Order Code RL30928
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Army Corps of Engineers:
Civil Works Reform Issues for the
107th Congress
Updated March 27, 2002
Nicole T. Carter
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Army Corps of Engineers:
Civil Works Reform Issues for the 107th Congress
Summary
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is an executive branch agency within
the Department of Defense that has both civil and military programs. Under its civil
works program, the Corps undertakes primarily water resource facility planning,
construction, and operation. Congress generally directs Corps activities through
biennial authorization and annual appropriation bills. Historically, congressional
support for the Corps has been strong. The agency’s projects can provide significant
economic stimulation in addition to their basic water resource development purposes.
A potential budget deficit, a growing backlog of Corps construction and
maintenance activities, and concerns that the project development process may be
flawed have prompted some to question aspects of the civil works program.
Specifically, should the program’s administration be altered to better reflect changing
priorities and to improve the project development process, and, if so, how? There
have been hearings on possible Corps reform and the civil works budget, and a House
Corps Reform Caucus has been formed. Proposed legislation in both houses would
change how the Corps manages this program. Opponents to changing the Corps are
found within Congress and among numerous interest groups that are satisfied with
current Corps practices.
The Bush Administration’s proposal for the FY2003 civil works budget aims to
improve the Corps’ performance by reducing the $44 billion construction backlog
and supporting operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure, while being 7%
below the FY2002 appropriations. The Administration proposes to reduce the
backlog primarily by starting no new projects and concentrating resources on priority
projects. Its focus on priority projects addresses a concern about “mission creep.”
Over the Corps’ 200-year history, its civil works mission has expanded from
maintaining navigable channels to include flood control projects and, most recently,
environmental restoration and non-traditional projects, such as wastewater treatment
and water supply projects. This expanding mission, the growing backlog, and limited
federal funding for water resources projects have raised concerns that the Corps’
efforts are spread too thin. The Administration targeted as priority projects those with
evident national benefits in the areas of navigation, flood control, and environmental
restoration.
Many of the provisions in the Administration’s budget request complement a
number of measures in proposed legislation to reform the Corps. Proposed bills have
their roots not only in fiscal improvements but also concerns that many Corps projects
generate significant environmental damage. Many of the proposed bills include
provisions for greater public access to project information, increased public
participation and independent review, stricter cost-benefit criteria, stronger
environmental mitigation requirements, and deauthorization of projects. These bills
have received support from environmental and taxpayer groups. The barge industry,
farmers, and port authorities generally support current project development and
review practices and oppose the proposed legislation.

---

Contents
A Primer on the Civil Works Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Mission and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Corps Funding and Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Interest and Action on Corps Management and Operations Issues . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Recent Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Corps Management and Operations Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Project Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Economic Justification and Analysis of Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Administration Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Independent Review and Local Advisory Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Environmental Impacts of Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Mission Focus and Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

---

Army Corps of Engineers: Civil Works
Reform Issues for the 107th Congress
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is an executive branch agency within
the Department of Defense that has both civil and military programs. Under its civil
works program, the Corps undertakes primarily water resource facility planning,
construction, and operation.1 Congress generally directs Corps activities through
biennial authorization and annual appropriation bills.
A potential budget deficit, a growing backlog of Corps construction and
maintenance activities, and concerns that the Corps’ project development process is
flawed have prompted some to question aspects of the civil works program.
Specifically, should Corps administration be altered to better reflect current priorities
and to restore confidence in the agency’s project development process, and, if so,
how? Interest groups that support reform are proposing changes in the following
areas: project development process, economic justification and analysis of projects,
independent review and local advisory groups, oversight by the Administration,
environmental impact mitigation, and mission of the agency. Groups representing
beneficiaries of Corps projects such as the barge industry, farmers, and port
authorities, however, generally support current project development and review
practices.
Hearings on Corps reform and the Corps budget and a House Corps Reform
Caucus indicate that some Members of the 107th Congress are considering changes
in the civil works program. Proposed legislation in both houses—S.1987, H.R. 1310,
S. 646, and H.R. 2353—would change how the Corps manages the civil works
program. The proposed bills have roots in concerns about the effectiveness of federal
spending and concerns that many Corps projects generate significant environmental
damage.
A Primer on the Civil Works Program
Organization
The Corps operates as a military organization with a largely civilian workforce
(24,700 civilian and 650 military personnel). The civil works program is headed by a
civilian Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. A military Chief of
Engineers oversees the Corps’ civil and military operations and reports on civil works
matters to the Assistant Secretary. Headquarters staff are in Washington, DC. Eight
1 More information on the civil works program is available in The Civil Works Program of
the Army Corps of Engineers: A Primer, CRS Report RS20866.

---

CRS-2
divisions throughout the Nation coordinate 38 district offices in the United States,
Asia, and Europe, and field offices worldwide. Water resource projects are largely
planned at the district level and approved at the division and headquarters levels.
Mission and Responsibilities
Over the Corps’ 200-year history, its civil works program has evolved into a
conglomeration of responsibilities with sometimes conflicting objectives. The agency’s
oldest responsibilities are navigation and flood control. Many of the navigation and
flood control projects are multi-purpose, i.e. they provide water supply, recreation,
and hydropower benefits in addition to navigation or flood control benefits. In recent
years, ecosystem restoration has also become a substantial part of the civil works
program. In addition to these primary responsibilities, the Corps is involved in a
variety of other activities, such as disaster relief and recovery and remediation of
formerly used nuclear sites (Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program,
FUSRAP).
Navigation projects for inland waterways, ports, and harbors include river
deepening, channel widening, jetty construction, lock expansion, dam operations, and
dredged material disposal. Flood control projects include dam and related hydropower
construction and operation, levee construction, river channelization, large-scale
pumping systems, and coastal protection such as beach stabilization and
replenishment. More recent environmental restoration activities encompass wetlands
and marshlands restoration and environmental mitigation activities for Corps
construction projects and Corps-operated facilities. The agency’s regulatory
responsibility for navigable waters extends to permitting for private actions that might
affect wetlands and other waters of the United States.2 The Corps played a significant
role in the emergency response efforts following the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks. It assisted the New York Fire Department with interim communications
equipment, evaluated the safety of damaged buildings, provided emergency power
to the financial district, and assisted with debris removal and disposal.
The Corps attracts congressional attention because of the breadth of its activities
and Congress’ role in directing the agency. Construction and operation of Corps
projects often provide significant economic stimulation for nearby localities. Corps
flood control projects protect millions of homes, farms, and businesses. Coastal ports
and barge channels and hydroelectric dams play significant roles in regional
economies, and also the national economy. The range of the Corps’ authorized
activities often involves the agency in many of the nation’s most contentious
environmental issues, such as dam removal on the Snake River, water disputes on the
Missouri River, and restoration of the Florida Everglades.
2Sections 10 and 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1152; 33 U.S.C. 407)
require that a permit be obtained from the Corps for the alteration or obstruction of and refuse
discharge into navigable waters of the United States. The Corps also has regulatory
responsibilities under other laws, notably Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500;
33 U.S.C. 1344). Navigable waters had been interpreted narrowly until court decisions in the
mid-1970s. Subsequent judicial and administrative actions have altered the jurisdictional reach
of the Corps’ regulatory program considerably from the Corps’ earlier interpretation.

---

CRS-3
Corps Funding and Backlog
The civil works budget consists primarily of funding for specific projects and
studies in three stages: investigation and planning, construction, and operation and
maintenance. For much of the agency’s history, most studies and projects were
entirely federally funded. Since 1986, most projects have included significant financial
participation by local project sponsors. Fiscal priorities and public attitudes in recent
decades have produced a decline in federal funding for water resources development
projects. Over the past 30 years, the Corps has experienced budget declines in “real
dollar” amounts for construction. From the mid-1960s to the late 1990s, the annual
funding (in 1999 dollars) for the general construction account fell from an average of
$4 billion in the 1960s and 1970s to $1.4 billion in the 1990s.3 The construction
budget and total agency appropriations for civil works were $1.7 billion and $4.6
billion, respectively, for FY2001 and $1.7 billion and $4.5 billion for FY2002. The
Bush Administration requested $1.4 billion for the construction account out of a total
budget request of $4.2 billion (excluding the full funding of federal retiree costs) for
FY2003.4
The Corps disaster relief work is funded through supplemental appropriations
or reimbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Emergency appropriations of $0.14 billion were made for FY2002 for Corps
emergency response activities. The FY2003 Corps budget provides $65 million for
the cost of additional guard positions at critical Corps facilities.
During the 1990s, Congress continued biennial authorizations of navigation and
flood control projects and began authorizing more environmental activities and non-
traditional projects. Over the longer term, more projects have received authorization
than appropriations. This has resulted in a backlog consisting of over 500 “active”
authorized projects with a federal cost of approximately $44 billion.5 This backlog has
resulted in the civil works budget being divided into smaller appropriation amounts
for individual projects. These smaller appropriations may extend construction
schedules often causing increased costs and delayed benefits.
In addition to the project construction backlog, the Corps currently has a $450
million backlog for deferred high-priority maintenance for existing structures; at
current authorization and appropriation levels, the backlog could grow to $1 billion
3 Information provided by the Corps to Senator Voinovich at his request; available in Senator
George V. Voinovich, “Statement,” Corps of Engineers Mission and Backlog of Projects,
Hearing before Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, May 16, 2000. Hereafter referred to as Voinovich, May 16,
2000.
4 More information on Corps funding is available in Appropriations for FY2002: Energy and
Water Development, CRS Report RL31007. The Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget
request can be seen at: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/budget.html]
5 Active projects are those that have been recently funded, evaluated by the Corps as
economically justified, and are supported by a local sponsor; an additional 800 authorized
projects are considered inactive.

---

CRS-4
in 10 years.6 The Corps and Members of Congress have expressed concern that
without maintenance the ability of existing water resources infrastructure to serve the
population and the economy will decline. During the 1990s, the level of maintenance
funding remained relatively unchanged in relation to the level of construction funding
even though the Corps had more projects to operate and maintenance costs for its
again projects were growing.
Funding for the civil works program has often been a contentious issue between
the Administration and Congress, with final appropriations typically providing more
funding than requested by the Administration regardless of which political party
controls the White House and Congress. The Corps generally maintains strong
congressional support because of the direct water resource benefits and indirect
economic and political benefits of its projects. Given the backlog of authorized project
and maintenance activities and limited federal budget resources, Congress and the
Administration are sometimes forced to make difficult choices among competing
priorities as they prepare annual Corps appropriations.
Again this year the Corps civil works budget has become contentious. The
Administration’s budget request for the program in FY2003 (excluding full funding
for federal retiree costs) is 7% less than the appropriated FY2002 budget, excluding
emergency appropriations. It is noteworthy that although the FY2003 request
represents a reduction from appropriated amounts, this request represents a 7%
increase from the FY2002 request.7 The FY2003 budget request would reduce the
general investigation and construction budget from FY2002 enacted levels by 33%
and 18% respectively, while the operation and maintenance budget would increase by
2%. It would reduce the construction backlog primarily by not starting new projects,
and it would concentrate resources on priority projects.8
6High-priority maintenance represents about one quarter of maintenance activities. High-
priority maintenance activities are those that are needed to preserve the integrity of the
facilities and to ensure their continued operation. Information provided by the Corps to
Senator Voinovich at his request; available in Senator George V. Voinovich, “Statement,”
Oversight of the Corps of Engineers’ FY2001 Budget, Hearing before Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
February 24, 2000.
7In response to the FY2002 budget request, the House Committee on Appropriations stated:
“The Committee is very concerned about the level of funding requested by the Administration
for the water resources programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” House of
Representatives, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2002, Report 107-112,
June 26, 2001.
8To address the $44 billion construction backlog, the Administration proposed the following:
providing more funds for the $21 billion backlog of priority flood control, navigation, and
environmental restoration projects; deferring or ceasing work on some ongoing projects; and
not adding new projects. The Administration’s budget also requested reduced funding for
projects that provide minor commercial navigation benefits. The Administration’s proposal
included a new mechanism for direct funding by customers for financing the operation and
maintenance costs of Corps hydropower facilities; this change is intended to reduce unplanned
outages at hydropower facilities.

---

CRS-5
Michael Parker, the former Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
resigned in early March 2002, five months after his appointment. It is reported that
the resignation of this former Congressman was forced due to his open disagreement
with the Administration’s budget request for the Corps.9 The White House has made
no official press release or comment on the matter.
The Bush Administration’s budget document not only proposes a reduction in
the civil works budget but also identifies “mission creep” as diverting the Corps from
its main missions, slowing down completion of priority construction projects, and
postponing the benefits that completed projects would bring. The Administration
specifically mentions as a problem the increasing number of Corps authorizations and
appropriations for projects that could be carried out by other agencies.
Interest and Action on Corps Management and
Operations Issues
Much of the current interest in improving the Corps’ civil works program is
founded not only on recent concern over a potential budget deficit and the growing
backlog but also perceived deficiencies in the project development process. In 2000,
allegations of improper manipulation of an economic study and related news articles
raised concerns about the integrity of the Corps’ planning process.10 In February
2000, a Corps economist approached the Office of Special Counsel, an independent
federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that protects government
whistleblowers. The economist contended that Corps officials manipulated a cost-
benefit analysis to support expensive improvements of locks on the Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway.11 In late February 2000, the Special Counsel released a
finding that there was a substantial likelihood of violations and that the case warranted
further investigation.12 The allegations have been more thoroughly investigated by a
National Academy of Sciences panel (at the request of the Department of Defense),
the Army Inspector General (at the request of the Department of Defense), and the
Corps itself.
9“Corps of Engineers’ Civilian Chief Ousted,” The Washington Post, March 7, 2002.
10Among the news media covering the Corps, articles in The Washington Post have received
significant attention; these can be viewed at the following website:
[http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/aroundthenation/corpsofengineers] .
11This economist served for five years as the technical manager of the economic study for the
project—a lock expansion project along the Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway. “Affidavit
of Donald C. Sweeney” at:
[http://www.environmentaldefense.org/programs/Ecosystems/Mississippi/ms_affidavit.html].
12U.S. Office of Special Counsel, “Special Counsel Finds that Whistleblower Allegations
Demonstrate Substantial Likelihood that Army Corps of Engineers Engaged in Violations of
Law, Rule or Regulation, and/or Gross Waste of Funds; Requests Investigation by Secretary
of Defense,” Press Release, February 28, 2000.

---

CRS-6
In December 2000, the Department of Defense released a report by the
Inspector General (IG) examining the allegations of wrongdoing. This investigation
found an institutional bias at the Corps toward large construction projects. A letter
transmitting a report of the findings to the President stated that the investigation
revealed “serious misconduct and improprieties in connection with the feasibility
study” and suggested “the existence of institutional biases that led to misconduct . .
. and that may affect Corps decisionmaking in other projects.”13 The institutional bias
for large-scale projects was found to create “an atmosphere where objectivity in its
analysis was placed in jeopardy.” The report identified an initiative to “grow” the civil
works program as contributing to the bias. However, the report did not find evidence
of blatant fraud or abuse.
In late February 2001, the National Resource Council, an arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, released its report on the planning of the Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway project.14 The investigation found that both the application
of theoretical models and the data for estimating navigation benefits used in the
Corps’ study to be flawed. However, the investigation also noted that the model used
for the study represented an advance over models previously used by the Corps. The
text of the report is as follows: “This system model represents a major advance over
previous economic models used by the Corps to forecast barge traffic. . . .many of the
assumptions and data used as input to these models are flawed. . . . As a result of
flawed assumptions and data, the current (September 2000) results of the spatial
equilibrium model and the ESSENCE model should not be used in the feasibility
study. The problem lies not in the theoretical motivation behind these models, but in
their implementation and data used as input.” Supporters and opponents of changes
to the Corps have interpreted the meaning of the NAS report quite differently. Those
advocating reform argue that the report illustrated problems in the project
development process, while those opposing change argue that the report justified the
Corps officers’ adjustments to the models.
In a broader context, the “Program Growth Initiative” is part of a strategic vision
for the agency set forth in 1999 by the former Chief of Engineers; the initiative was
brought to the public’s attention by articles in February 2000 in The Washington Post
and a more extensive series in September 2000 that criticized the initiative claiming
it placed as the top priority expansion of the civil works program, regardless of
need.15 The initiative set expansion targets for the civil works program that would
result in a 20% increase before inflation in the current civil works budget by 2005.
Former Chief of Engineers General Joe N. Ballard defended the Corps’ civil works
13U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Letter to The President, December 6, 2000. The text of the
Inspector General’s report is available at [http://www.osc.gov/reading.htm].
14National Academy of Sciences, Inland Navigation System Planning: The Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001, 5 and 28.
Hereafter referred to as National Academy of Sciences, 2001.
15 “Generals Push Huge Growth for Engineers,” The Washington Post, February 24, 2000.
The initiative allegedly was undertaken without the knowledge of the Assistant Army
Secretary. A Corps-produced presentation outlining the initiative is available at:
[http://www.environmentaldefense.org/programs/Ecosystems/Mississippi/CorpsPPT/index
.html].

---

CRS-7
program: “[W]e are seeking to identify unmet National water resource needs that fall
within the Corps’ mission areas. These needs are based on published and documented
information. Our role is to apply a structured, reasoned approach to identifying and
quantifying the Nation’s water resource needs.”16 The Inspector General’s report
explains that Corps officials’ interest in identifying unmet needs derives from the
challenge the agency faces due to limited public and fiscal support and local demand
for navigation and flood control projects.
Environmental and taxpayer groups use the various studies and reports in their
pursuit for reform of Corps management, operations, and policies. Environmentalists
are continuing their decades-old argument that the negative environmental effects of
some of the Corps’ current large-scale navigation and flood control projects outweigh
their benefits and that environmental impacts are not properly measured, valued, and
mitigated. Taxpayer groups argue that the benefits of federal investment in many
projects are dubious and that project decisions are not based on sound economic
analysis, but on politics.17
Many groups and communities benefitting from Corps activities, such as the
barge industry, port authorities, and some farmers, support the Corps. They laud the
agency’s contributions to their communities and the national economy and argue for
its continued participation in inland waterways, shore protection, and flood
protection.18 They contend that the Corps’ critics unfairly cite a few complex, high-
profile atypical cases as evidence of fundamental problems with Corps operations.
Recent Legislative Activity
The 107th Congress has held several hearings related to the Corps’ project
planning and budget. The Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
16General Joe N. Ballard, Chief of Engineers, U.S, Army Corps of Engineers,
“Statement,”Oversight of the Corps of Engineers’ FY2001 Budget, Hearing before
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, February 24, 2000. Hereafter referred to as Ballard, February 24, 2000.
17Examples of these views are available in a widely-distributed report titled “Troubled Waters:
Congress, the Corps of Engineers, and Wasteful Water Projects” found at
[http://www.nwf.org/greeningcorps/report.html]. The report, which was co-authored by the
Taxpayers for Common Sense and National Wildlife Federation and published in March
2000, made specific recommendations for Corps reform and identified the 25 “Most Wasteful
Corps of Engineers Projects.”
18J. Ron Brinson (President New Orleans Port Authority), Tony B. MacDonald, (Executive
Director of the Costal States Organization), and George Grugett (Executive Vice President
of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association) provided testimony supporting the
Corps’ continued participation in inland waterways, shore protection, and flood protection
(Corps of Engineers Mission and Backlog of Projects, Hearing before Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, May
16, 2000). At the same hearing, William Parrish (Vice Chairman Association of State
Floodplain Managers) supported the Corps’ role in flood control and encouraged both greater
participation in projects by local entities and floodplain management strategies using non-
structural solutions.

---

CRS-8
Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is responsible for the
authorization of Corps projects through biennial Water Resources Development Acts
(WRDA), held a hearing in March 2001 on reforms to address the Corps’ feasibility
studies. General Flowers, the current Chief of Engineers, testified to the soundness
of the existing project development process and responded to concerns about the
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway economic study. In February 2001,
General Flowers also testified at a hearing on the Inspector General’s report held by
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Senate’s Committee on
Appropriations. The House Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on the civil
works budget for FY2003 in February 2002.19
Members of the 107th Congress have also introduced four bills to alter the Corps
operations—S. 1987, H.R. 2353, H.R. 1310, and S. 646. In March 2002, Senator
Bob Smith, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
introduced S. 1987 which proposes to modernize and improve the Army Corps of
Engineers. The bill includes provisions for reviewing and reporting on the
construction backlog and deauthorizing projects, independent peer review, and
increased non-federal cost-sharing for projects with primarily local benefits. The bill
would also require that projects meet a stricter 1.5 cost-benefit ratio requirement and
that project analysis and justification information be publicly available.
H.R. 2353 introduced by Congressman Thomas Tancredo would require the
Corps to produce a community relations improvement plan, establish mechanisms for
public hearings and independent review of projects, require public access to project
analyses, and create a deauthorizing procedure. The bill includes new economic
evaluation criteria and project management techniques, increased local cost-sharing
responsibility, and evaluations of the regional impacts of port and harbor projects.
Two related bills, H.R. 1310 introduced by Congressman Ron Kind and S. 646
introduced by Senator Russell Feingold, would establish economic development and
environmental protection and restoration as co-equal goals for the Corps. The bills
include procedures for establishing stakeholder advisory committees and independent
review of projects as well as requirements for public access to project analyses. The
bills would refine the Corps economic evaluation procedures related to environmental
impacts and establish stricter mitigation and tracking requirements.
The 106th Congress addressed criticisms of the Corps in Title II of WRDA 2000
(P.L. 106-541). Section 216 directed the National Academy of Sciences to study both
“state of the art” project analysis methods and to compare them to the methods
employed by the Corps and the practicality and efficacy of an independent review of
Corps feasibility reports. This study is independent of the study that the Academy
19See [http://www.house.gov/transportation/water/02-27-02/02-27-02memo.html] for
testimony from the March 2002 hearing. In May 2001, the House Subcommittee on Water
R e s o u r c e s a l s o h e l d a h e a r i n g o n t h e F Y 2 0 0 2 b u d g e t ( s e e
[http://www.house.gov/transportation/water/05-02-01/05-02-01memo.html]). The Senate
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Committee on Energy and Public
Works also held a hearing on the FY2002 budget in April 2001 (see
[http://www.senate.gov/%7Eepw/notices_107.htm#04-26-01)].

---

CRS-9
performed on the analysis of the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway. Section
222 required the establishment of Corps procedures to enhance public participation
in the development of feasibility studies, and to include, if appropriate, a stakeholder
advisory group. Under Section 223, the Corps is required to monitor the economic
and environmental results of up to five projects for at least 12 years. Section 224
called for a study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) on the effectiveness of
concurrent mitigation for fish and wildlife impacts (i.e., 50% of mitigation complete
before beginning project construction); it did not address wetlands mitigation per se.
Corps reform bills were introduced during the 106th Congress—H.R. 4879, H.R.
5459, and S. 2309—however, the 106th Congress did not act on these. The provisions
for Corps reform included in WRDA 2000 were scaled-down versions of reforms
proposed in H.R. 4879. Neither the National Academy of Sciences nor the GAO has
published results from the studies required by WRDA 2000.
In recent years both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, which
are responsible for Corps funding legislation, have expressed concerns and comments
on the Corps’ project development process and criticisms raised against the Corps.
In 2000, the House Appropriations Committee noted in House Report 106-693
concerns about the Corps’ project review process and indicated its desire for a more
streamlined project development process.20 The Committee also commented on the
accusations concerning Corps officials improperly trying to grow the civil works
program; the report stated that while pressure on planners and engineers to
“inappropriately justify projects is unacceptable, the Committee believes that it is the
proper role of the Chief of Engineers to advise the Administration, the Congress, and
the Nation of the level of investment in water resources infrastructure that he believes
is needed to support the economy and improve quality of life for our citizens.”21 In
2001, the Committee in its report 107-112 addressed the criticism of the Corps
manipulating studies that were based on the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway. The Committee stated that the Corps officers charged with manipulating
the data were justified. The Committee states the National Academy of Sciences in
its report on the analysis of the waterway “has found that the Corps’ officers who
questioned the preliminary results of the study were justified in doing so since those
preliminary results were based on a seriously flawed model.” The Committee
disregarded the criticism that the Corps was secretly trying to grow its program by
citing the backlog of authorized projects.
In 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee in Senate Report 106-395 noted
its dissatisfaction with management reforms proposed by the Clinton Administration.
Although the Committee did not include language prohibiting Corps reform, it put the
Administration on notice that it would continue to “assess the need for such language
20A 1999 National Research Council report found only limited opportunities for streamlining
the planning process. The Council recommended several changes to help shorten the process
but found “[b]eyond these recommendations, however, further reductions may be neither
reasonable nor desirable” (National Research Council, New Directions in Water Resources:
Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press,
1999, 8. Hereafter referred to as National Research Council, 1999).
21House of Representatives, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2001,
Report 106-693, June 23, 2000.

---

CRS-10
as the process moves forward.” The Senate Committee also expressed concern about
the Corps’ expansion into non-traditional areas and areas where the private sector has
demonstrated capability and capacity. In its 2001 report (H.Rept. 107-39), the
Committee noted its satisfaction with the Corps’ response to the issues raised by the
whistleblower allegations and made no mention of reforms, but the Committee did
express a general concern over the growing construction and maintenance backlogs.
Corps Management and Operations Issues
Congress has not made significant changes to the organization, management, and
project development process of the Corps in recent years, yet it has made significant
changes on specific procedures and requirements, such as changes in 1986 to the cost-
share requirements for projects. Opinions on the need, nature, and scope of changes
in Corps policies and procedures vary widely.
Interest groups and individuals supporting changes at the Corps approach the
issue from many perspectives. They represent the spectrum of environmental groups,
as well as those who are interested in maximizing benefits of federal investments.
Similarly, groups generally satisfied with the Corps’ current policies and procedures
are not a homogenous group. Some reform opponents represent industries that benefit
from federal investment in Corps projects. Others are from communities interested in
benefitting from Corps projects in new mission areas.
The reform issues being raised during the 107th Congress are discussed below.
The following issues are presented in detail: project development process, economic
justification and analysis of projects, independent review and local advisory groups,
oversight by the Administration, environmental impacts of projects, and mission focus
and expansion.
Project Development Process
The Corps currently follows a two-phase planning process that is intended to
provide decision makers with sufficient information to determine if a project warrants
federal investment.22 Project development is directed by Principles and Guidelines
for Water and Related Resources Implementation Studies (P&G), which was written
by the Water Resources Council (WRC), guide decision making and analytical
procedures for federal water resource projects.23 The P&G was approved in its
current form in 1983. The P&G does not differentiate between benefits to individual
or local interests and society at large. The Corps also has internal planning guidance
22More information on the planning process is available in Planning Guidance Notebook
(Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100) available at: [http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/].
23WRC was established pursuant to the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act (P.L. 89-80; 42
U.S.C. 1962-b2). WRC is currently dormant due to a lack of funding. Given the WRC’s
status, the procedures for modifying P&G are not clear. Three other federal agencies—the
Bureau of Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority—also use the P&G.

---

CRS-11
in its “Planning Guidance Notebook” updated (and given its current name) in April
2000; this notebook clarifies planning procedures. In 1999 and 2001, the National
Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the
federal Principles and Guidelines be reviewed and modified to incorporate
contemporary analytical techniques and changes in public values and federal agency
programs.24
Projects originate with a request for assistance from a local community (e.g.,
citizens, businesses, or congressional delegation) or local government entity with a
water resource-related need that is beyond its capabilities to alleviate; the Corps’
district office typically requests congressional study authorization and funding to
undertake a reconnaissance study to investigate the need. This study is used to better
understand the nature of the water resource problem; determine the likelihood of a
project that the Corps can eventually implement; and make a preliminary evaluation
of federal interest, economic costs and benefits, and environmental impacts and
potential mitigation.25 Based on the findings of the reconnaissance study, Corps
headquarters decides whether to proceed to a feasibility study. According to
testimony by Corps officials, of every 100 reconnaissance studies only 16 result in
actual construction.26
During the first months of a project’s feasibility phase, the Corps’ local district
office formulates alternative plans, investigates engineering feasibility, assesses
environmental impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA,
the National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321) and other
regulations, and conducts benefit-cost analyses according to the P&G and Corps
guidelines. The district office distributes a project’s draft feasibility report for review
by its division, Corps headquarters, affected federal agencies, governors of affected
states, and the general public. The feasibility phase ends when the Chief of Engineers
signs a final recommendation. The Corps then begins preconstruction engineering and
design, a one to two year process conducted while pursuing congressional
authorization for construction.
Congress typically authorizes Corps projects as part of a biennial consideration
of a Water Resources Development Act, which is expected in 2002. Congress might
authorize construction of a project on the basis of a Chief of Engineers report, or it
might wait for review by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Following authorization for construction, the
federal cost-share may be provided on an annual basis in the annual Energy and Water
24National Research Council, 1999, 4-5; National Academy of Sciences, 2001, 5 and 28.
25This description of the reconnaissance study is from Chapter VII of the Corps’ 1996 Project
Partnership Kit available at:
[http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/Products/reports/reports.htm#planning].
26General Robert B. Flowers, “Oral Statement,” Reforms to Address the Corps of Engineers
Feasibility Studies, Hearing before Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, March 15, 2001. Hereafter referred to
as General Robert B. Flowers, March 15, 2001.The testimony is available at:
[http://www.senate.gov/~epw/stm1_107.htm#03-15-01].

---

CRS-12
Appropriations Act.27 Construction is managed by the Corps’ district but typically is
performed by private contractors. Most projects are operated and maintained by local
sponsors.
Advocates of reform argue that the Corps’ project development process needs
to better reflect the national interest and current values, such as giving a higher
priority to environmental objectives and projects with national benefits. The
construction and maintenance backlogs motivate interest in refining criteria to
prioritize activities based on the greatest national benefit. Others contend that
“reform” is not needed; they argue that the Corps’ current project development
practices are among the most advanced used by the federal government and produce
sound projects with national benefits. Some also argue that federal funding is
adequately directed to priority projects through the congressional appropriations
process.
Critics of the Corps argue that the heart of the problem with the agency’s project
development process is a fundamental conflict of interest: the Corps evaluates
proposed projects and builds the ones it deems worthwhile. Critics assert that the
Corps lacks objectivity because if an analysis concludes that economic costs of a
project outweigh benefits, or that the ecological damage of a project is too extreme,
the agency loses a potential construction job. Critics believe that the Corps’ dual
responsibility for project evaluation and project construction produces incentives for
the agency to bias studies toward recommendations to proceed. The December 2000
Inspector General’s report partially attributes the institutional bias toward large
construction projects to district staff funding. The report explains: “The Districts were
dependent upon project funds to maintain their staffs. The continued vitality of the
Districts was thus dependent on producing study results that favored construction
projects.”28 Critics claim that these incentives are particularly strong at present
because of pressures to grow the civil works program. Retired Chief of Engineers
Ballard fiercely defended the integrity of the agency’s staff and studies, saying that the
Corps’ system of internal checks and balances filter out questionable projects and lead
to unbiased recommendations in the public interest.29 This sentiment was reiterated
by General Flowers at recent hearings.
Reform supporters have set forth a variety of proposals for changing the project
development process to focus the Corps’ efforts and funding. Some groups concerned
about federal spending propose requiring Corps feasibility studies to demonstrate that
projects are primarily in the national interest, prioritizing projects on the basis of their
benefit-cost ratio and other criteria, and designing projects to maximize net national
benefits per dollar invested. They are also concerned that the benefits of some current
projects are concentrated among a limited number of agribusinesses, farmers, ports,
27More information on the federal budget process is available in Chapter VII of the 1996
Project Partnership Kit available at:
[http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/Products/reports/reports.htm#planning].
28Department of the Army, U.S. Army Inspector General Agency Report of Investigation
(Case 00-019), December 2000, 7. Hereafter referred to as Department of the Army, 2000.
29Ballard, February 24, 2000.

---

CRS-13
barge firms, shipping firms, and developers. Critics of the Corps argue that local
interests now dominate the project development process because cost-sharing
requirements financially tie the districts to local interests. Reform supporters contend
that this tie results in the districts not demonstrating sufficient concern for the national
interest; they see this as problematic under the current project development process
which incorporates only limited review from the division, headquarters, and senior
Administration officials.
Some local project sponsors argue that local interests must be involved in project
development since they are contributing local financial resources to Corps projects.
Supporters of current practices argue that the projects are in the national interest if
they comply with the P&G.30 In recent testimony, General Flowers stated: “An
unintended effect of cost-sharing has been the focus of studies, as cost sharing
partners are reluctant to finance studies that are broader than their immediate concern.
As a result, our planners are often caught between the forces seeking comprehensive
planning at one end of the spectrum and those who voice concerns for addressing
needs on an expedited basis and early screening of alternatives that have little chance
of being implemented.”31
Economic Justification and Analysis of Projects
The benefit-cost analysis conducted as part of the feasibility phase is intended to
provide a measure by which to compare a project’s benefits to the investment required
and costs borne by society. The Corps began using benefit-cost analyses in the 1930s
and has continued to refine its procedures in applying this decision-making technique.
Nonetheless, the Corps’ application of benefit-cost analysis continues to draw
criticism. Although criticisms that the Corps uses benefit-cost techniques that
undervalue environmental benefits and damages are still raised, recent critics of the
agency’s economic studies have focused on the applied economic models and data
supporting the analysis.32 Some Corps observers have voiced concern about the
validity of assumptions and projections and the improper participation in the analysis
by powerful stakeholders that would benefit from projects.33 Another concern that has
30The P&G state that “The Federal objective of water and related land resources project
planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with projecting the
Nation’s environment.” (1983, p. iv).
31General Robert B. Flowers, March 15, 2001.
32The February 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences titled “Inland Navigation
System Planning: The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway” provides an analysis and
critique of an economic analysis for one project. The report is available at:
[http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10072.html].
33The Inspector General’s report found that “the barge industry was viewed as a partner
during the study [of the lock expansion]. This view led Corps leadership to involve the
industry to a far greater extent than other interest groups . . . [A Corps official] permitted the
barge industry to become improperly involved in the economic analysis” (Department of the
Army, 2000, 7 and 13). Environmental costs and benefits (e.g., endangered species protection,
aquatic ecosystem protection or restoration, and aesthetic preservation or improvement) can
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
been raised is that analysis techniques in the P&G neither address a perceived
institutional bias at the Corps toward large projects nor account for federal fiscal
constraints.
Taxpayer groups argue that the Corps needs to be redirected toward more
fiscally-responsible management of the nation’s water resources; they propose
elimination of spending on projects and maintenance activities that do not provide
sufficient national benefits.34 Opponents to reform argue current cost-benefit
techniques adequately gauge if federal investment in a project is warranted and that
accounting for federal fiscal constraints is a budgetary issue and not related to an
individual project analysis.
Some fiscal conservatives argue for a national review of inland navigation
waterways, decommissioning of waterways that do not handle sufficient traffic to
support their operation and maintenance, and reduced federal responsibility for
operation and maintenance of waterways. They also support shifting to local
communities more of the maintenance costs of beach replenishment projects because
of their localized benefits. Some taxpayer groups argue for the termination of
congressional waivers and other methods to reduce local financial contributions to
projects. They contend that reduced cost-sharing increases demand for projects and
encourages over-built projects. Reform supporters also argue for increasing current
cost-sharing requirements for some types of activities, most notably flood control
projects, port deepening, and inland waterway maintenance.
Groups representing project beneficiaries contend that cost-sharing increases
would be unfair because only wealthier communities could afford projects. They argue
that the Corps’ continued participation in construction and maintenance of waterways,
flood control, and shore protection projects are in the national interest because of the
transportation and flood protection benefits they provide.35 According to Corps
officials, since 1959, Corps projects have prevented nearly $500 billion dollars in
33(...continued)
be difficult to quantify monetarily. The fact that environmental damage and benefits often defy
simple monetization and do not fit easily into a traditional benefit-cost valuation framework
continues to be a problem. Often, Corps officials will use surveys or models to estimate the
value or cost of environmental impacts; these surveys and models can themselves be quite
controversial (for more information see “Natural Resources: Assessing Nonmarket Values
through Contingent Valuation” CRS Report RL30242).
34Examples of this perspective can be seen in the March 2000 report titled “Troubled Waters:
Congress, the Corps of Engineers, and Wasteful Water Projects” by Taxpayers for Common
Sense and National Wildlife Federation, and the recent report titled “Green Scissors 2001:
Cutting Wasteful and Environmentally Harmful Spending” by Green Scissors (a coalition of
taxpayer, consumer, and environmental organizations) available at:
[http://www.greenscissors.org/publications/gs2001report.htm].
35Corps of Engineers Mission and Backlog of Projects, Hearing before Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, May
16, 2000.

---

CRS-15
flood damages, returning $6 for every $1 invested.36 Others argue that the country’s
waterway and navigation system require modernization and improvement for ports
and shippers to remain competitive internationally.37 Some supporters of current
Corps’ practices respond to the whistleblower allegations with the argument that
Corps officials were fixing a flawed economic study, not manipulating the results.
Administration Review
Before the 1990s, the Assistant Secretary and the OMB typically reviewed
projects for technical and policy compliance prior to seeking congressional
construction authorization. Although the P&G do not differentiate between benefits
for individual or local interests and national interests during the evaluation and
development of a project, OMB is required under Executive Order 12322 to consider
whether a project serves a federal interest as defined by the President’s priorities. Like
the internal division and headquarters reviews, these senior-level Administration
reviews appear to have evolved from a technical and policy review to a more general
“policy compliance review” in an attempt to cut administrative costs and streamline
project development. Since the mid-1990s, Congress has authorized a significant
number of projects prior to a full review by the Assistant Secretary of Civil Works and
OMB.
Environmental and some taxpayer groups argue for increased oversight by the
Assistant Secretary and OMB in order to protect the national interest and balance
what they see as a strong influence on Corps activities by Members of Congress who
seek projects in their districts. Opponents of reform argue that current review protects
the national interest, so additional civilian control is unnecessary.
According to some observers, attempts by the Clinton Administration to regain
civilian oversight of the Corps in March 2000, after the whistleblower’s allegations
became public, contributed to a breakdown in an already poor relationship between
then-Chief of Engineers Ballard and then-Assistant Secretary Westphal. Staff of three
Senate committees—Environment and Public Works, Armed Services, and
Appropriations—jointly conducted an (unpublished) investigation that found no need
for significant management reform, but revealed a systemic communication and
management breakdown between the Chief of Engineers Office and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary.38 The relationship between the Assistant Secretary and the Chief
of Engineers was clarified through a joint memorandum in November 2000 signed by
newly-appointed General Flowers and the Assistant Secretary at that time.39 Some
36General Robert B. Flowers, March 15, 2001.
37For more on this perspective, see testimony provided at a hearing of the House Mississippi
River Caucus on the Upper Mississippi Navigation Study held March 15, 2001. The
testimony is available at:
[http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/uppermissreport.htm].
38 Senator Bob Smith, “Opening Statement,” Nomination of Maj. Gen. Robert B. Flowers,
Hearing before Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, September 14, 2000.
39“Memorandum for the Secretary of the Army: Civil Works Management and
(continued...)

---

CRS-16
critics of the Corps are not satisfied; they argue that the lack of input and oversight
by senior Administration officials is a systemic problem resulting from the Corps’
placement in the Army and congressional desire to fund certain projects.
Taxpayer groups and environmentalists posit that the reduction in review
contributes to the development of both unreliable feasibility studies and projects that
are not economically justified and/or in the national interest. They call for a full review
of projects by the Office of the Assistant Secretary and OMB before authorization.
The Clinton Administration stated that projects authorized on the basis of only a Chief
of Engineers report (or contingent on a Chief’s report), rather than following a review
by the Administration, received insufficient review from a national perspective.40
According to former Assistant Secretary of the Army Joseph Westphal, authorization
without the Administration’s review is common; he stated “Roughly three-quarters
of the significant new projects in last year’s WRDA 1999, and many of its project
modifications, were still in the planning stage or undergoing review when Congress
authorized them.”41
Recent WRDAs have authorized projects in the feasibility phase by making their
authorizations contingent on a Chief of Engineers report being available by December
31 of the year the WRDA is enacted. Reform advocates are particularly critical of this
authorization procedure. They contend that contingent authorization rushes projects
through critical stages of the development process (e.g., environmental impact
assessment) and that congressional decisions are being made without basic project
information.
Opponents of greater civilian oversight argue that the current project
development process and the authorization and appropriation process provide
sufficient protection of the national interest and that projects are rejected when there
is no federal interest. They note that the Administration’s reviews are used to inform
appropriations decisions (even if they are not used for authorization decisions). Others
argue that the Administration’s input is not necessary because it is the prerogative of
Congress to authorize projects for a variety of purposes and at variable costs and that
this review can be used to delay projects that do not conform with the President’s
priorities.
Independent Review and Local Advisory Groups
In the 1990s, the amount of internal review built into the Corps’ planning
process was reduced. Headquarter and division-level technical review were devolved
to the districts in order to cut administrative costs and streamline planning. Policy
review by the division, headquarters, and Assistant Secretary were consolidated into
39(...continued)
Communications Clarifications” signed by Assistant Secretary Joseph Westphal and Chief of
Engineers Flowers on November 28, 2000.
40 Executive Office of the President (Clinton), Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2796-
Water Resources Development Act of 2000, September 20, 2000.
41Westphal, May 23, 2000.

---

CRS-17
a single policy compliance review by the Corps in Washington, DC.42 Currently, the
National Academy of Sciences is studying the efficacy of an independent review of
Corps feasibility reports. In recent testimony, General Flowers proposed establishing
an independent review panel of Corps senior leaders and outside independent experts
for large, complex or controversial studies while the Academy conducts its study.43
Environmentalists and some fiscal conservatives are arguing for an entirely
independent review of projects both to counter perceived deficiencies in internal
review and biases in the project development process and improve national-level
oversight of projects. They are also calling for the establishment of local advisory
groups for projects as mechanisms for reaching consensus on project objectives and
design, and opening up the decision-making process to the public.44 In their view, a
fundamental institutional-cultural bias at the Corps to promote large construction
projects affects the objectivity of reports and discourages internal criticism of projects.
They argue that independent review and local advocacy groups are needed to provide
additional input, including input by stakeholders opposed to a project.
Those opposed to increasing external input and review argue that the current
project development process already incorporates sufficient review and opportunities
for public input; they believe that more review will only delay projects and increase
costs. They also argue that the analyses undertaken during project development
inevitably require professional judgement calls and that Corps staff perform their
duties as responsible professionals.
Environmental Impacts of Projects
The Corps evaluates the environmental impact of its projects under NEPA and
other environmental laws. During this evaluation process, if the Corps determines that
actions are needed to mitigate project impacts, mitigation planning is conducted
during the feasibility phase. The Chief’s Environmental Advisory Board, which was
created to provide advice on developing policy and procedural recommendations for
engineering and economic development in an environmentally sustainable manner, has
not been active in recent years. While testifying in March 2001, General Flowers
proposed reactivating the Board in April 2001.45
Environmentalists’ fundamental criticism of the Corps is that the negative
environmental effects of some navigation and flood control projects developed and
proposed by the Corps outweigh their benefits to the nation. They allege that the
42More information on the evolution of the Corps’ review procedures is available at:
[http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/reviewprocedures.htm] and
[http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/rp_faq.htm].
43General Robert B. Flowers, March 15, 2001.
44Destruction by Design: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Continuing Assault on
America’s Environment, a December 1999 report by the Gulf Restoration Network, includes
numerous recommendations for improving public participation at the Corps (available at
[http://www.gulfrestorationnetwork.org/CoverpagesGRN2.htm]).
45General Robert B. Flowers, March 15, 2001.

---

CRS-18
Corps is not living up to the environmental regulations that apply to its projects and
that the districts are acting too autonomously, resulting in varied implementation of
national policy. Environmentalists argue that the Corps has not been kept to the same
mitigation standards as other developers, particularly in regards to wetlands. Proposed
reforms include full wetlands mitigation for environmental impacts of projects by
replacing habitat destroyed acre-for-acre and simultaneous appropriations for
mitigation and construction. Other proposals have the Environmental Advisory Board
of the Corps evaluating projects during the reconnaissance phase to determine if
environmental impacts can be successfully mitigated. Opponents of such changes
argue that the current planning process and regulations already provide sufficient
environmental protection. They contend that further requirements would only cause
delay and increase costs.
Mission Focus and Expansion
In recent years, Congress has assigned the Corps new responsibilities outside of
its traditional mission. Most notable has been the dramatic growth in the number and
size of ecosystem restoration projects, such as the Corps’ Florida Everglades
activities. Other non-traditional responsibilities that Congress has given to the Corps
include: beach nourishment, brownfield revitalization, nuclear waste cleanup, and a
limited number of wastewater treatment and water supply projects.
The 107th Congress and the Bush Administration have expressed differing
perspectives on how to define the core mission of this agency. In H.Rept. 107-112,
the House Committee on Appropriations stated the following: “The Committee fully
supports the environmental restoration efforts being undertaken by the Corps, but
urges it to maintain a balance in its work and not lose sight of its traditional missions
of navigation and flood control.” The Administration’s 2003 budget request stated the
Corps’ main mission areas as projects that: “1) aid commercial navigation; 2) protect
citizens and their property from flood and storm damages; and 3) protect, restore and
manage environmental resources.” In the budget request, the Administration also
expressed its perspective that Congress’ directing the Corps to work on non-
traditional projects (excluding environmental restoration) results in inefficiencies and
slows the completion of priority projects within the main mission areas.
Fiscal conservatives and taxpayer groups argue that the Corps’ mission should
be limited so that federal appropriations can be focused on priorities with national
benefits and on needs that are not already addressed by the private sector and other
agencies (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on brownfield revitalization46
and wastewater treatment). These taxpayer groups, environmental groups working
on urban sprawl issues, and some Members are uncomfortable about authorizations
and recent limited appropriations for the Corps to disburse grants for community
46Both the Clinton Administration’s legislative program and a bill titled “State and Local
Brownfield Revitalization Act” (S. 2335) introduced on March 30, 2000 proposed a $100
million authorization for Corps remediation at publicly-owned brownfield sites impacting
waterways. The Senate hearing on May 23, 2000 included much testimony supporting Corps
involvement in brownfield revitalization. Among the reasons cited were consistency with the
Corps’ existing mission, activities, and competencies.

---

CRS-19
wastewater treatment and water supply. Prior to 1992, Corps involvement in
municipal water infrastructure was limited to water supply from Corps reservoirs paid
for by local project sponsors. Financing community water and sewer systems has
traditionally been the responsibility of local government, with the federal government
providing some directed grants and low-interest loans.47
On the topic of mission expansion, some Corps observers who generally oppose
change share an interest with reform supporters in limiting the Corps’ mission. Both
groups argue that new responsibilities dilute the agency’s efforts and funding.
However, the two groups differ in perspective on how to limit the Corps’ mission.
Environmentalists advocating reform generally support Corps ecosystem restoration
work, but discourage further expansion of the agency’s mission. Local sponsors of
navigation and flood control projects, who generally oppose reform, fear that the
Corps’ growing involvement in environmental restoration and other new
responsibilities detracts from the agency’s ability to carry out its traditional mission.
This concern about environmental activities impinging on the traditional mission
became particularly acute after the authorization of $0.7 billion in federal funding for
the first phase of the $7.8 billion Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in
WRDA 2000 and in view of the numerous other large Corps restoration projects
under development, including projects for the Columbia River, Missouri River, and
Great Lakes.48 Beneficiaries of projects in new mission areas argue against any
restrictions on the Corps’ mission. They contend that the Corps has unique ability and
authority to work in a number of areas that are outside its traditional mission, but are
in the national interest.
Conclusion
Since the 1970s, reform of the Corps and its civil works program has been
attempted many times, with few changes being enacted. Current interest in improving
the agency’s policies and procedures surfaced in response to budgetary concerns,
allegations that Corps officials manipulated studies, and a growing backlog of
construction and maintenance activities. The basic reform issues that are being raised
before the 107th Congress are the following: what to include in the civil works
mission; how to maximize the effectiveness of limited federal appropriations; whether
project approval, review, and environmental mitigation changes are needed; and, if so,
how to change the Corps’ policies and procedures.
Some fiscal conservatives have joined environmental groups and other reform
advocates in arguing that many Corps projects generate significant environmental
damage with little economic benefit for the nation. Some reform advocates also argue
for increasing the input from the Administration, independent experts, and project
stakeholders to offset the perceived institutional bias toward large construction
47For more on the federal financing of water projects and programs, see “Federally Supported
Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs” (CRS Report RL30478).
48For more information on Everglades restoration, see “South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan” (CRS Report RS20702).

---

CRS-20
budgets. Groups benefitting from navigation and flood control projects favor limiting
the mission to these two traditional activities and generally support current Corps
operations and procedures. In contrast, groups benefitting from projects in new
mission areas oppose limiting the Corps’ expansion and vary on their stances on other
reform issues. All these interest groups are pressing the 107th Congress to decide the
nature of the civil works mission and how best to direct the Corps’ activities given
fiscal constraints.
The Bush Administration has pushed the issue of improving the Corps’
performance through its proposals for focusing fiscal resources on priority projects
with national benefits. The FY2003 budget request proposed reducing funds for
studying new Corps projects and targeting funds for completing priority ongoing
projects. This budget request gave priority to projects and programs in commercial
navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration and enhancement.
Members of the 107th Congress have responded to interest in changing the civil
works program by holding hearings on Corps reform and the Corps budget and
introducing four bills that address concerns about both the fiscal efficiency and
environmental impacts of projects. Many of the bills include provisions for improving
the public’s access to project information and analyses, increased public participation
and independent review, stricter cost-benefit criteria, strengthening of mitigation
requirements, and deauthorization of projects. The 107th Congress is confronted with
making difficult choices among competing priorities as it makes its annual
appropriations, prepares the WRDA authorizations, and considers Corps reform bills.

---