Order Code IB10133
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
and Other Army Corps of Engineers Legislation
Updated September 3, 2004
Nicole T. Carter, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Key Staff
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Water Resources Development Acts
108th Congress and WRDA
Project Development Reform
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Investments
Everglades Restoration Implementation
Coastal Louisiana Restoration and Protection
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
IB10133
09-03-04
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
and Other Army Corps of Engineers Legislation
SUMMARY
The 108th Congress is considering autho-
restoration investments and authorization of
rizing Army Corps of Engineers civil works
an initial set of measures. A final report is
activities and changing Corps policies and
anticipated by November 2004. Some
practices through a Water Resources Develop-
environmental and taxpayer advocacy groups
ment Act (WRDA) and other legislation. The
continue to oppose the large-scale navigation
Corps plans, constructs, and operates water
improvements recommended by the Corps.
resources facilities primarily for flood control,
Navigation and agricultural interests insist that
navigation, and environmental purposes. The
these measures are essential for reducing lock
last WRDA was enacted in 2000.
delays and maintaining competitiveness of
U.S. products in international markets.
108th Congress and WRDA. The House
passed a WRDA 2003 (H.R. 2557) on Sep-
Everglades Restoration. In 2004, the
tember 24, 2003. The Administration does
Corps has advanced the planning of the first
not support the bill primarily because of the
two large-scale projects developed under the
level of newly authorized appropriations. The
Everglades framework approved in WRDA
Senate Committee on Environment and Public
2000. The two projects — Indian River
Works ordered reported a WRDA 2004 (S.
Lagoon and Southern Golden Gates Estates/
2554) on June 23, 2004. On August 25,
Picayune Strand — are being prepared for
2004, the committee instead reported a new
presentation to Congress for authorization.
bill — S. 2773 — which has been placed on
This is bringing attention to implementation
the Senate calender. It authorizes a few con-
issues with the $7.8 billion effort. A primary
troversial projects that had not been developed
objective of Everglades restoration is to redi-
in 2003 for the House WRDA bill, such as
rect freshwater that is currently diverted from
navigation improvements and ecosystem
the Everglades to the ocean, store the water,
restoration of the Upper Mississippi River-
and use it to restore the natural hydrologic
Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) and two
functions of the South Florida ecosystem.
components of Everglades restoration —
Critics question the extent to which the two
Indian River Lagoon-South and Southern
proposed projects satisfy this objective.
Golden Gates Estates.
Coastal Louisiana Restoration and
Project Development Reform. Al-
Protection. In early July 2004, the Corps
though both WRDA bills contain provisions
released a revised draft report describing
changing how the Corps formulates and
proposed activities to restore coastal wetlands
reviews projects, the bills differ in the number
in Louisiana over the next decade at a total
and content of those provisions.
cost of $2 billion. Both S. 2773 and H.R.
2557 include language related to restoration
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Wa-
generally, but neither bill authorizes a large-
terway (UMR-IWW) Investments. In April
scale restoration effort; the most recent action
2004, the Corps released a draft feasibility
on both bills occurred before the Corps re-
report recommending a 50-year plan for com-
leased the draft report.
bined UMR-IWW navigation and ecosystem
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Key Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Division
Telephone
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Steve Hughes
RSI
7-7268
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
Proposals for Upper Mississippi
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
River-Illinois Waterway Investments
Kyna Powers
RSI
7-6881
Everglades Restoration
Pervaze Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
Coastal Louisiana
Jeff Zinn
RSI
7-7257
Pervaze Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
IB10133
09-03-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On August 6, 2004, the Chief of Engineers signed a report recommending that Congress
proceed with the $1.2 billion Indian River Lagoon-South project for wetlands and estuarine
restoration; the project is part of the larger Everglades restoration effort. The Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the Office of Management and Budget are
reviewing the report.
On June 23, 2004, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ordered
reported S. 2554, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2004. On August 25,
2004, the Committee instead reported a new bill — S. 2773 — which has been placed on the
Senate calender. Provisions in S. 2773 authorize navigation and ecosystem restoration
investments in the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System (UMR-IWW), the
Indian River Lagoon and another Everglades restoration project, and a limited set of
activities for a Coastal Louisiana restoration effort.
The House passed a WRDA 2003 (H.R. 2557) on September 26, 2003. H.R. 2557 does
not authorize either the Everglades projects or the UMR-IWW investments. During the
summer of 2004, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment held three hearings related to Corps projects: a hearing on the
UMR-IWW on June 24, a hearing on Coastal Louisiana restoration on July 15, and a hearing
on Everglades restoration efforts on July 22.
On July 2, 2004, the Corps submitted a draft 10-year, $2 billion Louisiana Coastal
Restoration Plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review and public
comment.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Corps is a unique federal agency in the Department of Defense, with military and
civilian responsibilities. This report focuses on issues related to the Corps domestic civil
works program. At the direction of Congress, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and
maintains a wide range of water resources facilities in all 50 states and U.S. territories.
Congress authorizes Corps water resources studies generally as part of a biennial
consideration of a WRDA or in a survey resolution by an authorizing committee — the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee or the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee. Authorization to construct projects and changes to the policies guiding
the Corps civil works program, such as project cost-share requirements, are also typically in
WRDAs. The authorization of Corps projects generally do not expire; however, there is a
process to deauthorize projects that have not received appropriations for seven years.
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 discouraged as standard procedure and may be subject to a point of order.
Authorization establishes a project’s essential character, which is seldom substantially
modified during appropriations. The appropriations process, however, plays a significant
CRS-1
IB10133
09-03-04
role because it determines which studies and projects receive federal funds; many authorized
activities do not receive appropriations.1 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.2 Moreover, during the last
15 years, Congress has authorized not only navigation and flood control projects, but also
ecosystem restoration, environmental infrastructure assistance, and other nontraditional
activities. The Corps now has a “backlog” of more than 500 authorized projects that have
not received construction appropriations.
Water Resources Development Acts. Authorizations in WRDAs usually fall into
one of three general categories: studies, projects, and modifications to existing
authorizations. WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662) marked the end of a decade-long 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. A biennial WRDA cycle has loosely
been followed since, 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. 106-53), and 2000 (P.L. 106-541).
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. 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 (or even derailed) the passage of some WRDAs. 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”). Failure to address Corps reform in committee legislation reportedly
contributed to the bill not being voted on by the House.
108th Congress and WRDA. On September 24, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2557
(H.Rept. 108-265) — WRDA 2003. During committee markup, selected Corps reform
provisions were added. (See “Project Development Reform” section for more information.)
The Administration does not support the bill, primarily because in its view the bill creates
false expectations by authorizing appropriations of more than $4 billion, despite current
fiscal constraints and the Corps backlog of projects.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported a WRDA 2004 (S.
2773) on August 25, 2004. The debate over the Senate’s bill is being shaped by conflicting
pressures — the Administration’s interest in a bill that limits new authorizations, and
constituent demand for Corps projects. S. 2773 includes provisions for a few high-profile
projects that are not included in H.R. 2557: UMR-IWW navigation improvements and
ecosystem restoration, and two Everglades restoration projects. S. 2773 also includes some
Corps reform provisions. The Administration has taken no position on this bill.
1 For more information on the Corps’ appropriations, see CRS Report RL32307, Appropriations for
FY2005: Energy and Water Development, coordinated by Carl Behrens.
2 For example, the civil works budget has experienced a substantial decline in real dollar amounts;
the annual funding for the Corps’ construction account fell from an average of $4 billion (in 1999
dollars) in the 1960s and 1970s to $1.4 billion in the 1990s.
CRS-2
IB10133
09-03-04
Some environmental groups have expressed opposition to S. 2773 because it does not
contain provisions to ensure the fiscal and scientific integrity of the Corps civil works
program, and it authorizes seven new locks on the UMR-IWW. Other interests are
dissatisfied with S. 2773 for opposite reasons. They argue that the reform provisions in S.
2773 are too burdensome and will delay Corps projects, and that funding for UMR-IWW
ecosystem restoration and navigation appropriations should not be linked. If S. 2773 passes
the Senate, the conference committee will have to resolve the differences in the two bills —
the number of projects authorized, the authorization of a few controversial projects, and
differences in Corps reform measures. After describing in more detail the two bills, this
report discusses the Corps reform provisions, UMR-IWW investments, Everglades
restoration implementation, and Coastal Louisiana restoration in the context of their role in
the debate over WRDA bills in the 108th Congress.
The House WRDA 2003 Bill. H.R. 2557 contains about 300 provisions authorizing
projects or changes to projects and 34 general provisions that alter various aspects of Corps
operations and policies. The bill authorizes 12 major projects and conditionally authorizes
(subject to a favorable Chief of Engineer’s report) 5 additional projects that fall under the
Corps navigation, flood control, environmental restoration, and storm damage reduction
responsibilities. The bill would deauthorize 31 projects. One of the more controversial
sections of the bill, §2028 Project Streamlining, is intended to expedite project
environmental review by authorizing the Corps to coordinate the activities of the federal,
state, and local agencies and Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the project. The provision
requires the Corps to develop a process to have the reviews and permitting by the agencies
conducted concurrently to the maximum extent practicable and completed within a time
frame established by the Secretary of the Army in cooperation with other agencies. Another
provision, §2003, would increase the federal cost-share responsibilities by 25% for
construction and 50% for operation and maintenance for deep draft navigation projects
between 45 and 53 feet in depth. For more information on the topic of harbor maintenance
funding, see CRS Report RL32192, Harbors and Inland Waterways: An Overview of Federal
Financing, by Nicole T. Carter and John F. Frittelli.
The Senate WRDA 2004 Bill. S. 2773 contains approximately 120 provisions
authorizing projects or changes to projects and 24 general provisions that alter aspects of
Corps operations and policies. The bill conditionally authorizes 16 projects. Controversial
projects authorized in S. 2773 that are not in H.R. 2557 include the UMR-IWW navigation
improvements ($1.73 billion) and ecosystem restoration ($1.46 billion) and two Everglades
restoration projects ($1.21 billion and $363 million). Other authorizations and changes in
the bill include Coastal Louisiana restoration and protection ($325 million), California’s
Salton Sea restoration ($26 million), removal of the federal Matilija dam for ecosystem
restoration ($130 million), and expansion of continuing authority programs (which are
programmatic authorities under which multiple projects are undertaken). S. 2773’s measure
on continuing authority programs would :
! create two new programs — a dam removal or rehabilitation program,3 and
a program to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats (both programs are
3 Another section of the bill — §5305 — expands the list of dams and provides the Corps with the
authority to carry out measures for dam remediation in Vermont.
CRS-3
IB10133
09-03-04
authorized at $25 million annually, with a cap of $5 million per project and
a project cost-share of 65% federal and 35% nonfederal);
! increase the authorized appropriations level for the streambank and shoreline
protection and restoration program (from $15 million to $20 million
annually) and its projects (from $1 million to $1.5 million each);
! increase the authorized appropriations level for the aquatic ecosystem
restoration program (from $25 million to $75 million annually) and the
modification of existing projects for ecosystem benefits program (from $25
million to $50 million annually);
! increase the authorized appropriations level for projects under the navigation
enhancements program (from $4 million to $7 million each);
! modify an existing authorization for providing planning and design
assistance for abandoned mine sites into a program for planning, design, and
construction with annual authorized appropriations of $45 million at a cost-
share of 75% federal and 25% nonfederal.
S. 2773 also would deauthorize 65 projects, and includes some Corps reform provisions. A
budget priority process for flood control projects undertaken by nonfederal entities is set
forth in §3001. The bill also contains a number of provisions related to beach protection
projects. Section 3401 requires the revision of planning guidelines for shore protection and
beach renourishment projects. This section requires that the Corps establish an advisory
council on the environmental impacts of beach replenishment projects to coordinate with on
the revisions. The next section, §3402, alters the regional sediment management program,
and §3403 extends the national shoreline erosion control development and demonstration
program. A proposal to stop federal funding for periodic beach nourishment had been
proposed in the Administration’s FY2005 request.
Project Development Reform. Support for changing the Corps’ decision-making
process gained momentum in 2000 in the wake of a series of critical articles in the
Washington Post, whistleblower allegations, and ensuing investigations.4 Although some
Members of the 106th Congress supported Corps reform, other Members, along with
agriculture and navigation industries, were satisfied with existing practices. That Congress
did not enact changes; instead, in §216 of WRDA 2000, it asked the National Academy of
Sciences to review Corps planning. In April 2004, the Academy’s National Research
Council published its four reports from this review. Each report makes recommendations
for changes to the Corps and the larger water resources management context.
H.R. 2557 Reform Provisions. After reportedly lengthy negotiations, the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee added three procedural Corps reform provisions
to H.R. 2557. These provisions address some of the concerns raised by the House Corps
Reform Caucus and Representative Kind’s Corps reform bill, H.R. 2566. Other provisions
of H.R. 2557, such as the streamlining and permitting provisions, are viewed by
environmental groups as counter to reform (see “108th Congress and WRDA” section).
4 For background information on Corps reform, see CRS Report RL30928, Army Corps of
Engineers: Civil Works Reform Issues in the 107th Congress, by Nicole T. Carter.
CRS-4
IB10133
09-03-04
The Corps reform provisions in H.R. 2557 cover peer review of projects, additional
requirements for mitigating projects’ damage to fish and wildlife, and project planning
criteria that consider both economic and ecosystem restoration benefits. Section 2033 would
establish a process for identifying projects to be peer-reviewed and formulating the peer
review panel. Under this provision, the peer review process could encompass a broad range
of activities, including environmental and economic assumptions and analyses. Peer review
would be limited to scientific or technical matters and would not cover policy or legal
compliance. The panel’s recommendations would be advisory in nature and included as an
appendix to the Chief of Engineer’s report.
Section 2030 seeks to tighten requirements for the timing of mitigation and to specify
the contents of mitigation plans. This section does not appear to change the nature of the
mitigation requirements for Corps projects, as some proposed (and then withdrawn)
amendments would have; the provision calls primarily for procedural and planning changes.
Section 2032 appears to make three primary changes to the planning process by adding
guidance on the development of multiple alternatives for addressing a problem and the
selection of the preferred alternative. Specifically, §2032 (1) adds flexibility by permitting
the consideration of both economic and ecosystem restoration benefits of projects during
analysis and selection of the alternative to be pursued; (2) allows for the study and
recommendation of additional economic or ecosystem restoration benefits for projects with
a different primary purpose; and (3) increases the scope of the benefit-cost analysis of flood
damage reduction activities to include residual risk of flooding following project completion,
upstream or downstream impacts of the project, and an equitable comparison of structural
and nonstructural alternatives.
S. 2773 Reform Provisions. Like the House WRDA bill, S. 2773 contains
provisions on peer review, mitigation, and the planning process. It also contains some
provisions are similar to measures in S. 2188, Corps of Engineers Modernization and
Improvement Act of 2004. Section 1010 of S. 2773 would establish a peer review process.
Although the peer review process could encompass a broad range of activities, including
environmental and economic assumptions and analyses, it would be limited to scientific or
technical matters and would not cover policy or legal compliance. If the peer review panel
for a project submits its report at least 14 days before the Corps is to submit a study to
Congress, the Corps shall take into consideration any recommendations and prepare a written
response.
Fish and wildlife mitigation is addressed in §1011; the provision was amended during
markup to require acre-for-acre mitigation that fully replaces the hydrologic and ecological
functions and characteristics of the affected area. The section also would tighten
requirements for both the timing of mitigation and contents of mitigation plans.
Changes to the planning process are in §1008, which provides for the regular revision
of the Corps planning guidance and clarifies the elements of a benefit-cost analysis. It also
states that a Corps feasibility study may take no longer than three years.
In addition to measures like those in the House WRDA bill, the Senate bill would also:
CRS-5
IB10133
09-03-04
! establish a River Stewardship Commission to investigate river management
by the Corps, including concerns of Native American tribes (§1005);
! require a fiscal transparency report that includes, among other elements,
information on the backlog of Corps projects, the status of trust funds, and
inland waterway operations and maintenance (§1007);
! establish a Water Resources Planning Council to guide the Corps’ use of
economic, environmental, and technical information (§1009);
! authorize the Corps to annually provide $10 million in technical assistance
to nonfederal entities for managing water resources (§1013);
! require that the Corps develop a program to provide public access to the
Corps’ water resources and quality data (§1014);
! require a study and report on the ability of coastal or deepwater ports to meet
current and projects needs (§2211); and
! require that the monitoring of ecosystem restoration projects be shared
according to the cost-share formula for the original construction project for
up to 10 years (subject to other limitations (§4001).
Some of these provisions may be seen as implementing changes similar to those
recommended by the National Research Council in its planning review reports. For example,
§1007 may be seen as an initial step toward the council’s recommendation for inventorying
and ranking of funding priorities among authorized but unfunded Corps projects.
Stakeholder Responses to Corps Reform Provisions. Many reform advocates
see the reform provisions in H.R. 2557 as a first step; however, they generally prefer that
measures be stronger and that additional reform issues be addressed. Environmental groups
criticized the reform measures in the Senate WRDA bill for failing to improve the Corps’
project planning and implementation. Supporters of the agency’s current practices argue
there is no need for reforms because the Corps has a thorough project development and
review process.
Because of differing opinions of the need for and purpose of changes to the Corps, some
interests may see some measures of the WRDA bills as reform measures, and other interests
may seem the same measures as counter to their vision of reform. For example, the three-year
restriction on feasibility studies in §1008 of S. 2773 may be seen by environmental groups
as cutting short feasibility studies and the environmental studies that often accompany them.
Other interests are likely to see the same measure as streamlining a process that has become
too long and costly from their perspective. Other examples of provisions of S. 2773 that may
be viewed differently by interests with divergent views on what type of change, if any, is
needed include §1012, which allows district engineers (rather than the Secretary) to sign
project partnership agreements; §2256, which eliminates previous restrictions on two Corps
hopper dredges; and §4335, which extends and modifies activities under the Estuary
Restoration Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-457).
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Investments.5 The Upper
Mississippi River is at the center of a debate over the future of inland navigation, the
5 Prepared by Nicole Carter, Analyst in Environmental Policy, and Kyna Powers, Analyst in Energy
and Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
CRS-6
IB10133
09-03-04
restoration of rivers used for multiple purposes, and the reliability and completeness of the
Corps analyses justifying investments. The UMR-IWW is a 1,200-mile, 9-foot-deep
navigation channel created by 37 lock and dam sites and thousands of channel training
structures. The UMR-IWW makes commercial navigation possible between Minneapolis
and St. Louis on the Mississippi River, and along the Illinois Waterway from Chicago to the
Mississippi River. It permits upper midwestern states to benefit from low-cost barge
transport. Since the 1980s the system has experienced increasing traffic delays, reducing
competitiveness of U.S. products in some global markets.
The Corps has been studying the feasibility of navigation improvements since 1993.
The feasibility study has been controversial. In 2000, a Corps economist alleged that the
Corps manipulated the analysis to support navigation investments, and a series of newspaper
articles criticized the Corps’ planning process for the UMR-IWW study and other Corps
studies. In response, the Corps halted the study, and reinitiated it in 2001 with a reformulated
economic analysis and an ecosystem restoration objective. Ecosystem restoration was
included to respond to criticisms that the original study was too limited in its environmental
analysis. The study’s objective for restoration is to identify measures that address ecosystem
decline, including the ongoing effects of navigation operation and maintenance; the goal is
to benefit a broad array of species by reducing the loss of habitat, habitat quality, and habitat
diversity. Under the reformulated study, in April 2004, the Corps produced a draft feasibility
report recommending (1) a combined 50-year plan for navigation improvements and
ecosystem restoration, and (2) authorization of an initial set of measures, including seven
new locks.6 The analysis in the draft report has not significantly reduced the debate over the
urgency, necessity, and national benefit of expanded UMR-IWW capacity. A final report is
anticipated by November 2004, and a recommendation by the Chief of Engineers is expected
in late November 2004. Although the National Research Council had planned to release an
independent review of the draft report in August 2004, it is not yet available.
Three pieces of legislation in the 108th Congress — H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773
(Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2004) — would authorize investments in
navigation ($1.73 billion) and ecosystem restoration ($1.46 billion). The draft feasibility
report and the bills differ from the standard Corps feasibility report and authorizing language.
The bills authorize most of the initial set of activities recommended in the Corps’ draft
report; the authorization, however, is not contingent on a final feasibility report or a
recommendation by the Chief of Engineers. A fourth bill — H.R. 4686 — proposes
investing in ecosystem restoration using an existing Environmental Management Program,
without authorizing navigation improvements, thereby decoupling restoration investments
from navigation improvements. H.R. 2557 was passed in September 2003 before the Corps’
draft report; the bill contains no UMR-IWW authorization provision.
Navigation Investments. The 50-year, $2.4 billion navigation plan consists of
small-scale measures (structural and nonstructural) and large-scale improvements — seven
new locks and five lock extensions. In the draft, the Corps recommends that Congress
6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility Study (Rock
Island District, St. Louis District, St. Paul District, April 29, 2004). Hereafter referred to as Corps,
April 2004 Draft Feasibility Report and PEIS.
CRS-7
IB10133
09-03-04
authorize a first increment of $1.88 billion, including seven new locks and small-scale
measures for use during lock construction. Half of the funds for the navigation
improvements would come from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund (which is funded by a fuel
tax paid by commercial users of the national inland waterway system), and half from general
federal revenues. The seven new locks would be 1,200-foot locks parallel to existing 600-
foot locks, which will remain functional. With a 1,200-foot lock, a 1,100-foot barge tow (a
prevalent size on the UMR-IWW) can pass through in one movement. In contrast, a 1,100-
foot barge tow must undergo a multistep process to break the freight into two segments so
that it can pass through the existing 600-foot locks; the barge tow is then recoupled until the
next 600-foot lock.
The Corps arrived at its preferred navigation alternative through an analysis that lead
to three general findings. First, no single navigation alternative was a clear best choice
across a range of economic conditions. Second, the preferred navigation alternative depends
on two variables: (1) traffic forecasts derived from future trade scenarios, and (2) price
sensitivity of shippers. Third, the risks are high if no action is taken and high traffic occurs.
Risks are also high if a large investment is made and increases in traffic do not materialize.
Stated another way, the Corps found every alternative to contain risk in the face of an
uncertain future. Satisfaction of a fundamental justification for federal involvement —
national economic development benefits exceed costs — depends on what the future holds.
For example according to the Corps’ analysis, if UMR-IWW traffic continues at the fairly
constant level of the last 20 years, costs of large-scale measures would likely exceed
benefits.7 If navigation traffic on the system increases (i.e., follows the longer 50-year
growth trend), benefits probably will exceed costs.8
These findings are useful for understanding why proceeding with navigation capacity
expansion remains a polarizing issue. Some national environmental groups and Taxpayers
for Common Sense argue that available information indicates that large-scale navigation
improvements are not economically justified based on agricultural and transportation trends
and costs. Navigation supporters argue that those opposed to proceeding with large-scale
investments ignore both the realities of increasing delays and their impacts, and the
limitations of small-scale measures. For more information, see CRS Report RL32401,
Agriculture as a Source of Barge Demand on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers:
Background and Issues, by Randy Schnepf.
The Corps states that sufficient analysis has been completed to support an initial
investment decision to be implemented using an adaptive approach that minimizes risk by
controlling the magnitude of investment decisions.9 The adaptive implementation strategy
is designed to incorporate information gained during implementation into decisions and
subsequent investments by establishing three checkpoints for Congress and the
Administration. Although H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 would authorize the specific
navigation activities recommended by the Corps, the bills neither establish the draft
7 Ibid., p. 442.
8 Ibid., p. 442.
9 Ibid., p. 217.
CRS-8
IB10133
09-03-04
navigation plan as a framework nor adopt the adaptive implementation approach; the bills
rely on congressional input to occur through the annual appropriations process.
Ecosystem Restoration Investments. The Upper Mississippi River System
(UMRS) is declining due to multiple stressors, including the infrastructure that makes
commercial UMR-IWW navigation feasible. The UMRS consists of the UMR-IWW and the
aquatic and terrestrial habitats and species critical to the river floodplain ecosystem. This
ecosystem is losing the habitat, habitat quality, and habitat diversity that allows the UMRS
to support an unusually large number of species for a temperate river.
The preferred ecosystem restoration plan recommended by the Corps is for a 50-year
restoration framework at $5.3 billion aimed at maintaining and restoring a broad array of
habitats and ecosystem processes. The plan expands large-scale floodplain restoration,
initiates fish passage measures, and restores off-channel habitat. According to the Corps, the
recommended plan would not harm commercial navigation, water supply, or hydropower
uses of the UMR-IWW.
Under the Corps’ recommended cost-share option, of the total $5.3 billion ecosystem
restoration cost, $4.25 billion would be paid 100% by federal general revenues because these
projects address impacts of the existing 9-foot navigation project or are on federal land. The
remaining $1.05 billion would be cost-shared with local sponsors at 65% federal and 35%
nonfederal. More than 90% of the cost to implement the 50-year plan would be a federal
responsibility.
15-Year Restoration Increment. In the draft feasibility report, the Corps
recommends that Congress authorize an initial 15-year restoration increment at $1.46 billion.
The $1.46 billion would break down as 93% federal and 7% nonfederal. The recommended
15-year increment includes 225 measures from the 1010 in the 50-year plan. The three main
activities in the 15-year plan are:
! Fish Passage and Dam Operations. Fish passage construction at four dams
and fish passage planning and design at two dams ($209 million), and new
dam operating procedures (and related land acquisition or easements) at two
dams ($41 million) ($250 million total — 100% federal).
! Programmatic Restoration Authority. Programmatic authority to implement
island building, floodplain restoration, water level management, backwater
restoration, side channel restoration, wing dam/dike alternation and
shoreline protection ($935 million total, not to exceed $25 million/measure
— 100% federal).
! Land Acquisition. Land acquisition of 35,000 acres from willing sellers, for
floodplain connectivity and wetland and riparian habitat protection and
restoration ($277 million total — 65% federal).10
H.R. 4785, S. 2470, and S. 2773 would authorize $1.46 billion for ecosystem restoration
to be implemented consistent with requirements to avoid any adverse effects on navigation
and adopt the Corps-recommended cost-share option. The bills require that restoration be
10 Ibid, p. 522.
CRS-9
IB10133
09-03-04
implemented in accordance with the general framework outlined in the draft feasibility
report. The authorization would not be contingent on a final feasibility report or a Chief’s
recommendation. H.R. 4686 does not use the Corps’ preferred ecosystem restoration plan as
a starting point for restoration investments; instead, it expands investments under an existing
environmental management program.
Ecosystem Restoration Authorization Concerns. A main area of disagreement over
UMR-IWW ecosystem restoration is the question of how closely investments in navigation
expansion should be tied to restoration investments. Some environmental groups argue that
ecosystem restoration is necessary to mitigate damage caused by ongoing navigation
operations and maintenance; they want investments in restoration and new navigation
infrastructure linked. They fear that if the two are not linked, ecosystem restoration may get
authorized but receive minimal appropriations. Navigation and agricultural groups believe
that restoration should proceed and be funded separately. They do not want to have
navigation construction slowed down due to the constrained federal appropriations for
ecosystem restoration, especially in light of multiple multibillion-dollar, large-scale
restoration projects already underway or under development nationally. On the topic of
linking funding, S. 2773 requires the Corps to establish milestones for the ecosystem
restoration and navigation projects. It also requires the Secretary of the Army to determine
if the projects are being carried out at “comparable rates.” If the projects are not moving
toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding will be adjusted to promote
comparable progress. S. 2470 and H.R. 4785 contain no similar provision.
Two other concerns that have been raised regarding ecosystem restoration investments
are: (1) what will be achieved both under the first increment of authorized activities and the
longer, 50-year plan, and when will restoration be complete, and (2) should investments in
ecosystem restoration measures that restore natural river processes have priority over more
engineered solutions. To address uncertainty regarding restoration outcomes, H.R. 4785, S.
2470, and S. 2773 require a restoration implementation report due every four years beginning
June 2005. The reports are to establish baselines, benchmarks, goals, and priorities for
restoration projects and to measure progress in meeting goals. S. 2773 also has a provision
requiring that the restoration projects be designed to include target goals, performance
measures, completion timelines, and monitoring programs. To address interest in restoring
river processes, S. 2773 requires the Secretary of the Army to develop a ranking system for
restoration projects that emphasizes projects that restore natural river processes; S. 2470 and
H.R. 4785 contain no similar provision. The Corps’ feasibility report is designed to restore
ecological processes; it proposes restoration of natural river processes when feasible, and
when the navigation project and study limit the Corps’ ability to restore river processes, it
proposes engineered solutions.
Everglades Restoration Implementation.11 In the last two decades, the Corps’
environmental protection efforts have changed as the agency increasingly reworks existing
projects to provide not only mitigation but also ecosystem restoration. Ecosystem restoration
is new for the Corps and remains a relatively young science; these factors contribute to risk
and uncertainty as to how to best undertake restoration and what outcomes to anticipate. To
11 Prepared by Pervaze Sheikh, Analyst in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy, Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
CRS-10
IB10133
09-03-04
date, the Corps’ largest involvement in a restoration effort has been in the Florida
Everglades, with a three-decade, $7.8 billion restoration program. Congress approved the
Corps’ implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a
framework for Everglades restoration in WRDA 2000.
The principal objective of CERP is to redirect and store freshwater currently diverted
away from the Everglades to the ocean, and use it to restore the natural hydrologic functions
of the south Florida ecosystem. An initial set of CERP restoration projects and $700 million
in federal funds to implement them were authorized in WRDA 2000. S. 2773 would
authorize two more projects under CERP — Indian River Lagoon-South (IRL-S) wetlands
and estuarine restoration and the Southern Golden Gates Estates restoration (Golden Gates,
also known as Picayune Strand Ecosystem Restoration). The funds for these projects are
included in the $7.8 billion estimate for implementing CERP, yet were not included in the
initial authorization for federal funds in WRDA 2000. Under S. 2773, IRL-S would receive
an authorization for $1.21 billion with an estimated federal cost of $603.0 million, and
Golden Gates would receive $362.6 million with an estimated federal cost of $181.3 million.
Both projects are authorized subject to a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers of the
Corps. No similar provisions are in H.R. 2557, which was passed in 2003 before feasibility
reports for these two projects were completed. These two projects would also be authorized
under other pending legislation, H.R. 4344 and S. 2209. Because these two projects are the
first projects to be developed under the congressionally approved CERP, some view their fate
as test cases of the CERP framework and its other 66 projects.
Indian River Lagoon. The Corps recommends that Congress authorize a $1.2 billion
plan to restore the IRL-S wetlands and estuary.12 The Indian River Lagoon is a 156-mile long
estuary, located at the mouth of the St. Lucie River in eastern Florida. The IRL-S has been
altered by unnaturally large and poorly timed freshwater discharges arriving from the St.
Lucie Canal and other elements of the Central and Southern Florida project. One
consequence of these discharges is the accumulation of muck13 on the bottom of the estuary,
which has resulted in reduced water transparency, altered communities of seagrass beds, and
depleted populations of bottom-dwelling organisms such as oysters. These discharges also
bring unnaturally high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen into the estuary, which, according
to scientists, alters native vegetation and habitat for native wildlife. In a broad sense, the
high outflow of freshwater through the IRL-S to the ocean is argued by some to be one cause
of depleted water supplies in the Greater Everglades ecosystem. The significance of these
ecosystem problems is exacerbated by the high biodiversity found in the IRL-S. The IRL-S
has been recognized as an estuary of national significance and is considered one of the most
bio-diverse estuaries in the country.14
12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for the Indian River Lagoon-South (Jacksonville, FL, March 2004).
Hereafter known as Corps, IRL-S Final PIR. This document is available at [http://www.
evergladesplan.org/pm/studies/irl_south_pir.cfm], visited July 7, 2004.
13 Muck is composed mainly of eroded upland soils and contains high levels of nitrogen and organic
debris.
14 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.
CRS-11
IB10133
09-03-04
The recommended plan is to divert some of the current flow to planned storage
reservoirs as well as to disperse water throughout the IRL-S ecosystem. Four artificial
reservoirs would store excess freshwater for agricultural uses in the area. Natural storage
areas would be restored by acquiring nearly 93,000 acres of land. These storage areas would
also improve native habitat (which is a goal of the larger Everglades restoration plan) and
reduce phosphorus and nitrogen loads into the IRL-S. Further, the plan directs the removal
of an estimated 7.7 million cubic yards of muck and its disposal at a 1-square-mile site.
Some supporters of the Indian River Lagoon restoration project, including some
representatives of regional sugar companies, argue that the project will improve the seabed
floor and revive bottom-dwelling communities.15 Others, however, suggest that even though
the project will help the estuarine ecosystem, it will not completely attenuate freshwater
flows from Lake Okeechobee, a problem that may have to be dealt with separately.16 Further,
some believe that IRL-S restoration is localized and will have little impact on the Greater
Everglades ecosystem. In the Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for the Indian River Lagoon-South, the Corps states that
IRL-S restoration will result in clean water transferred to Lake Okeechobee, thus improving
the quality of water that moves through the ecosystem from the Lake.17
Southern Golden Gates Estates Restoration. The Southern Golden Gates
Estates restoration project (Golden Gates) is expected to cost $363 million, of which the
federal share would be $181 million. The nonfederal sponsor (the state of Florida) has
already spent nearly $100 million of its share on land acquisition; most of the remaining
funds would be for design and construction of the project, according to the Corps.18
The Golden Gates encompasses 86 square miles (approximately 55,000 acres) in Collier
County, FL, and includes several federal and state lands, such as the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge, 10,000 Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and others. Residential
development in the region has altered the landscape. Some alterations include a reduction
in the watertable, which has diminished cypress-dominated wetlands and has led to
colonization by invasive species.19 Other ecosystem alterations are an increase in the severity
and frequency of wildfires and degraded water quality. The Corps has prepared a draft
Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement (PIR/EIS) for Golden
Gates and solicited comments through July 13, 2004. A final PIR/EIS is expected by the end
15 Robert Coker, Senior Vice President, U.S. Sugar Corp. “Face Facts About the Lake, the St. Lucie
and Sugar Farming,” The Stuart News/Port St. Lucie News (Nov. 13, 2003), p. A9; and Testimony
of Eric Draper, Director of Policy, Audubon of Florida, before the U.S. Senate, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Water Resource Programs,
Hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 18, 2002 (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO).
16 Libby Wells, “Residents Get Last Shot At Restoration Proposal,” The Palm Beach Post (Jan. 14,
2004), p. 1B.
17 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.
18 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southern Golden Gate Estates Hydraulic Restoration Project,
Picayune Stand Restoration (Washington, DC, June 2004), visited on July 8, 2004 at [http://www.
evergladesplan.org/docs/fs_sgge_061504_english.pdf].
19 Ibid.
CRS-12
IB10133
09-03-04
of 2004. The proposed restoration plan would include the removal of roads, canals, and
other infrastructure. This plan is expected to increase freshwater flows to natural areas,
lower freshwater surges to the ocean, and improve water quality.20
Some are concerned that unwilling sellers may delay or stall Golden Gates restoration
activities that depend on land acquisition. Recently, a landowner in the Golden Gates region
has resisted offers from the state of Florida for a 160-acre parcel reportedly important for
restoration.21 Eminent domain proceedings are expected by the state of Florida, a precedent
that has been set in earlier land dealings in the Golden Gates and other Everglades restoration
projects.22 Indeed, nearly 98% of the land needed for restoring the Golden Gates is in public
ownership and over 1,800 parcels (representing almost 1,500 landowners) have been
acquired through eminent domain.23 The accessibility of the Golden Gates for recreation is
another controversial issue for local residents. Some are concerned over the loss of
recreational opportunities; the state has responded that it will provide areas for off-road
vehicles and other recreational activities.24
Coastal Louisiana Restoration and Protection.25 Coastal wetlands in Louisiana
have been disappearing at a high rate, and those losses are forecast to continue if no actions
are taken to reverse current trends. Federal agencies, led by the Corps and in coordination
with the state, developed a plan to slow the rate of loss and restore some of these wetlands.
An initial draft of this plan, completed earlier this year, was rejected by the Bush
Administration as being too expensive. It had several options that could have cost as much
as $14 billion over 30 years.
The Corps then prepared a revised draft, released in July 2004, with an estimated cost
of $2 billion for projects it proposes to initiate over the next 10 years. This set of proposals
includes activities that would divert water from the Mississippi River to convey sediments
into nearby wetlands and that would help stabilize the coastline. In the diversions, wetlands
would gradually reestablish themselves on newly deposited sediments. This proposal will
be subject to public hearings over the next several months. The Corps has stated that it could
issue a final report before the end of the year and start the initial projects as soon as 2006.
20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Integrated Project Implementation Report and
Environmental Impact Statement, Southern Golden Gate Estates Ecosystem Restoration
(Jacksonville, FL, April 2004).
21 R. Santiago, “Keep Out: Glades Settler Awaits Showdown With State Over Land,” Miami Herald
(July 6, 2004), p. F1.
22 For more information, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water
Deliveries Project, by Pervaze Sheikh.
23 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Statement by Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Secretary Colleen M. Castille Regarding the Restoration of America’s
Everglades (Tallahassee, FL, May 24, 2004). Available at [http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/
news/2004/may/0525_hardy.htm], visited July 12, 2004.
24 P. Hayford, “Restoration Drives Area to Adapt,” News Press (May 31, 2004).
25 Prepared by Jeff Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
CRS-13
IB10133
09-03-04
The Bush Administration has reportedly endorsed this less expensive effort, in which
the federal government would pay more than 60% of the total estimated cost, according to
news reports. The Corps will seek congressional support for the revised plan and
authorization for the specific projects. Currently, §3421 of S. 2773 would establish a multi-
agency task force to develop a comprehensive plan by July 2008 and authorize $325 million
in construction-related activities. Section 5058 of H.R. 2557 as passed in September 2003
would also establish a task force to develop a comprehensive plan by 2004.
LEGISLATION
Authorizations and WRDA
H.R. 2557 (Young)
Water Resources Development Act of 2003. Contains approximately 300 provisions
authorizing projects or changes to projects and 34 general provisions that alter various
aspects of Corps operations and policies. Passed House September 24, 2003.
S. 2554 (Inhofe)
Water Resources Development Act of 2004. Ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works on June 23, 2004. Instead on August 25, 2004, the
committee reported a new bill — S. 2773 — which has been placed on the Senate calender.
S. 2773 (Inhofe)
Water Resources Development Act of 2004. Original measure reported to Senate, and
placed on Senate calendar on August 25, 2004. It is now available for floor action.
Project Development Reform
H.R. 2566 (Kind)
Army Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2003. Establishes economic development and
environmental protection and restoration as co-equal goals for the Corps. The bill establishes
stakeholder advisory committees, independent project review, and public access to project
analyses. The bill refines the economic evaluation of environmental impacts and establishes
stricter mitigation and tracking requirements. Introduced June 23, 2003, and referred to
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
S. 2188 (Feingold)
Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004. Establishes
economic development and environmental protection and restoration as co-equal goals. The
bill establishes independent project review, requirements for public access to information,
and stricter mitigation and tracking requirements. It includes a process for review of the
Corps’ planning guidance. It increases non-federal financial responsibility for some project
types, applies a benefit-cost ration of 1.5 to 1 (instead of 1 to 1), and establishes a more
stringent deauthorization process. The bill would also focus activities on navigation, flood
control, and environmental protection. Introduced March 10, 2004, and referred to
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
CRS-14
IB10133
09-03-04
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Investments
H.R. 4686 (Kind)
Mississippi River Protection and Restoration Act of 2004. The bill provides for
ecosystem restoration of the UMR-IWW system by expanding the existing Environmental
Management Program and establishing a trust fund to fund the program. It amends the
existing program by increasing the authorized appropriation level for the entire program, and
recreation projects in particular. The bill also addresses other environmental and flooding
issues along the entire Mississippi River. Introduced June 24, 2004; referred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Resources.
H.R. 4785 (Hulshof)
Authorizes appropriations for UMR-IWW navigation improvements and ecosystem
restoration. The bill authorizes small-scale measures, construction of seven new locks, and
implementation of ecosystem restoration projects. Introduced on July 8, 2004; referred to
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
S. 2470 (Bond)
Authorizes appropriations for UMR-IWW navigation improvements and ecosystem
restoration. The bill authorizes small-scale measures, construction of seven new locks, and
implementation of ecosystem restoration projects. Introduced May 20, 2004; referred to
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Everglades Restoration
H.R. 4344 (Foley)/S. 2209 (Bob Graham)
Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act of 2004. Authorizes the Corps to
construct IRL-S and Southern Golden Gates Estates projects. Authorization is conditioned
on a favorable Chief of Engineers report. H.R. 4344 was introduced May 12, 2004; referred
to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. S. 2209 was introduced March 12,
2004; referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Background
CRS Report RS20866, The Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers: A Primer,
by Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody.
CRS Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for
Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Authorizations and WRDA
Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, H.R. 2557, Water Resources Development Act
of 2003, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on July 23, 2003.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administrative Policy on H.R. 2557 (made on September 24, 2003), available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/index-date.html].
CRS-15
IB10133
09-03-04
Reform
CRS Report RL30928, Army Corps of Engineers: Civil Works Reform Issues in the 107th
Congress, by Nicole T. Carter.
National Research Council, New Directions in Water Resources: Planning for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
——Adaptive Management for Water Resources Planning (2004).
——Analytic Methods and Approaches for Water Resources Project Planning (2004).
——River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(2004).
——U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity for
Service (2004).
Washington Post series on the Corps, available at
[http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/aroundthenation/corpsofengineers].
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Investments
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility
Study (Rock Island District, St. Louis District, St. Paul District, April 29, 2004),
available at [https://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns/documents/FES_EIS_
Report_Cover(2004).pdf].
CRS Report RL32470, Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Expansion:
An Agricultural Transportation and Environmental Context, coordinated by Randy
Schnepf.
National Research Council, Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Upper Mississippi-
Illinois Waterway Restructured Study: Interim Report (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 2003).
National Research Council, Inland Navigation System Planning: The Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
Everglades Restoration
CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh and
Barbara Johnson.
CRS-16