 2022
Structural Features and Function
Julie M. Lawhorn
This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of ~~the seven~~
Analyst in Economic Analyst in Economic
the seven federal regional commissions and authorities: federal regional commissions and authorities:
Development Policy Development Policy

 the Appalachian Regional Commission;  the Appalachian Regional Commission;


 the Delta Regional Authority; the Delta Regional Authority;
 the Denali Commission; the Denali Commission;
 the Northern Border Regional Commission;  the Northern Border Regional Commission;
 the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;  the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;
 the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and the  the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and the
 Southwest Border Regional Commission. Southwest Border Regional Commission.
All seven regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission structure, which is All seven regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission structure, which is
composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the member composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the member ~~st ate~~
state governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly replicated in the other commissions and governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly replicated in the other commissions and
authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts. In addition, the service areas for all of the federal authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts. In addition, the service areas for all of the federal
regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and thus can only be amended or modified through congressional regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and thus can only be amended or modified through congressional
action. While the service areas for the federal regional commissions and authorities have shifted over time, those jurisdictions action. While the service areas for the federal regional commissions and authorities have shifted over time, those jurisdictions
have not changed radically in their respective service lives. have not changed radically in their respective service lives.
Of the seven federal regional commissions and authorities, four could be considered active: the Appalachian Regional Of the seven federal regional commissions and authorities, four could be considered active: the Appalachian Regional
Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; and the Northern Border Regional Commission. In Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; and the Northern Border Regional Commission. In
December 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the first federal co-chairperson for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, December 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the first federal co-chairperson for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission,
thereby allowing it to convene and begin other activities. thereby allowing it to convene and begin other activities.
The four currently active regional commissions and authority received $15 million to $ The four currently active regional commissions and authority received $15 million to $~~180~~195 million in million in annual appropriations in appropriations in
~~FY2021~~ FY2022 for their various activities. Each of the four functioning regional commissions and authority engage in economic for their various activities. Each of the four functioning regional commissions and authority engage in economic
development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in their respective service areas. These development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in their respective service areas. These
activities may include, but are not limited, to basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources; activities may include, but are not limited, to basic infrastructure; energy; ecology/environment and natural resources;
workforce/labor; and business development. workforce/labor; and business development.
Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities, and include Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities, and include
an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal coan appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co -chair and his/her alternate, as -chair and his/her alternate, as
applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental partnerships between the federal applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental partnerships between the federal
government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This partnership structure, which also typically government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This partnership structure, which also typically
includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level, represents a unique federal approach to economic development includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level, represents a unique federal approach to economic development
and a potentially flexible mechanism for coordinating strategic economic development goals and aligning them with local, and a potentially flexible mechanism for coordinating strategic economic development goals and aligning them with local,
state, and multi-state/regional priorities and contexts. state, and multi-state/regional priorities and contexts.
Congress has expressed interest in the federal regional commissions and authorities pursuant to its appropriations and Congress has expressed interest in the federal regional commissions and authorities pursuant to its appropriations and
oversight authority, as well as its interest in facilitating economic development programming. Given relevant congressional oversight authority, as well as its interest in facilitating economic development programming. Given relevant congressional
interest, the federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development approaches interest, the federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development approaches
that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g., infrastructure, energy, that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g., infrastructure, energy,
environment/ecology, workforce, business development). environment/ecology, workforce, business development).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page 38 link to page 40 link to page 39 link to page 38 link to page 40 link to page 39 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Introduction
Congress authorized seven federal regional commissions and authorities to address instances of Congress authorized seven federal regional commissions and authorities to address instances of
major economic distress in certain defined socio-economic regionsmajor economic distress in certain defined socio-economic regions (Table A-1): ):
 the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);  the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);
 the Delta Regional Authority (DRA);  the Delta Regional Authority (DRA);
 the Denali Commission;  the Denali Commission;
 the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);  the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);
 the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);  the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);
 the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); and  the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); and
 the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC).  the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC).
Four of the seven entities are currently active and receive regular annual appropriations: ARC, Four of the seven entities are currently active and receive regular annual appropriations: ARC,
DRA, the Denali Commission, and the NBRC. The SCRC has received regular annual DRA, the Denali Commission, and the NBRC. The SCRC has received regular annual
appropriations since FY2010, but lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December appropriations since FY2010, but lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December
2021. 2021. Al All but one (Alaska’s Denali Commission) serve multi-state regionsbut one (Alaska’s Denali Commission) serve multi-state regions (Figure B-1). ).
The federal regional commissions are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental The federal regional commissions are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental
approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.1 The federal approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.1 The federal
regional commissions and authorities integrate federal and state economic development priorities regional commissions and authorities integrate federal and state economic development priorities
alongside regional and local considerationsalongside regional and local considerations (Figure A-1)). As federally~~. As federal y~~ chartered agencies created chartered agencies created
by acts of Congress, the federal regional commissions and authorities depend on congressional by acts of Congress, the federal regional commissions and authorities depend on congressional
appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight. appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight.
The first such federal regional commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, was founded The first such federal regional commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, was founded
in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but
were not founded until 1998 (Denali), 2000 (Delta Regional Authority), and 2002 (the Northern were not founded until 1998 (Denali), 2000 (Delta Regional Authority), and 2002 (the Northern
Great Plains Regional Authority). The most recent commissions—Northern Border Regional Great Plains Regional Authority). The most recent commissions—Northern Border Regional
Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional
Commission—were authorized in 2008. Commission—were authorized in 2008.
Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning
federal regional commissions and authorities. However, their overarching missions to address federal regional commissions and authorities. However, their overarching missions to address
economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained
consistent to those goals as funding has consistent to those goals as funding has ~~al owed~~allowed. In practice, the functioning federal regional . In practice, the functioning federal regional
commissions and authorities engage in their respective economic development efforts through commissions and authorities engage in their respective economic development efforts through
multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy; multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy;
ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce/labor; and business development. This ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce/labor; and business development. This
report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of seven report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of seven ~~federal y~~
federally chartered regional commissions and authorities. chartered regional commissions and authorities.

~~1 See,~~ 1 See, for example, recent congressional interest and legislative action on Opportunity Zones (for example, recent congressional interest and legislative action on Opportunity Zones ( CRS Report R45152, CRS Report R45152, Tax
Incentives for Opportunity Zones, by Sean Lowry and Donald J. Marples) and New, by Sean Lowry and Donald J. Marples) and New Market Market ~~T ax~~Tax Credits (CRS Credits (CRS Report Report
RL34402, RL34402, New Markets Tax Credit: An Introduction, by Donald J. Marples and, by Donald J. Marples and Sean Lowry), and previous federal and Sean Lowry), and previous federal and
congressional action on “Promise Zones” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, congressional action on “Promise Zones” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Promise Zones
Overview,, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zones-overview/); as wellhttps://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zones-overview/); as well as various as various
legislation relating to the federal regional commissions and authorities themselves. legislation relating to the federal regional commissions and authorities themselves.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1 1

link to page 7 link to page 7

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Appalachian Regional Commission
The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in
the Appalachian region.2 The ARC’s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia, the Appalachian region.2 The ARC’s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West ~~Virginia~~ Virginia (Figure 1). The ARC was . The ARC was ~~original y~~originally created to created to
address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States; address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States;
recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic
environment. environment.
Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission
ARC service area, by designations of county distress, FY2022 ARC service area, by designations of county distress, FY2022

Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS using data from the Appalachian Regional Commissionby CRS using data from the Appalachian Regional Commission and Esri Data and Maps 2019. and Esri Data and Maps 2019.
Notes: West Virginia is the only state with West Virginia is the only state with al all counties within the ARC’s jurisdiction. counties within the ARC’s jurisdiction.
Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as Development Act of 1965, as
amended,3 the ARC is a amended,3 the ARC is a ~~federal y~~federally chartered, regional economic development entity led by a chartered, regional economic development entity led by a

~~2 40 U.S.C.~~ 2 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704. §§14101-14704.
3 P.L. 89-4. 3 P.L. 89-4.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2 2

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one
serves as the state co-chair for a term of “at least one year.”4 The federal co-chair is appointed by serves as the state co-chair for a term of “at least one year.”4 The federal co-chair is appointed by
the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also ~~al ows~~allows for the for the
appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state
partnership, with administrative costs shared partnership, with administrative costs shared ~~equal y~~equally by the federal government and member by the federal government and member
states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations. states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations.
Regional Development Plan
According to authorizing legislation and the ARC code,5 the ARC’s programs abide by a According to authorizing legislation and the ARC code,5 the ARC’s programs abide by a
Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the
commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC’s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC’s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state
development plans, each participating state’s annual strategy statement, the commission’s annual development plans, each participating state’s annual strategy statement, the commission’s annual
program budget, and the commission’s internal implementation and performance management program budget, and the commission’s internal implementation and performance management
guidelines. guidelines.
The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common
regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals, regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals,
priorities, and agendas for priorities, and agendas for ~~fulfil ing~~fulfilling them. State planning them. State planning ~~typical y~~typically includes consulting with local includes consulting with local
development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and
~~financial y~~financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.6 supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.6
There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible
organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.7 State and local governments, organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.7 State and local governments,
governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligiblegovernmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including for ARC investments, including
both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. Notably, state-designated tribal entities that are both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. Notably, state-designated tribal entities that are
not not ~~federal y~~federally recognized (or “lack federal recognition”) are nevertheless eligible recognized (or “lack federal recognition”) are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC to receive ARC
funding. This is rare, as funding. This is rare, as ~~usual y~~usually federal funding requires federal recognition.8 federal funding requires federal recognition.8
ARC’s strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed ARC’s strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed ~~annual y~~annually, and revised as necessary. The , and revised as necessary. The
current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,9 prioritizes five investment goals: current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,9 prioritizes five investment goals:
1. entrepreneurial and business development; 1. entrepreneurial and business development;
2. workforce development; 2. workforce development;
3. infrastructure development; 3. infrastructure development;
4. natural and cultural assets; and 4. natural and cultural assets; and
5. leadership and community capacity. 5. leadership and community capacity.

4 Appalachian Regional Commission, 4 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2020, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ARC-, 2020, https://www.arc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ARC-
Code.pdf. Code.pdf.
5 Ibid. 5 Ibid.
6 LDDs are not exclusive to the ARC. 6 LDDs are not exclusive to the ARC. ~~T he~~The DRA and NBRC DRA and NBRC also make use of them, and other inactive commissions and also make use of them, and other inactive commissions and
authorities are authorized to organize and/or support them. Designated LDDs may also beauthorities are authorized to organize and/or support them. Designated LDDs may also be organized as Economic organized as Economic
Development Development ~~Administrat ion~~Administration (EDA)-designated economic development districts (EDDs), which serve a similar (EDA)-designated economic development districts (EDDs), which serve a similar
purpose. purpose. ~~T hey~~They may also be may also be co-located with Smallco-located with Small ~~Business~~ Business Administration-affiliated small businessAdministration-affiliated small business development development
centers (SBDCs). centers (SBDCs).
7 Appalachian Regional Commission, 7 Appalachian Regional Commission, Local Development Districts, https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/. , https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/.
8 See8 See U.S.U.S. Government Accountability Office, Government Accountability Office, Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes, ,
12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf. 12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf.
9 Appalachian Regional Commission, 9 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, , Strategic Plan FY 2022-
2026, https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/. , https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3 3

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

While most funds are used for economic development grants, approximately $50 While most funds are used for economic development grants, approximately $50 ~~mil ion~~million is is
reserved for the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization reserved for the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
(POWER) Initiative.10 The POWER Initiative began in 2015 to provide economic development (POWER) Initiative.10 The POWER Initiative began in 2015 to provide economic development
funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations caused by energy transition funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations caused by energy transition ~~principal y in~~
principally in coal communities in the Appalachian region.11coal communities in the Appalachian region.11
Distressed Counties
The ARC The ARC is statutorily obligated to designate counties according to levels of economic distress.12 is statutorily obligated to designate counties according to levels of economic distress.12
Distress designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using Distress designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using
an index-based classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with an index-based classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with
national averages based on three economic indicators:13 (1) three-year average unemployment national averages based on three economic indicators:13 (1) three-year average unemployment
rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a rates; (2) per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a
composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress composite index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress
levels.14 Each distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United levels.14 Each distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United
States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from “worst” States as a whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from “worst”
distress:15 distress:15
  distressed counties, or those with values in the “worst” 10% of U.S. counties; counties, or those with values in the “worst” 10% of U.S. counties;
  at-risk, which rank between worst 10% and 25%; , which rank between worst 10% and 25%;
  transitional, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%; , which rank between worst 25% and best 25%;
  competitive, which rank between “best” 25% and best 10%; and , which rank between “best” 25% and best 10%; and
  attainment, or those which rank in the best 10%. , or those which rank in the best 10%.
The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to ~~al owable~~allowable funding levels by the ARC funding levels by the ARC
(funding (funding ~~al owance~~allowance), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding ), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding
sources (including sources (including ~~potential y~~potentially other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is
permitted: distressed (80% funding permitted: distressed (80% funding ~~al owance~~allowance, 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional , 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional
(50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding (50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding ~~al owance~~allowance). Exceptions can be made to ). Exceptions can be made to
grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where
sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the
inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more non-inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more non-
attainment counties or areas. In addition, special attainment counties or areas. In addition, special ~~al owances~~allowances may reduce or discharge matches, may reduce or discharge matches,
and match requirements may be met with other federal funds. and match requirements may be met with other federal funds.

10 Appalachian Regional Commission, 10 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
(POWER) Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp. , https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp.
11 The~~11 T he~~ White House, Office of the Press Secretary, White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET: The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce
and ~~Econom ic~~Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, March 27, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-, March 27, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-and-economic-revitaliz. office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-and-economic-revitaliz.
12 42 U.S.C. 12 42 U.S.C. §14526. §14526.
13 Appalachian Regional Commission, 13 Appalachian Regional Commission, County Economic Status and Distressed Areas in Appalachia , ,
https://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/CountyEconomicStatusandDistressedAreasinAppalachia.asphttps://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/CountyEconomicStatusandDistressedAreasinAppalachia.asp . .
14 Appalachian Regional Commission, 14 Appalachian Regional Commission, Data Reports: County Economic Status, Fiscal Year 2020 , https://www.arc.gov/, https://www.arc.gov/
reports/custom_report.asp?REPORT_ID=76. reports/custom_report.asp?REPORT_ID=76.
15 Appalachian Regional Commission, 15 Appalachian Regional Commission, Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System, FY
2007–FY 2020, https://www.arc.gov/research/SourceandMethodologyCountyEconomicStatusFY2007FY2020.asp, https://www.arc.gov/research/SourceandMethodologyCountyEconomicStatusFY2007FY2020.asp . .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

4 4

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Legislative History
Council of Appalachian Governors
In 1960,16 the Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, In 1960,16 the Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia,Virginia, and West Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian Governors to highlight and West Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian Governors to highlight
Appalachia’s extended economic distress and to press for increased federal involvement. In 1963, Appalachia’s extended economic distress and to press for increased federal involvement. In 1963,
President John F. Kennedy formed the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission (PARC) President John F. Kennedy formed the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission (PARC)
and charged it with developing an economic development program for the region. PARC’s report, and charged it with developing an economic development program for the region. PARC’s report,
issued in 1964,17 issued in 1964,17 ~~cal ed~~called for the creation of an independent agency to coordinate federal and state for the creation of an independent agency to coordinate federal and state
efforts to address infrastructure, natural resources, and human capital issues in the region. The efforts to address infrastructure, natural resources, and human capital issues in the region. The
PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the Appalachian region.PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the Appalachian region.
Appalachian Regional Development Act
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,18 which In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,18 which
created the ARC to address the PARC’s recommendations, and added counties in New York and created the ARC to address the PARC’s recommendations, and added counties in New York and
Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives:Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives:
 The creation of the Appalachian Development Highway System;  The creation of the Appalachian Development Highway System;
 Establishing “Demonstration Health Facilities” to fund health infrastructure; Establishing “Demonstration Health Facilities” to fund health infrastructure;
 Land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control programs; Land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control programs;
 Timber development organizations, for purposes of forest management; Timber development organizations, for purposes of forest management;
 Mining area restoration, for rehabilitating and/or revitalizing Mining area restoration, for rehabilitating and/or revitalizing mining sites; mining sites;
 A water resources survey;  A water resources survey;
 Vocational education programs; and Vocational education programs; and
 Sewage treatment infrastructure. Sewage treatment infrastructure.
Major Amendments to the ARC Before 2021
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 1975
In 1975, the ARC’s authorizing legislationIn 1975, the ARC’s authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors was amended to require that state governors
themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory
language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.19 The language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.19 The
amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs. amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs.
They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and
authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning. authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning.

16 Appalachian Regional Commission, 16 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC History,, https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCHistory.asp. https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCHistory.asp.
17 Appalachian Regional Commission, 17 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia: A Report by the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission,
1964, April 1964, https://www.arc.gov/about/, April 1964, https://www.arc.gov/about/
ARCAppalachiaAReportbythePresidentsAppalachianRegionalCommission1964.aspARCAppalachiaAReportbythePresidentsAppalachianRegionalCommission1964.asp . .
18 P.L. 89-4. 18 P.L. 89-4.
19 P.L. 94-188. 19 P.L. 94-188.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

5 5

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Appalachian Regional Development Reform Act of 1998
~~Legislative~~ Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.20 The legislation reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.20 The legislation
organized county-level distress into three bands, from “worst” to “best”: distressed counties; organized county-level distress into three bands, from “worst” to “best”: distressed counties;
competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for
~~economical y~~economically strong counties: (1) “competitive,” which could only accept ARC funding for 30% strong counties: (1) “competitive,” which could only accept ARC funding for 30%
of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2) of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2)
“attainment,” which were “attainment,” which were ~~general y~~generally ineligible ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions.for funding, except through waivers or exceptions.
In addition, the act withdrew the ARC’s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the In addition, the act withdrew the ARC’s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the
land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program; land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program;
the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the
Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage
treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965 treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965
act. act.
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2002
Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARC’s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARC’s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on
ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic
development activities.21 The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC’s grant development activities.21 The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC’s grant
making, limitingmaking, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed
counties. The amendments also expanded the ARC’s efforts in human capital development counties. The amendments also expanded the ARC’s efforts in human capital development
projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and ~~skil~~ skill training initiatives.training initiatives.
The Appalachian ~~Regional~~ Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008
The AppalachianThe Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the
ARC’s grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included ARC’s grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included
1. various limitations 1. various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions; on project funding amounts and commission contributions;
2. the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative; 2. the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative;
3. the expansion of county designations to include an “at-risk” designation; and 3. the expansion of county designations to include an “at-risk” designation; and
4. the expansion of the number of counties under the ARC’s jurisdiction. 22 4. the expansion of the number of counties under the ARC’s jurisdiction. 22
The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as ~~wel~~
well as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, “the amount of the grant as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, “the amount of the grant ~~shal~~ shall not not
exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.” However, at the ARC’s discretion, an LDD that exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.” However, at the ARC’s discretion, an LDD that
included a “distressed” county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative included a “distressed” county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative
expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for “at-risk” counties. Eligibleexpenses of a relevant project, or 70% for “at-risk” counties. Eligible activities could only be activities could only be
funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,23 or 80% for distressed counties and funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,23 or 80% for distressed counties and
70% for “at-risk” counties. The act introduced special project categories, including 70% for “at-risk” counties. The act introduced special project categories, including
 demonstration health projects;  demonstration health projects;
 assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects;  assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects;

20 P.L. 105-393. 20 P.L. 105-393.
21 P.L. 107-149. 21 P.L. 107-149.
22 P.L. 110-371. 22 P.L. 110-371.
23 Where allowable,23 Where allowable, non-appropriated funds—such as those from states or localities—or even other non-ARC federal non-appropriated funds—such as those from states or localities—or even other non-ARC federal
fundsfunds may be usedmay be used to fund the balance of the to fund the balance of the ~~pro ject~~project costs. costs.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

6 6

link to page 13 link to page 13 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 the telecommunications and technology initiative;  the telecommunications and technology initiative;
 the entrepreneurship initiative; and  the entrepreneurship initiative; and
 the regional  the regional ~~skil s~~skills partnership. partnership.
~~Final y~~Finally, the “economic and energy development initiative”, the “economic and energy development initiative” provided for the ARC to fund provided for the ARC to fund
activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded
distress designations to include an “at-risk” category, or counties “most at risk of becoming distress designations to include an “at-risk” category, or counties “most at risk of becoming
~~economical y~~economically distressed.” This raised the number of distress levels to five.24 The legislation also distressed.” This raised the number of distress levels to five.24 The legislation also
expanded ARC’s service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC.expanded ARC’s service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC.
Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58)
The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the
ARC’s authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026. ARC’s authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026.
Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 ~~mil ion~~ million a year for each fiscal year a year for each fiscal year
through FY2026. Within those through FY2026. Within those ~~overal~~ overall authorized appropriations, the act authorized appropriations, the act ~~specifical y~~specifically authorizes authorizes
the ARC to use $20 the ARC to use $20 ~~mil ion annual y~~million annually for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an
increase from $10 increase from $10 ~~mil ion annual y~~million annually) and directed ARC to ) and directed ARC to ~~al ocate $5 mil ion annual y~~allocate $5 million annually for newly for newly
authorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARC’s broadband authorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARC’s broadband
authorization,authorization, and outlinedand outlined ~~additional~~ additional aspects of the agency’s broadband and regional energy hub aspects of the agency’s broadband and regional energy hub
initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.25 initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.25
~~Additional y,~~ Additionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARC, which represents the most three counties in two states were added to the ARC, which represents the most
recent expansion to the ARC’s region.26 Division J of the IIJA appropriated $1 recent expansion to the ARC’s region.26 Division J of the IIJA appropriated $1 ~~bil ion~~ billion for the for the
period FY2022-FY2026, which is discussed below.period FY2022-FY2026, which is discussed below.
Funding History
The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared ~~equal y~~equally by the federal by the federal
government and states, while economic development activities are government and states, while economic development activities are ~~federal y~~federally funded. The ARC is funded. The ARC is
also the highest-funded of the federal regional commissions and authorities. Its also the highest-funded of the federal regional commissions and authorities. Its ~~fundi~~ngfunding (Table 1) )
increased 147% from approximately $73 increased 147% from approximately $73 ~~mil ion~~million in FY2008 to $ in FY2008 to $~~180 mil ion in FY2021~~195 million in FY2022. As noted . As noted
above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 ~~mil ion~~ million for the ARC for each of for the ARC for each of
FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.27 The $1 FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.27 The $1
~~bil ion~~ billion appropriation in Division J is made availableappropriation in Division J is made available in equal $200 in equal $200 ~~mil ion~~ million shares across each of shares across each of
the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended.the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended. ~~However, at the time~~
~~of publication, work on the annual appropriations that traditionally fund the ARC and other~~
~~regional commissions in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY2022 has yet to be~~
~~resolved; it is unclear whether additional resources may be forthcoming.~~

~~24 T he five designations of distress are: distressed, at~~ The ARC’s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with an approximately $50 million increase in annual appropriated funds in FY2016 set aside to support the POWER Initiative.28 The POWER Initiative was part of a wider federal effort under 24 The five designations of distress are: distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, and attainment. The “transitional” -risk, transitional, competitive, and attainment. The “transitional”
designation is not defined in statute, unlike the other four categories, but it is utilizeddesignation is not defined in statute, unlike the other four categories, but it is utilized as part of the fiveas part of the five -level distress -level distress
criteria nonetheless. criteria nonetheless.
25 Division A, Sec.25 Division A, Sec. 11506 of P.L. 117-58. 11506 of P.L. 117-58.
26 Union County, SC;26 Union County, SC; ~~Catawba~~ Catawba County, NC;County, NC; and Cleveland County, NC, wereand Cleveland County, NC, were ~~added~~ added to the ARC region (Division A, to the ARC region (Division A,
Sec.Sec. 11506(a) of P.L. 117-58). 11506(a) of P.L. 117-58).
27 P.L. 117-58, Division J, 27 P.L. 117-58, Division J, ~~T itle~~Title III. III. ~~T he~~The IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022 IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022 -FY2026) for the -FY2026) for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS)Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through the Federal Highwaythrough the Federal Highway Administration (Administration ( P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-58,
Division J, Division J, ~~T itle~~Title VIII). VIII).
28 P.L. 114-113. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

7 7

link to page link to page 13 link to page 41 link to page 14 41 link to page 14 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

~~The ARC’s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with~~
~~an approximately $50 mil ion increase in annual appropriated funds in FY2016 set aside to~~
~~support the POWER Initiative.28 The POWER Initiative was part of a wider federal effort under~~
the Obama Administration to support coal communities affected by the decline of the coal the Obama Administration to support coal communities affected by the decline of the coal
industry.29 The FY2018 White House budget proposed to shutter the ARC as industry.29 The FY2018 White House budget proposed to shutter the ARC as ~~wel~~ well as the other as the other
federal regional commissions and authorities.30 Congress did not adopt these provisions from the federal regional commissions and authorities.30 Congress did not adopt these provisions from the
President’s budget, and continued to fund the ARC and other commissions.President’s budget, and continued to fund the ARC and other commissions.
Table 1. ARC: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022
$ in $ in ~~mil ions~~millions

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
FY21
~~FY22a~~FY22a
Appropriated Appropriated
76.0 76.0
68.4 68.4
68.3 68.3
68.3 68.3
80.3 80.3
90.0 90.0
146.0 146.0
152.0 152.0
155.0 155.0
165.0 165.0
175.0 175.0
180.0 180.0
~~200~~395.0 .0
Funding Funding
Authorized Authorized
105.0 105.0
108.0 108.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
110.0 110.0
200.0 200.0
Funding Funding
Sources: Authorized funding amounts compiledAuthorized funding amounts compiled by CRS using data fromby CRS using data from P.L.P.L. 110-234, P.L. 113-79, P.L. 115-334, 110-234, P.L. 113-79, P.L. 115-334,
and P.L.and P.L. 116-159. Appropriated funding amounts compiled116-159. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from:by CRS using data from: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-10; P.L. P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-10; P.L.
112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 116-94; 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 116-94;
P.L. 116-260; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-and P.L. 117-~~58.~~
103. Note: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, ~~see~~ see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 a. FY2022 ~~does not include funding~~includes $195 mil ion provided through provided through ~~the annual appropriations process, as annual~~
~~appropriations had not been enacted as of the date of publication. P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III provides~~
~~$200 mil ion~~ annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $200 mil ion from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). The IIJA provided $200 mil ion for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through FY2026. ~~FY2026. It remains to be seen how this~~
~~may be complemented by the annual appropriations process.~~ FY2022 amounts do not include FY2022 amounts do not include
appropriations in Divisionappropriations in Division A ofA of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian DevelopmentP.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway System.Highway System.
Delta Regional Authority
The Delta Regional Authority was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the The Delta Regional Authority was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the
Mississippi River Delta region.31 The DRA aims to “improve regional economic opportunity by Mississippi River Delta region.31 The DRA aims to “improve regional economic opportunity by
helping to create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of the 10 helping to create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of the 10 ~~mil ion~~ million people”32 in people”32 in
252 designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, 252 designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, ~~Il inois~~Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, , Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and TennesseeMississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee (Figure 2)). .

~~28 P.L. 114-113.~~
29 For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS29 For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS Report R46015, Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition
as ~~Econom ic Developm ent~~Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn. , by Julie M. Lawhorn.
30 Office of Management and Budget, 30 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2018 , Washington, DC, , Washington, DC,
May 23, 2017, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGETMay 23, 2017, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET -2018-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2018-BUD/pdf/BUDGET -2018-BUD.pdf. -2018-BUD.pdf.
31 P.L. 106-554. 31 P.L. 106-554.
32 Delta Regional Authority, 32 Delta Regional Authority, About the Delta Regional Authority, https://dra.gov/about-dra/about-delta-regional-, https://dra.gov/about-dra/about-delta-regional-
authority/. authority/.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

8 8

link to page 17 link to page 17

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority
DRA service area, by designations of county distress, FY2021 DRA service area, by designations of county distress, FY2021

Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS using data from the Delta Regional Authority and Esri Data and Maps 2019. by CRS using data from the Delta Regional Authority and Esri Data and Maps 2019.
Overview of Structure and Activities
Authority Structure
Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses ~~equal y~~equally, ,
while activities are while activities are ~~federal y~~federally funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is
state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also
~~general y~~generally serves as the state alternate.33 serves as the state alternate.33
Entities that are eligibleEntities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding include to apply for DRA funding include
1. state and local governments (state agencies, cities and counties/parishes); 1. state and local governments (state agencies, cities and counties/parishes);
2. public bodies; and 2. public bodies; and
3. nonprofit entities. 3. nonprofit entities.
These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities
within the 252 counties/parishes of the DRA’s jurisdiction. Unlike the other federal regional within the 252 counties/parishes of the DRA’s jurisdiction. Unlike the other federal regional
commissions and authorities, the DRA’s service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation commissions and authorities, the DRA’s service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation
but through multiple legislativebut through multiple legislative developments (see developments (see “Legislative History”)). In addition, there . In addition, there
appears to be a mechanism for adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based appears to be a mechanism for adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based
on on ~~bil~~ bill text in the Californiatext in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the 103rd Congress (P.L. 103-Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the 103rd Congress (P.L. 103-

~~33 7 U.S.C.~~ 33 7 U.S.C. §2009aa. §2009aa.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

9 9

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

433), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title 433), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title
XI of the XI of the ~~bil~~ bill.34 .34
DRA Strategic Planning
Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRA’s authorizing statute, its strategic Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRA’s authorizing statute, its strategic
plan, state priorities, and distress designation.35 The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority’s plan, state priorities, and distress designation.35 The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority’s
high-level economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—high-level economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—Moving the Delta
Forward, , Delta Regional Development Plan III—was released in April 2016.36—was released in April 2016.36
The strategic plan lists three primary goals: The strategic plan lists three primary goals:
1. workforce competitiveness, to “advance the productivity and economic 1. workforce competitiveness, to “advance the productivity and economic
competitiveness of the Delta workforce”; competitiveness of the Delta workforce”;
2. strengthened infrastructure, to “strengthen the Delta’s physical, digital, and 2. strengthened infrastructure, to “strengthen the Delta’s physical, digital, and
capital connections to the global economy”; and capital connections to the global economy”; and
3. increased community capacity, to “facilitate local capacity building 3. increased community capacity, to “facilitate local capacity building within Delta within Delta
communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals.” communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals.”
State development plans are required by statute every five years to coincide with the strategic State development plans are required by statute every five years to coincide with the strategic
plan, and reflect the economic development goals and priorities of member states and LDDs.37 plan, and reflect the economic development goals and priorities of member states and LDDs.37
The DRA funds projects through 44 LDDs,38 which are multicounty economic development The DRA funds projects through 44 LDDs,38 which are multicounty economic development
organizations organizations ~~financial y~~financially supported by the DRA and advise on local priorities. LDDs “provide supported by the DRA and advise on local priorities. LDDs “provide
technical assistance, application support and review, and other services” to the DRA and entities technical assistance, application support and review, and other services” to the DRA and entities
applying for funding. LDDs receive administrative fees paid from awarded DRA funds, which are applying for funding. LDDs receive administrative fees paid from awarded DRA funds, which are
calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for al all dollars above that amount. dollars above that amount.
Distress Designations
The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following
criteria: criteria:
1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national 1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent average for the most recent
24-month period; and 24-month period; and
2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.39 2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.39

34 Of the 252 counties reported by the DRA34 Of the 252 counties reported by the DRA to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460. to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460.
Another 20 counties in Alabama wereAnother 20 counties in Alabama were ~~included~~ included in P.L. 106-554 (16 counties) and P.L. 107-171 (four counties). P.L. in P.L. 106-554 (16 counties) and P.L. 107-171 (four counties). P.L.
110-234 added 10 Louisiana parishes and two Mississippi110-234 added 10 Louisiana parishes and two Mississippi counties. By this count, one county appears to have been counties. By this count, one county appears to have been
includedincluded administratively. administratively.
35 Delta Regional Authority, 35 Delta Regional Authority, Eligibility & Funding Priorities, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-
development/states-economic-developmentdevelopment/states-economic-development -assistance-program/eligibility-funding-priorities/. -assistance-program/eligibility-funding-priorities/.
36 Delta Regional Authority, 36 Delta Regional Authority, Moving the Delta Forward, Delta Regional Development Plan III, April 2016, , April 2016,
https://dra.gov/images/uploads/content_files/DRA_RDP3-FINAL_APRIL2016.pdf. https://dra.gov/images/uploads/content_files/DRA_RDP3-FINAL_APRIL2016.pdf.
37 Delta Regional Authority, 37 Delta Regional Authority, Strategic Economic Development Plans: State Strategic Economic Development Plans, ,
2016, https://dra.gov/funding-programs/strategic-economic-development-plans-by-state/. 2016, https://dra.gov/funding-programs/strategic-economic-development-plans-by-state/.
38 38 ~~T he~~The DRA lists 44 LDDs in good standing on its website, DRA lists 44 LDDs in good standing on its website, but notes in the but notes in the 2018 States’ Economic Development
Assistance Program (SEDAP) Manual that the DRA works with 45 LDDs. Delta Regional Authority, that the DRA works with 45 LDDs. Delta Regional Authority, Local
~~Developm ent~~Development Districts,, https://dra.gov/funding-programs/local-development-districts/. https://dra.gov/funding-programs/local-development-districts/.
39 Delta Regional Authority, 39 Delta Regional Authority, Distressed Counties and Parishes, https://dra.gov/funding-programs/states-economic-, https://dra.gov/funding-programs/states-economic-
developmentdevelopment -assistance-program/distressed-counties-and-parishes/. -assistance-program/distressed-counties-and-parishes/.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

10 10

link to page 16 link to page 16 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority
funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to
distressed counties; half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure. As of distressed counties; half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure. As of
FY2018, 234 of the DRA’s 252 counties are considered distressed. FY2018, 234 of the DRA’s 252 counties are considered distressed.
States’ Economic Development Assistance Program
The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States’ Economic Development Assistance The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States’ Economic Development Assistance
Program (SEDAP), which “provides direct investment into community-based and regional Program (SEDAP), which “provides direct investment into community-based and regional
projects that address the DRA’s projects that address the DRA’s ~~congressional y~~congressionally mandated four funding priorities.”40 mandated four funding priorities.”40
The DRA’s four funding priorities are The DRA’s four funding priorities are
1. 1. ~~(1)~~ basic public infrastructure; basic public infrastructure;
2. 2. ~~(2)~~ transportation infrastructure; transportation infrastructure;
3. 3. ~~(3)~~ workforce development; and workforce development; and
4. 4. ~~(4)~~ business development (emphasizing entrepreneurship). business development (emphasizing entrepreneurship).
The DRA’s SEDAP funding is made available The DRA’s SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to a four-factor, formula-to each state according to a four-factor, formula-
derived derived ~~al ocation~~allocation that balances geographic breadth, population size, and economic distress that balances geographic breadth, population size, and economic distress
(Table 2).4141
The factors and their respective weights are calculated as follows: The factors and their respective weights are calculated as follows:
 Equity Factor (equal funding among eight states), 50%;  Equity Factor (equal funding among eight states), 50%;
 Distressed Population (DRA counties/parishes), 20%;  Distressed Population (DRA counties/parishes), 20%;
 Distressed County Area (DRA counties/parishes), 20%; and  Distressed County Area (DRA counties/parishes), 20%; and
 Population Factor (DRA counties/parishes), 10%.  Population Factor (DRA counties/parishes), 10%.
Table 2. DRA Allocations by State, FY2021
by order of funding by order of funding ~~al ocation~~allocation

Share of Funding
Funding Allocation
Louisiana Louisiana
20.16% 20.16%
$2,994,043.31 $2,994,043.31
Mississippi Mississippi
15.42% 15.42%
$2,290,216.42 $2,290,216.42
Arkansas Arkansas
14.62% 14.62%
$2,170,906.27 $2,170,906.27
Missouri Missouri
11.39% 11.39%
$1,691,142.97 $1,691,142.97
Tennessee Tennessee
10.91% 10.91%
$1,619,788.58 $1,619,788.58
Alabama Alabama
10.28% 10.28%
$1,526,997.65 $1,526,997.65
Kentucky Kentucky
9.10% 9.10%
$1,351,133.61 $1,351,133.61
Il inois Il inois
8.11% 8.11%
$1,203,694.19 $1,203,694.19
Total
100.00%
$14,847,923.00
Source: Data tabulated by CRS from the DRA website. Data tabulated by CRS from the DRA website.

40 Delta Regional Authority, 40 Delta Regional Authority, States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP), https://dra.gov/funding-, https://dra.gov/funding-
programs-states-economic-development/states-economic-development-assistance-program/. programs-states-economic-development/states-economic-development-assistance-program/.
41 Delta Regional Authority, 41 Delta Regional Authority, State Funding Allocations, 2021, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-, 2021, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-
development/state-funding-allocations/. development/state-funding-allocations/.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

11 11

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

DRA investments are awarded from state DRA investments are awarded from state ~~al ocations~~allocations. SEDAP applications are accepted through . SEDAP applications are accepted through
LDDs, and projects are sorted into tiers of priority. While LDDs, and projects are sorted into tiers of priority. While al all projects must be associated with one projects must be associated with one
of the DRA’s four funding priorities, additional prioritization determines the rank order of of the DRA’s four funding priorities, additional prioritization determines the rank order of
awards, which include county-level distress designations; adherence to at least one of the federal awards, which include county-level distress designations; adherence to at least one of the federal
priority eligibilitypriority eligibility criteria (see below); adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional criteria (see below); adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional
Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan); and adherence to at least one of the state’s Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan); and adherence to at least one of the state’s
DRA priorities.42DRA priorities.42
The federal priority eligibilityThe federal priority eligibility criteria are as follows: criteria are as follows:
 Regional impact  Regional impact
 Merging and consolidating  Merging and consolidating
 Multiple  Multiple funding partnersfunding partners
public utilities public utilities
 
 
Emergency funding need Emergency funding need
Broadband infrastructure Broadband infrastructure
 
 
Registered apprenticeship Registered apprenticeship
Water or wastewater rate Water or wastewater rate
study (i.e., projects with study (i.e., projects with
 Infrastructure  Infrastructure
accredited rate study) accredited rate study)
The DRA is also mandated to expend 50% of its appropriated SEDAP dollars on basic public and The DRA is also mandated to expend 50% of its appropriated SEDAP dollars on basic public and
transportation infrastructure projects, which lend additional weight to this particular criterion.43 transportation infrastructure projects, which lend additional weight to this particular criterion.43
Legislative History
In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 ~~mil ion~~million and included language that authorized the and included language that authorized the
creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA
predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year
economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the
President as President as ~~wel~~ well as the governors of Arkansas, as the governors of Arkansas, ~~Il inois~~Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, , Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor ~~Wil iam~~William J. Clinton of J. Clinton of
Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in
1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an 1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an
expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development. expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development.
Notably, P.L. 100-460’s $2 Notably, P.L. 100-460’s $2 ~~mil ion~~million in appropriations were made available to “carry out H.R. 5378 in appropriations were made available to “carry out H.R. 5378
and S. 2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of and S. 2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of
Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988.” Using this Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988.” Using this
language, those previously un-enacted language, those previously un-enacted ~~bil s~~bills were “incorporated by reference” and enacted. P.L. were “incorporated by reference” and enacted. P.L.
100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the 100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the
incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836. incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836.
Key Legislative Activity
 In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta Region Heritage Study  In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta Region Heritage Study
Act, which built on the LMDDC’s recommendations. In particular, the 1994 act Act, which built on the LMDDC’s recommendations. In particular, the 1994 act

42 Delta Regional Authority, 42 Delta Regional Authority, Eligibility & Funding Priorities, 2021, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-, 2021, https://dra.gov/funding-programs-states-economic-
development/states-economic-developmentdevelopment/states-economic-development -assistance-program/eligibility-funding-priorities/. -assistance-program/eligibility-funding-priorities/.
43 Delta Regional Authority, 43 Delta Regional Authority, SEDAP Administrative Program Manual: FY2021, 2021, https://dra.gov/images/uploads/, 2021, https://dra.gov/images/uploads/
content_files/SEDAP-Manual-2021.pdf. content_files/SEDAP-Manual-2021.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

12 12

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional cultural, saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional cultural,
natural, and heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region. natural, and heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region.
 In 1999, the Delta Regional Authority Act of 1999 was introduced in the House  In 1999, the Delta Regional Authority Act of 1999 was introduced in the House
(H.R. 2911) and Senate (S. 1622) to establish the DRA by amending the (H.R. 2911) and Senate (S. 1622) to establish the DRA by amending the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Neither Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Neither ~~bil~~ bill was enacted, but was enacted, but
they established the structure and mission later incorporated into the DRA.44 they established the structure and mission later incorporated into the DRA.44
106th Congress
 In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554)  In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554)
included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven
participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its
counties. counties.
107th Congress
 The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm  The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm ~~bil~~ bill (P.L. (P.L.
107-171), amended voting procedures for DRA states, provided new funds for 107-171), amended voting procedures for DRA states, provided new funds for
Delta regional projects, and added four additional Alabama counties to the Delta regional projects, and added four additional Alabama counties to the
DRA—Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and Monroe Counties.DRA—Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and Monroe Counties.
110th Congress
 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm  The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm ~~bil~~ bill (P.L. 110-(P.L. 110-
234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through FY2012 and expanded it to 234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through FY2012 and expanded it to
include Beauregard, include Beauregard, ~~Bienvil e,~~ Bienville, Cameron, Claiborne, DeSoto, Jefferson Davis, Cameron, Claiborne, DeSoto, Jefferson Davis,
Red River, St. Mary, Red River, St. Mary, ~~Vermil ion,~~ Vermillion, and Webster Parishes in Louisiana; and Jasper and Webster Parishes in Louisiana; and Jasper
and Smith Counties in Mississippi. and Smith Counties in Mississippi.
113th Congress
 The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm  The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm ~~bil~~ bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the
DRA through FY2018. DRA through FY2018.
115th Congress
 The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, or 2018 farm  The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, or 2018 farm ~~bil~~ bill (P.L. 115-334), (P.L. 115-334),
reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to FY2023,45 and emphasized Alabama’s reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to FY2023,45 and emphasized Alabama’s
position as a “full member” of the DRA. position as a “full member” of the DRA.
Funding History
Under “farm Under “farm ~~bil~~ bill” legislation, the DRA has consistently received funding authorizations of $30 ” legislation, the DRA has consistently received funding authorizations of $30
~~mil ion annual y~~million annually since it was first authorized.46 However, appropriations have fluctuated over the since it was first authorized.46 However, appropriations have fluctuated over the
years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 ~~mil ion~~million in the same legislation authorizing its in the same legislation authorizing its

~~44 T he two bills~~ 44 The two bills contained the general basiccontained the general basic authority, structure, geography, and mission that was carried over into the authority, structure, geography, and mission that was carried over into the
DRA’sDRA’s authorizing legislation. authorizing legislation.
45 See45 See ~~CRS~~ CRS In FocusIn Focus IF11126, IF11126, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: ~~What Is the Farm Bill?~~Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke. , by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.
46 7 U.S.C.46 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–12. §2009aa–12.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

13 13

link to page 19 link to page link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 41 41 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

creation,47 that amount was halved in 2002,48 and continued a downward trend through its funding creation,47 that amount was halved in 2002,48 and continued a downward trend through its funding
nadir of $5 nadir of $5 ~~mil ion~~ million in FY2004. However, funding had increased by FY2006 to $12 in FY2004. However, funding had increased by FY2006 to $12 ~~mil ion.~~ million. Since Since
FY2008, DRA’s annual appropriations have increased from almost $12 FY2008, DRA’s annual appropriations have increased from almost $12 ~~mil ion~~million to the current to the current
level of $level of $~~150 mil ion in FY2022 to date~~30.1 million in FY2022 (excluding appropriations provided by the IIJA). The IIJA provided the DRA with an increase in . The IIJA provided the DRA with an increase in
appropriations that was five times its appropriations that was five times its ~~most recent annual appropriation~~ annual appropriation in FY2021 (Table 3)..
Table 3. DRA: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022
$ in $ in ~~mil ions~~millions

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
FY16
FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 ~~FY22a~~FY22a
Appropriated 13.00 11.70 11.68 Appropriated 13.00 11.70 11.68
11.68 11.68
12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
25.00 25.00
25.00 25.00
25.00 25.00 30.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 30.00 30.00 ~~150.00~~180.10
Funding Funding
Authorized Authorized
30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
Funding Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing:Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-and P.L. 117-58103. .
Note: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, ~~see~~ see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 a. FY2022 ~~does not include funding~~includes $30.1 mil ion provided through provided through ~~the annual appropriations process, as annual~~
~~appropriations had not been enacted as of the date of publication (see P.L. 117-70~~annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022 appropriated ). FY2022 appropriated
funding amounts funding amounts ~~are~~also include $150 mil ion from the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). from the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58).
Denali Commission
The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to support rural economic development in The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to support rural economic development in
Alaska.49 It is “designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support Alaska.49 It is “designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support
throughout Alaska.” The Denali Commission is unique as a single-state commission, and in its throughout Alaska.” The Denali Commission is unique as a single-state commission, and in its
reliance on federal funding for both administration and activities. reliance on federal funding for both administration and activities.

47 P.L. 106-554. 47 P.L. 106-554.
48 P.L. 107-66. 48 P.L. 107-66.
49 P.L. 105-277. 49 P.L. 105-277.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

14 14

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission
service area by expanded and surrogate standards of distress, 2020 service area by expanded and surrogate standards of distress, 2020

Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS using data from the Denali Commissionby CRS using data from the Denali Commission and Esri Data and Maps 2019. and Esri Data and Maps 2019.
Overview of Structure and Activities
The commission’s statutory mission includes providing workforce and other economic The commission’s statutory mission includes providing workforce and other economic
development assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska. However, the commission no longer development assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska. However, the commission no longer
engages in substantial activities in general economic development or transportation, which were engages in substantial activities in general economic development or transportation, which were
once core elements of the Denali Commission’s activities. Its recent activities are once core elements of the Denali Commission’s activities. Its recent activities are ~~principal y~~
principally limited to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects. limited to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects.
Commission Structure
The Denali Commission’s structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate. The Denali Commission’s structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate.
The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal
co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state co-co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state co-
chair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska chair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska
Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFL-Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFL-
CIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.50CIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.50
These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the
ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning federal regional commissions and authorities. ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning federal regional commissions and authorities.
For example, the federal co-chair’s appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the For example, the federal co-chair’s appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the
President with Senate confirmation, President with Senate confirmation, ~~al ows for a potential y~~allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a more expeditious appointment of a
federal co-chair.federal co-chair.
The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project
proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.51 The work plan is reviewed proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.51 The work plan is reviewed
by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget, by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget,

50 P.L. 105-277. 50 P.L. 105-277.
51 Denali Commission, 51 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/. , https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

15 15

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

and is subject to a public comment period. The current FY2018-FY2022 strategic plan, released and is subject to a public comment period. The current FY2018-FY2022 strategic plan, released
in October 2017, lists four strategic goals and objectives: (1) facilities management; (2) in October 2017, lists four strategic goals and objectives: (1) facilities management; (2)
infrastructure protection from ecological change; (3) energy, including storage, production, infrastructure protection from ecological change; (3) energy, including storage, production,
heating, and electricity; and (4) innovation and collaboration. The commission’s recent activities heating, and electricity; and (4) innovation and collaboration. The commission’s recent activities
largely focus on energy and infrastructure protection.52largely focus on energy and infrastructure protection.52
Distressed Areas
The Denali Commission’s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic The Denali Commission’s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic
distress in rural areas of Alaska.53 As of 2018, the commission utilizes two overlapping standards distress in rural areas of Alaska.53 As of 2018, the commission utilizes two overlapping standards
to assess distress: a “surrogate standard,” adopted by the commission in 2000, and an “expanded to assess distress: a “surrogate standard,” adopted by the commission in 2000, and an “expanded
standard.” These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska standard.” These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section. Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section.
DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify
Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered “distressed.” Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered “distressed.”
Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration
that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information “must that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information “must
come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire ~~c ommunity~~community and/or and/or
population.” Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question. population.” Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question.
Recent Activities
The Denali Commission’s scope is more constrained compared to the other federal regional The Denali Commission’s scope is more constrained compared to the other federal regional
commissions and authorities. The organization reports that due to funding constraints,54 the commissions and authorities. The organization reports that due to funding constraints,54 the
commission reduced its involvement in what might be considered traditional economic commission reduced its involvement in what might be considered traditional economic
development and, instead, focused on rural fuel and energy infrastructure and coastal protection development and, instead, focused on rural fuel and energy infrastructure and coastal protection
efforts.55 efforts.55
Since the Denali Commission’s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and Since the Denali Commission’s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and
security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast
majority of Commission projects.56 Of these, only energy reliability and security and bulk fuel majority of Commission projects.56 Of these, only energy reliability and security and bulk fuel
safety and security projects remain active and are safety and security projects remain active and are ~~stil~~ still funded. funded. ~~Vil age~~ Village infrastructure protection—a infrastructure protection—a
program launched in 2015 to address community infrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding program launched in 2015 to address community infrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding
and permafrost degradation—is a program that is relatively new and and permafrost degradation—is a program that is relatively new and ~~stil~~ still being funded.57 By being funded.57 By
contrast, most “traditional” economic development programs are no longer being funded, contrast, most “traditional” economic development programs are no longer being funded,
including in housing, workforce development, and general economic development activities.58including in housing, workforce development, and general economic development activities.58

52 Denali Commission, 52 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Strategic Plan: FY2018-2022, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-
_10-4-17.pdf. _10-4-17.pdf.
53 P.L. 105-277. 53 P.L. 105-277.
54 Denali Commission, 54 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/ (accessed April 23, 2021). , https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/ (accessed April 23, 2021).
55 Denali Commission, 55 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Strategic Plan: FY2018-2022, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-
_10-4-17.pdf. _10-4-17.pdf.
56 Denali Commission, 56 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, May 2017, https://www.denali.gov/programs/. , May 2017, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
57 Denali Commission, 57 Denali Commission, Village Infrastructure Protection, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructure-, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructure-
protection/. protection/.
58 Denali Commission, 58 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, May 2017, https://www.denali.gov/programs/. , May 2017, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

16 16

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Legislative History
106th Congress
 In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) authorized the  In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) authorized the
commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants, commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants,
and make payments “necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission.” and make payments “necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission.”
The act also established the federal co-chair’s compensation schedule, prohibited The act also established the federal co-chair’s compensation schedule, prohibited
using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses, and using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses, and
established “demonstration health projects” as authorized activities and established “demonstration health projects” as authorized activities and
authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the
commission to that effect. commission to that effect.
108th Congress
 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic
Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska
Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of
Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers
Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from
the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region. the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region.
109th Congress
 In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A  In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access
System Program among the commission’s authorized activities. The program was System Program among the commission’s authorized activities. The program was
part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through
2009.59 2009.59
112th Congress
 2012’s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112-  2012’s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112-
141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, 141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, ~~al owed~~allowed
it to accept gifts or donations of “service, property, or money” on behalf of the it to accept gifts or donations of “service, property, or money” on behalf of the
U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts. U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts.
114th Congress
 In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN  In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN
Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and
established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with ~~al owances~~allowances for for
reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act
also also ~~al owed~~allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal co- for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal co-
chair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission chair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission
staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure. staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure.

~~59 U.S. Department of T ransportation~~ 59 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, , Federal Highway Administration, Fact Sheet on Highway Provisions: Denali
Access System ~~Program~~ Program, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/denali.htm. , https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/denali.htm.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

17 17

link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 41 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 41 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

117th Congress
 Division A of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, (P.L. 117-58)  Division A of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, (P.L. 117-58)
extends funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access extends funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access
System Program.60 The act also System Program.60 The act also ~~al ows~~allows the Denali Commission to consider the Denali Commission to consider
funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements
previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the
transferring agency.61transferring agency.61
Funding History
Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received funding authorizations for $20 Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received funding authorizations for $20
~~mil ion~~ million for FY1999,62 and “such sums as necessary” (SSAN) for FY2000 through FY2003. for FY1999,62 and “such sums as necessary” (SSAN) for FY2000 through FY2003.
Legislation passed in 2003 extended the commission’s SSAN funding authorization through Legislation passed in 2003 extended the commission’s SSAN funding authorization through
2008.63 Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation2008.63 Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007,64 but was introduced in 2007,64 but
was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and
several years thereafter.65 In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission several years thereafter.65 In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission
through FY2021 with a $15 through FY2021 with a $15 ~~mil ion~~ million annual funding authorization. The IIJA provided the Denali annual funding authorization. The IIJA provided the Denali
Commission with an increase in appropriations that was five times its most recent annual Commission with an increase in appropriations that was five times its most recent annual
appropriation appropriation (Table 4).6666
Table 4. Denali Commission:
Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022
$ in $ in ~~mil ions~~millions

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 ~~FY2~~2a FY22a
Appropriated Appropriated
11.97 11.97
10.7 10.7
10.68 10.68
10.68 10.68
10.00 10.00
10.00 10.00
11.00 11.00
15.00 15.00
30.00 30.00
15.00 15.00
15.00 15.00
15.00 15.00
~~75.0~~90.1
Funding Funding
Authorized Authorized
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
15.00 15.00
15.00 15.00
15.00 15.00
15.00 15.00
15.00 15.00
— —
Funding Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing:Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-and P.L. 117-58103. .
Note: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, ~~see~~ see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 a. FY2022 ~~appropriated funding amounts are from Division~~ amounts include $15.1 mil ion provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $75 mil ion from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and
Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). Amounts do not include appropriations in DivisionJobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). Amounts do not include appropriations in Division A of P.L.A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining 117-58 pertaining
to the Denali Accessto the Denali Access System Program. 60 The~~System Program. FY2022 does not include funding provided through the annual~~
~~appropriations process, as annual appropriations had not been enacted as of the date of publication (P.L.~~
~~117-70).~~

~~60 T he~~ IIJA authorized $20 million to be appropriated for each of FY2022 through FY2026 to carry out the Denali IIJA authorized $20 million to be appropriated for each of FY2022 through FY2026 to carry out the Denali
AccessAccess System Program (Division A, Sec.System Program (Division A, Sec. 11507(a) of P.L. 117-58). 11507(a) of P.L. 117-58).
61 Division A, Sec.61 Division A, Sec. 11507(b) of P.L. 117-58. 11507(b) of P.L. 117-58.
62 P.L. 105-277. 62 P.L. 105-277.
63 P.L. 108-7, §504. 63 P.L. 108-7, §504.
64 S.64 S. 1368, 110th Cong. (2007). 1368, 110th Cong. (2007).
65 P.L. 111-8. 65 P.L. 111-8.
66 P.L. 114-322. 66 P.L. 114-322.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

18 18

link to page 24 link to page 50 link to page 24 link to page 50

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Northern Border Regional Commission
The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) was created by the Food, Conservation, and The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) was created by the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008, otherwise known as the 2008 farm Energy Act of 2008, otherwise known as the 2008 farm ~~bil~~ bill.67 The act also created the Southeast .67 The act also created the Southeast
Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) and the Southwest Border Regional Commission Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) and the Southwest Border Regional Commission
(SBRC). (SBRC). Al All three commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC. three commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The NBRC is the only one of the three new commissions that has been both reauthorized and The NBRC is the only one of the three new commissions that has been both reauthorized and
received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The
NBRC was founded to NBRC was founded to ~~al eviate~~alleviate economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New
Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont (Figure 4). ).
Figure 4. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission

Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS using data from the NBRC and Esri Data and Maps 2019. by CRS using data from the NBRC and Esri Data and Maps 2019.
Notes: Vermont is the only state with Vermont is the only state with al all counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction.counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction.
The stated mission of the NBRC is “to catalyze regional, collaborative, and transformative The stated mission of the NBRC is “to catalyze regional, collaborative, and transformative
community economic development approaches that community economic development approaches that ~~al eviate~~alleviate economic distress and position the economic distress and position the
region for economic growth.”68 Eligible counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction may receive region for economic growth.”68 Eligible counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction may receive
funding “for community and economic development” projects pursuant to regional, state, and funding “for community and economic development” projects pursuant to regional, state, and
local planning and priorities local planning and priorities (Table D-4)..
Overview of Structure and Activities
The NBRC is led by a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of The NBRC is led by a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term

67 P.L. 110-234. 67 P.L. 110-234.
68 Northern Border Regional Commission, 68 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC,, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about. http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

19 19

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

limit for the federal co-chair. The state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not limit for the federal co-chair. The state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not
serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state
also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating, also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating,
reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.69reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.69
While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared
~~equal y~~equally between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission
votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds ~~al ow~~allow. .
Program Areas
Al All projects are required to address at least one of the NBRC’s four authorized program areas and projects are required to address at least one of the NBRC’s four authorized program areas and
its five-year strategic plan. The NBRC’s four program areas are: its five-year strategic plan. The NBRC’s four program areas are:
  state economic and infrastructure development (economic and infrastructure development (~~EID~~SEID); );
 the regional forest economy partnership;  the regional forest economy partnership;
 local development districts; and  local development districts; and
 comprehensive planning for states.70  comprehensive planning for states.70
~~Economic~~ State Economic and Infrastructure Development (~~EID)~~
SEID) The NBRC’s The NBRC’s ~~state EID~~SEID investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic
development programs in the participating states. The development programs in the participating states. The ~~EID~~SEID program prioritizes projects focusing program prioritizes projects focusing
on infrastructure, telecommunications, energy costs, business development, entrepreneurship, on infrastructure, telecommunications, energy costs, business development, entrepreneurship,
workforce development, leadership, and regional strategic planning.71 The workforce development, leadership, and regional strategic planning.71 The ~~EID~~SEID program provides program provides
approximately $approximately $~~3.5 mil ion~~ 4.6 million to each state for such activities.to each state for such activities.72 Eligible Eligible applicants include public applicants include public
bodies, 501(c) organizations, Native American tribes, and the four state governments. bodies, 501(c) organizations, Native American tribes, and the four state governments. ~~EID~~
SEID projects may require matching funds of up to 50% depending on the level of distress. projects may require matching funds of up to 50% depending on the level of distress.
Regional Forest Economy Partnership (RFEP)
The RFEP is an NBRC program to address economic distress caused by the decline of the The RFEP is an NBRC program to address economic distress caused by the decline of the
regional forest products industry.regional forest products industry.7273 The program provides funding to rural communities for The program provides funding to rural communities for
“economic diversity, independence, and innovation.” The NBRC received $3 “economic diversity, independence, and innovation.” The NBRC received $3 ~~mil ion~~ million in FY2018 in FY2018
and $4 and $4 ~~mil ion~~ million FY2019 to address the decline in the forest-based economies in the NBRC FY2019 to address the decline in the forest-based economies in the NBRC
region.region.7374 In FY2020 In FY2020, FY2021, and FY2022, $4 million ~~and FY2021, $4 mil ion~~ was made available for the program each year.was made available for the program each year.74

75 69 Northern Border Regional Commission, 69 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC,, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about. http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
70 Northern Border Regional Commission, 70 Northern Border Regional Commission, Program Areas, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/program-areas. https://www.nbrc.gov/content/program-areas.
71 Northern Border Regional Commission, 71 Northern Border Regional Commission, State Economic & Infrastructure Development Investment Program , ,
http://www.nbrc.gov/content/economic-infrastructure-development-investments. http://www.nbrc.gov/content/economic-infrastructure-development-investments.
72 72 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2021 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2021-Annual-Report_Final-web.pdf. 73 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Regional Forest Economy Partnership, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/
Regional-ForestRegional-Forest -Economy-Partnership. -Economy-Partnership.
73 74 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Regional Forest Economy Partnership: Notice of Funding Opportunity, ,
http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/RegionalForestEconomyParternship(5).pdf. http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/RegionalForestEconomyParternship(5).pdf.
7475 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission Announces 2020 Regional Forest
~~Econom y~~Economy Partnership Grant Round, July 1, 2020, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/94, and , July 1, 2020, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/94, and 2021 Regional Forest
~~Econom y Partnership Overview,~~ ~~https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/2021_RFEP_Documents/~~
~~2021%20RFEP%20Program%20Overview%20FINAL.pdf .~~
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

20 20

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Local Development Districts (LDD)
The NBRC uses 20 multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, The NBRC uses 20 multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities,
conduct outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs receive fees. LDDs receive fees conduct outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs receive fees. LDDs receive fees
according to a graduated schedule tied to total project funds. The rate is 5% for the first $100,000 according to a graduated schedule tied to total project funds. The rate is 5% for the first $100,000
awarded and 1% in excess of $100,000.awarded and 1% in excess of $100,000.7576 Notably, this formula does not apply to Vermont-only Notably, this formula does not apply to Vermont-only
projects. Vermont is the only state where grantees are not required to contract with an LDD for projects. Vermont is the only state where grantees are not required to contract with an LDD for
the administration of grants, though this requirement may be waived.the administration of grants, though this requirement may be waived.76
77 Comprehensive Planning
The NBRC may also assist states in developing comprehensive economic and infrastructure The NBRC may also assist states in developing comprehensive economic and infrastructure
development plans for their NBRC counties. These initiatives are undertaken in collaboration development plans for their NBRC counties. These initiatives are undertaken in collaboration
with LDDs, localities, institutions of higher education, and other relevant stakeholders.with LDDs, localities, institutions of higher education, and other relevant stakeholders.7778
Strategic Plan
The NBRC’s activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan, The NBRC’s activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan,7879 which is developed through which is developed through
“extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders” alongside “local, state, and regional economic “extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders” alongside “local, state, and regional economic
development strategies already in place.” The 2017-2022 strategic plan lists three goals: development strategies already in place.” The 2017-2022 strategic plan lists three goals:
1. modernizing infrastructure; 1. modernizing infrastructure;
2. creating and sustaining jobs; and 2. creating and sustaining jobs; and
3. anticipating and capitalizing 3. anticipating and capitalizing on shifting economic and demographic trends.on shifting economic and demographic trends.79
80 The strategic plan also lists five-year performance goals, which are The strategic plan also lists five-year performance goals, which are
 5,000 jobs created or retained;  5,000 jobs created or retained;
 10,000 households and businesses with access to improved infrastructure;  10,000 households and businesses with access to improved infrastructure;
 1,000 businesses representing 5,000 employees benefit from NBRC investments;  1,000 businesses representing 5,000 employees benefit from NBRC investments;
 7,500 workers provided with  7,500 workers provided with ~~skil s~~skills training; training;
 250 communities and 1,000 leaders engaged in regional leadership, learning  250 communities and 1,000 leaders engaged in regional leadership, learning
and/or innovation networks supported by the NBRC; and and/or innovation networks supported by the NBRC; and
 3:1 NBRC investment leverage.  3:1 NBRC investment leverage.80
~~The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region,~~
~~including (1) population shifts; (2) distressed communities; and (3) changing workforce needs.~~

7581 Economy Partnership Overview, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/2021_RFEP_Documents/2021%20RFEP%20Program%20Overview%20FINAL.pdf. 76 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Local Development Districts, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/local-, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/local-
developmentdevelopment -districts. -districts.
76 77 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Administration: General Grant Administration, http://www.nbrc.gov/, http://www.nbrc.gov/
content/administration. content/administration.
7778 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Comprehensive Planning Investments for States, http://www.nbrc.gov/, http://www.nbrc.gov/
content/planning-for-states. content/planning-for-states.
78 79 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, http://www.nbrc.gov/, Concord, NH, 2017, http://www.nbrc.gov/
content/strategic-plan. content/strategic-plan.
7980 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional ~~Com mission~~Commission: 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, ,
http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/004%20RESOURCES/Five%20Yr%20Strat%20Plan/http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/004%20RESOURCES/Five%20Yr%20Strat%20Plan/
NBRC%20Strategic%20Plan%2C%20Full%20Study.pdf. NBRC%20Strategic%20Plan%2C%20Full%20Study.pdf.
8081 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, 2017-2021 Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, p. 6. , Concord, NH, 2017, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

21 21

link to page 50 link to page 50 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region, including (1) population shifts; (2) distressed communities; and (3) changing workforce needs. Economic and Demographic Distress
The NBRC is unique in that it is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as The NBRC is unique in that it is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as
~~wel~~ well as demographic as demographic ~~factors~~factors (Table D-4). These designations are made and refined ). These designations are made and refined ~~annual y~~annually. The . The
NBRC defines levels of “distress” for counties that “have high rates of poverty, unemployment, NBRC defines levels of “distress” for counties that “have high rates of poverty, unemployment,
or outmigration” and “are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and or outmigration” and “are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and
underdeveloped.”underdeveloped.”8182 The NBRC is required to The NBRC is required to ~~al ocate~~allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects in 50% of its total appropriations to projects in
distressed counties.distressed counties.82
83 The NBRC’s county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress: The NBRC’s county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress:
  Distressed counties (80% maximum funding counties (80% maximum funding ~~al owance~~allowance); );
  Transitional counties (50%); and counties (50%); and
  Attainment (0%). (0%).
Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and
demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from “high rates of poverty, demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from “high rates of poverty,
unemployment, or outmigration.” Attainment counties are not unemployment, or outmigration.” Attainment counties are not ~~al owed~~allowed to be funded by the NBRC to be funded by the NBRC
except for those projects that are located within an “isolated area of distress,” or have been except for those projects that are located within an “isolated area of distress,” or have been
granted a waiver.granted a waiver.83
84 Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories and constituent factors: Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories and constituent factors:
 Primary Distress Categories  Primary Distress Categories
1. Percent of population below the poverty level 1. Percent of population below the poverty level
2. Unemployment rate 2. Unemployment rate
3. Percent change in population 3. Percent change in population
 Secondary Distress Categories  Secondary Distress Categories
1. Percent of population below the poverty level 1. Percent of population below the poverty level
2. Median household income 2. Median household income
3. Percent of secondary and/or seasonal homes 3. Percent of secondary and/or seasonal homes
Each county is assessed by the primary and secondary distress categories and factors and Each county is assessed by the primary and secondary distress categories and factors and
compared to the figures for the United States as a whole. Designations of county distress are compared to the figures for the United States as a whole. Designations of county distress are
made by made by ~~tal ying~~ tallying those factors against the following criteria: 82 P.L. 110-234. 83 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC ~~those factors against the following criteria:~~
~~ Distressed counties are those with at least three factors from both primary and~~
~~secondary distress categories and at least one from each category;~~
~~ Transitional counties are those with at least one factor from either category; and~~
~~ Attainment counties are those which show no measures of distress.~~

~~81 P.L. 110-234.~~
~~82 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC~~ Annual Economic & Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021: Annual Economic & Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021:
~~T o~~To Determine Categories of Distress within the NBRC Determine Categories of Distress within the NBRC ~~Service~~ Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021, Area, Concord, NH, March 2021,
https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINANBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINA
L.pdf. L.pdf.
8384 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic & Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021: Annual Economic & Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021:
~~T o~~To Determine Categories of Distress within the NBRC Determine Categories of Distress within the NBRC ~~Service~~ Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021, Area, Concord, NH, March 2021,
https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%~~202021_FI NA~~
202021_FINAL.pdf. L.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

22 22

~~link to page 29~~ Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 Distressed counties are those with at least three factors from both primary and secondary distress categories and at least one from each category;  Transitional counties are those with at least one factor from either category; and  Attainment counties are those which show no measures of distress. Legislative History
110th Congress
 The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development  The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development
Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548 Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548
proposed the creation of a proposed the creation of a ~~federal y~~federally chartered, multi-state economic development chartered, multi-state economic development
organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border
counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The ~~bil~~ bill would would
have authorized the appropriation of $40 have authorized the appropriation of $40 ~~mil ion~~ million per year for FY2008 through per year for FY2008 through
FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The ~~bil~~ bill received regional co-sponsorship from Members of received regional co-sponsorship from Members of
Congress representing areas in the northern border region.Congress representing areas in the northern border region.84
85  The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure  The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC, Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC,
the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed
in the next section) in a combined in the next section) in a combined ~~bil .85~~bill.86 H.R. 3246 won a broader range of H.R. 3246 won a broader range of
support, which included 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original support, which included 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original ~~bil~~ bill sponsor, sponsor,
and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on October 4, 2007. and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on October 4, 2007.
 Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on  Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the
establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.8687 The The
2008 farm 2008 farm ~~bil~~ bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 authorized annual appropriations of $30 ~~mil ion~~ million for FY2008 for FY2008
through FY2012 for through FY2012 for al all three new commissions. three new commissions.
115th Congress
 The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the  The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, “2018 farm Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, “2018 farm ~~bil~~ bill”), which ”), which
authorized the state capacity building grant program. authorized the state capacity building grant program.
 In addition, the 2018 farm  In addition, the 2018 farm ~~bil~~ bill expanded the NBRC to include the following expanded the NBRC to include the following
counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene, counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene,
Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga,
Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New
York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington,
Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely
within the NBRC. within the NBRC.
~~Funding History~~
~~Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations (Table 5).~~
~~The 2008 farm bil authorized the appropriation of $30 mil ion for the NBRC for each of FY2008~~
~~through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bil for each of FY2014 through~~
~~FY2018 (P.L. 113-79); and $33 mil ion for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334).~~

~~84 T he bill was~~ 85 The bill was introduced by Rep. Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2] and co-sponsored by: Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24]; introduced by Rep. Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2] and co-sponsored by: Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24];
Rep. Allen, Rep. Allen, ~~T homas~~Thomas H. [D-ME-1]; Rep. McHugh, H. [D-ME-1]; Rep. McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23]; Rep. Michaud,John M. [R-NY-23]; Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2]; Rep. Michael H. [D-ME-2]; Rep.
Shea-Porter, Carol [D-NH-1]; and Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VTShea-Porter, Carol [D-NH-1]; and Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT -At Large]. -At Large].
~~85 T he~~86 The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, H.R. 3246. Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, H.R. 3246.
8687 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-234. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-234.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

23 23

link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 41 41 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Funding History Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations (Table 5). The 2008 farm bill authorized the appropriation of $30 million for the NBRC for each of FY2008 through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bill for each of FY2014 through FY2018 (P.L. 113-79); and $33 million for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334). Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, all ~~Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, al~~ three commissions also share common three commissions also share common
authorizing legislationauthorizing legislation and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since
~~FY2010~~ FY2010 (Table 5). The NBRC’s appropriated funding level increased . The NBRC’s appropriated funding level increased over twentyfold from FY2013 twentyfold from FY2013
($1.5 ($1.5 ~~mil ion~~million) through ) through ~~FY2021 ($30 mil ion~~FY2022 ($35 million). In FY2022, the NBRC, like the other commissions, ). In FY2022, the NBRC, like the other commissions,
received five times received five times ~~their annual appropriation~~the amount of their FY2021 annual appropriations in the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act in the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act
(Division J of P.L. 117-58).(Division J of P.L. 117-58).

Table 5. NBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022
$ in $ in ~~mil ions~~millions FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

~~FY10~~
~~FY11~~
~~FY12~~
~~FY13~~
~~FY14~~
~~FY15~~
~~FY16~~
~~FY17~~
~~FY18~~
~~FY19~~
~~FY20~~
FY21 FY22a
Appropriated Appropriated
1.5 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.5 1.5
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
7.5 7.5
10.0 10.0
15.0 15.0
20.0 20.0
25.0 25.0
30.0 30.0
~~150~~185.00 .00
Funding Funding
Authorized Authorized
30.0 30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0 30.0
33.0 33.0
33.0 33.0
33.0 33.0
33.0 33.0
Funding Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing:Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-and P.L. 117-~~58.~~
103. Note: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, ~~see~~ see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 a. FY2022 ~~appropriated funding amounts are from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and~~
~~Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 does not include funding provided through the annual appropriations~~
~~process, as annual appropriations had not been enacted as of the date of publication (P.L. 117-70~~amounts include $35 mil ion provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 mil ion from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). ).
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority was created by the 2002 farm bill.The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority was created by the 2002 farm bill.8788 The NGPRA The NGPRA
was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties
included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota.

87 88 P.L. 107-171. P.L. 107-171.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

24 24

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 5. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority

Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS using the NGPRA jurisdiction defined in P.L. 107-171 and Esri Data and Maps 2018. by CRS using the NGPRA jurisdiction defined in P.L. 107-171 and Esri Data and Maps 2018.
Notes: Missouri’s Missouri’s jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA. jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA.
The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received its The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received its
only annual appropriation from Congress. The NGPRA’s funding authorization lapsed at the end only annual appropriation from Congress. The NGPRA’s funding authorization lapsed at the end
of FY2018; it was not reauthorized. of FY2018; it was not reauthorized.
Structure and Activities
Authority Structure
The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal
regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair
(appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the (appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the
participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair.participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair.
Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political
features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson
of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the “liaison President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the “liaison
between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA].” No term limit is between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA].” No term limit is
established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair “established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair “~~shal~~ shall be elected be elected
by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year.” by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year.”
Another novel feature among the federal regional commissions and authorities was also the Another novel feature among the federal regional commissions and authorities was also the
NGPRA’s statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—NGPRA’s statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—
in furtherance of its mission. While Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to in furtherance of its mission. While Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to
complement the NGPRA’s activities, it effectively served as the sole manifestation of the complement the NGPRA’s activities, it effectively served as the sole manifestation of the
NGPRA concept and rationale while it was active, given that the NGPRA was only once NGPRA concept and rationale while it was active, given that the NGPRA was only once
appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an active organization. The Northern Great appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an active organization. The Northern Great
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

25 25

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly received external funding, Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly received external funding,8889 but is but is
currently defunct. currently defunct.
Activities and Administration
Under its authorizing statute, Under its authorizing statute,8990 the federal government would the federal government would ~~initial y fund al~~ initially fund all administrative administrative
costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the
NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved
for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation, for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation,
telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed
communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds.communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds.
The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the
sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project
implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a
whole.whole.
Legislative History
103rd Congress
 The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became  The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became
law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development
Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development
planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of
the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains
states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to
Missouri’s inclusion), along with one member from each of those states Missouri’s inclusion), along with one member from each of those states
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
104th Congress
 The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and  The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000
to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission
produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the
five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted
in 1997.in 1997.9091 The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development
(NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the (NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the
commission’s advisories. commission’s advisories.
107th Congress
 The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm  The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm ~~bil~~ bill (P.L. (P.L.
107-171), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute 107-171), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute

~~88 W.K. Kellogg~~ 89 W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Foundation, Grants: Northern Great Plains, Inc., https://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2007/09/the-, https://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2007/09/the-
meadowlark-projectmeadowlark-project -a-leadership-laboratory-on-the-future-of-the-northern-great-plains-3004879. -a-leadership-laboratory-on-the-future-of-the-northern-great-plains-3004879.
8990 P.L. 107-171. P.L. 107-171.
9091 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Great Plains Commission Completes Work, Looks to Region’s Future,” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Great Plains Commission Completes Work, Looks to Region’s Future,”
Minneapolis, MN, April 1, 1997, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/great-plains-commission-Minneapolis, MN, April 1, 1997, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/great-plains-commission-
completes-work-looks-to-regions-future. completes-work-looks-to-regions-future.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

26 26

link to page 33 link to page link to page 33 link to page 5251 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional
issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader
remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade. remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade.
110th Congress
 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm  The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm ~~bil~~ bill (P.L. 110-(P.L. 110-
246), extended the NGPRA’s authorization through FY2012. The legislation also 246), extended the NGPRA’s authorization through FY2012. The legislation also
expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and
provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the
Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as ~~wel~~ well as in the absence of a as in the absence of a
confirmed tribal co-chair. confirmed tribal co-chair.
 The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm  The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm ~~bil~~ bill (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the
NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to
FY2018.FY2018.
Funding History
The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 ~~mil ion annual y~~ million annually from FY2002 to FY2018. It received from FY2002 to FY2018. It received
appropriations once for $1.5 appropriations once for $1.5 ~~mil ion~~million in FY2004. in FY2004.9192 Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at the Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at the
end of FY2018. end of FY2018.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) was created by the 2008 farm The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) was created by the 2008 farm ~~bil ,92~~bill,93
which also created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. which also created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. Al All three three
commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC. commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 ~~annual y~~annually from FY2010 through FY2020 from FY2010 through FY2020
but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.9394 On On
December 8, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the SCRC’s first federal co-chairperson, thereby December 8, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the SCRC’s first federal co-chairperson, thereby
~~al owing~~allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities. the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.9495
The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida (Figure 6) not served by the ARC or the not served by the ARC or the
~~DRA~~ DRA (Table D-6). 92 P.L. 108-199. 93 P.L. 110-234. 94~~(Table D-6).~~

~~91 P.L. 108-199.~~
~~92 P.L. 110-234.~~
93 For more information, see CRS For more information, see CRS In FocusIn Focus IF11744, IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M. , by Julie M.
Lawhorn. Lawhorn.
9495 U.S. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Hearing on the Nominations of Christopher
Frey to be Assistant ~~Adm inistrator~~Administrator for Research and ~~Developm ent, at the Environm ental~~Development, at the Environmental Protection Agency and
Jennifer Clyburn Reed to be Federal Co-Chair of the Southeast Crescent Regional ~~Com m ission~~ Commission, 117th Cong., 1st sess., 117th Cong., 1st sess.,
October 27, 2021, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A654BF51-1207-411A-BD0E-October 27, 2021, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A654BF51-1207-411A-BD0E-
914CCFBDB60B,914CCFBDB60B, and Congress.gov, “and Congress.gov, “ Nomination: Jennifer Clyburn Reed—Southeast Crescent Regional Nomination: Jennifer Clyburn Reed—Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission,” PN957, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/957. Commission,” PN957, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/957.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

27 27

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 6. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS using the jurisdictionby CRS using the jurisdiction defined in P.L.defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps 2019. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps 2019.
Notes: The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already
included in the ARC or the DRA.included in the ARC or the DRA. Florida is the only state with Florida is the only state with al all counties defined as being within the SCRC. counties defined as being within the SCRC.
The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three
counties that werecounties that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region. previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region.
Overview of Structure and Activities
As authorized, the SCRC would share an organizing structure with the NBRC and the Southwest As authorized, the SCRC would share an organizing structure with the NBRC and the Southwest
Border Regional Commission, as Border Regional Commission, as al all three share common statutory authorizing language modeled three share common statutory authorizing language modeled
after the ARC. after the ARC.
As authorized, the SCRC would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the As authorized, the SCRC would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair.
There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two
consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the U.S. consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the U.S.
Senate confirmed the first federal co-chair for the SCRC, but it has yet to convene its members or Senate confirmed the first federal co-chair for the SCRC, but it has yet to convene its members or
engage in economic development activities in its service area.engage in economic development activities in its service area.
Legislative History
The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development
issues in 1990 at Tuskegee University’s Annual Professional Agricultural Worker’s Conference issues in 1990 at Tuskegee University’s Annual Professional Agricultural Worker’s Conference
for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities. for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

28 28

link to page 29 link to page link to page 29 link to page 34 link to page 41 41 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House
Agricultural Committee, which would provide the statutory basis for a “Southern Black Belt Agricultural Committee, which would provide the statutory basis for a “Southern Black Belt
Commission.”Commission.”9596 While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the 2000s, various While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the 2000s, various
nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the intervening nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the intervening
period. Supportive legislationperiod. Supportive legislation was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other accompanying was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other accompanying
~~legislative~~ legislative efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.96
97 Funding History
Congress authorized $30 Congress authorized $30 ~~mil ion~~million funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33 funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33
~~mil ion~~ million for each year from FY2019 through FY2023,for each year from FY2019 through FY2023,9798 and appropriated $250,000 in each fiscal and appropriated $250,000 in each fiscal
year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for FY2021, Congress provided an annual appropriation year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for FY2021, Congress provided an annual appropriation
of $1 of $1 ~~mil ion,~~ million, which was followed by $5 which was followed by $5 ~~mil ion~~ million in FY2022. Congress also provided $5 million in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III) in (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III) in ~~FY202298~~ FY202299 (Table 5). Prior to the confirmation of the federal . Prior to the confirmation of the federal
co-chair in FY2022, the SCRC was unable to form, despite receiving annual appropriations.co-chair in FY2022, the SCRC was unable to form, despite receiving annual appropriations.99
100 Table 6. SCRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022
$ in $ in ~~mil ions~~millions
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22a
~~FY22a~~
Appropriated Appropriated
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
1.00 1.00
510.00 .00
Funding Funding
Authorized Authorized
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
33.00 33.00
33.00 33.00
33.00 33.00
33.00 33.00
Funding Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing:Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-and P.L. 117-58103. .
Note: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, ~~see~~ see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 appropriated funding amounts a. FY2022 appropriated funding amounts ~~are from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and~~
~~Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 does not include funding provided through the annual appropriations~~
~~process, as annual appropriations had not been enacted as of the date of publication (P.L. 117-70).~~
include $5 mil ion provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117- 103). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $5 mil ion provided in Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). Southwest Border Regional Commission
The Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC) was created with the enactment of the The Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC) was created with the enactment of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234), which also Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234), which also

~~95 H.R. 3901.~~
~~96 40 U.S.C. §15731.~~
~~97 40 U.S.C. §15751.~~
98 96 H.R. 3901. 97 40 U.S.C. §15731. 98 40 U.S.C. §15751. 99 P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-58. P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-58.
99100 According to statute, a federal co-chair is required According to statute, a federal co-chair is required for the formation of a commission quorum and making decisions. for the formation of a commission quorum and making decisions.
40 U.S.C.40 U.S.C. §15302. Despite receiving regular§15302. Despite receiving regular appropriations since it was authorized in 2008, a review of government appropriations since it was authorized in 2008, a review of government
budgetarybudgetary and fiscal sourcesand fiscal sources yields no record of the SCRCyields no record of the SCRC receiving, receiving, ~~obligatin g~~obligating, or spending, or spending funds appropriated by funds appropriated by
Congress. In successiveCongress. In successive presidential administration budgetpresidential administration budget requests (FY2013, FY2015requests (FY2013, FY2015 -FY2017), no funding was -FY2017), no funding was
requested.requested. In addition, in a review of the relevant SF 133 Reports on BudgetIn addition, in a review of the relevant SF 133 Reports on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources,Execution and Budgetary Resources, the the
SCRCSCRC is not listed by the Office of Management and Budgetis not listed by the Office of Management and Budget in its list of reported agencies, and subsequentlyin its list of reported agencies, and subsequently offers no offers no
relevant funding reports on the SCRC.relevant funding reports on the SCRC. ~~T he SF~~ The SF 133 Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources133 Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources ~~fulfills~~ fulfills the the
requirement in 31 U.S.C.requirement in 31 U.S.C. §§1511-1514 that the President§§1511-1514 that the President review federal expenditures at least four times a year. review federal expenditures at least four times a year.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

29 29

link to page 35 link to page link to page 35 link to page 5352

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

created the NBRC and the SCRC. created the NBRC and the SCRC. Al All three commissions share common statutory authorizing three commissions share common statutory authorizing
language modeled after the ARC. language modeled after the ARC.
The SBRC was created to address economic distress in the southern border regions of Arizona, The SBRC was created to address economic distress in the southern border regions of Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and California, New Mexico, and ~~Texas~~Texas (Figure 7; Table D-7). The SBRC ). The SBRC ~~has not received an annual~~
~~appropriation since it was created~~does not have a federal co-chair and is not currently active. and is not currently active.
Figure 7. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission

Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS using the jurisdictionalby CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps 2018. data defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps 2018.
Overview of Structure and Activities
As authorized, the SBRC would share an organizing structure with the NBRC and the SCRC, as As authorized, the SBRC would share an organizing structure with the NBRC and the SCRC, as
al all three commissions share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC. three commissions share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
By statute, the SBRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice By statute, the SBRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. As representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. As
enacted in statute, there is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is enacted in statute, there is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is
limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. However, as no limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year. However, as no
federal co-chair has been appointed since the SCRC was authorized, it is not operational. federal co-chair has been appointed since the SCRC was authorized, it is not operational.
Legislative History
The concept of an economic development agency focusing on the southwest border region has The concept of an economic development agency focusing on the southwest border region has
existed at least since 1976, though the SBRC was established through more recent efforts.existed at least since 1976, though the SBRC was established through more recent efforts.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

30 30

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 Executive Order 13122 in 1999 created the Interagency Task Force on the  Executive Order 13122 in 1999 created the Interagency Task Force on the
Economic Development of the Southwest Border, Economic Development of the Southwest Border,~~100~~101 which examined issues of which examined issues of
socioeconomic distress and economic development in the southwest border socioeconomic distress and economic development in the southwest border
regions and advised on federal efforts to address them. regions and advised on federal efforts to address them.
108th Congress
 In February 2003, a “Southwest Regional Border Authority” was proposed in S.  In February 2003, a “Southwest Regional Border Authority” was proposed in S.
458. A companion 458. A companion ~~bil ,~~ bill, H.R. 1071, was introduced in March 2003. The SBRC H.R. 1071, was introduced in March 2003. The SBRC
was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act
of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SBRC, the DRA, the of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SBRC, the DRA, the
NGPRA, and the SCRC. NGPRA, and the SCRC.
109th Congress
 In 2006, the proposed Southwest Regional Border Authority Act would have  In 2006, the proposed Southwest Regional Border Authority Act would have
created the “Southwest Regional Border Authority” (H.R. 5742), similar to S. created the “Southwest Regional Border Authority” (H.R. 5742), similar to S.
458 in 2003.458 in 2003.
110th Congress
 In 2007, SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure  In 2007, SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the SBRC, Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the SBRC,
the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA in a the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA in a
combined combined ~~bil .~~
bill.  Upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the  Upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the
establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC in the 2008 farm bill. The 2008 establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC in the 2008 farm bill. The 2008
farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 ~~mil ion~~ million for FY2008 through for FY2008 through
FY2012 for FY2012 for al all three of the new organizations. three of the new organizations.
Funding History
Congress authorized annual funding of $30 Congress authorized annual funding of $30 ~~mil ion~~ million for the SBRC from FY2008 to FY2018 and for the SBRC from FY2008 to FY2018 and
$33 $33 ~~mil ion~~ million for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2023.for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2023.~~101~~102 For FY2021, Congress For FY2021, Congress
provided $250,000 for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-provided $250,000 for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-
260). For FY2022, Congress provided $1.25 260). For FY2022, Congress provided $1.25 ~~mil ion~~million for the SBRC through the IIJA (Division J of for the SBRC through the IIJA (Division J of
P.L. 117-58)P.L. 117-58). and $2.5 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103). The IIJA provided the SBRC with an increase in appropriations that was five times The IIJA provided the SBRC with an increase in appropriations that was five times
~~its most recent annual appropriation~~the amount of its annual appropriation in FY2021. .
The SBRC is not active. Upon the appointment of a federal co-chair, the SBRC could convene The SBRC is not active. Upon the appointment of a federal co-chair, the SBRC could convene
and begin the process of activation.and begin the process of activation.~~102~~

~~100~~103 101 Executive Order 13122, “Interagency Executive Order 13122, “Interagency ~~T ask~~Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southern Border,” 64 Force on the Economic Development of the Southern Border,” 64
Federal Register 29201-29202, May 25, 1999. 29201-29202, May 25, 1999.
~~101~~102 40 U.S.C. 40 U.S.C. §15751. §15751.
~~102~~103 For more information, see CRS For more information, see CRS In FocusIn Focus IF11744, IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M. , by Julie M.
Lawhorn. Lawhorn.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

31 31

link to page link to page 37 link to page 41 41 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Table 7. SBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2010-FY2022
$ in $ in ~~mil ions~~millions

FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
~~FY22a~~FY22a
Appropriated Appropriated
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
0.25 0.25
~~1.25~~3.75
Funding Funding
Authorized Authorized
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
33.00 33.00
33.00 33.00
33.00 33.00
33.0 33.0
Funding Funding
Source: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data fromAppropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 116-260P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117- and P.L. 117-58103. .
Note: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, seesee Table C-1.
a. FY2022 a. FY2022 ~~appropriated funding amounts are from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and~~
~~Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 does not include funding provided through the annual appropriations~~
~~process, as annual appropriations had not been enacted as of the date of publication (P.L. 117-70~~amounts include $2.5 mil ion provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $1.25 mil ion provided by Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). ).
Concluding Notes
Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the
federal regional commissions and authorities are a significant element of federal economic federal regional commissions and authorities are a significant element of federal economic
development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the
respective state-based commissioners, the federal regional commissions and authorities are not respective state-based commissioners, the federal regional commissions and authorities are not
typical federal agencies but typical federal agencies but ~~federal y~~federally chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction
with state and local economic development priorities. with state and local economic development priorities.
This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development
efforts. The intergovernmental structure efforts. The intergovernmental structure ~~al ows~~allows for strategic-level economic development for strategic-level economic development
~~initiatives~~ initiatives to be launched at the federal levelto be launched at the federal level and implemented across multi-state jurisdictions and implemented across multi-state jurisdictions
with extensive state and local input, and more adaptable to regional needs. with extensive state and local input, and more adaptable to regional needs.
The federal regional commissions and authorities reflect an emphasis by the federal government The federal regional commissions and authorities reflect an emphasis by the federal government
on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts. on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts.
However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized federal However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized federal
regional commissions and authorities, both active and inactive, regional commissions and authorities, both active and inactive, ~~potential y~~potentially raise questions about raise questions about
the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies. the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

32 32

link to page 38 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance
Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
$ in $ in ~~mil ions~~
~~FY2021~~millions FY2022
FY2022 IIJA
Year
Number
Appropriations ~~Appropriations~~
Appropriations
Authorized of States
Counties
(P.L. ~~116-260~~117-103)
(P.L. 117-58)a
ARC
1965 1965
13 13
423 counties in Alabama, 423 counties in Alabama,
$ $~~180~~195.00 .00
$1,000.00 $1,000.00
Georgia, Georgia, Kentucky, Kentucky,
Maryland, Mississippi, Maryland, Mississippi, New New
York, North Carolina, York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and the entire Virginia, and the entire
state of West state of West Virginia Virginia
DRA
2000 2000
8 8
252 counties in Alabama, 252 counties in Alabama,
$30. $30.0010
$150.00 $150.00
Arkansas, Arkansas, Il inois,Il inois, Kentucky, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Missouri, and Tennessee and Tennessee
Denali
1998 1998
1 1
Entire state of Alaska Entire state of Alaska
$15. $15.0010
$75.00 $75.00
Commission
NBRC
2008 2008
4 4
60 counties in Maine, New 60 counties in Maine, New
$ $3035.00 .00
$150.00 $150.00
Hampshire, Hampshire, New York, and New York, and
Vermont Vermont
NGPRC NGPRC
2002 2002
6 86 counties in Missouri 6 86 counties in Missouri and and
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
the entire states of Iowa, the entire states of Iowa,
Minnesota, North Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Nebraska, and South Nebraska, and South
Dakota Dakota
SCRC SCRC
2008 2008
7 7
Counties in Alabama, Counties in Alabama,
$ $15.00 .00
$5.00 $5.00
Georgia, Georgia, Mississippi,Mississippi, North North
Carolina, South Carolina, Carolina, South Carolina,
and Virginia not already and Virginia not already
served by the ARC or served by the ARC or
DRA, and the entire state DRA, and the entire state
of Florida of Florida
SBRC SBRC
2008 2008
4 4
93 counties in Arizona, 93 counties in Arizona,
$ $~~0.25~~2.50
$1.25 $1.25
California, California, New Mexico, New Mexico,
and Texas and Texas
Sources: Data compiled by CRS from relevant legislationData compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and official sources of various federaland official sources of various federal regional regional
commissionscommissions and authorities. Authorizing statutes include, in orderand authorities. Authorizing statutes include, in order of tabulation: P.L. 89of tabulation: P.L. 89 -4; P.L. 106-554; P.L. -4; P.L. 106-554; P.L.
105-277; P.L. 110-234; P.L. 107-171; P.L. 110-234; and P.L. 110-234. 105-277; P.L. 110-234; P.L. 107-171; P.L. 110-234; and P.L. 110-234.
Notes: The commissionsThe commissions and authorities in and authorities in bold are considered are considered to be active and functioning. to be active and functioning.
a. Funding in the IIJA has varying periodsa. Funding in the IIJA has varying periods of availability. Appropriationsof availability. Appropriations for ARC are available through FY2026for ARC are available through FY2026 , ,
with $200 mil ion with $200 mil ion to be to be ~~al ocated~~allocated each fiscal year starting in FY2022 through FY2026. Appropriations each fiscal year starting in FY2022 through FY2026. Appropriations for the for the
DRA, DenaliDRA, Denali Commission,Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC are available until expended. Amounts do not include NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC are available until expended. Amounts do not include
appropriations in Divisionappropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian DevelopmentA of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway SystemHighway System and and
Denali AccessDenali Access System Program. System Program.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

33 33

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities

Sources: CompiledCompiled by CRS with informationby CRS with information from the federal regional commissionsfrom the federal regional commissions and authorities. and authorities.
Notes: For the commissions For the commissions and authority that are not considered to be functioning, structural characteristics and authority that are not considered to be functioning, structural characteristics
are tabulated according to their statutory design. As noted, the first federal co-chair of the SCRC was confirmed are tabulated according to their statutory design. As noted, the first federal co-chair of the SCRC was confirmed
in Decemberin December 2021. The SCRC has yet to convene and begin operations as of the date of publication. 2021. The SCRC has yet to convene and begin operations as of the date of publication.
Contact Information
(for active commissions and authorities) (for active commissions and authorities)
Contact
Address/Phone/Website
Appalachian Regional Commission Appalachian Regional Commission
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW 1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 700 Suite 700
Washington, DC 20009-1068 Washington, DC 20009-1068
Phone: Phone:
(202) 884-7700 (202) 884-7700
Website: Website:
http://www.arc.gov http://www.arc.gov
Delta Regional Authority Delta Regional Authority
236 Sharkey Avenue 236 Sharkey Avenue
Suite 400 Suite 400
Clarksdale,Clarksdale, MS 38614 MS 38614
Phone: Phone:
(662) 624-8600 (662) 624-8600
Website: Website: http://www.dra.gov http://www.dra.gov
Denali Commission Denali Commission
510 L Street 510 L Street
Suite 410 Suite 410
Anchorage, AK 99501 Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: Phone:
(907) 271-1414 (907) 271-1414
Website: Website: http://www.denali.gov http://www.denali.gov
Northern Border Northern Border Regional Commission Regional Commission
James Cleveland Federal James Cleveland Federal Building, Suite 1201 Building, Suite 1201
53 Pleasant Street 53 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301Concord, NH 03301
Phone: Phone:
(603) 369-3001 (603) 369-3001
Website: Website: http://www.NBRC.gov http://www.NBRC.gov

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

34 34

Appendix B. Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
by county by county

Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS using data from the various commissionsby CRS using data from the various commissions and authorities and Esri Data and Maps 2019. and authorities and Esri Data and Maps 2019.
CRS-35 CRS-35

link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42
Appendix C. Historical Appropriations
Table C-1. Historical Appropriations: Federal Regional Commissions (FY1986-FY2022)
in in ~~mil ions of dol ars~~millions of dollars
Fiscal Year
Legislation
ARC
Denali
DRA
NGPRA
NBRC
SBRC
SCRC
1986 1986
P.L. 99-141 P.L. 99-141
130.00 130.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1987 1987
P.L. 99-591 P.L. 99-591
105.00 105.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1988 1988
P.L. 100-202 P.L. 100-202
107.00 107.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1989 1989
P.L. 100-371 P.L. 100-371
110.70 110.70
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1990 1990
P.L. 101-101 P.L. 101-101
150.00 150.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1991 1991
P.L. 101-514 P.L. 101-514
170.00 170.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1992 1992
P.L. 102-104 P.L. 102-104
190.00 190.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1993 1993
P.L. 102-377 P.L. 102-377
190.00 190.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1994 1994
P.L. 103-126 P.L. 103-126
249.00 249.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1995 1995
P.L. 103-316 P.L. 103-316
282.00 282.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1996 1996
P.L. 104-46 P.L. 104-46
170.00 170.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1997 1997
P.L. 104-206 P.L. 104-206
160.00 160.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1998 1998
P.L. 105-62 P.L. 105-62
170.00 170.00
( (~~Authorized~~Authorized)a
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
1999 1999
P.L. 105-245 P.L. 105-245
66.40 66.40
20.00 20.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
2000 2000
P.L. 106-60 P.L. 106-60
66.40 66.40
20.00 20.00
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
2001 2001
P.L. 106-377 P.L. 106-377
66.40 66.40
30.00 30.00
20.0 20.00b
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
2002 2002
P.L. 107-66 P.L. 107-66
71.29 71.29
38.00 38.00
10.00 10.00
( (~~Authorized~~Authorized)c
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
2003 2003
P.L. 108-7 P.L. 108-7
71.29 71.29
48.00 48.00
8.00 8.00
— —
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
2004 2004
P.L. 108-137 / P.L. 108-137 /
66.00 66.00
55.00 55.00
5.00 5.00
1.50 1.50
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
P.L. 108- P.L. 108-~~100d~~100d
2005 2005
P.L. 108-447 P.L. 108-447
66.00 66.00
67.00 67.00
6.05 6.05
1.5 1.50e
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
CRS-36 CRS-36

link to page 42 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 42 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43
Fiscal Year
Legislation
ARC
Denali
DRA
NGPRA
NBRC
SBRC
SCRC
2006 2006
P.L. 109-103 P.L. 109-103
65.47 65.47
50.00 50.00
12.00 12.00
— —
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
2007 2007
P.L. 110- P.L. 110-5f
65.47 65.47
50.00 50.00
12.00 12.00
— —
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
2008 2008
P.L. 110-161 P.L. 110-161
73.03 73.03
21.80 21.80
11.69 11.69
— —
( (~~Authorized)g~~
~~(Authorized)g~~
~~(Authorized~~Authoriz ed)g (Authorized)g (Authorized)g
2009 2009
P.L. 111-8 P.L. 111-8
75.00 75.00
11.80 11.80
13.00 13.00
— —
— —
— —
— —
2010 2010
P.L. 111-85 P.L. 111-85
76.00 76.00
11.97 11.97
13.00 13.00
— —
1.50 1.50
— —
0.25 0.25
2011 2011
P.L. 112- P.L. 112-10h
68.40 68.40
10.70 10.70
11.70 11.70
— —
1.50 1.50
— —
0.25 0.25
2012 2012
P.L. 112-74 P.L. 112-74
68.26 68.26
10.68 10.68
11.68 11.68
— —
1.50 1.50
— —
0.25 0.25
2013 2013
P.L. 113- P.L. 113-6i
68.26 68.26
10.68 10.68
11.68 11.68
— —
1.50 1.50
— —
0.25 0.25
2014 2014
P.L. 113-76 P.L. 113-76
80.32 80.32
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
— —
5.00 5.00
— —
0.25 0.25
2015 2015
P.L. 113-235 P.L. 113-235
90.00 90.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
— —
5.00 5.00
— —
0.25 0.25
2016 2016
P.L. 114-113 P.L. 114-113
146.00 146.00
11.00 11.00
25.00 25.00
— —
7.50 7.50
— —
0.25 0.25
2017 2017
P.L. 115-31 P.L. 115-31
152.00 152.00
15.00 15.00
25.00 25.00
— —
10.00 10.00
— —
0.25 0.25
2018 2018
P.L. 115-141 P.L. 115-141
155.00 155.00
30.00 30.00
25.00 25.00
— —
15.00 15.00
— —
0.25 0.25
2019 2019
P.L. 115-244 P.L. 115-244
165.00 165.00
15.00 15.00
25.00 25.00
— —
20.00 20.00
— —
0.25 0.25
2020 2020
P.L. 116-94 P.L. 116-94
175.00 175.00
15.00 15.00
30.00 30.00
— —
25.00 25.00
— —
0.25 0.25
2021 2021
P.L. 116-260 P.L. 116-260
180.00 180.00
15.00 15.00
30.00 30.00
— —
30.00 30.00
0.25 0.25
1.00 1.00
2022 2022
P.L. 117- P.L. 117-~~58j,k~~
~~200.00~~
~~75.00~~
~~150.00~~
—
~~150.00~~
~~1.25~~
5103, P.L. 117-58 j, k 395.00 90.10 180.10 — 185.00 3.75 10.00 .00
Source: Tabulated by CRS from appropriations legislation. Tabulated by CRS from appropriations legislation.
Notes: AA dash (“-“) indicates that no appropriation was provided. Despitedash (“-“) indicates that no appropriation was provided. Despite receiving appropriations between FY2010 and FY2020, no federal co-chair had been receiving appropriations between FY2010 and FY2020, no federal co-chair had been
appointed to lead the SCRC, and it has yet to form. appointed to lead the SCRC, and it has yet to form.
a. P.L. 105-277. a. P.L. 105-277.
b. The DRA was authorized in FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) and received its initial appropriations in that same fiscal year (P.L. 106-337). b. The DRA was authorized in FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) and received its initial appropriations in that same fiscal year (P.L. 106-337).
c. P.L. 107-171. c. P.L. 107-171.
d. For FY2004, the NGPRA receivedd. For FY2004, the NGPRA received appropriations in separate legislationappropriations in separate legislation from the rest of the federal regional commissions. from the rest of the federal regional commissions.
e. The NGPRA was appropriated separately from the other federale. The NGPRA was appropriated separately from the other federal regional commission,regional commission, which can be found in Section 759 of the same legislation. which can be found in Section 759 of the same legislation.
f. f.
FY2007 appropriations were FY2007 appropriations were provided to the federalprovided to the federal regional commissionsregional commissions under ful -year continuing resolutionunder ful -year continuing resolution legislation. legislation.
CRS-37 CRS-37

g. In FY2008, P.L. 110-234 established the NBRC, the SBRC, and the SCRC. g. In FY2008, P.L. 110-234 established the NBRC, the SBRC, and the SCRC.
h. For FY2011, appropriations for the ARC, Denali,h. For FY2011, appropriations for the ARC, Denali, and the DRA were appropriated separatelyand the DRA were appropriated separately from the broader appropriations legislationfrom the broader appropriations legislation under a continuing under a continuing
resolution. resolution. The NBRC, however, was subject to the continuing resolution. The NBRC, however, was subject to the continuing resolution.
i. i.
FY2013 appropriations were FY2013 appropriations were provided to the federalprovided to the federal regional commissionsregional commissions under continuing resolutionunder continuing resolution legislation. legislation.
j. j.
FY2022 appropriated funding amounts FY2022 appropriated funding amounts ~~are from Division~~ include funding provided in Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). J, Title III of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). ~~FY2022 does not include~~
~~funding provided through the annual appropriations process, as annual appropriations had not been enacted as of the date of publication (see P.L. 117-70).~~ Amounts Amounts
do not include appropriations in Divisiondo not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian DevelopmentA of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway SystemHighway System and Denali Accessand Denali Access System Program. System Program.
k. Division k. Division J, Title III of the IIJA provided $1 bil ion in appropriations for the ARC, divided into $200 mil ionJ, Title III of the IIJA provided $1 bil ion in appropriations for the ARC, divided into $200 mil ion tranches, one for each fiscal year FY2022-FY2026. Of the tranches, one for each fiscal year FY2022-FY2026. Of the
regional commissions regional commissions funded in the IIJA, the ARC was the only one to receivefunded in the IIJA, the ARC was the only one to receive such a structured appropriation: such a structured appropriation: al all other commissionsother commissions ~~received~~ received their appropriation their appropriation
solelysolely in FY2022. in FY2022. Al All IIJA funds remainIIJA funds remain available until expended. available until expended.

CRS-38 CRS-38

Appendix D. Service Areas of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
Appalachian Regional Commission
Table D-1. ARC Counties by Designated Distress, FY2022

Attainment
Competitive
Transitional
At-Risk
Distressed
Alabama
Shelby Shelby
Madison Madison
Blount, Calhoun, Blount, Calhoun,
Bibb, DeKalb, Fayette, Bibb, DeKalb, Fayette,
Macon Macon
Chambers, Cherokee, Chambers, Cherokee,
Hale, Lamar, Hale, Lamar, Marion, Marion,
Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne,
Pickens, Randolph, Pickens, Randolph,
Colbert, Coosa, Colbert, Coosa, Cul man, Cul man,
~~Tal adega~~Talladega
Elmore, Elmore, Etowah, Franklin, Etowah, Franklin,
Jackson, Jefferson, Jackson, Jefferson,
Lauderdale,Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lawrence,
Limestone,Limestone, ~~Marshal ,~~
Marshall, Morgan, St. Clair, Morgan, St. Clair,
~~Tal apoosa~~Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, , Tuscaloosa,
Walker,Walker, Winston Winston
Georgia
Forsyth Forsyth
Cherokee, Cherokee, Dawson Dawson
Banks, Barrow, Banks, Barrow, Bartow, Bartow,
Chattooga, Elbert, Chattooga, Elbert,

Carrol , Carrol , Catoosa, Dade, Catoosa, Dade,
Franklin, Franklin, Murray, Polk, Murray, Polk,
Douglas, Fannin, Floyd, Douglas, Fannin, Floyd,
Towns Towns
Gilmer, Gilmer, Gordon, Gordon,
Gwinnett, Habersham, Gwinnett, Habersham,
~~Hal ,~~ Hall, Haralson, Hart, Haralson, Hart,
Heard, Jackson, Lumpkin, Heard, Jackson, Lumpkin,
Madison, Paulding, Madison, Paulding,
Pickens, Rabun, Stephens, Pickens, Rabun, Stephens,
Union, Walker,Union, Walker, White, White,
Whitfield Whitfield
Kentucky

Clark, Clark, Garrard, Madison Garrard, Madison
Boyd, Cumberland, Boyd, Cumberland,
Adair, Adair, Bath, Bath, ~~Bel~~ Bell, ,
Edmonson, Fleming, Edmonson, Fleming,
Breathitt, Carter, Casey, Breathitt, Carter, Casey,
Green, Green, Greenup, Hart, Greenup, Hart,
Clay, Clinton, El iott, Clay, Clinton, El iott,
Laurel, Laurel, Lincoln, Monroe, Lincoln, Monroe,
Estil , Estil , Floyd, Harlan, Floyd, Harlan,
Montgomery, Pulaski Montgomery, Pulaski
Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Jackson, Johnson, Knott,
Knox, Lawrence,Knox, Lawrence, Lee, Lee,
Leslie,Leslie, Letcher,Letcher, Lewis, Lewis,
CRS-39 CRS-39

Attainment
Competitive
Transitional
At-Risk
Distressed
Magoffin, Martin, Magoffin, Martin,
McCreary, Menifee, McCreary, Menifee,
Metcalfe, Morgan, Metcalfe, Morgan,
Nicholas, Owsley,Nicholas, Owsley, Perry, Perry,
Pike,Pike, Powel ,Powel , Robertson, Robertson,
Rockcastle,Rockcastle, Rowan, Rowan,
~~Russel ,~~ Russell, Wayne, Whitley, Wayne, Whitley,
Wolfe Wolfe
Maryland

~~Al egany,~~ Allegany, Garrett, Garrett,

Washington Washington
Mississippi

Alcorn, Alcorn, Itawamba, Lee, Itawamba, Lee,
Calhoun, Chickasaw, Calhoun, Chickasaw,
Benton, Clay, Kemper, Benton, Clay, Kemper,
Pontotoc, Union Pontotoc, Union
Choctaw, Lowndes, Choctaw, Lowndes,
Montgomery, Noxubee, Montgomery, Noxubee,
~~Marshal~~ Marshall, Monroe, , Monroe,
Oktibbeha, Panola, Oktibbeha, Panola,
Prentiss, Prentiss, Tippah, Tippah,
Winston Winston
Tishomingo, Tishomingo, Webster, Webster,
Yalobusha Yalobusha
New York

Broome, Broome, Cattaraugus, Cattaraugus,
~~Al egany~~Allegany

Chautauqua, Chemung, Chautauqua, Chemung,
Chenango, Cortland, Chenango, Cortland,
Delaware,Delaware, Otsego, Otsego,
Schoharie, Schuyler, Schoharie, Schuyler,
Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins
North Carolina

Buncombe Buncombe
Alexander, Alexander, Ashe, Avery, Ashe, Avery,
~~Al eghany~~Alleghany, Cherokee, , Cherokee,

Burke, Burke, ~~Caldwel~~ Caldwell, ,
Clay, Cleveland,* Graham, Clay, Cleveland,* Graham,
Catawba,* Davie, Catawba,* Davie,
Rutherford Rutherford
Forsyth, Haywood, Forsyth, Haywood,
Henderson,Henderson, Jackson, Jackson,
~~McDowel ,~~ McDowell, Macon, Macon,
Madison, Madison, ~~Mitchel~~ Mitchell, Polk, , Polk,
Stokes,Stokes, Surry, Swain, Surry, Swain,
Transylvania, Watauga, Transylvania, Watauga,
Wilkes,Wilkes, Yadkin, Yancey Yadkin, Yancey
Ohio

Clermont, Clermont, Holmes Holmes
Belmont, Belmont, Brown, Carrol , Brown, Carrol ,
Ashtabula, Coshocton, Ashtabula, Coshocton,
Adams, Adams, Athens, Meigs, Athens, Meigs,
Columbiana, Harrison, Columbiana, Harrison,
~~Gal ia,~~ Gallia, Guernsey, Guernsey,
Monroe, Noble Monroe, Noble
Hocking, Mahoning, Hocking, Mahoning,
Highland, Jackson, Highland, Jackson,
Jefferson, Lawrence, Jefferson, Lawrence,
CRS-40 CRS-40

Attainment
Competitive
Transitional
At-Risk
Distressed
Muskingum, Ross, Muskingum, Ross,
Morgan, Perry, Morgan, Perry, Pike, Pike,
Tuscarawas, Washington Tuscarawas, Washington
Scioto, Trumbul , Scioto, Trumbul , Vinton Vinton
Pennsylvania

~~Al egheny,~~ Allegheny, Butler, Butler,
Armstrong, Armstrong, Beaver, Beaver,
Fayette Fayette
Forest Forest
Montour, Washington Montour, Washington
Bedford, Blair, Bedford, Blair, Bradford, Bradford,
Cambria, Cameron, Cambria, Cameron,
Carbon, Centre, Clarion, Carbon, Centre, Clarion,
Clearfield,Clearfield, Clinton, Clinton,
Columbia, Crawford,Columbia, Crawford, Elk, Elk,
Erie,Erie, Fulton, Greene, Fulton, Greene,
Huntingdon, Indiana, Huntingdon, Indiana,
Jefferson, Juniata, Jefferson, Juniata,
Lackawanna, Lawrence, Lackawanna, Lawrence,
Luzerne, Lycoming, Luzerne, Lycoming,
McKean, Mercer,McKean, Mercer, Mifflin, Mifflin,
Monroe, Monroe,
Northumberland, Perry, Northumberland, Perry,
Pike,Pike, Potter, Schuylkil , Potter, Schuylkil ,
Snyder, Somerset, Snyder, Somerset,
Sul ivan, Susquehanna, Sul ivan, Susquehanna,
Tioga, Union, Venango, Tioga, Union, Venango,
Warren,Warren, Wayne, Wayne,
Westmoreland,Westmoreland, Wyoming Wyoming
South Carolina

Greenvil e Greenvil e
Anderson, Oconee, Anderson, Oconee,
Cherokee, Cherokee, Union* Union*

Pickens, Spartanburg Pickens, Spartanburg
Tennessee

Anderson, Blount, Anderson, Blount,
~~Campbel ,~~ Campbell, Carter, Carter,
Bledsoe, Bledsoe, Clay, Cocke, Clay, Cocke,
Bradley, Bradley, Cannon, Coffee, Cannon, Coffee,
Claiborne, Claiborne, Grainger, Grainger,
Grundy, Hancock, Scott Grundy, Hancock, Scott
Cumberland, DeKalb, Cumberland, DeKalb,
Greene, Greene, Fentress, Fentress,
Franklin, Franklin, Hamblen, Hamblen,
Hawkins, Jackson, Hawkins, Jackson,
Hamilton, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jefferson,
Johnson, Lewis, Johnson, Lewis, Meigs, Meigs,
Knox, Lawrence, Knox, Lawrence, Loudon, Loudon,
Monroe, Morgan, Pickett, Monroe, Morgan, Pickett,
Macon, Marion, McMinn, Macon, Marion, McMinn,
Rhea, Sequatchie, Unicoi, Rhea, Sequatchie, Unicoi,
Overton, Polk, Overton, Polk, Putnam, Putnam,
Union, Van Buren, Union, Van Buren,
Roane, Sevier, Roane, Sevier, Smith, Smith,
Warren Warren
Sul ivan, Washington, Sul ivan, Washington,
White White
CRS-41 CRS-41

Attainment
Competitive
Transitional
At-Risk
Distressed
Virginia
Bath, Botetourt Bath, Botetourt

~~Al eghany~~Alleghany (+ Covington (+ Covington
Grayson, Grayson, ~~Russel ,~~
Russell, Buchanan, Dickenson, Buchanan, Dickenson,
city), Bland, Carrol city), Bland, Carrol (+ (+
Lee, Lee, ~~Wise~~ Wise (+ Norton city) (+ Norton city)
Galax city), Craig, Galax city), Craig, Floyd, Floyd,
Giles,Giles, Henry (+ Henry (+
Martinsvil eMartinsvil e city), city),
Highland, Montgomery (+ Highland, Montgomery (+
Radford city), Patrick, Radford city), Patrick,
Pulaski, Rockbridge (+ Pulaski, Rockbridge (+
Buena Vista city + Buena Vista city +
Lexington city), Scott, Lexington city), Scott,
Smyth, Tazewel , Smyth, Tazewel ,
Washington (+ Bristol Washington (+ Bristol
city), Wythe city), Wythe
West Virginia

Jefferson Jefferson
Berkeley, Berkeley, Brooke,Brooke, ~~Cabel~~ Cabell, ,
Lewis, Lewis, Fayette, Mason, Fayette, Mason,
Barbour, Boone, Braxton, Barbour, Boone, Braxton,
Doddridge, Doddridge, Grant, Grant,
Mercer, Mercer, Monroe, Monroe,
Calhoun, Clay, Gilmer, Calhoun, Clay, Gilmer,
Greenbrier, Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hampshire,
Pocahontas, Randolph, Pocahontas, Randolph,
Lincoln, Logan, Lincoln, Logan, ~~McDowel~~ McDowell, ,
Hancock, Hardy, Hancock, Hardy,
Ritchie, Tyler, Ritchie, Tyler, Upshur, Upshur,
Mingo, Nicholas, Mingo, Nicholas, Roane, Roane,
Harrison, Harrison, Jackson, Jackson,
Wayne Wayne
Summers, Summers, Webster, Webster,
Kanawha, Marion, Kanawha, Marion,
Wetzel, Wetzel, Wirt,Wirt, Wyoming Wyoming
~~Marshal~~ Marshall, Mineral, , Mineral,
Monongalia, Morgan, Monongalia, Morgan,
Ohio, Pendleton, Ohio, Pendleton,
Pleasants, Preston, Pleasants, Preston,
Putnam, Raleigh, Taylor, Putnam, Raleigh, Taylor,
Tucker, Wood Tucker, Wood
Source: Information compiled by CRS from ARCInformation compiled by CRS from ARC data. data.
Note: The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties that were The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties that were previously in the SCRC region to the previously in the SCRC region to the
ARC region.ARC region. The asteriskThe asterisk (*) indicates counties added to the ARC region by the IIJA. (*) indicates counties added to the ARC region by the IIJA.

CRS-42 CRS-42

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Delta Regional Authority
Table D-2. DRA Counties by State and Distress, FY2021

Distressed Counties
Non-Distressed Counties
Alabama
Barbour, Bul ock, Barbour, Bul ock, Butler,Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Choctaw, Clarke,

Conecuh, Conecuh, ~~Dal as,~~ Dallas, Escambia, Greene,Escambia, Greene, Hale, Hale,
Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry,
Pickens, Pickens, ~~Russel ,~~ Russell, Sumter,Sumter, Washington, Wilcox Washington, Wilcox
Arkansas
Ashley, Ashley, Baxter, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clay, Arkansas,Baxter, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clay, Arkansas, Pulaski Pulaski
Cleveland, Craighead, Crittenden, Cross, Cleveland, Craighead, Crittenden, Cross,
~~Dal as,~~ Dallas, Desha, Drew,Desha, Drew, Fulton, Grant, Greene, Fulton, Grant, Greene,
Independence, Izard, Jackson, Jefferson, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Jefferson,
Lawrence,Lawrence, Lee,Lee, Lincoln, Lonoke,Lincoln, Lonoke, Marion, Marion,
Mississippi,Mississippi, Monroe, Ouachita, Phil ips, Monroe, Ouachita, Phil ips,
Poinsett, Prairie,Poinsett, Prairie, Randolph, Searcy, Sharp, St. Randolph, Searcy, Sharp, St.
Francis, Stone, Union, Van Buren, White, Francis, Stone, Union, Van Buren, White,
WoodruffWoodruff
Illinois
Alexander, Alexander, Franklin, Franklin, ~~Gal atin,~~ Gallatin, Hamilton, Hamilton,
White, White, Wil iamson Wil iamson
Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Perry, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Perry, Pope, Pope,
Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Union Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Union
Kentucky
~~Bal ard~~Ballard,Caldwel ,,Caldwel , ~~Cal oway,~~ Calloway, Carlisle,Carlisle, Christian, Christian,
McCracken McCracken
Crittenden, Fulton, Graves, Crittenden, Fulton, Graves, Henderson, Henderson,
Hickman,Hickman, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon, McLean, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon, McLean,
~~Marshal~~ Marshall, Muhlenberg, Todd, Trigg, Union, , Muhlenberg, Todd, Trigg, Union,
Webster Webster
Louisiana
Acadia, Acadia, ~~Al en, Assumption, Avoyel es~~Allen, Assumption, Avoyelles, ,
Ascension, Ascension, Cameron,Cameron, East Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge,
Beauregard, Bienvil e, Beauregard, Bienvil e, ~~Caldwel ,~~ Caldwell, Catahoula, Catahoula,
Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, Pointe Pointe
Claiborne, Claiborne, Concordia, De Soto, East Carrol , Concordia, De Soto, East Carrol ,
Coupee, Rapides, St. Charles, Coupee, Rapides, St. Charles, West Baton West Baton
East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Grant,
Rouge Rouge
Iberia, Ibervil e, Iberia, Ibervil e, Jackson, Jefferson Davis,Jackson, Jefferson Davis, La
~~Sal e,~~ La Salle, Lincoln, Livingston,Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Madison, Morehouse,
Natchitoches, Orleans,Natchitoches, Orleans, Ouachita, Red River, Ouachita, Red River,
Richland, St. Bernard, St. Helena,Richland, St. Bernard, St. Helena, St. James,St. James, St. St.
John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St.
Mary, Tangipahoa, Tensas, Union, Vermil ion, Mary, Tangipahoa, Tensas, Union, Vermil ion,
Washington, Webster,Washington, Webster, West Carrol ,West Carrol , West West
Feliciana,Feliciana, Winn Winn
Mississippi
Adams, Adams, Amite,Amite, Attala, Benton, Bolivar,Attala, Benton, Bolivar, Carrol , Carrol ,
Madison, Rankin Madison, Rankin
Claiborne, Claiborne, Coahoma, Copiah, Covington, De Coahoma, Copiah, Covington, De
Soto, Franklin,Soto, Franklin, Grenada, Hinds, Holmes, Grenada, Hinds, Holmes,
Humphreys, Issaquena, Jasper, Jefferson, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jasper, Jefferson,
Jefferson Davis,Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lawrence,Lafayette, Lawrence, Leflore, Leflore,
Lincoln, Marion, Lincoln, Marion, ~~Marshal ,~~ Marshall, Montgomery, Montgomery,
Panola, Pike,Panola, Pike, Quitman, Sharkey, Simpson, Quitman, Sharkey, Simpson,
Smith, Sunflower,Smith, Sunflower, ~~Tal ahatchie~~ Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, , Tate, Tippah,
Tunica, Union, Tunica, Union, ~~Walthal ,~~ Walthall, Warren,Warren, Washington, Washington,
Wilkinson,Wilkinson, Yalobusha, Yazoo Yalobusha, Yazoo
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

43 43

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Distressed Counties
Non-Distressed Counties
Missouri
Bol inger, Bol inger, Butler, Carter,Butler, Carter, Crawford, Dent, Crawford, Dent,
Cape Girardeau Cape Girardeau
Douglas, Dunklin, Douglas, Dunklin, ~~Howel ,~~ Howell, Iron, Madison, Iron, Madison,
Mississippi,Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark,
Pemiscot,Pemiscot, Perry,Perry, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley,
Scott, Shannon, Ste. Genevieve,Scott, Shannon, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, St. Francois,
Stoddard, Texas, Washington, Wayne, Wright Stoddard, Texas, Washington, Wayne, Wright
Tennessee
Benton, Carrol , Benton, Carrol , Chester, Crockett,Chester, Crockett, Decatur, Decatur,
Fayette, Shelby Fayette, Shelby
Dyer, Dyer, Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood,
Henderson,Henderson, Henry, Lake, Lauderdale,Henry, Lake, Lauderdale, Madison, Madison,
McNairy, Obion, Tipton, Weakley McNairy, Obion, Tipton, Weakley
Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS fromby CRS from the Delta Regional Authority website. the Delta Regional Authority website.
Denali Commission
Table D-3. Denali Commission Distressed Communities List, 2020
by standard of community distress, in alphabetical order by standard of community distress, in alphabetical order
Surrogate
Akiachak, Akiak, Akiachak, Akiak, Alakanuk, Alcan Border,Alakanuk, Alcan Border, Aleneva,Aleneva, Alexander Creek,Alexander Creek, ~~Al akaket,~~ Allakaket, Ambler, Ambler,
Standard
Anchor Point, Angoon, Anvik, Anchor Point, Angoon, Anvik, Atmautluak, Beaver,Atmautluak, Beaver, Beluga, Big Delta,Beluga, Big Delta, Birch Creek,Birch Creek, Brevig Brevig
Mission,Mission, ~~Cantwel~~ Cantwell, Central, Chalkyitsik,, Central, Chalkyitsik, Chase, Chefornak, Chenega, Chevak, Chickaloon, Chase, Chefornak, Chenega, Chevak, Chickaloon,
Chicken, Chignik Lake,Chicken, Chignik Lake, Chiniak, Chisana, Chitina, Chuathbaluk, Circle,Chiniak, Chisana, Chitina, Chuathbaluk, Circle, Coffman Cove, Cohoe, Coffman Cove, Cohoe,
Cooper Landing, Copper Center, Covenant Life,Cooper Landing, Copper Center, Covenant Life, Crooked Creek,Crooked Creek, Crown Point, Deltana, Crown Point, Deltana,
Diomede,Diomede, Dot Lake,Dot Lake, Dot Lake Vil age,Dot Lake Vil age, Dry Creek,Dry Creek, Eagle, Eagle Vil age, Edna Bay, Eek, Eielson Eagle, Eagle Vil age, Edna Bay, Eek, Eielson
Afb, Ekwok, Elfin Cove, Emmonak,Afb, Ekwok, Elfin Cove, Emmonak, Eureka Roadhouse, Excursion Inlet, Ferry,Eureka Roadhouse, Excursion Inlet, Ferry, Fort Greely,Fort Greely, Fox Fox
River,River, Fritz Creek,Fritz Creek, ~~Gambel ,~~ Gambell, Game Creek,Game Creek, ~~Glacier View,~~ Glacier View, Goodnews Bay, Grayling,Goodnews Bay, Grayling, Gustavus, Gustavus,
Halibut Cove, Happy Halibut Cove, Happy ~~Val ey,~~ Valley, Harding-Birch Lakes,Harding-Birch Lakes, Healy Lake,Healy Lake, Holy Cross,Holy Cross, Hooper Bay, Hope, Hooper Bay, Hope,
Hughes, Huslia, Hyder, Kachemak,Hughes, Huslia, Hyder, Kachemak, Kaltag, Kasigluk, Kenny Lake,Kaltag, Kasigluk, Kenny Lake, Kipnuk, Klukwan, Kodiak Kipnuk, Klukwan, Kodiak
Station, Kokhanok,Station, Kokhanok, Kongiganak, Kotlik,Kongiganak, Kotlik, Koyuk, Koyukuk,Koyuk, Koyukuk, Kupreanof, Kwethluk, Kwigil ingok, Kupreanof, Kwethluk, Kwigil ingok,
Lake Louise,Lake Louise, ~~Lake~~ Lake Minchumina, Lime,Minchumina, Lime, Livengood,Livengood, ~~Lower~~ Lower Kalskag, Lutak, Manley Hot Springs, Kalskag, Lutak, Manley Hot Springs,
~~Marshal~~ Marshall, Mccarthy, Mekoryuk,, Mccarthy, Mekoryuk, Mentasta Lake,Mentasta Lake, Minto, Mosquito Lake,Minto, Mosquito Lake, Mountain Vil age,Mountain Vil age, Mud Mud
Bay, Nabensa, Nanwalek, Napakiak, Naukati Bay, Nelchina, New Stuyahok, Newhalen, Bay, Nabensa, Nanwalek, Napakiak, Naukati Bay, Nelchina, New Stuyahok, Newhalen,
Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolaevsk,Newtok, Nightmute, Nikolaevsk, Nikolai,Nikolai, Ninilchik, Nondalton, Noorvik,Ninilchik, Nondalton, Noorvik, Northway, Northway,
Northway Junction, Northway Vil age,Northway Junction, Northway Vil age, Nulato, Nunam Iqua, Nunapitchuk, Old Harbor, Nulato, Nunam Iqua, Nunapitchuk, Old Harbor,
Ouzinkie,Ouzinkie, Pelican, Perryvil e,Pelican, Perryvil e, Petersvil e,Petersvil e, Pilot Station, Pitkas Point, Platinum, Point Baker,Pilot Station, Pitkas Point, Platinum, Point Baker, Point Point
Mackenzie, Point Possession,Mackenzie, Point Possession, Pope-Vannoy Landing, Port Alexander, Port Graham,Pope-Vannoy Landing, Port Alexander, Port Graham, Port Lions, Port Lions,
Port Protection, Portage Creek,Port Protection, Portage Creek, Primrose,Primrose, Quinhagak, Rampart, Red Devil,Quinhagak, Rampart, Red Devil, Ruby, Russian Ruby, Russian
Mission,Mission, Salcha, Savoonga, Scammon Bay, Selawik,Salcha, Savoonga, Scammon Bay, Selawik, Seldovia,Seldovia, Shageluk, Shishmaref,Shageluk, Shishmaref, Skwentna, Skwentna,
Slana, Sleetmute,Slana, Sleetmute, St. Michael, Stebbins, Stevens Vil age,St. Michael, Stebbins, Stevens Vil age, Susitna North, Takotna, Tanacross, Susitna North, Takotna, Tanacross,
Tatitlek, Tatitlek, ~~Tel er,~~ Teller, Tenakee Springs, Tetlin, Thorne Bay, Togiak, ToksookTenakee Springs, Tetlin, Thorne Bay, Togiak, Toksook Bay, Tonsina, Trapper Bay, Tonsina, Trapper
Creek,Creek, Tuluksak, Tuntutuliak, Tununak, Twin Hil s,Tuluksak, Tuntutuliak, Tununak, Twin Hil s, Tyonek, Ugashik, Venetie,Tyonek, Ugashik, Venetie, Wales,Wales, Whale Whale
Pass, Whitestone,Pass, Whitestone, Wil ow,Wil ow, Wil owWil ow Creek,Creek, Wiseman Wiseman
Expanded
Akhiok, Akhiok, Aleknagik,Aleknagik, Buckland, Clark’sBuckland, Clark’s Point, DenaliPoint, Denali Park, Diamond Ridge, Elim,Park, Diamond Ridge, Elim, Fort Yukon, Fort Yukon,
Standard
Funny River, Funny River, Hoonah, Houston, Kake, Kalskag,Hoonah, Houston, Kake, Kalskag, Kiana, Manokotak, Moose Pass, Seldovia Vil age, Kiana, Manokotak, Moose Pass, Seldovia Vil age,
Shungnak, South Naknek, Stony River,Shungnak, South Naknek, Stony River, St. Mary's, Talkeetna, Tok, St. Mary's, Talkeetna, Tok, ~~Wrangel~~
Wrangell Source: CompiledCompiled by CRS fromby CRS from the 2020 Distressedthe 2020 Distressed ~~Communities~~ Communities Report, Denali Commission. Report, Denali Commission.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

44 44

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Northern Border Regional Commission
Table D-4. NBRC Counties by Distress Designation, FY2021
by state in alphabetical order by state in alphabetical order

Attainment
Transitional
Distressed
Maine

Hancock, Knox, Waldo Hancock, Knox, Waldo
Androscoggin, Aroostook, Androscoggin, Aroostook,
Franklin,Franklin, Kennebec, Oxford, Kennebec, Oxford,
Penobscot, Piscataquis, Penobscot, Piscataquis,
Somerset,Somerset, Washington Washington
New
Grafton Grafton
Belknap, Carrol , Belknap, Carrol , Cheshire Cheshire
Coos, Sul ivan Coos, Sul ivan
Hampshire
New York

Rensselaer, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Saratoga,
Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Cayuga, Clinton, Essex,
Franklin,Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Fulton, Genesee,
Greene,Greene, Hamilton,Hamilton, Herkimer, Herkimer,
Jefferson, Lewis,Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston, Livingston,
Madison, Montgomery, Madison, Montgomery,
Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans,
Oswego,Oswego, St. Lawrence, St. Lawrence,
Schenectady, Seneca, Sul ivan, Schenectady, Seneca, Sul ivan,
Warren,Warren, Washington, Washington,
Wayne, Yates Wayne, Yates
Vermont

Addison, Bennington, Addison, Bennington,
Caledonia, Essex, Orleans, Caledonia, Essex, Orleans,
Chittenden, Franklin, Chittenden, Franklin, Grand Grand
Rutland, Windham Rutland, Windham
Isle, Isle, Lamoil e,Lamoil e, Orange, Orange,
Washington, Windsor Washington, Windsor
Source: CompiledCompiled and tabulated by CRS from NBRC data. and tabulated by CRS from NBRC data.
Notes: Vermont is the only NBRC state with Vermont is the only NBRC state with al all counties within the NBRC jurisdiction. counties within the NBRC jurisdiction.
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
Table D-5. Statutory Jurisdiction of NGPRA
states and counties states and counties

NGPRA Jurisdiction
Iowa
Entire State Entire State
Minnesota
Entire State Entire State
Missouri
Adair, Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bates, Benton,Andrew, Atchison, Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bates, Benton, Boone, Buchanan, Boone, Buchanan, ~~Caldwel~~ Caldwell, ,
(counties)
~~Cal away~~Callaway, Camden, Carrol ,, Camden, Carrol , Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cole, Cooper, Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cole, Cooper,
Dade, Dade, ~~Dal as,~~ Dallas, Daviess,Daviess, DeKalb,DeKalb, Franklin,Franklin, Gasconade, Gentry, Greene,Gasconade, Gentry, Greene, Grundy, Harrison,Grundy, Harrison, Henry, Henry,
Hickory,Hickory, Holt, Howard, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson,Holt, Howard, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Laclede,Johnson, Knox, Laclede, Lafayette, Lawrence, Lafayette, Lawrence,
Lewis,Lewis, Lincoln,Lincoln, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Maries,Linn, Livingston, Macon, Maries, Marion, McDonald, Mercer,Marion, McDonald, Mercer, Mil er,Mil er, Moniteau, Moniteau,
Monroe, Montgomery,Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Nodaway, Osage, Pettis, Pike,Morgan, Newton, Nodaway, Osage, Pettis, Pike, Platte, Polk, Pulaski, Platte, Polk, Pulaski,
Putnam, Putnam, ~~Ral s~~Ralls, Randolph, Ray, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, St. Charles,, Randolph, Ray, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, St. Charles, St. Clair,St. Clair, St. Louis,St. Louis, St. St.
Louis City, Stone, Sul ivan, Taney, Vernon, Warren,Louis City, Stone, Sul ivan, Taney, Vernon, Warren, Webster,Webster, Worth Worth
Nebraska
Entire State Entire State
North
Entire State Entire State
Dakota
South
Entire State Entire State
Dakota
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

45 45

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Source: Tabulated by CRS with information fromTabulated by CRS with information from P.L.P.L. 107-171. 107-171.
Notes: MissouriMissouri jurisdiction representsjurisdiction represents al all those counties not currently included in the DRA. those counties not currently included in the DRA.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

46

~~Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function~~

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Table D-6. Statutory Jurisdiction of SCRC
states and counties states and counties

SCRC Jurisdiction
Alabama
Autauga, Baldwin, Autauga, Baldwin, Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva,Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee,Henry, Houston, Lee, Mobile, Mobile,
Montgomery County, Pike Montgomery County, Pike
Georgia
Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Ben Hil ,Baldwin, Ben Hil , Berrien,Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley,Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley, Brooks,Brantley, Brooks, Bryan, Bryan,
Bul och, Burke,Bul och, Burke, Butts, Calhoun, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke,Butts, Calhoun, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clay, Clay,
Clayton, Clinch, Cobb, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Coweta, Crawford, Crisp,Clayton, Clinch, Cobb, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Coweta, Crawford, Crisp, De Kalb, De Kalb,
Decatur, Dodge, Dooly,Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Fayette, Fulton, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Fayette, Fulton,
Glascock,Glascock, Glynn, Grady, Greene,Glynn, Grady, Greene, Hancock, Harris,Hancock, Harris, Henry, Houston, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Henry, Houston, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis,
Jefferson, Jenkins,Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier,Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens,Laurens, Lee,Lee, Liberty, Lincoln,Liberty, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes, Long, Lowndes,
Macon, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Meriwether,Macon, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Meriwether, Mil er,Mil er, ~~Mitchel ,~~ Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan,
Muscogee, Newton, Oconee,Muscogee, Newton, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce,Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce, Pike,Pike, Pulaski, Putnam, Quitman, Randolph, Pulaski, Putnam, Quitman, Randolph,
Richmond, Rockdale, Schley, Screven, Seminole,Richmond, Rockdale, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Spalding, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taliaferro, Spalding, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taliaferro,
~~Tattnal~~ Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair,, Taylor, Telfair, ~~Terrel ,~~ Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson,
Walton, Ware,Walton, Ware, Warren,Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster,Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler,Wheeler, White,White, Whitfield,Whitfield, Wilcox, Wilcox,
Wilkes,Wilkes, Wilkinson,Wilkinson, Worth Worth
Florida
Entire state Entire state
Mississippi
Clarke, Clarke, Forrest,Forrest, George,George, Greene,Greene, Hancock, Harrison,Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar,Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Lauderdale,Lauderdale, Leake, Leake,
Neshoba, Newton, Pearl River, Perry,Neshoba, Newton, Pearl River, Perry, Scott, Stone, Wayne Scott, Stone, Wayne
North
Alamance, Alamance, Anson, Beaufort, Bertie,Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick,Bladen, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Camden, Carteret,Cabarrus, Camden, Carteret, ~~Caswel~~ Caswell, ,
Carolina
Catawba,* Chatham, Chowan, Clay, Cleveland,* Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Catawba,* Chatham, Chowan, Clay, Cleveland,* Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Dare,
Davidson, Duplin, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin,Davidson, Duplin, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates,Gaston, Gates, Granvil e,Granvil e, Greene,Greene, Guilford, Guilford,
Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke,Hoke, Hyde, Hyde, ~~Iredel ,~~ Iredell, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, Martin, Lincoln, Martin,
Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Moore,Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans,Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan,
Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, ~~Tyrrel ,~~ Tyrrell, Union, Vance, Wake,Union, Vance, Wake, Warren,Warren, Washington, Wayne, Washington, Wayne,
Wilson Wilson
South
~~Abbevil e, Aiken, Al endale, Bamberg, Barnwel ,~~ Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley,Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Chester, Calhoun, Charleston, Chester,
Carolina
Chesterfield, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Col eton,Clarendon, Col eton, Darlington, Dil on,Darlington, Dil on, Dorchester,Dorchester, Edgefield, Fairfield,Edgefield, Fairfield, Florence, Florence,
Georgetown,Georgetown, Greenwood,Greenwood, Hampton, Horry,Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw,Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster, Laurens, Lee,Lancaster, Laurens, Lee, Lexington, Lexington,
Marion, Marlboro,Marion, Marlboro, McCormick,McCormick, Newberry,Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter,Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter, Union,* Union,*
Wil iamsburg,Wil iamsburg, York York
Virginia
Accomack, Accomack, Albemarle,Albemarle, Alexandria city, Amelia,, Amelia, Amherst,Amherst, Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta, Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta,
Bedford, Brunswick,Bedford, Brunswick, Buckingham, Buckingham, ~~Campbel ,~~ Campbell, Caroline,Caroline, Charles City*, Charlotte,Charles City*, Charlotte, Charlottesville
city, , Chesapeake city, Chesterfield,, Chesterfield, Clarke,Clarke, Colonial Heights city, Culpeper, Cumberland, , Culpeper, Cumberland,
Danville city, Dinwiddie,, Dinwiddie, Emporia city, Essex, Fairfax, , Essex, Fairfax, Fairfax City, Fal s, Fal s Church city, Fauquier, Church city, Fauquier,
Fluvanna, Franklin, Fluvanna, Franklin, Franklin city, Frederick,, Frederick, Fredericksburg city, Gloucester,, Gloucester, Goochland, Goochland,
Greene,Greene, Greensvil e,Greensvil e, Halifax, Halifax, Hampton city, Hanover, , Hanover, Harrisonburg city, Henrico, , Henrico, Hopewell
city, Isle Of Wight, James City*, King And Queen, King George,, Isle Of Wight, James City*, King And Queen, King George, King Wil iam,King Wil iam, Lancaster, Loudoun, Lancaster, Loudoun,
Louisa,Louisa, Lunenburg, Lunenburg, Lynchburg city, Madison, , Madison, Manassas city, , Manassas Park city, Mathews, , Mathews,
Mecklenburg, Middlesex,Mecklenburg, Middlesex, Nelson, New Kent,Nelson, New Kent, Newport News city, , Norfolk city, Northampton, , Northampton,
Northumberland, Nottoway, Orange, Page, Northumberland, Nottoway, Orange, Page, Petersburg city, Pittsylvania, , Pittsylvania, Poquoson city, ,
Portsmouth city, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Prince George,, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Prince George, Prince Wil iam,Prince Wil iam, Rappahannock, Rappahannock,
Richmond, Richmond, Richmond city, Roanoke, , Roanoke, Roanoke city, Rockingham, Shenandoah, , Rockingham, Shenandoah, South Boston
city, Southampton, Spotsylvania, Stafford, , Southampton, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Staunton city, , Suffolk city, Surry, Sussex, , Surry, Sussex, Virginia
Beach city, Warren,, Warren, Waynesboro city, Westmoreland,, Westmoreland, Williamsburg city, , Winchester city, York Congressional Research Service 46 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function ~~city~~,
~~York~~

Source: Tabulated by CRS by cross-referencingTabulated by CRS by cross-referencing relevant state counties against ARC and DRA jurisdictions. relevant state counties against ARC and DRA jurisdictions.
Notes: In Virginia,In Virginia, independent citiesindependent cities (in (in bold) are considered) are considered counties for U.S. census purposes and are eligible counties for U.S. census purposes and are eligible
~~Congressional Research Service~~

47

~~Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function~~

for independent inclusion. Virginia counties with an asteriskfor independent inclusion. Virginia counties with an asterisk (*) are named as cities,(*) are named as cities, but are but are ~~actual y~~actually counties (e.g., counties (e.g.,
James City County). With the exception of Florida,James City County). With the exception of Florida, which has no coverage in another which has no coverage in another ~~federal y~~ federally chartered chartered
regional commissionregional commission or authority, SCRC jurisdictionor authority, SCRC jurisdiction ~~encompasses al member~~ encompasses all member state counties that are not part of state counties that are not part of
the DRA and/or the ARC (see 40 U.S.C.the DRA and/or the ARC (see 40 U.S.C. §15731). The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; §15731). The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58;
enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties that wereenacted November 15, 2021) added three counties that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region. previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region.
The asteriskThe asterisk (*) indicates counties added to the ARC region by the IIJA. (*) indicates counties added to the ARC region by the IIJA.
Southwest Border Regional Commission
Table D-7. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC
states and counties states and counties

SBRC Jurisdiction
Arizona
Cochise, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee,Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima,La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yuma Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yuma
California
Imperial, Imperial, Los Angeles,Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,San Bernardino, San Diego,San Diego, Ventura Ventura
New
Catron, Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lincoln, Catron, Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Sierra,Luna, Otero, Sierra, Socorro Socorro
Mexico
Texas
Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Bexar, Brewster,Bexar, Brewster, Brooks,Brooks, Cameron,Cameron, Coke, Concho, Crane, Crockett, Coke, Concho, Crane, Crockett,
Culberson, Dimmit,Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, Ector, Edwards, El Paso, Frio,Duval, Ector, Edwards, El Paso, Frio, Gil espie,Gil espie, Glasscock,Glasscock, Hidalgo, Hudspeth, Hidalgo, Hudspeth,
Irion, Jeff Davis,Irion, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Jim Hogg, Jim ~~Wel s, Karnes, Kendal~~ Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Kerr,, Kenedy, Kerr, Kimble,Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg,Kinney, Kleberg, La
~~Sal e,~~ La Salle, Live Oak, Loving, Mason, Maverick,Live Oak, Loving, Mason, Maverick, McMul en, Medina, Menard, Midland, Nueces, Pecos, McMul en, Medina, Menard, Midland, Nueces, Pecos,
Presidio,Presidio, Reagan, Real, Reeves,Reagan, Real, Reeves, San Patricio, Shleicher,San Patricio, Shleicher, Sutton, Starr, Sterling,Sutton, Starr, Sterling, ~~Terrel ,~~ Terrell, Tom Green, Tom Green,
Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Webb, Wil acy,Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Webb, Wil acy, Wilson,Wilson, Winkler,Winkler, Zapata, Zavala Zapata, Zavala
Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L.Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 110-234. 110-234.

Author Information

Julie M. Lawhorn Julie M. Lawhorn

Analyst in Economic Development Policy Analyst in Economic Development Policy

Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by former CRS analyst Michael Cecire. Congressional clients seeking This report was originally written by former CRS analyst Michael Cecire. Congressional clients seeking
more information and analysis on the material covered in this report should contact the current author. more information and analysis on the material covered in this report should contact the current author.
James Uzel, GIS Analyst, and Brion Long, Visual Information Specialist, developed the figures included in James Uzel, GIS Analyst, and Brion Long, Visual Information Specialist, developed the figures included in
this report. William Painter, Specialist in Homeland Security and Appropriations, provided substantive this report. William Painter, Specialist in Homeland Security and Appropriations, provided substantive
edits and assistance in updating the report.edits and assistance in updating the report.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

4847

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should ~~n ot~~not be relied upon for purposes other be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R45997 R45997 · VERSION 1011 · UPDATED
4948