Order Code IB10133
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Army Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues
in the 109th Congress
Updated March 22, 2005
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
Legislative Status
Project Development Reform
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
Everglades Restoration Implementation
Coastal Louisiana Restoration and Protection
LEGISLATION
108th Congress
109th Congress
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10133
03-22-05
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Army Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues
in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Under its civil works program, the Army
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Wa-
Corps of Engineers plans, constructs, and
terway (UMR-IWW). Authorization of
operates water resources facilities primarily
UMR-IWW navigation and ecosystem restora-
for flood control, navigation, and environmen-
tion investments is anticipated to be part of a
tal purposes. The 109th Congress is expected
WRDA debate in the 109th Congress. Some
to consider authorizing Corps planning and
environmental and taxpayer advocacy groups
construction activities, and to debate changes
oppose the large-scale navigation improve-
to Corps policies and practices, through a
ments recommended by the Corps. Naviga-
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).
tion and agricultural interests insist that these
measures are essential for reducing lock de-
Once activities are authorized, the appro-
lays and maintaining global competitiveness
priations process plays a significant role in
of U.S. products. Defining the restoration’s
their realization. For more information about
federal-nonfederal cost share and determining
Corps appropriations and operational issues,
whether to link the funding for the ecosystem
see CRS Issue Brief, Army Corps of Engineers
restoration with navigation improvements are
Civil Works Program: Issues for the 109th
likely to be among the more contentious
Congress.
aspects of UMR-IWW authorization.
Legislative Status. Previous WRDAs
Everglades Restoration. Authorizations
have followed a loosely biennial schedule.
for two projects — Indian River Lagoon-
Although some action was taken on WRDA
South and Picayune Strand — as part of a
bills in the 107th and 108th Congresses, no
federal-nonfederal restoration effort for the
WRDA was enacted; the last enacted WRDA
Florida Everglades also may be part of a
was in 2000. Action on a WRDA bill is
WRDA debate. These projects are bringing
expected early in the 109th Congress because
attention to implementation issues with the
pressure to authorize new projects has been
larger restoration effort, and some critics
building. Authorization of a few controversial
question the extent to which completing these
projects and possible changes to Corps poli-
two projects will directly contribute to restor-
cies and practices are likely to shape a WRDA
ing freshwater flows through the central core
in the 109th Congress.
of the Everglades.
Project Development Reform. Al-
Coastal Louisiana Restoration and
though WRDA bills and other proposed legis-
Protection. Authorization of investments in
lation in recent Congresses have contained
coastal Louisiana restoration also may be
provisions to change how the Corps formu-
discussed as part of a WRDA. In early 2005,
lates and reviews projects, no significant
the Corps’ Chief of Engineers recommended
changes have been enacted.
$2 billion in proposed activities to restore
coastal wetlands in Louisiana over the next
decade.
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
03-22-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
A WRDA bill is expected to be introduced early in the 109th Congress, because pressure
to authorize new projects has been building since the last WRDA was enacted in 2000. The
House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment has indicated the first item on its legislative agenda is a Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2005. On March 16, 2005, the subcommittee held a hearing
on projects for inclusion is a prospective WRDA.

Three of the larger projects whose authorization Congress may consider for inclusion
in a WRDA have passed the milestone of having a report recommending the project by the
Corps’ Chief of Engineers (known as a Chief’s report). The proposed activities are now
being reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for consistency with Administration policy. The three
projects are:
! Coastal Louisiana: $2 billion in proposed activities to restore coastal
wetlands in Louisiana over the next decade.

! Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW): 50-year
framework for navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration, with an
initial 15-year increment of investments of $1.88 billion for navigation and
$1.46 billion for ecosystem restoration.
! Everglades: $1.2 billion Indian River Lagoon-South project for wetlands and
estuarine restoration, a part of the larger more than 30-year Florida
Everglades restoration effort.
Another Everglades project — Picayune Strand — that may be considered does not have a
completed Corps feasibility report, which is the basis for the Chief’s report.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Corps is a 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 U.S. states and territories.
Congress generally authorizes Corps water resources studies as part of a typically
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 also have been included in appropriations bills, especially in years when
CRS-1

---

IB10133
03-22-05
passage of a WRDA has been delayed. Corps authorizing committees generally discourage
as standard procedure authorizations in appropriations bills; authorization in appropriations
bills 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
role in the realization of a project; appropriations determine which studies and projects
receive federal funds.1 Many authorized activities never 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.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, exacerbating competition for construction
funds. The Corps now has a “backlog” of more than 500 authorized projects that have not
received construction appropriations consistently.
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.
After a summary of WRDA’s legislative status, this report discusses the role in WRDA
debates of Corps reform provisions, UMR-IWW investments, Everglades restoration
projects, and coastal Louisiana restoration activities.
Legislative Status. The last WRDA enacted was in 2000. Previous WRDAs had
followed loosely a biennial schedule. A WRDA bill is expected to be introduced early in the
109th Congress because pressure to authorize new projects has been building. Authorization
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 2000
dollars) in the 1960s and 1970s to $1.7 billion recently.
CRS-2

---

IB10133
03-22-05
of a few controversial projects and possible changes to Corps policies and practices are likely
to shape a WRDA debate in the 109th Congress, as they did in the 108th Congress.
WRDA legislation was acted on, but not enacted, during the 108th Congress. 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,” below, for more information.) The Administration did not support
the bill, primarily because it viewed the bill as creating false expectations by authorizing
appropriations of more than $4 billion, despite fiscal constraints and the Corps backlog of
projects. No further action was taken on the bill by the 108th Congress.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported a WRDA 2004 (S.
2773) on August 25, 2004. The debate over this bill was shaped by conflicting pressures —
the Administration’s interest in a bill that limited new authorizations, and constituent
demand for authorization of Corps projects. S. 2773 included provisions for a few high-
profile projects that were not included in H.R. 2557: UMR-IWW navigation improvements
and ecosystem restoration, and two Everglades restoration projects. S. 2773 also included
some Corps reform provisions. The Administration took no position on this bill.
Some environmental groups opposed S. 2773 because it did not contain provisions to
ensure the fiscal and scientific integrity of the Corps civil works program, and it authorized
seven new locks on the UMR-IWW. Other interests were dissatisfied with S. 2773 for
opposite reasons. They argued that the reform provisions in S. 2773 were too burdensome
and would delay Corps projects, and that funding for UMR-IWW ecosystem restoration
should not be linked to navigation appropriations.
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.3 Although some
Members of the 106th Congress supported Corps reform, other Members, along with
agriculture and navigation industries, were satisfied with existing practices. The 106th
Congress did not enact changes. Discussions of possible changes to Corps policies and
practices are likely to shape the WRDA debates in the 109th Congress, as they did the debates
in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses. Although proposals to change the Corps were
introduced in the 107th Congress and the108th Congress, neither enacted significant changes.
Although the 106th Congress did not enact Corps reform changes, it asked the National
Academy of Sciences to review Corps planning in §216 of WRDA 2000. In April 2004, the
Academy’s National Research Council (NRC) published four reports from this review. Each
report makes recommendations for changes to the Corps and the larger water resources
management context. The Corps argues that since 2000 it has implemented efforts to
transform itself, primarily by strengthening its planning and internal project review
capabilities, and is considering changes to its planning guidance documents.
3 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-3

---

IB10133
03-22-05
After reportedly lengthy negotiations, the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee added three procedural Corps reform provisions to H.R. 2557 in the 108th
Congress. These provisions would have addressed some of the concerns raised by reform
supporters: peer review of projects, additional requirements for mitigating projects’ damage
to fish and wildlife, and project planning criteria that considered both economic and
ecosystem restoration benefits.
Like the House WRDA bill, S. 2773 in the 108th Congress contained provisions on peer
review, mitigation, and the planning process. The mitigation provision received particular
attention; it was amended during committee markup to require acre-for-acre mitigation that
fully replaces the hydrologic and ecological functions and characteristics of the affected area.
In addition, S. 2773 would have established a River Stewardship Commission; required a
Corps fiscal transparency report; established a Water Resources Planning Council to guide
the Corps’ use of information in its analyses; required a report on the ability of coastal or
deepwater ports to meet current and projected needs; and required that some monitoring of
ecosystem restoration projects be cost-shared with nonfederal project sponsors. Some of
these provisions can be seen as implementing changes similar to those recommended by the
National Research Council in its 2004 planning review reports.
Many reform advocates saw the reform provisions in H.R. 2557 as a first step; however,
they generally preferred that measures be stronger and that additional reform issues be
addressed. Environmental groups criticized the reform measures in S. 2773 for failing to
improve the Corps’ project planning and implementation. Supporters of the agency’s current
practices argued there was no need for reforms because the Corps’ project development and
review process is sufficiently thorough. Because of differing opinions on 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 see the same measures as counter to their vision
of reform.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway.4 The Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) is at the center of a debate over the future of inland
navigation, the restoration of rivers used for multiple purposes, and the reliability and
completeness of the Corps analyses justifying investments. Consequently, authorization of
investments in navigation and ecosystem restoration of the UMR-IWW is likely to play a
prominent role in debates over WRDA in the 109th Congress.
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, purportedly reducing competitiveness of U.S. products
in some global markets. The river is also losing the habitat diversity that allows it to support
an unusually large number of species for a temperate river. This loss is partially attributable
4 Prepared by Nicole Carter, Analyst in Environmental Policy, and Kyna Powers, Analyst in Energy
and Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
CRS-4

---

IB10133
03-22-05
to changes in the distribution and movement of river water caused by navigation structures
and operation of the 9-foot navigation channel.
UMR-IWW Feasibility Study and Report. The Corps’ Chief of Engineers
approved the agency’s completed feasibility report on UMR-IWW improvements in
December 2004. The report was the result of a controversial feasibility study process that
began in 1993. The final feasibility report 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.5 The feasibility report
recommends:
! a combined 50-year plan for investments in navigation improvements and
ecosystem restoration, and for dual-purpose navigation-restoration river
management,
! authorization of an initial set of navigation measures at $1.88 billion,
including seven new locks and small-scale measures for use during
construction, and
! authorization of a 15-year increment of ecosystem restoration activities at
$1.46 billion.
UMR-IWW Navigation Investments. The Corps’ feasibility report has not
significantly reduced the debate over the urgency, necessity, and national benefit of expanded
navigation capacity. One reason that controversy remains is that the Corps’ analysis found
that if UMR-IWW traffic continues at the fairly constant level of the last 20 years, costs of
large-scale measures probably would exceed benefits.6 The same analysis concluded that if
navigation traffic on the system increases (i.e., follows the longer 50-year growth trend),
benefits likely will exceed costs.7 In other words, satisfaction of a fundamental justification
for federal involvement — national economic development benefits exceed costs — depends
on what the future holds. Some national environmental groups and the group Taxpayers for
Common Sense argue that large-scale navigation improvements are not economically
justified based on available agricultural and transportation data and trends and the costs of
the improvements. Navigation supporters argue that those opposed to proceeding with large-
scale investments ignore both the realities and the impacts of increasing delays, and the
limitations of small-scale measures. For more information, see CRS Report RL32470,
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Expansion: An Agricultural,
Transportation, and Environmental Decision, coordinated by Randy Schnepf.
Upper Mississippi Ecosystem Restoration Investments. The Corps’
ecosystem restoration plan has been less controversial. There is general agreement that the
ecosystem is declining and support for the 15-year increment of the Corps’ 50-year
5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Final 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), pp. 230 and 490. Hereafter
referred to as UMR-IWW Final Feasibility Report. Available at [http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/
umr-iwwsns/documents/FINAL_FES_EIS_Report_Cover(2004).pdf], visited on March 21, 2005.
6 Ibid, p. 458.
7 Ibid., p. 458.
CRS-5

---

IB10133
03-22-05
ecosystem restoration plan. While there is uncertainty over what the 15-year plan’s 225
measures will achieve, the National Research Council supports the plan’s adaptive
management approach to increasing species diversity. See “Additional Reading” for the
three NRC reports on the UMR-IWW. Debate over the restoration proposal focuses
primarily on implementation strategies. For example, environmental entities tend to support,
and navigation entities tend to oppose, dual-purpose management of the river for ecosystem
restoration and navigation. Disagreement also centers on the question of how closely
investments in navigation should be tied to restoration investments. Navigation and
agricultural groups believe that restoration should proceed and be funded separately from
navigation. They are concerned that linked funding will delay navigation construction.
Environmental organizations fear that if the two are not linked, ecosystem restoration may
get authorized but receive minimal appropriations. For more information, see CRS Report
RL32630, Upper Mississippi River System: Proposals to Restore an Inland Waterway’s
Ecosystem, by Kyna Powers and Nicole T. Carter.
Everglades Restoration Implementation.8 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
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. For more information on Everglades
restoration and implementation issues, see CRS Report RS22048, South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and
Pervaze A. Sheikh.
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. Two more projects
under CERP — Indian River Lagoon-South (IRL-S) wetlands and estuarine restoration and
the Picayune Strand ecosystem restoration (also known as Southern Golden Gates Estates
ecosystem restoration) — are likely to be considered for authorization during the 109th
Congress. These projects were included in the 1999 CERP framework,9 but were not
included in the initial authorization of federal funds in WRDA 2000. Because these two
projects are the first projects to be developed and need authorization under the
congressionally approved CERP, some view their fate as a test case of the CERP framework.
8 Prepared by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Analyst in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review
Study: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for
the Indian River Lagoon-South (Jacksonville, FL, April 1999). Hereafter referred to as Corps, CERP
Plan. Available at:
[http://www.evergladesplan.org/pub/restudy_eis.cfm#mainreport], visited on March 21, 2005.
CRS-6

---

IB10133
03-22-05
Indian River Lagoon. The Corps recommends that Congress authorize a $1.2 billion
(50% federal) plan to restore the IRL-S wetlands and estuary.10 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.
These discharges have altered water quality, and may have contributed to depleted water
supplies in the Everglades ecosystem. The significance of these ecosystem problems is
exacerbated by the high biodiversity found in the IRL-S.11
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 calls for removing
an estimated 7.7 million cubic yards of “muck” and disposing it elsewhere. The
recommended project has evolved since the activities proposed in the 1999 CERP plan; in
that document, the estimated cost for the activities that now make up the recommended
IRL-S project was less than $1 billion and consisted primarily of artificial storage
reservoirs.12
Some supporters of the Indian River Lagoon restoration project argue that the project
will improve the seabed floor and revive bottom-dwelling communities.13 In the IRL-S
Final PIR, 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.14 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. Further, some believe that IRL-S
restoration is localized and will have little impact on the Greater Everglades ecosystem.
Another concern that has been raised is the increase in project cost.
Picayune Strand Restoration. The Picayune Strand restoration project (also
known as the Southern Golden Gates Estates project) is expected to cost $363 million, of
which the federal share would be $181 million. The nonfederal sponsor (the state of Florida)
10 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. Available at [http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/
studies/irl_south_pir.cfm], visited on March 21, 2005.
11 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.
12 Corps, CERP Plan.
13 For example, 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).
14 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.
CRS-7

---

IB10133
03-22-05
has already spent nearly $100 million of its share on land acquisition; most of the remaining
project expenses are for design and construction of the project.15
The Picayune Strand project 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 lower watertable, which has diminished cypress-dominated wetlands and has led to
colonization by invasive species.16 Other ecosystem alterations are degraded water quality
and an increase in the severity and frequency of wildfires. The Corps prepared a final Project
Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement (PIR/EIS) for Picayune Strand
and solicited comments through December 19, 2004. After responding to comments and
finalizing the report, the next step for the Corps would be for the final report to be approved
by the Chief of Engineers. The proposal is to remove roads, canals, and other infrastructure,
and is expected to increase freshwater flows to natural areas, lower freshwater surges to the
ocean, and improve water quality.17
Some are concerned that unwilling sellers may delay or stall Picayune Strand restoration
activities that depend on land acquisition. Recently, a landowner in the Picayune Strand
region reportedly has resisted offers from the state of Florida for a 160-acre parcel reportedly
important for restoration. Eminent domain proceedings are expected by the state, a precedent
set in earlier land dealings in the Picayune Strand and other Everglades restoration projects.18
Indeed, nearly 98% of the land needed for restoring Picayune Strand is in public ownership
and over 1,800 parcels (representing almost 1,500 landowners) have been acquired through
eminent domain.19 The accessibility of the Picayune Strand 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.
15 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southern Golden Gate Estates Hydraulic Restoration Project,
Picayune Stand Restoration (Washington, DC: June 2004), at [http://www.
evergladesplan.org/docs/fs_sgge_061504_english.pdf], visited on March 21, 2005.
16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Picayune Stand Restoration Final Integrated Project
Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement (Washington, DC: Sept. 2004), at
[http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/docs_30_sgge_pir_final.cfm#pir], visited on March 21,
2005.
17 Ibid.
18 For more information, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water
Deliveries Project, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
19 Florida Dept. 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 on March 21, 2005.
CRS-8

---

IB10133
03-22-05
Coastal Louisiana Restoration and Protection.20 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 early in 2004, had several options that could have cost
as much as $14 billion over 30 years. It was rejected by the Bush Administration as being
too expensive.
The Corps then prepared a revised feasibility report, which it released for public review
and comment. The final version of this proposed plan, released in late January 2005, is for
$2 billion in activities to restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana over the next decade. This
report has been approved by the Chief of Engineers; it now undergoes a review by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and OMB. 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. The Corps has stated that
construction could be started on every project within 10 years. The Bush Administration has
reportedly endorsed this less expensive effort, in which the federal government would pay
almost 64% of the total estimated cost, according to news reports. For more information on
the status of wetlands in coastal Louisiana and the evolution of the restoration plans, see CRS
Report RL32673, Coastal Louisiana: Attempting to Restore an Ecosystem, by Jeffrey Zinn.
LEGISLATION
108th Congress
H.R. 2557 (Young)
Water Resources Development Act of 2003. Passed House September 24, 2003; no
further action was taken.
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;
no further action was taken.
S. 2773 (Inhofe)
Water Resources Development Act of 2004. Original measure reported to Senate, and
placed on Senate calendar on August 25, 2004; no further action was taken.
20 Prepared by Jeff Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
CRS-9

---

IB10133
03-22-05
109th Congress
S. 402 (Nelson)
Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act of 2005. Authorizes the Corps to
construct the Indian River Lagoon-South and the Picayune Strand ecosystem restoration
projects. S. 402 was introduced February 16, 2005, and 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 Report RL32064, Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Activities: Authorization
and Appropriations, by Nicole T. Carter and H. Steven Hughes.
CRS Issue Brief IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for the
109th 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 Sept. 24, 2003), available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/index-date.html], visited on January
24, 2005.
Project Development Reform
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 from 2000, 2001, and 2002 on the Corps, available on March 21,
2005 at
[http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/aroundthenation/corpsofengineers].
CRS-10

---

IB10133
03-22-05
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
CRS Report RL32470, Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Expansion:
An Agricultural Transportation and Environmental Context, Coordinated by Randy
Schnepf.
CRS Report RL32630, Upper Mississippi River System: Proposals to Restore an Inland
Waterway’s Ecosystem, by Kyna Powers and Nicole T. Carter.
National Research Council, Inland Navigation System Planning: The Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
——Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway
Restructured Study: Interim Report (2003).
——Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Restructured Upper Mississippi River-
Illinois Waterway Feasibility Study: Second Report (2004).
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 RS22048, 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.
Coastal Louisiana
CRS Report RL32673, Coastal Louisiana: Attempting to Restore an Ecosystem, by Jeffrey
Zinn.
CRS-11

---