Order Code RL32064
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Army Corps of Engineers
Water Resources Activities:
Authorization and Appropriations
Updated November 6, 2003
Nicole T. Carter
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Activities:
Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
Congress authorizes and appropriates funds for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to conduct water resources studies and projects for navigation,
flood and storm protection, ecosystem restoration, and an array of other purposes.
Congress authorizes Corps studies generally as part of a biennial consideration of a
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) or in a survey resolution by an
authorizing Committee. Authorization to construct projects and changes to the
policies guiding the Corps civil works program, such as cost-share requirements for
projects, are also included in WRDAs.
Federal funding is provided for the civil works activities of the Corps primarily
through the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Due in part
to competition for limited funding, many authorized activities do not receive
appropriations.
This report explains how the congressional authorization and appropriations
process overlays the Corps’ project development process. Special attention is given
to initiating a water resources study, the WRDA process, and civil works
appropriations. This report will be updated annually.
Contents
Army Corps of Engineers and its Civil Works Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Initiating a Corps Project: Study Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Corps Project Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Water Resources Development Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appropriations: Energy and Water Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Phases, Duration, and Federal Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources
Activities: Authorization and Appropriations
Army Corps of Engineers and its Civil Works Program
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is a unique federal agency located
in the Department of Defense with military and civilian responsibilities. At the
direction of Congress under its civil works program, the Corps plans, builds,
operates, and maintains a wide range of water resources facilities.1 The Corps
attracts much congressional attention because its projects can provide significant
economic stimulation, locally and regionally, in addition to their basic resource
development purposes. Congress plays a significant role in the direction of the
agency’s civil works program, particularly through the authorization and
appropriations of studies and projects.
Within the Corps, projects are largely planned at the district level and approved
at the division and headquarters levels.2 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 for Civil Works. The agency’s traditional
civil responsibilities are creating and maintaining navigable channels and controlling
floods. During the last decade, Congress has increased Corps responsibilities in the
areas of ecosystem restoration, environmental infrastructure (e.g., municipal water
and wastewater treatment systems), disaster relief, and other non-traditional
activities. For more information on current issues related to the Corps and its civil
works activities, see CRS Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Program: Issues for Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Initiating a Corps Project: Study Authorization
A Corps project often begins with a request for assistance from a community
(e.g., citizens or businesses) or a local or state government entity with a water
resource need (e.g., navigation, flood or storm protection, or ecosystem restoration)
beyond its capability. Congressional sponsorship is generally necessary to
1 For more information on the Corps, its civil works program, and the types of projects that
it undertakes, see CRS Report RS20866, The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of
Engineers: A Primer, by Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody.
2 The Corps has 8 divisions and 38 districts. A division and district map is available at:
[http://www.usace.army.mil/divdistmap.html].
CRS-2
successfully initiate a study. The Corps generally requires two types of congressional
authority to initiate a study — study authorization, then appropriations.3
A study authority allows the Corps to investigate a problem and determine if
there is a federal interest in proceeding further. If the Corps has performed a study
in the geographic area before, a new study can be authorized by a resolution (known
commonly as a “survey resolution”) of either the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee or the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.4
If the Corps has not previously investigated the area, the study needs to be authorized
in an Act of Congress, typically a biennial Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA).5 The majority of Corps studies are currently authorized by survey
resolutions. Once authorized, appropriations for Corps studies are sought through
the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts. The objective of
Corps studies is to guide the decision to authorize a Corps project for construction.
Early in the study process, the Corps assesses the level of interest and support of non-
federal entities that may be potential sponsors. Non-federal sponsors are state, tribal,
county, or local agencies or governments that join the Corps in the effort.
Corps Project Development Process
Non-federal sponsors are involved in not only identifying the water resources
needs, but also contributing to each phase of the development process. Since WRDA
1986 (P.L. 99-662), non-federal sponsors are responsible for a significant portion of
the financing of studies, construction, and operation and maintenance (O&M) of
most projects. Moreover, non-federal support is useful in shepherding a project
through the many stages from study initiation to final project construction.
There are three phases that a project passes through before construction begins:
reconnaissance study, feasibility study, and preconstruction engineering and design
3 Technical assistance and some small projects can be conducted under the Corps’
Continuing Authorities Programs without obtaining a study authorization or specific
appropriations. They are performed at the Corps’ discretion based on the availability of
funds. The Continuing Authorities Programs include beach erosion, navigation, flood
control, streambank and shoreline protection, snagging and clearing, modifications to
existing projects for the benefit of the environment, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
4 To request a study’s inclusion in a resolution, a Member of Congress may send a letter to
the Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. House resolutions authorizing studies may
occur numerous times annually; Senate resolutions have been less common. The number
of studies authorized by resolution varies by Congress. The 105th Congress authorized 93
studies via survey resolutions; the 106th Congress authorized 92, and the 107th Congress
authorized 66. A survey resolution is permitted under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1913
(33 U.S.C. 542) for the examination and review of an earlier Corps report. To be eligible
for authorization in a resolution, the new study must stay within the scope of the
authorization of the original report.
5 These biennial Acts are commonly distinguished from each other by including a reference
to the year of enactment; for example, WRDA 1986 refers the Act passed in 1986.
CRS-3
as shown in Table 1.6 All three are conducted under a single congressional study
authorization.
Table 1. Project Phases, Duration, and Federal Cost
Preconstruction
Recon-
Feasibility
& Engineering
Construction O&M
naissance
Design
authorized
Duration
1
2-3 approx.
2
varies
project
(years)
duration
Federal
varies by
0% with
varies by project
Share of
100%
50%**
project
some
purpose
Costs*
purpose
exceptions
* For more information on federal and non-federal cost-share responsibilities for various project
purposes, see CRS Report RS20866, The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers: A
Primer, by Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody.
** Inland waterways feasibility studies are a 100% federal responsibility (33 U.S.C. 2215). These
projects are not considered to be “local” by their nature, and therefore, do not require a non-federal
sponsor for the feasibility study.
The reconnaissance study is used to better understand the nature of the water
resources problem and to determine the likelihood of a plan that the Corps can
eventually implement that is in the federal government’s interest. The
reconnaissance study also examines the interest of non-federal sponsors who are
involved in all phases of project development. Corps policy is to complete most
reconnaissance studies within 12 months; the cost of reconnaissance studies and their
related project study plans are generally limited to $100,000 and done entirely at
federal expense. Around a third of the reconnaissance studies eventually lead to
feasibility studies; only 16 of every 100 reconnaissance studies undertaken by the
Corps lead to constructed projects.7
If a non-federal sponsor is found and the Corps recommends proceeding, a
feasibility study begins. Its objective is to formulate and recommend solutions to the
water resources problem. During the first few months of a feasibility analysis, the
local Corps district formulates alternative plans, investigates engineering feasibility,
conducts benefit-cost analyses, and assesses environmental impacts under the
6 More information on the planning process is available in the Planning Guidance Notebook
(Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100) available at: [http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/]
and the Project Partnership Kit (IWR Report 96-R-10) available at:
[http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/ppkit.pdf].
7 General Robert B. Flowers, “Oral Statement,” Reforms to Address the Corps of Engineers
Feasibility Studies, Hearing before Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee
on Transportation and Infrastructure on March 15, 2001. The hearing is hereafter referred
to as Reform of Feasibility Studies hearing, March 15, 2001. The testimony is available at:
[http://www.senate.gov/~epw/stm1_107.htm#03-15-01].
CRS-4
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321).8 The
evaluation of federal water resources projects, including Corps activities, is governed
by Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Implementation
Studies. An important outcome of the feasibility analysis is the determination of
whether the project warrants further federal investment, i.e. if the project has
sufficient National Economic Development benefits.
The cost of the feasibility and environmental studies is split equally between the
Corps and the non-federal project sponsor. The feasibility phase ends when the Chief
of Engineers signs a final recommendation on the project, known as the Chief’s
Report. In recent years, the Congress has used a favorable Chief’s Report as the
basis for including project authorizations in a WRDA.
The Corps sends an informational copy of the Chief’s Report to Congress when
it transmits the report to the Assistant Secretary and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Since the mid-1990s, Congress has authorized a significant number
of projects based on these informational copies, prior to the projects receiving a full
review by the Assistant Secretary and OMB. Some recent WRDAs have also
included authorizations for projects that were still undergoing feasibility analyses;
these projects were authorized contingent on a Chief’s Report being available by
December 31 of the year the WRDA was enacted.9
The study phase — preconstruction engineering and design — that follows the
feasibility analysis takes about two years and is conducted while pursuing
congressional authorization for the project and construction funding. The
preconstruction costs are distributed between the federal and non-federal sponsor in
the same proportion as the cost-share arrangement for the construction phase. Once
the project receives congressional authorization, federal funds for construction are
sought annually in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. The
federal cost-share for construction varies by project purpose. Non-federal parties are
responsible for all operation and maintenance expenses, absent a few exceptions for
harbors and inland waterways.
A project is likely to undergo some changes after authorization. If project
features or the estimated project cost changes significantly, an additional
congressional authorization may be necessary. Authorization of a significant
modification is typically sought in a WRDA. For less significant modifications,
however, additional authorization is often not necessary. Section 902 of WRDA
1986 allows for increases in total project costs of up to 20% due to modifications that
8 Generally, the district produces an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a project
during the feasibility phase; however, projects, conducted under continuing authorities
programs may undergo a more limited environmental assessment. An important part of the
feasibility phase are public meetings that are normally held to determine the view of local
interests on the extent and type of improvement desired.
9 For more information on concerns raised that Corps projects are being authorized before
being fully reviewed and that they are being rushed through the planning process by
contingent authorizations, see CRS Report RL30928, Army Corps of Engineers: Civil Works
Reform Issues in the 107th Congress, by Nicole T. Carter.
CRS-5
do not materially change the project’s scope or function without requiring additional
authorization.
Water Resources Development Act
WRDAs are legislative vehicles that typically are exclusively dedicated to
authorizing Corps activities and establishing policies for Corps civil works activities,
such as cost-share requirements. Authorizations in WRDA usually fall under three
general categories: studies, projects, and modifications to existing authorizations.
Beginning in 1986, a biennial WRDA cycle has loosely been followed, with
WRDAs enacted in 1988 (P.L. 100-676), 1990 (P.L. 101-640), 1992 (P.L. 102-580),
1996 (P.L. 104-303), 1999 (P.L. 106-053), and 2000 (P.L. 106-541).10 Recent
WRDAs have each authorized projects whose potential federal appropriations could
reach between $3 billion and $4.3 billion; many of these WRDAs authorized or
modified the authorization of more than a hundred projects.11 Pressure to authorize
new projects, increase authorized funding levels, and modify existing projects is
often intense, thus promoting a fairly regular (if not always biennial) consideration
of WRDA. Controversial projects and policy changes have complicated the passage
of some WRDAs, or even derailed them until the next Congress. For example, some
Members of the 107th Congress were interested in including provisions in a proposed
WRDA 2002 to change how the Corps evaluates and undertakes projects (i.e., “Corps
reform”). A lack of Corps reform measures reportedly contributed to the bill not
being voted on by the House. The proposed WRDA 2003 is based largely on this
2002 bill; however, WRDA 2003 has been amended to include some Corps reform
provisions. (For more information on WRDA 2003, see CRS Issue Brief IB10120,
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for Congress, by Nicole T.
Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh. For more information on Corps reform, see CRS
Report RL30928, Army Corps of Engineers: Civil Works Reform Issues in the 107th
Congress, by Nicole T. Carter).
Once the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works decides to consider a WRDA,
Members of Congress may send a letter to the appropriate Committee Chair
requesting the inclusion of a study authorization, project authorization, or project
modification.12 If the WRDA has been introduced in February or early March
(according to a traditional WRDA cycle), Committee staff generally recommend that
10 WRDA 1986 marked the end of a decade or more of stalemate between the Congress and
the Executive Branch regarding authorizations. In addition to authorizing numerous
projects, WRDA 1986 resolved long-standing disputes related to cost-sharing, user fees, and
environmental requirements. Prior to 1986, disputes over these and other matters had
largely prevented enactment of major civil works legislation since 1970. Biennial
authorizations were resumed after WRDA 1986 to avoid long delays between the planning
and execution of projects and for Congress to review proposed projects on a regular basis.
11 For example, WRDA 2000 authorized the construction of 155 projects, and 56 studies,
and modified the authorizations for almost 50 projects.
12 Congress generally receives the Administration’s WRDA proposal during February of
the second year of a Congress, at the same time as the President’s budget.
CRS-6
letters be sent by late spring; however, no formal deadline exists. The bill reported
by the Committee generally passes that chamber with few changes. Although the
appropriations process determines which studies and projects receive federal funds,
the essential character of a project is established during the authorization process and
is seldom modified substantially during appropriations.
Although Congress has historically authorized Corps projects as part of a
WRDA, authorizations have also been included in appropriations bills, especially in
years when passage of a WRDA has been delayed. Authorizations in appropriations
bills, however, are generally not encouraged as standard procedure and may be
subject to a point of order on the floor.
Appropriations: Energy and Water Development13
Each Congress, through a WRDA and survey resolutions, typically authorizes
dozens of new projects; however, many of these studies and projects will not receive
appropriations. Fiscal priorities and public attitudes in recent decades have resulted
in declining federal funding for water resources activities, thus increasing
competition for funding among authorized activities.14 Moreover during the 1990s
and in 2000, Congress authorized not only navigation and flood control projects, but
also ecosystem restoration, environmental infrastructure assistance, and other
non-traditional activities. The Corps now has a “backlog” of more than 500
authorized projects that have not received construction appropriations.15
To concentrate limited resources and to move projects through construction, the
Bush Administration has focused its budget request on funding priority projects and
those projects near completion that are for flood and storm damage reduction,
navigation, and environmental restoration. It has also substantially reduced
appropriation requests for studies and eliminated the start of most new construction
projects.
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, regardless of which political party controls the White House
and Congress. Given the backlog of authorized Corps activities and the limited
federal budget resources, Congress and the Administration are sometimes forced to
make difficult choices among competing authorized activities as they prepare annual
appropriations. One consequence of limited resources may be that the appropriated
13 For more information on the Corps civil works appropriations, see CRS Report RL31807,
Appropriations for FY2004: Energy and Water Development, Coordinated by Carl Behrens
and Marc Humphries.
14 For example, the civil works budget has experienced a substantial decline in real dollar
amounts; the annual funding (in 1999 dollars) for the Corps’ construction account fell from
an average of $4 billion in the 1960s and 1970s to $1.4 billion in the 1990s.
15 How many of these projects remain viable and desirable is unclear. Some may no longer
have a non-federal sponsor ready to share project financing. A recommendation by the
Administration for federal appropriations is generally based on evidence of financial support
by the non-federal sponsor to provide its share of project costs.
CRS-7
funds for an individual study or project are insufficient to permit the optimum
programming of work by the Corps. Members of Congress may request that
appropriations for a Corps activity be included (or altered) in an Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill by sending a letter to the Subcommittee Chair or
the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development. In recent years, recommended deadlines for these requests have been
in March or April for both the House and Senate. Once appropriations have been
allocated for a Corps activity, funding requests for subsequent years are typically
accorded priority until the study or construction is complete.