Order Code RL33504
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues
Updated July 14, 2006
Nicole T. Carter, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
H. Steven Hughes, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Jeffrey A. Zinn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues
Summary
Congress authorizes Army Corps of Engineers water resources studies and
projects before appropriating funds to them. The 109th Congress is considering
authorizing Corps activities through a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
— H.R. 2864 and S. 728. The House passed H.R. 2864 in July 2005; S. 728 was
placed on the Senate calendar in April 2005. Reportedly some Senators are pushing
for a vote by the August recess. Hurricane Katrina increased support for hurricane
protection and flood control, and Louisiana and other Gulf Coast projects, while
increasing interest in streamlining federal spending. The pending WRDA bills have
not been acted on since before Hurricane Katrina. The Administration has expressed
concerns both about the level of authorizations in WRDA bills creating false
expectations for federal appropriations, and about WRDA bills not addressing the
backlog of authorized Corps projects. The Administration’s position has been one
factor shaping the debate on the pending bills; authorization of a few controversial
projects (e.g., Everglades restoration projects) and possible changes to Corps policies
and practices have also been factors.
A Manager’s amendment to S. 728 and other amendments are anticipated during
consideration on the Senate floor. Amendments may address water resources policy
issues and projects receiving attention in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Some
observers also anticipate amendments to provisions on Corps policy and procedures
(e.g., amendments to provisions on the independent review of Corps projects) and
amendments on authorizations of controversial projects.

Coastal Louisiana Restoration and Protection. Prior to the 2005 Gulf Coast
hurricanes, Congress was considering authorizing coastal Louisiana wetlands
restoration projects through provisions in S. 728 and H.R. 2864. These provisions
drew upon a mid-2005 Corps report that recommended $1.1 billion in immediate
actions, and estimated an additional cost of $0.9 billion for future projects. Following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, wetlands proposals with components focused more
directly on storm damage reduction are being developed. Additionally, some
measures proposed for fortifying the structural elements of New Orleans’ hurricane
protection system require congressional authorization and may be included in either
WRDA or other legislation (e.g., H.R. 5461).
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW). S. 728 and H.R.
2864 include authorization of UMR-IWW navigation and ecosystem restoration
investments. The Corps’ Chief of Engineers recommended proceeding with
construction of the proposed navigation projects; in contrast, the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works) supported the design of the navigation locks, but
recommended waiting on construction until additional economic data is available.
This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10133, Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA): Army Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole T. Carter. This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
WRDA Bill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Issues in WRDA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
WRDAs: Authorizing Corps Studies and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
WRDAs in Recent Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
WRDA in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Project Development Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Restoration and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
UMR-IWW Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Investments . . . . 10
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Indian River Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Picayune Strand Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Regulatory Changes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authorizations and WRDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Project Development Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA): Corps of Engineers
Authorization Issues
Most Recent Developments
WRDA Bill Status. The proposed Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) bills — H.R. 2864 and S. 728 — have not seen action since before
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in late summer 2005. H.R. 2864 passed the House in
July 2005; S. 728 was placed on the Senate calendar in April 2005. Reportedly some
Senators are pushing for a floor vote by August 2006.
A Manager’s amendment to S. 728 and other amendments are anticipated during
consideration on the Senate floor. Amendments may address water resources policy
issues and projects receiving attention in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Some
observers also anticipate amendments to provisions on Corps policy and procedures
(e.g., amendments to provisions on the independent review of Corps projects) and
amendments on authorizations of controversial projects.
The impact of the 2005 hurricane season on WRDA passage is uncertain; the
disaster increased interest in flood control projects and activities, and Louisiana and
other Gulf Coast projects, including coastal wetlands restoration activities. At the
same time, the disaster increased interest in streamlining federal spending. In recent
years, the Administration has expressed strong concerns about WRDA bills that do
not address the backlog of Corps projects through changes to project formulation and
funding priorities, and that add to the backlog through extensive new authorizations.
The 2005 hurricanes’ effect on the nation’s financial resources and the Corps’
workload may amplify the Administration’s concerns.
Recent Issues in WRDA Consideration. The Corps has a prominent role
in New Orleans and southeast Louisiana hurricane recovery efforts, including
repairing damaged floodwalls and levees and strengthening hurricane resiliency
through infrastructure fortification and wetlands restoration. The Corps is repairing
and strengthening much of the areas’ hurricane protection levees and floodwalls
using existing authority and through funding provided in supplemental appropriations
legislation. However, some proposed measures to fortify the structural elements of
the hurricane protection system require congressional authorization and may be
included in a WRDA or other legislation (e.g., H.R. 5461 — Meeting Authorization
Requirements for the Coast Act of 2006). Authorization of wetlands restoration
actions were included in the pending WRDAs prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Following those hurricanes, alternate and more extensive proposals with components
focused more directly on the role of wetlands and barrier islands in storm surge
reduction are being developed. WRDA amendments may address some of the

---

CRS-2
interest raised by the 2005 hurricanes in the role of coastal wetlands and barrier
islands in storm surge attenuation.
Three provisions in the WRDA bills (often labeled Corps reform provisions)
would change independent review of Corps project proposals, agency planning
guidance, and fish and wildlife mitigation for Corps projects. The content of the
provisions differs in the two bills and is distinct from other proposed legislation (S.
2288 — Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006). Some
observers anticipate introduction of Senate floor amendments to S. 728 related to
these provisions and other amendments related to project authorizations. Specific
project authorizations receiving attention are a coastal Louisiana wetland restoration
program; Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) navigation and
ecosystem restoration projects; and two Florida Everglades projects — Indian River
Lagoon-South and Picayune Strand ecosystem restoration efforts.
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 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 waters of the United States.1
Congressional direction comes primarily through authorization and
appropriations legislation and oversight activities. This report focuses on WRDA,
which is the main legislative vehicle for Corps civil works authorizations. After
background on WRDA and WRDAs in recent Congresses, this report discusses the
current status of WRDA and major issues shaping WRDA consideration in the 109th
Congress — changes to Corps project development practices and policies, coastal
Louisiana wetlands restoration activities, UMR-IWW investments, and Everglades
restoration projects.
WRDAs: Authorizing Corps Studies and Projects
WRDA legislation provides the Corps with authority to study water resource
problems, construct projects, and make major modifications to projects. The
provisions and contents of a WRDA are cumulative and new acts do not supersede
1 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 §404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344). Since the mid-1970s,
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.

---

CRS-3
or replace previous acts unless explicit language modifies, replaces, or terminates
previous authorizations. A new WRDA adds to the original language and often
amend provisions of previous acts.
Congress generally authorizes Corps water resources studies as part of a
periodic 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 authorizations 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 a WRDA has been
delayed or not enacted at all. Corps authorizing committees generally discourage
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.2 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.3 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 consistently
received construction appropriations.
WRDAs in Recent Congresses
WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662) marked the end of a decade-long stalemate between
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 cycle of biennial
consideration of a WRDA has loosely been followed. Biennial enactment has been
less consistent, 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
2 For more information on the Corps’ appropriations, see CRS Report RL33346, Energy and
Water Development: Appropriations for FY2007, and CRS Report RL32852, Energy and
Water Development: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl Behrens.
3 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 less than $2 billion recently.

---

CRS-4
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 August 25, 2004; 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 — has been
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 report). Hurricane Katrina’s impact on WRDA passage is uncertain;
the disaster increased interest in flood control projects and activities, and Louisiana
projects (including coastal wetlands restoration activities). At the same time, the
disaster increased interest in streamlining federal spending generally. Other issues,
of course, may arise during congressional consideration.4
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost to the federal
government of S. 728 as passed by the committee 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.
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.
Project authorizations in the WRDA bills receiving attention and causing debate
include:
4 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-5
! Coastal Louisiana wetlands restoration: more than $1 billion for
immediate actions to restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana over the
next decade.5
! Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW): $2.0
billion for navigation improvements and $1.58 billion for ecosystem
restoration.
! 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.
The aforementioned issues and concerns make it unclear whether WRDA will
gather enough congressional and Administration support for enactment. However,
there appears to be considerable support for moving a WRDA bill because of the
number of projects awaiting authorization, and the length of time since Congress
enacted the last WRDA in 2000.
Current Issues
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 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.6 Each report recommended changes in Corps practices and the larger
federal water resources management and organizational context. The Corps argues
5 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.
6 The four 2004 National Research Council reports (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press) were: Adaptive Management for Water Resources Planning; Analytic Methods and
Approaches for Water Resources Project Planning; River Basins and Coastal Systems
Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity for Service.

---

CRS-6
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
The debate over changing the Corps has evolved since 2000. As shown by S.
2288 (Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006), 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 measures pursued immediately 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 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 limit the length and
increase 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 in the 108th Congress. 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, see CRS Report RS22129, “Corps of
Engineers Reform” in WRDA 2005 (archived, available from the author), and CRS
General Distribution Memo, Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 2288 and Related
Provisions of S. 728, by Nicole T. Carter (available from the author).
7 The Corps released five new policy documents in 2005 to be tested as guidance for 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-7
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 complies with the
Administration’s policy on independent review.
Coastal Louisiana Wetlands Restoration and Protection8
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 January 2005 in a report by the Corps’ Chief of
Engineers.
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, that an
additional $145 million be spent on already authorized investigations of “large-scale
concepts,” and that 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 A. Zinn; and on
the Corps’ recommended actions, see CRS Report RS22110, Coastal Louisiana
Ecosystem Restoration: The Recommended Corps Plan, by Jeffrey A. 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 A. 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
8 Prepared by Jeffrey A. Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.

---

CRS-8
report. The 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.
By contrast, Title VII of H.R. 2864 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 that a cost-share closer to 50% federal-50% nonfederal be used, and
that the authorization of federal appropriations be limited to $500 million, 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 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.
Section 1003 of S. 728 also 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. It would require that a
comprehensive plan be completed within five years of enactment. Like the Senate
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

---

CRS-9
comprehensive plan. However, the membership would be slightly different, with two
additional federal agencies added to the roster, and the 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 nonfederal
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 more extensive efforts than in the WRDA bills; generally, they support a $14
billion proposal developed in the Coast 2050 Plan from 1998. Decisions facing
Congress include whether to authorize any coastal Louisiana restoration effort and
the extent of the authorized effort; 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, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration After Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway9
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 system. 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 2004.10 The Corps’ feasibility
9 Prepared by Nicole Carter, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
10 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.
(continued...)

---

CRS-10
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.)11 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. In contrast to the Corps’ Chief of Engineers, who has
signed off on the proposed project, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
reportedly chose to support proceeding with design, and recommended waiting until
additional economic data and analysis are available before initiating construction.
Although OMB’s position on the proposed project is not yet known, OMB’s
Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2864 was critical of 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.
UMR-IWW Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Investments. The
authorizations of navigation and ecosystem restoration investments for the UMR-
IWW in S. 728 and H.R. 2864 are largely similar.12 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.
10 (...continued)
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 June 9, 2006.
11 The National Research Council (Washington, DC: National Academy Press) has reviewed
and reported on the UMR-IWW proposals in Inland Navigation System Planning: The
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (2001), Review of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway Restructured Study: Interim Report (2003),
and Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Restructured Upper Mississippi River-
Illinois Waterway Feasibility Study: Second Report (2004).
12 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 implementation
to be “substantially in accordance with the [Corps documents] and subject to the conditions
described therein.”

---

CRS-11
The bills, however, do not explicitly mention the adaptive implementation process
recommended by the Corps or many of the monitoring and study recommendations.13
A House floor amendment to H.R. 2864 related to UMR-IWW failed; the
amendment would have required that construction of UMR-IWW navigation locks
proceed only if tonnage, reporting, and other requirements were met. An amendment
requiring annual reports on comparable progress of UMR-IWW navigation and
ecosystem restoration was adopted.
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 Restoration14
To date, the Corps’ largest authorization for an ecosystem restoration effort has
been in the Florida Everglades, with a three-decade, $10.9 billion restoration
program.15 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 the retained water 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
13 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.
14 Prepared by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Analyst in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
15 This amount represents the estimated cost in Oct. 2004 dollars according to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 2005 Report to Congress
(Washington, DC: Dec. 2005).

---

CRS-12
contemplated in the 1999 CERP plan to be developed and authorized.16
Authorization language for two of these additional projects — 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) —
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 to
restore the IRL-S wetlands and estuary.17 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 drainage 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.18
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
16 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 June 9, 2006.
17 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 June 9, 2006.
18 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.

---

CRS-13
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 recommended
IRL-S project was less than $1 billion and consisted primarily of artificial storage
reservoirs.19
Some supporters of the Indian River Lagoon restoration project argue that the
project will improve the seabed floor and revive bottom-dwelling communities.20 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.21 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), and 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.22 The nonfederal 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.23
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
19 Corps, CERP Plan.
20 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).
21 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.
22 Ibid.
23 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 June 9, 2006.

---

CRS-14
landscape, changing the ecosystem. Some alterations include a lower watertable,
which has diminished cypress-dominated wetlands and has led to colonization by
invasive species.24 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.25 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.
Regulatory Changes
Another issue 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; a floor amendment to include a similar
provision in the bill was ruled nongermane.
24 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
June 9, 2006.
25 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 June 9, 2006.

---

CRS-15
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.
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 June 9, 2006.
Project Development Reform
CRS Report RS22129, “Corps of Engineers Reform” in WRDA 2005 (archived,
available upon request), by Nicole T. Carter.
CRS General Distribution Memo, Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 2288 and Related
Provisions of S. 728 (available upon request), by Nicole T. Carter.
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.
CRS Report RL33188, Protecting New Orleans: From Hurricane Barriers to
Floodwalls, by Nicole T. Carter.

---

CRS-16
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.
Everglades Restoration
CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RS22048, Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh
and Barbara Johnson.

---