Order Code RL33504
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues
Updated October 5, 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. The House passed H.R. 2864 in July 2005; the Senate passed the bill
in July 2006. Conferees were named in mid-September 2006. The conference
committee is faced with numerous differences between the two versions. Issues
reportedly shaping the negotiations include the specifics of Corps reform measures
(such as independent review and fish and wildlife mitigation provisions) and general
concerns about the overall level of authorizations in the bills, leading to differences
of opinion about which projects to authorize and the cost-share and other specifics
of those authorizations. The Administration has expressed concerns about both the
level of authorizations in the House and Senate versions, and specific provisions in
both versions related to Corps policy and specific projects.
Policy “Reforms.” The two versions differ in their provisions for changes in
Corps policy and procedures, with the independent review provisions receiving the
greatest attention. The two versions differ on which projects could be reviewed (i.e.,
the scope of the review), which projects could be exempted or included for review,
who would be performing and directing the reviews, and how recommendations
resulting from the reviews would be treated. The Administration supports the
independent peer review of proposed projects.
Coastal Louisiana. The (pre-Hurricane Katrina) House-passed WRDA would
authorize $1.2 billion in Coastal Louisiana ecosystem restoration activities based on
a January 2005 report by the Corps’ Chief of Engineers; 64% of the costs would be
a federal responsibility. The Administration supports a 50%-50% cost-share for
coastal Louisiana restoration, as well as for other large restoration efforts such as the
activities proposed for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW).
The Senate’s July 2006 WRDA language would use the same Corps report as
the basis for its authorization, while also providing the Corps authority to modify the
activities identified in the report in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The
language also directs the Corps to give priority to protecting populated areas of the
coast and to integrate the restoration efforts with hurricane protection projects.
Pending WRDA language also contains other provisions authorizing Corps
hurricane protection and navigation projects in Louisiana. The Senate-passed H.R.
2864 includes provisions authorizing hurricane protection projects for coastal
Louisiana contingent upon committee resolutions; the Administration objects to this
conditional pre-authorization of projects, noting the projects are yet to be identified
and may cost tens of billions of dollars.
This report replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10133, Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA): Corps of Engineers Authorization Issues, coordinated by Nicole T.
Carter.

---

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Project Development Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Independent Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Planning and Coordinating Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Other Policy Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Coastal Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Wetlands Restoration and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hurricane Protection and Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
UMR-IWW Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Investments . . . . 11
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Indian River Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Picayune Strand Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authorizations and WRDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Coastal Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA): Corps of Engineers
Authorization Issues
Most Recent Developments
WRDA Bill Status. The pending Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
bills — H.R. 2864 — passed the House in July 2005, and the Senate in July 2006.
Conferees were named in mid-September 2006. The conference committee is faced
with numerous differences between the two versions. Some of the differences
concern water resources policy issues and others relate to projects receiving attention
in the wake of Hurricane Katrina — for example, in the Senate version, Subtitle C
(§§2051-2055), creating a National Levee Safety Program, and §2026, reauthorizing
the National Dam Safety Program through 2011. Other differences are in provisions
on Corps policy and procedures (e.g., independent review of Corps projects). The
Administration, through OMB and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), has expressed strong concern about the overall level of authorizations in
both versions of H.R. 2864, as well as expressing concern and objecting to a number
of specific provisions.
Recent Issues in WRDA Consideration. The performance of the Corps-
constructed hurricane protection infrastructure in New Orleans heightened concerns
about the quality of the agency’s work and increased support for changing the
agency’s processes and for stronger oversight of its projects. Provisions in the
WRDA bills (often labeled “Corps reform” provisions) would change independent
review of Corps project proposals and agency planning guidance. The content of the
provisions differs in the two bills. For example, the independent review provisions
in the Senate-passed H.R. 2864 reflect an amendment adopted on the Senate floor
that provided for broader application of independent review of Corps projects than
either the provision supported by the bill’s Senate sponsors or the one included in the
House-passed H.R. 2864.
Specific project authorizations receiving attention are for coastal Louisiana
wetland restoration and hurricane protection activities; Upper Mississippi River-
Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) navigation and ecosystem restoration projects; and,
to a lesser extent, two Florida Everglades projects — Indian River Lagoon-South and
Picayune Strand ecosystem restoration efforts. Other controversial authorizations
included in the House version are for “environmental infrastructure” projects, which
are projects focused on either municipal water supply and wastewater treatment
facilities or surface water resource protection and development. Before 1992, the
Corps had not been involved in these types of projects. The proposed authorization
of additional environmental infrastructure projects continues the debate about what
the central missions of the agency are and how best to focus the agency’s resources
and budget on projects that address those missions.

---

CRS-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 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.
Congressional direction comes primarily through authorization and
appropriations legislation and oversight activities. WRDA 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
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

---

CRS-3
studies and projects receive federal funds.1 Many authorized activities never receive
appropriations. Fiscal priorities and public attitudes in recent decades have resulted
in declining federal funding for water resources activities, thus increasing
competition for funding among authorized activities.2 Moreover, during the last 15
years, Congress has authorized not only navigation and flood control projects, but
also ecosystem restoration, environmental infrastructure assistance, and other
nontraditional activities, exacerbating competition for construction funds. The Corps
now has a “backlog” of more than 800 authorized projects, with more than 500 not
consistently receiving 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
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 107th and 108th Congresses.
WRDA in the 109th Congress
WRDA consideration by the House and Senate in the 109th Congress has been
shaped by many issues: Hurricane Katrina, 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 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. There
is considerable support among some stakeholders for enacting a WRDA bill because
of the number of projects awaiting authorization and the length of time since
Congress enacted the last WRDA in 2000. Others are critical of numerous provisions
of both the House and Senate versions of the bill.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost of the House bill,
as passed by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in early 2005,
1 For more information on the Corps’ appropriations, see CRS Report RL33346, Energy and
Water Development: FY2007 Appropriations, and CRS Report RL32852, Energy and Water
Development: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl Behrens.
2 For example, the civil works budget has experienced a substantial decline in real dollar
amounts; the annual funding for the Corps’ construction account fell from an average of $4
billion (in 2000 dollars) in the 1960s and 1970s to less than $2 billion recently.

---

CRS-4
at $4.1 billion from 2006 to 2010 and an additional $5.9 billion from 2011 to 2020.
A current CBO cost estimate of the Senate-passed version is not available; numerous
changes have been made to the bill since the CBO estimates on the version of S. 728
passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. (The Senate
incorporated S. 728 into H.R. 2864.) A simple summation of the new authorizations
in the current Senate version exceeds $15 billion.
The Administration, in its Statements of Administration Policy and in a
September 22, 2006, letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army to the Chairman
of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has expressed
concerns about the authorization levels of the bills. The Administration’s position
is to recommended new authorizations only for priority projects in the agency’s core
mission areas of navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration, and to control
the federal financial commitment through lower federal responsibility in the cost-
share for projects.
Project authorizations in the WRDA bills receiving attention and causing debate
include:
! Coastal Louisiana: more than $1 billion for immediate actions to
restore coastal wetlands over the next decade, and conditional pre-
authorization of hurricane protection measures (no cost estimate
available).3
! 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 the Indian River Lagoon-South project
for wetlands and estuarine restoration and $0.35 billion for the
Picayune Strand ecosystem restoration project.
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. The failure of Corps-constructed floodwalls in New
Orleans and the findings of subsequent investigations have strengthened support for
some Corps reform measures.
3 House-passed H.R. 2864 would authorize $1.2 billion. An authorization amount for is not
specified in the Senate language; instead, the language authorizes the activities identified
in 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. The Senate language also gives the Corps authority to modify the activities
identified in the Chief’s report in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while also lifting
the limitations on the size and scope of modifications that do not require congressional
authorization.

---

CRS-5
Many advocates for 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,4 107th, and 108th Congresses, no
significant changes were enacted. 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.5
Other stakeholders argue that any changes should move the agency in a different
direction than the measures pursued by environmental groups. Supporters of
streamlining the Corps practices, which include many of the nonfederal project
sponsors for Corps projects, argue that the provisions supported by the environmental
groups are unnecessary and add delay, cost, and uncertainty to an already lengthy
project development and constructions process. They 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.
Independent Review. The two versions differ in their provisions for changes
in Corps policy and procedures, with the independent review provisions receiving the
greatest attention. The two versions differ on the scope of the independent reviews,
which projects could be exempted or included for review, who would be performing
and directing the reviews, and the treatment of the recommendations resulting from
the reviews.
The Administration supports the independent peer review of proposed projects.
The independent review provisions in the Senate-passed bill reflect a broader
application of independent review than the House provision. For example, the Senate
version includes requirements for independent safety reviews of the construction of
Corps flood and storm damage reduction projects, a requirement prompted by the
4 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 federal water resources
management and organizational context. 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.
5 The Corps released five new policy documents in 2005 to be tested as guidance for the
agency’s planning activities. One, on collaborative planning of Corps projects, 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-6
floodwall failures in New Orleans. The Senate provision was added as an
amendment on the Senate floor; the provision is broader than was supported by the
bill’s Senate sponsors. This raises particular uncertainty regarding the negotiation
of this provision by the conference committee.
Planning and Coordinating Committee. The changes to Corps planning
that the two versions propose also differ. The House version, in §2029, would
provide direction to the Corps on what benefits to consider when evaluating projects
during planning. The Senate planning provision (§2005) would provide deadlines
for milestones for the planning process and related reports; it also provides direction
on the consideration of risk in flood damage reduction projects, consideration of
project alternatives, and assessments of the cost-effectiveness of elements of a
project. Under the Senate version (§2006), every five years, a Coordinating
Committee composed of Secretaries from numerous federal departments would
recommend changes to the planning principles guiding the agency’s evaluation and
development of projects. The Coordinating Committee also would be required to
submit within two years of enactment a report on the vulnerability of the United
States to flood and storm damages.
Other Policy Changes. The planning and review provisions are not the only
ones in the two versions of H.R. 2864 that change Corps practices and policies.
Other provisions of each version could be analyzed in the context of Corps reform;
these include §2005 of the Senate-passed H.R. 2864, requiring a Corps fiscal
transparency report; §2015 of the Senate-passed H.R. 2864, requiring cost-sharing
for monitoring of ecosystem restoration projects; and §2025 of the House-passed
H.R. 2864, streamlining environmental review of Corps projects. For example,
§2001 of the Senate-passed bill would allow in-kind construction work by nonfederal
project sponsors to be credited against local cost-share responsibilities for Corps
projects. The Administration opposes the provision, citing diminished accountability,
consistency, and Corps oversight.
Coastal Louisiana
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 long-term
wetlands restoration. The Corps is repairing and strengthening much of the area’s
hurricane protection levees and floodwalls using existing authority and through
funding provided in supplemental appropriations legislation.
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 are in the current versions of WRDA; generally, their
support has centered on 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.

---

CRS-7
Wetlands Restoration and Protection.6
Corps’ Pre-Katrina Plan. 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, before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, in November 2004; it received a
favorable recommendation in January 2005 in a report by the Corps’ Chief of
Engineers.
The feasibility report recommended measures totaling $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.
Authorization Amount. Title VII of the House-passed version of H.R. 2864
does specify dollar amounts, and would authorize a total of $1.218 billion primarily
for activities recommended in the Corps report. By contrast, §1003 of the Senate
language does not specify any dollar amounts, or the federal and nonfederal share.
The Senate language would authorize the Louisiana Coastal Area program
“substantially in accordance with” the Chief’s report, while providing the Corps
authority to modify, without limitations on the scope or cost of the modifications, the
projects identified in the report in order to respond to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Provisions in §1003 direct the Corps to give priority 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.
Specifics of the Authorizing Language. While generally being supportive
of the effort, the Administration’s position differs from the legislative language in
many respects. The Statement of Administrative Policy on the Senate-version
recommended a single generic (programmatic) authorization covering all studies,
construction, and science activities, rather than the separate authorizations provided
6 Prepared by Jeffrey A. Zinn, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, Resources, Science,
and Industry Division.

---

CRS-8
in the pending legislation. The Administration argues that this would provide more
flexibility and expediency. The Statements of Administration Policy for the House
and Senate versions of the bill recommended a cost-share of 50% federal-50%
nonfederal.
Section 1003 of the Senate-passed bill 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. It also would create the Louisiana Water Resources Council, which would
oversee and manage implementation of a system-wide plan for Corps projects that
address issues raised by the hurricanes. Council members would be appointed by the
President of the Mississippi River Commission, in consultation with the Louisiana
governor. The Administration objects to the creation of the Council, citing a
circumvention of the executive branch processes thus reducing accountability and
citing constitutional concerns with regard to the Appointments Clause.
Section 1003 of the Senate version 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 added
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 House-passed 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 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.

---

CRS-9
Hurricane Protection and Navigation.7 In addition to provisions
authorizing coastal wetlands restoration efforts, both versions of H.R. 2864 also
contain numerous provisions related to Corps hurricane protection and navigation
projects in Louisiana. Both versions would authorize the Morganza to the Gulf of
Mexico hurricane protection project; this project had been recommended by the
Corps’ Chief of Engineers in 2002. Specific measures proposed following Hurricane
Katrina to fortify the structural elements of the hurricane protection system protecting
New Orleans and other portions of southeast Louisiana may require congressional
authorization; H.R. 5461 — Meeting Authorization Requirements for the Coast Act
of 2006 — provides examples of some of these measures. These specific measures
are absent from the Senate-passed H.R. 2864, and were not in the pre-Katrina House-
passed bill.
Although the Senate-passed H.R. 2864 does not have these specific
authorizations, it includes general provisions related to authorizing hurricane
protection projects for coastal Louisiana. In the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem
restoration section (§1003), there is a provision that would require that a report on
comprehensive hurricane protection be submitted to Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; the
report would be based on the results of an ongoing study (which was authorized in
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY2006, P.L.109-103).
The Senate-version of the WRDA bill would provide the Secretary of the Army
authorization to construct the projects identified in the report following committee
resolutions by the two committees. This would differ from the typical Corps process
of projects requiring specific authorization by Congress in enacted legislation before
appropriations are directed to the Corps for construction activities. The
Administration in its Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate-version
objects to conditional pre-authorization of projects; its statement notes that the
projects are yet to be identified, and the costs are likely to measure in the tens of
billions.
The Senate version includes provisions for financial assistance for moving deep-
draft navigation facilities that may be affected by the possible permanent closure of
the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO). For more information on the MRGO,
see CRS Report RL33597, Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO): Issues for
Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway8
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
7 Prepared by Nicole T. Carter, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
8 Prepared by Nicole Carter, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

---

CRS-10
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 2004.9 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.)10 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.
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 June 9, 2006.
10 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).

---

CRS-11
The Statements of Administration Policy have been 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 50%-50% cost-share.
UMR-IWW Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Investments. The
authorizations of navigation and ecosystem restoration investments for the UMR-
IWW in the House-passed and Senate-passed bills are largely similar.11 Section 1002
of the Senate-passed H.R. 2864 and §8003 of the House-passed 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
or many of the monitoring and study recommendations.12
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. No similar amendments were offered during
Senate floor consideration.
Section 1002 of the Senate-passed bill and §8004 of the House-passed bill
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. The bills 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 Restoration13
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
11 One of the differences is that the Senate-passed H.R. 2864 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.”
12 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.
13 Prepared by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Analyst in Environmental and Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

CRS-12
program.14 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
contemplated in the 1999 CERP plan to be developed and authorized.15
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 both the Senate-passed and House-passed 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, the House-passed
H.R. 2864 states that the Secretary of the Army shall not raise Tamiami Trail until
the project is specifically 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 Senate-passed bill does not contain these conditions.16

Indian River Lagoon. Both the House-passed H.R. 2864 and the Senate-
passed H.R. 2864 would authorize an IRL-S project, as recommended by the Corps
to restore the IRL-S wetlands and estuary.17 The House-passed H.R. 2864 would
authorize $1.2 billion for the project, whereas the Senate-passed H.R. 2864 would
14 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).
15 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.
16 For more information on the Modified Water Deliveries Project, see CRS Report
RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project, by Pervaze Sheikh.
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.

---

CRS-13
authorize $1.4 billion. (The federal share would be 50% of this total.) The Senate
version reflects the inflation-adjusted project cost of IRL-S at FY2006 price levels.
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 OMB, and formally submitted to Congress. 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 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 steadily increasing project costs.
Picayune Strand Restoration. The Picayune Strand restoration project
(also known as the Southern Golden Gates Estates project) is expected to provide
freshwater flows to natural areas. Both the House-passed and Senate-passed H.R.
2864 would authorize the Picayune Strand restoration project; however, the House-
18 Corps, IRL-S Final PIR.
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.

---

CRS-14
passed H.R. 2864 would authorize $350 million for the project, and the Senate-
passed H.R. 2864 would authorize $362 million. The Senate version reflects the
inflation adjusted project cost of Picayune Strand at FY2006 price levels. 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
awaiting subsequent review by OMB. 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 94 square miles 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
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.
Nearly 98% of the land needed for restoring Picayune Strand is in public
ownership and all 1,800 parcels (representing almost 1,500 landowners) have been
acquired, some through eminent domain.25 Some are concerned that the accessibility
of Picayune Strand for recreation will be lowered due to restoration activities. The
state has responded that it will provide areas for off-road vehicles and other
recreational activities.
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.
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 August 16, 2006.
——. Statement of Administrative Policy on S. 728 (made on July 18, 2006),
available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/
s728sap-s.pdf], visited on August 16, 2006.
Coastal Louisiana
CRS Report RL32673, Coastal Louisiana: Attempting to Restore an Ecosystem, by
Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RS22110, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration: The Recommended
Corps Plan, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RS22467, Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
(CWPPRA): Effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS22276, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration After Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RL33597, Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO): Issues for Congress,
by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern.
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.

---