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 December 7, 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
WRDAs — Legislation Authorizing Corps Studies and Projects
Regulatory Changes
Project Development Reform
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
Everglades Restoration
Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Restoration and Protection
LEGISLATION
109th Congress
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10133
12-07-05
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Army Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues
in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Under its civil works program, the Army
and wildlife mitigation, Corps planning, and
Corps of Engineers plans, constructs, and
independent review of projects.
operates water resources facilities primarily
for flood damage reduction, navigation, and
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Wa-
environmental purposes. The 109th Congress
terway (UMR-IWW). S. 728 and H.R. 2864
is considering authorizing Corps planning and
include authorization of UMR-IWW naviga-
construction activities, and is debating
tion and ecosystem restoration investments.
changes to Corps policies and practices,
Some environmental and taxpayer advocacy
through two Water Resources Development
groups oppose the navigation improvements.
Act (WRDA) bills, S. 728 and H.R. 2864.
Navigation and agricultural interests insist that
Once Corps activities are authorized, the
these improvements are needed to reduce lock
appropriations process plays a significant role
delays and maintain global competitiveness.
in their realization.
Whether and how to link UMR-IWW naviga-
tion improvements and ecosystem restoration
Legislative Status. Previous WRDAs
also is part of the discussion.
have followed a loosely biennial schedule;
however, no WRDA has been enacted since
Everglades Restoration. Authorization
2000. The House passed H.R. 2864 in July
in S. 728 and H.R. 2864 of two projects —
2005; S. 728 was reported by the Senate
Indian River Lagoon-South and Picayune
Environment and Public Works Committee
Strand — also are part of the WRDA debate.
and placed on the Senate calendar in April
These projects were planned as part of a
2005. Authorization of a few controversial
federal-nonfederal restoration effort to restore
projects and possible changes to Corps poli-
the Florida Everglades that began with
cies and practices are shaping the bills’ con-
WRDA 2000. The two projects are bringing
sideration. Hurricane Katrina’s impact on
attention to implementation issues of the
WRDA passage is uncertain; the disaster
larger restoration effort.
increased interest in flood control and Louisi-
ana projects in the bill, while also increasing
Coastal Louisiana Restoration and
interest in streamlining federal spending
Protection. Authorization of investments in
which has some observers concerned about
coastal Louisiana restoration are included in S.
authorizing more Corps projects.
728 and H.R. 2864, as well as in other legisla-
tion related to the state’s disaster response.
Project Development Reform. Chang-
Provisions in both bills draw upon a Corps
ing how the Corps formulates, reviews, and
report on the feasibility of activities to restore
implements projects has received attention
coastal wetlands in Louisiana over the next
since 2000, but no significant changes have
decade; that report recommended $1.1 billion
been enacted. Disagreement about the appro-
in immediate actions, and estimated an addi-
priate direction of any changes to Corps prac-
tional cost of $0.9 billion. More extensive
tices is continuing as provisions in S. 728 and
proposals, that are estimated to cost up to $14
H.R. 2864 are considered. The provisions
billion are being weighed following Hurri-
receiving the most attention are related to fish
canes Katrina and Rita.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Key Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Division
Phone
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Steve Hughes
RSI
7-7268
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
Nicole Carter
RSI
7-0854
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
12-07-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Army Corps of Engineers has a prominent role in Hurricane Katrina recovery
efforts, including repairing of damaged floodwalls and levees. The Corps has numerous
planned or authorized hurricane and flood damage reduction, navigation, and coastal
wetlands restoration projects in coastal Louisiana. The coastal wetlands project evolved out
of a plan developed with the State of Louisiana and numerous federal agencies.
Authorization of initial wetlands restoration elements are included in the pending Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA).
Hurricane Katrina’s impact on WRDA passage is uncertain; the disaster increased
interest in flood control and Louisiana projects in the bill, while also prompting interest in
streamlined federal spending and calls for limiting new authorizations. H.R. 2864 — WRDA
2005 — passed the House in July 2005. The Administration has expressed strong concerns
that the bill has more than $10 billion in new authorizations and does not make to address
the Corps’ backlog of projects through project formulation and funding priorities. In April
2005, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee marked up S. 728, WRDA
2005, and the bill was reported with amendments and placed on the Senate calendar. An
amendment adopted during markup would limit the Corps’ regulatory responsibilities for
navigable waters. The language would exclude from the Corps’ regulatory authority those
activities or structures on private property that do not pose a safety threat to maritime traffic.
Three provisions in the WRDA bills to change Corps practices related to fish and wildlife
mitigation, independent review, and project planning (often labeled “Corps reform”
provisions) are the subject of some debate; the content of the provisions differs in the two
bills. Project authorizations in the WRDA 2005 bills receiving the most attention are:
! Coastal Louisiana: more than $1 billion for immediate actions to restore
coastal wetlands in Louisiana over the next decade.1
! Everglades: $1.21 billion for Indian River Lagoon-South project for
wetlands and estuarine restoration and $0.35 billion for Picayune Strand
ecosystem restoration project.
! Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW): $2.0 billion for
navigation improvements and $1.58 billion for ecosystem restoration.2
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Corps is a federal agency in the Department of Defense with military and civilian
responsibilities. 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. The
1 An authorization amount for coastal Louisiana is not specified in S. 728 (except for $10 million
for one subsection); instead, reference is made to the report by the Corps’ Chief of Engineers (known
as the Chief’s report) that recommended $1.1 billion in immediate actions and estimated an
additional cost of $0.9 billion. H.R. 2864 would authorize $1.2 billion.
2 A House floor amendment to H.R. 2864 to allow construction of UMR-IWW navigation locks only
if tonnage, reporting, and other requirements were met failed. An amendment requiring annual
reports on comparable progress of UMR-IWW navigation and ecosystem restoration was adopted.
CRS-1

---

IB10133
12-07-05
agency’s traditional civil responsibilities are creating and maintaining navigable channels and
controlling floods; in the last two decades, Congress has increased the Corps’ responsibilities
in ecosystem restoration, municipal water and wastewater infrastructure, disaster relief, and
other activities. The agency’s regulatory responsibility for navigable water extends to issuing
permits for private actions that might affect wetlands and other water of the United States.3
Congressional direction comes primarily through authorization and appropriations
legislation and oversight activities. This report focuses on the main legislative vehicle for
Corps civil works authorizations, the Water Resources Development Act. After background
on WRDA and WRDAs in recent Congresses, this report discusses the current legislative
status of WRDA and major issues shaping WRDA consideration in the 109th Congress —
changes to Corps project development practices and policies, UMR-IWW investments,
Everglades restoration projects, and coastal Louisiana restoration activities.
WRDAs — Legislation Authorizing Corps Studies and Projects. 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
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.4 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.5 Moreover, during the last 15 years, Congress has authorized not only navigation
3 Sections 10 and 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (22 U.S.C. 407) require that a permit be
obtained from the Corps for alteration or obstruction of and refuse discharge in navigable water of
the United States. The Corps also has regulatory responsibilities under other laws, notably Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Since the mid-1960s, court decisions and
administrative actions have altered the jurisdictional reach of the Corps’ regulatory program and the
scope of the agency’s consideration in issuing permits.
4 For more information on the Corps’ appropriations, see CRS Report RL32307, Appropriations for
FY2005: Energy and Water Development, coordinated by Carl Behrens; and CRS Report RL32852,
Energy and Water Development: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl Behrens.
5 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
(continued...)
CRS-2

---

IB10133
12-07-05
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
consistently received construction appropriations.
WRDAs in Recent Congresses. 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). 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.
WRDA legislation was considered, but not enacted, during the 108th Congress. On
September 24, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2557 (H.Rept. 108-265) — WRDA 2003. 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 backlog of Corps construction projects. The Senate Environment and Pubic Works
Committee reported WRDA 2004 (S. 2773) on April 25, 2005; it was placed on the Senate’s
legislative calendar.
WRDA in the 109th Congress. Consideration of the two WRDA bills — H.R. 2864
and S. 728 — appears to be shaped by many issues similar to those of the 108th Congress:
authorized spending (e.g., the amount of authorizations in the bill, and the bill’s potential
budgetary impact), change to Corps policies and practices (see “Project Development
Reform,” below), and authorization of a few controversial projects (see project-specific
sections of this CRS Issue Brief). Hurricane Katrina’s impact on WRDA in the 109th
Congress is uncertain; the disaster increased interest in the bills’ flood control and Louisiana
projects, while also prompting interest in streamlined federal spending and calls for limiting
new authorizations. Other issues, of course, may arise during the course of consideration.6
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost to the federal government
of S. 728 at $4.1 billion from 2006 to 2010 and an additional $7.6 billion from 2011 to 2020.
The agency estimated the cost of H.R. 2864 at $4.1 billion from 2006 to 2010 and an
additional $5.9 billion from 2011 to 2020.
5 (...continued)
dollars) in the 1960s and 1970s to less than $2 billion recently.
6 For example, §2001 of S. 728 would allow in-kind construction work by nonfederal project
sponsors to be credited against local cost-share responsibilities for Corps projects; this may raise the
issue of the responsibility of these nonfederal sponsors to pay prevailing wages under the 1931
Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5). The application of prevailing wages to activities of
nonfederal sponsors was an issue that delayed a WRDA bill’s consideration in 2000. For more
information on the Davis-Bacon Act, see CRS Report 94-908, Davis-Bacon: The Act and the
Literature, by William G. Whittaker.
CRS-3

---

IB10133
12-07-05
The Administration, in its Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2864 released
July 2005, expressed concern with the authorization level because it would “create
expectation for future appropriations that cannot be met.” The Administration instead
recommended new authorizations only for priority projects in the agency’s core mission areas
of navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration.
Regulatory Changes. One issue that is shaping S. 728 consideration in the Senate
(that was not an active part of the WRDA debate in the 108th Congress) is a proposed
reduction of the application of the Corps’ regulatory responsibilities. An amendment
adopted during the markup of S. 728 by the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee would limit the Corps’ regulatory responsibilities for navigable waters under
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 407). The language added
would exclude from the Corps’ regulatory authority those activities or structures on private
property that do not pose a safety threat to maritime traffic. Interpretations of the impact of
the language and the need to reduce the Corps’ application of the regulatory requirement (i.e.,
defining a smaller universe of activities and structures as requiring a permit) remain topics
of debate. For example, S.Rept. 109-61 for S. 728 includes additional views of seven
committee members on what they perceive to be “extremely broad language” with “extensive
unintended consequences.” There is no similar provision in H.R. 2864; an amendment to
include a similar provision in the bill was ruled nongermane.
Project Development Reform. Support for changing the Corps’ practices gained
momentum in 2000 in the wake of a series of critical articles in the Washington Post,
whistleblower allegations, and ensuing investigations. Many of the supporters of these
changes, primarily environmental groups, sought to modify Corps project planning (e.g., by
changing the cost-benefit analysis and consideration of environmental impacts and benefits)
to require additional review of Corps projects (e.g., through external review of Corps
feasibility reports), and to strengthen environmental protection (e.g., through modifications
to fish and wildlife mitigation requirements); these kinds of changes often were referred to
as “Corps reform.” Although Corps reforms were discussed in the 106th, 107th, and 108th
Congresses, no significant changes were enacted. Some Members of Congress, along with
agriculture and navigation interests, were satisfied with existing practices.
Although the 106th Congress did not enact Corps 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 recommended changes in Corps practices and the larger water resources management
context. The Corps argues that it has transformed itself by changes it has implemented since
2000; these include refinements in planning, peer review (with the possibility of external
review), and internal review.7
7 The Corps summarizes its efforts at [http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/
18apr_changes.htm], visited on December 6, 2005. The Corps released five new policy documents
in 2005 to guide the agency’s planning activities. One was on collaborative planning of Corps
projects that is an update to Corps planning guidance. Another set out processes for the peer review
of scientific, engineering and economic information and assessments used to inform decision-
making. Another established a Civil Works Review Board that approves the final planning reports
before submitting them to the Chief of Engineers.
CRS-4

---

IB10133
12-07-05
The debate over changing the Corps has evolved since 2000. As shown by S. 753
(Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005), some continue to support
the Corps reform proposals that largely grew out of the exposure the Corps received in 2000.
Others argue that any changes should move the agency in a different direction than the
original measures pursued after the 2000 events. These stakeholders, like many nonfederal
sponsors of Corps projects, want to increase the predictability of the Corps planning process,
by making changes such as standardizing planning procedures, models, and data; limiting the
length of studies; and requiring tracking of the agency’s construction backlog. Another
perspective is that the primary changes needed are those that address the Corps’ backlog of
projects through project formulation and funding priorities. In other words, there are many,
sometimes competing, views of how to change the Corps that derive from fundamentally
divergent perspectives of what, if anything, is wrong with Corps’ practices.

One view is that Corps projects could be improved by increasing environmental
considerations in project planning, implementing external review, and enacting more
stringent requirements for fish and wildlife mitigation. Another view supports refinements
to Corps planning, review, and mitigation that are aimed at limiting the length and increasing
the predictability of the project development process, while not increasing costs.
Consequently, the S. 728 and H.R. 2864 provisions that would change Corps planning,
review, and fish and wildlife mitigation are the subject of some debate. The provisions in
H.R. 2864 are largely the same as in the WRDA 2003 (H.R. 2557) bill that passed the House.
Although these provisions increase environmental considerations and review of Corps
projects, some environmental advocates argue that the measures are insufficient; supporters
of streamlining the Corps practices have argued that the provisions are unnecessary and add
only delay, cost, and uncertainty to an already lengthy project development and constructions
process.
Although some elements of S. 728 are similar to provisions negotiated during Senate
WRDA considerations in the 108th Congress, many elements of S. 728 are either new or
significantly modified. As a result, there are key differences between the provisions in the
House and Senate bills. For example, the independent review provisions in the two bills
differ on what would be reviewed, and by whom. (For a more detailed analysis of the
provisions, CRS Report RS22129, “Corps of Engineers Reform” in WRDA 2005 (archived),
by Nicole T. Carter, can be requested by contacting the author.)
The planning, review, and mitigation provisions are not the only provisions in S. 728
and H.R. 2864 changing Corps practices and policies. Other provisions of the two bills could
be analyzed in the context of Corps reform; these include §2005 of S. 728, requiring a Corps
fiscal transparency report; §2015 of S. 728, requiring cost-sharing for monitoring of
ecosystem restoration projects; and §2025 of H.R. 2864, streamlining environmental review
of Corps projects.
The Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2864 generally was critical of the bill’s
provisions regarding formulation and selection of projects. It criticized both the project
planning provisions and the environmental streamlining provisions; however, it was
supportive of the intent (but not the specifics) of the independent review provision. The
Corps guidance released in 2005 comply with the Administration’s policy on independent
review.
CRS-5

---

IB10133
12-07-05
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway.8 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 playing a role in
WRDA debates in the 109th Congress; topics being debated include the urgency, necessity,
and national benefit of expanded UMR-IWW navigation capacity and ecosystem restoration.
The UMR-IWW is a 1,200-mile, 9-foot-deep navigation channel created by 37 lock-
and-dam sites and thousands of channel 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 to
changes in the distribution and movement of river water caused by navigation structures and
operation of the 9-foot navigation channel.
The Corps’ Chief of Engineers approved the agency’s completed feasibility report on
UMR-IWW improvements in December 2004.9 The Corps’ feasibility report failed to
significantly reduce the debate over the urgency, necessity, and national benefit of expanded
navigation capacity. (For an analysis of the navigation expansion decisions, see CRS Report
RL32470, Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Expansion: An
Agricultural, Transportation, and Environmental Context, coordinated by Randy Schnepf.)
The Corps’ ecosystem restoration plan has been less controversial than the navigation plan.
There is general agreement that the ecosystem is declining and support for the 15-year
increment of the Corps’ 50-year ecosystem restoration plan. Debate over the restoration
proposal focuses primarily on implementation strategies, including linkages between the
ecosystem restoration and navigation investments, and the federal-nonfederal cost-share for
restoration activities. 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.
The Corps’ UMR-IWW feasibility report has been reviewed for compliance with
Administration policy by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and is being
reviewed by OMB. The Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2864 was critical of
that the bill’s estimated 91% federal-9% nonfederal cost-share for ecosystem restoration for
the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The Administration recommended a cost-share like the
50%-50% cost-share used for Florida Everglades restoration.
8 Prepared by Nicole Carter, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
9 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, Sept. 24, 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 December 1, 2005.
CRS-6

---

IB10133
12-07-05
UMR-IWW Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Investments. The
authorizations of navigation ecosystem restoration investments for the UMR-IWW in S. 728
and H.R. 2864 are largely similar.10 Section 1002 of S. 728 and §8003 of H.R. 2864 would
authorize $2.03 billion for the initial set of navigation improvements — seven new locks,
small-scale and non-structural measures, and related environmental mitigation, in general
conformance with the feasibility report. The bills, however, do not explicitly mention the
adaptive implementation process recommended by the Corps nor many of the monitoring and
study recommendations.11
Section 1002 of S. 728 and §8004 of H.R. 2864 would authorize $1.58 billion for
ecosystem restoration for the Upper Mississippi River Basin in accordance with the general
framework outlined in the Corps feasibility report. However, neither bill mentions the
Corps’ proposal for an adaptive management approach, nor do they explicitly authorize dual-
purpose management of the river for ecosystem restoration and navigation. S. 728 and H.R.
2864 appear to link ecosystem restoration and navigation improvements through a
comparable progress provision. For a comparison of the ecosystem restoration and
navigation authorization language and the Corps’ recommendations, see CRS Report
RL32915, Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Investments: Legislation in the 109th
Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Kyna Powers.
Everglades Restoration.12 To date, the Corps’ largest authorization for an
ecosystem 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, Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role
in Funding, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
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. WRDA 2000 authorized an initial set of CERP restoration
projects, as well as $700 million in federal funds to implement them, and established a
process for additional projects contemplated in the 1999 CERP plan to be developed and
authorized.13 Authorization language for two of these additional projects — Indian River
10 One of the differences is that S. 728 directs that the investments are to be implemented in “general
conformance” with Corps documents, while H.R. 2864 directs that implementation be “substantially
in accordance with the [Corps documents] and subject to the conditions described therein.”
11 The feasibility report was the result of a controversial feasibility study process that began in 1993.
The final feasibility report stated that sufficient analysis had 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; the report recommended that additional monitoring and study
be performed in order to support decisions made under the adaptive implementation approach.
12 Prepared by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Analyst in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review
Study: Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for
(continued...)
CRS-7

---

IB10133
12-07-05
Lagoon-South (IRL-S) wetlands and estuarine restoration and the Picayune Strand ecosystem
restoration (also known as Southern Golden Gates Estates ecosystem restoration) — is
included in S. 728 and H.R. 2864. These two projects are the first projects to be developed
under the process established in WRDA 2000; consequently, some view their fate as a test
case of the CERP framework. Further, both bills would include the Hillsboro and
Okeechobee Aquifer project as a part of CERP, and H.R. 2864 would increase the
authorization of that project by $12.2 million to $39.2 million. This would place the project
within the framework of CERP and the requirements of WRDA 2000.
With regard to modified water deliveries to the Everglades, H.R. 2864 states that the
Secretary of the Army shall not raise Tamiami Trail until the project is authorized by law;
and that the Secretary shall submit to Congress reports requesting authorization for changes
in the projects to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park, raise Tamiami Trail,
and modify the C-111 canal. The Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2864 was
critical of the Tamiami Trail language.

Indian River Lagoon. S. 728 and H.R. 2864 would authorize an IRL-S project
estimated at $1.2 billion (50% federal), as recommended by the Corps. The Corps
recommended that Congress authorize this project to restore the IRL-S wetlands and
estuary.14 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.15
The Corps’ report on the feasibility and implementation of the IRL-S has been
reviewed for compliance with Administration policy by the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works), and is being reviewed by OMB. The recommended plan would 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 CERP; in that document, the estimated cost for the activities that now make up the
13 (...continued)
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
December 6, 2005.
14 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 December 6, 2005.
15 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.
CRS-8

---

IB10133
12-07-05
recommended IRL-S project was less than $1 billion and consisted primarily of artificial
storage reservoirs.16
Some supporters of the Indian River Lagoon restoration project argue that the project
will improve the seabed floor and revive bottom-dwelling communities.17 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.18 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 $349 million, of
which the federal share would be $175 million. S. 728 and H.R. 2864 would authorize the
Picayune Strand restoration project. The Corps prepared a final Project Implementation
Report and Environmental Impact Statement for Picayune Strand and solicited comments
through December 19, 2004. After responding to comments and finalizing the report, the
Chief of Engineers approved the final report on September 15, 2005; it is being reviewed for
Administration policy compliance by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works);
OMB will perform a subsequent review. 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.19 The non-federal sponsor (the state of
Florida) has spent nearly $100 million of its share on land acquisition; most of the remaining
project expenses are for design and construction of the project.20
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, changing the ecosystem.
Some alterations include a lower watertable, which has diminished cypress-dominated
16 Corps, CERP Plan.
17 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).
18 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.
19 Ibid.
20 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 December 6, 2005.
CRS-9

---

IB10133
12-07-05
wetlands and has led to colonization by invasive species.21 Other ecosystem alterations are
degraded water quality and an increase in the severity and frequency of wildfires.
Some are concerned that unwilling sellers may delay or stall Picayune Strand restoration
activities that depend on land acquisition. 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.22 The accessibility of the
Picayune Strand for recreation is another controversial issue for local residents. Some are
concerned over the potential loss of recreational opportunities due to restoration; the state
has responded that it will provide areas for off-road vehicles and other recreational activities.
Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Restoration and Protection.23 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 several versions of plans to slow the rate of loss and
restore some of these wetlands. The current Corps feasibility report was released in
November 2004; it received a favorable recommendation in a Chief’s report in late January
2005. The recommended measures in the feasibility report totaled an estimated $1.997
billion. The Chief’s report subdivided this total into three parts; it recommended that
projects and programs totaling $1.123 billion be authorized immediately, an additional $145
million be spent on already authorized investigations of “large-scale concepts,” and future
authorization be pursued for ten features totaling $728 million.
The Corps’ feasibility report proposed activities to divert water from the Mississippi
River to convey sediments into nearby wetlands, and to help stabilize the coastline. The
federal government would pay about 64% of the total estimated cost. In the diversions,
wetlands would gradually reestablish themselves on newly deposited sediments. 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, and on the Corps’ recommended actions, see CRS Report RS22110, Coastal
Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration: The Recommended Corps Plan, by Jeffrey Zinn. For
information on the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the wetlands, see CRS Report
RS22276 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration,
by Jeffrey Zinn.
Section 1003 of S. 728, as ordered reported with amendments, would authorize the
Louisiana Coastal Area program “substantially in accordance with” the Chief’s report. The
21 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 December
6, 2005.
22 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 December 6, 2005.
23 Prepared by Jeff Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.
CRS-10

---

IB10133
12-07-05
legislative language does not specify any dollar amounts, or federal and nonfederal shares
of the total, so it appears the estimates in the Chief’s report would be the authorized amounts.
Provisions in §1003 state that of the projects identified in the Chief’s report, priority is to be
given to critical restoration features, to Mississippi River diversion projects that protect
specified population centers and provide coastal environmental benefits, and to coastal
barrier projects that are related to diversion projects and protect population centers. It also
authorizes non-governmental organizations to pay the nonfederal portion of project costs.
Title VII of H.R. 2864, as introduced, by contrast, does specify dollar amounts, and
would authorize a total of $1.218 billion for many of the same activities that are
recommended in the Corps report. It would provide a total of $828.3 million for five projects
that the Corps is ready to initiate. The amounts specified for each project are the same as in
the Chief’s report. It also would authorize funding levels requested in the Chief’s report for
demonstration projects and beneficial uses of dredged materials. It also would authorize
$130 million for feasibility studies “substantially in accordance with the Plan.”
The Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2864 from July 2005 recommended
a cost-share closer to 50% federal-50% nonfederal be used, and that the authorization of
federal appropriations be limited to $500, which “would cover the Federal share of roughly
half of the costs of the near-term plan.” The statement also recommended other changes to
the Coastal Louisiana authorization, while generally being supportive of the effort.
Section 1003 of S. 728 also contains additional provisions. It calls on the Secretary, in
coordination with the state, to develop a comprehensive plan for protection, preservation, and
restoration within one year, to be updated every five years, and specifies that it include
discussions of three topics, and consider incorporating related projects into the program laid
out in the Chief’s report. It would create a federal-state task force to make recommendations
to the Secretary on many specified aspects of the coastal Louisiana effort, including the
comprehensive plan. The only specific project included in these provisions is the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet (MRGO). The Corps would be required to develop a plan to modify
MRGO in ways that would address six listed topics (e.g., hurricane storm surges and salt
water intrusion) within a year of enactment. It would create a new science and technology
program to develop better information about baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana. An
amendment adopted during committee markup adds language describing the content of a
National Academy of Sciences study, to be initiated within 180 days of enactment, on the
causes and sources of degradation caused by any activities approved by the Secretary. The
language in this subsection also would require the Corps to submit a feasibility report on the
ten features identified in the Chief’s report that are estimated to cost a total of $728 million,
for which the agency anticipates seeking future authorization; §1003 would authorize $10
million for this report.
Title VII of H.R. 2864 also contains additional provisions, many of which are similar
to those in §1003. In addition to having nearly identical requirements for a report on MRGO,
it would also require the Corps to submit to Congress reports on the Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuary and the Chenier Plain by July 1, 2006. It would require that a comprehensive plan
be completed within five years of enactment. Like the House bill, it would create a federal-
state task force to make recommendations to the Secretary on many specified aspects of the
coastal Louisiana effort, including the comprehensive plan. However, the membership
would be slightly different, with two additional federal agencies added to the roster, and the
CRS-11

---

IB10133
12-07-05
three state positions being specified. Also, this bill would require a biennial report to
Congress, rather than a report every five years. Title VII would also allow credit for certain
prior non-federal contributions to projects, and also allow them to be transferred to any other
project authorized in this title.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita altered the debate over restoration proposals and the cost-
share for restoration investments. Many restoration proponents are calling for a more
extensive effort than the efforts in the WRDA bills; generally, they are supporting a $14
billion proposal developed in the Coast 2050 Plan from 1998. The decisions for Congress
will include whether to authorization any coastal Louisiana restoration effort and how
extensive should the authorized effort be; these decisions may take place in the context of
WRDA or other legislation (e.g., S. 1765 or S. 1766). For more information on how the
hurricanes might influence consideration of restoration legislation, see CRS Report
RS22276, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration,
by Jeffrey Zinn.
LEGISLATION
109th Congress
H.R. 2864 (Young)
Water Resources Development Act of 2005. Received by the Senate on July 18, 2004.
S. 728 (Bond)
Water Resources Development Act of 2005. Placed on the Senate Calendar on April
26, 2005.
S. 753 (Feingold)
Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005. Introduced on April
11, 2005; and referred to the 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 Report RS20569, Water Resources Issues in the 109th Congress, by Betsy A. Cody and
H. Steve Hughes.
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.
CRS-12

---

IB10133
12-07-05
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of
Administrative Policy on H.R. 2864 (made on July 14, 2005), available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr2864sap-h.pdf], visited on
December 6, 2005.
Project Development Reform
CRS Report RS22129, “Corps of Engineers Reform” in WRDA 2005 (archived), 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).
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.
CRS Report RL32915, Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Investments: Legislation
in the 109th Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Kyna Powers.
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, Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by Nicole T.
Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS-13

---

IB10133
12-07-05
CRS Report RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh and
Barbara Johnson.
Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Restoration
CRS Report RS22110, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration: The Recommended Corps
Plan, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RL32673, Coastal Louisiana: Attempting to Restore an Ecosystem, by Jeffrey
Zinn.
CRS Report RS22276, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem
Restoration, by Jeffrey Zinn.
crsphpgw
CRS-14

---