Order Code RL33504
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Corps of Engineers Project Authorization Issues
Updated May 9, 2007
Nicole T. Carter, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
H. Steven Hughes, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Jeffrey A. Zinn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Corps of Engineers Project Authorization Issues
Summary
Congress generally authorizes new Army Corps of Engineers water resources
studies and projects in a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) before
appropriating funds to them. The 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses considered but
did not enact WRDA legislation; WRDA enactment previously had loosely followed
a biennial schedule. The most recent WRDA was enacted in 2000. Pent-up demand
for new authorizations is prompting interest in passing a WRDA in 2007. Efforts
have focused on moving WRDA legislation in 2007 based on authorizations for
projects, studies, and policy changes that were included in WRDA bills passed by the
two chambers during the 109th Congress, and considering additional authorizations
in separated legislation later in the 110th Congress.
WRDA 2007 — H.R. 1495, which is estimated to cost more than $14 billion in
the next 15 years — was passed by the House on April 19, 2007. On April 30, 2007,
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported its WRDA 2007,
S. 1248. CBO’s cost estimate was more than $31 billion over the next 15 years; $15
billion of the estimate was attributed to hurricane protections works for coastal
Louisiana. A Manager’s Amendment is anticipated during Senate floor
consideration; it is reported that the coastal Louisiana authorizations may be trimmed
to mirror language specific to New Orleans hurricane protection that was in the
House bill (which CBO estimated at $3 billion).
Issues that shaped WRDA debates in recent Congresses continue to receive
attention, as well as new issues such as incorporating climate change into the
planning of Corps projects. The Administration has expressed reservations about the
total authorization level of recent WRDA bills and numerous specific provisions. On
April 18, 2007, OMB released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) for H.R.
1495 that “strongly opposes H.R. 1495 in its current form” and characterizes the level
of authorizations as “unacceptable.” The Administration has not issued a SAP on S.
1248. Other issues shaping WRDA 2007 include different opinions on Corps reform
measures (such as independent review and project planning), increases in the federal
cost for some water resources activities and nonfederal cost share credits, and
expansion of the Corps’ authorizations in municipal water and wastewater
infrastructure, called environmental infrastructure projects.
H.R. 1495 is based largely on the House-passed WRDA bill of the 109th
Congress. H.R. 1495 includes authorizations for almost 700 projects and studies and
a few regional efforts. It would authorize approximately $1.1 billion in construction
activities to restore wetlands in coastal Louisiana, and actions to improve hurricane
protection in New Orleans. Authorization of spending for navigation improvements
($2.0 billion) and ecosystem restoration ($1.6 billion) on the Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway, and Florida Everglades restoration ($2 billion), are
included. These regional authorization also are present in S. 1248. S. 1248 has most
of the same provisions as the Senate-passed WRDA of the 109th Congress. S. 1248
would authorize less than half the number of studies, projects, and project
modifications as H.R. 1495, and create a National Levee Safety Program.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
WRDAs: Authorizing Corps Studies and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
WRDAs in Recent Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Corps “Reform” and Policy Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Environmental Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Coastal Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wetlands Restoration and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hurricane Protection and Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Projects Under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan . . . . 12
Modified Water Deliveries Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
Project Authorization Issues
Most Recent Developments
Efforts to authorize Army Corps of Engineers water resources actions and
policy changes have used the WRDA bills of the 109th Congress as the basis for the
bills in 2007. Reportedly, additional authorizations are anticipated for consideration
in separate WRDA legislation later in the 110th Congress (i.e., a WRDA 2008).
H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007, is based largely on the
House-passed WRDA bill (H.R. 2864) of the 109th Congress, which was not
enacted.1 Cost estimates for H.R. 1495, as passed by the House on April 19, 2007,
are $14 billion. S. 1248, the Senate’s version of WRDA 2007, has most of the same
provisions as the Senate-passed version of the WRDA (H.R. 2864) of the 109th
Congress. On April 30, 2007, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works reported S. 1248. It would authorize less than half the number of studies,
projects, and project modifications as H.R. 1495. Provisions in S. 1248 with
unspecified authorization caps — such as one providing construction authorization
for comprehensive hurricane protection for coastal Louisiana, subject to authorizing
committee resolutions in the House and Senate — have raised questions regarding
the total level of authorizations provided in S. 1248. CBO estimates the cost of the
bill at $5.5 billion for 2008-2012 and $26 billion for the 10 years after 2012. In its
estimate for 2013 to 2022, CBO included $15 billion for the hurricane protection
works for coastal Louisiana. A Manager’s Amendment is anticipated during Senate
floor consideration; it is reported that the coastal Louisiana authorizations may be
trimmed to mirror language specific to New Orleans hurricane protection that was
in the House bill (which CBO estimated at $3 billion).
Fiscal Issues. On April 18, 2007, a Statement of Administration Policy
(SAP) for H.R. 1495 expressed that the Administration “strongly opposes H.R. 1495
1 Some changes to the contents of project authorizations were included in H.R. 1495. For
example, the Everglades title appears in both bills, but H.R. 1495 would authorize two
projects that were not in the earlier bill — the $81 million Site 1 Impoundment, and the
$144 million Tamiami Trail bridge. Similarly, the coastal Louisiana restoration title in H.R.
1495 is different in many respects from the same title in the earlier bill, which was passed
before Hurricane Katrina. Other examples of content changes range from a $4 million
authorization of the Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project for aquatic nuisance
species, to a modification to the American River’s Folsom Dam projects that would
authorize $683 million in construction activities to reduce the City of Sacramento’s
vulnerability to flooding.

---

CRS-2
in its current form.” The SAP found the authorizations in the bill “unacceptable”; it
stated: “The bill would increase Federal cost-share for many projects, authorize
projects outside of the Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) mission, and not ensure
that projects yield high economic and environmental returns.” A SAP for S. 1248
has not been issued.
Agency “Reform” Issues. The Administration stated its support for
expanded use of external independent review, while also proposing changes to the
independent review provision (§2037) of the H.R. 1495. S. 1248 contains the
independent review language that was added on the Senate floor during WRDA
consideration in the 109th Congress. The House and Senate provisions 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.
Another issue related to changing the practices and procedures of the agency
was the subject of an amendment to H.R. 1495 agreed to on the House floor. The
amendment substituted the language of §2036 on project planning. The original
provision would have clarified the Secretary’s ability to recommend for construction
a project alternative other than the one that maximized national economic
development benefits. This was replaced by a requirement that the Secretary revise
the agency’s guidance for project planning. S. 1248 would create a Water Resources
Planning Coordinating Committee that would make recommendations for revising
the planning guidance; the committee would consist primarily of federal department
secretaries and agency directors.
Prioritization of Corps projects as a means of focusing federal water resources
has been raised as a Corps reform issues in recent Senate WRDA debates, and is
reportedly being considered as the subject of a Senate floor amendment. A
prioritization amendment failed on the Senate floor during the 109th Congress
because of concerns that the provision’s language would have reduced congressional
ability to direct the agency.
Regional Project Authorizations. Other issues shaping WRDA 2007
include different opinions about the specifics of project authorizations, including the
billion-dollar regional authorizations for:
! Coastal Louisiana wetlands restoration, flood and storm protection,
and navigation projects (including authorization of the Morganza-to-
the Gulf project, and the appropriations level and specifics of the
wetlands restoration authorization for coastal Louisiana);
! Florida Everglades ecosystem restoration projects (including
authorization of activities under the Modified Water Deliveries
Project); and
! Upper Mississippi River Illinois Waterway (UMR-IWW) navigation
and ecosystem restoration projects (including concerns about linking
the funding of navigation and restoration activities).
Other Issues. Some new issues have entered the WRDA debate. Some
environmental groups have raised concerns that H.R. 1495 and S. 1248 do not

---

CRS-3
directly address the impact of climate change on flood risk across the nation and are
calling for incorporating climate change into the planning of Corps projects. Interest
in directing the Corps to study the energy and fuel-related consequences of dam
removal was raised via a failed motion to recommit H.R. 1495 on the House floor.
An issue that shaped WRDA debates in the 109th Congresses also is continuing
to receive attention, especially in the context of congressional earmark reform
discussions. Some taxpayer groups have spoken out against environmental
infrastructure projects, arguing that other government agencies have existing,
competitive programs to assist with these municipal infrastructure needs, and that
these projects are outside the scope of the agency’s core missions. Proponents of
environmental infrastructure argue that these projects are necessary because of gaps
in existing federal programs.
Background and Analysis
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 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 have been
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 to the Corps comes primarily through authorization and
appropriations legislation and oversight. WRDA is the main legislative vehicle for
Corps civil works authorizations. After background and discussion of WRDAs in
recent Congresses, this report considers the current status of WRDA and major issues
shaping WRDA consideration in the 110th 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
amends 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 (T&I) or the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Authorization to construct

---

CRS-4
projects and changes to the policies guiding the Corps civil works program, such as
project cost-share requirements, are typically in WRDAs.
Authorization of Corps projects generally does 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 on the House floor.
Authorization establishes a project’s essential character, which is seldom
substantially modified during appropriations. The appropriations process, however,
plays a significant role in realizing a project; appropriations determine which studies
and projects receive federal funds.2 Many authorized activities never receive
appropriations. During the last 15 years, Congress has authorized not only navigation
and traditional flood control projects, but also ecosystem restoration, environmental
infrastructure assistance, and other activities, increasing 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 been loosely 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, 108th, and 109th Congresses.
Current Issues
Because of the number of projects awaiting authorization and the length of time
since Congress enacted the last WRDA in 2000, there is considerable support among
some stakeholders for the 110th Congress to enact a WRDA bill in 2007. A number
of factors that complicated WRDA passage in recent Congresses remain unresolved.3
2 For more information on the Corps’ appropriations, see CRS Report RL33346, Energy and
Water Development: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl Behrens.
3 Other issues that have not been actively debated in recent WRDA debates also may arise
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
The authorizations in WRDA are part of a general debate about the missions of the
Corps, and how best to use the agency’s resources and budget.
The Bush Administration has not sent Congress a WRDA proposal; instead, the
Administration has expressed its position through Statements of Administration
Policy by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In these SAPs, the
Administration has raised concerns about adding new authorizations to the backlog
of authorized Corps activities; some estimates of the existing backlog exceed $60
billion. The Administration also opposed §2002 of H.R. 1495, which would increase
the federal cost share from 40% to 65% for construction of deepwater navigation
projects, and from 50% to 100% for operation and maintenance of these projects.
Section 2001 of S. 1248 would allow in-kind construction work by nonfederal project
sponsors to be credited against local cost-share responsibilities for Corps projects;
in a SAP on the WRDA bill considered by the Senate during the 109th Congress, the
Administration opposed this provision, citing diminished accountability, consistency,
and Corps oversight.
Corps “Reform” and Policy Changes
Some stakeholders seek changes to the agency and its procedures like those in
S. 564, the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007; others oppose
some of the changes in H.R. 1495 and S. 564. Support for changing the Corps’
practices gained momentum in 2000 in the wake of a series of critical articles in the
Washington Post, whistleblower allegations, and ensuing investigations. Many of the
allegations raised were particularly critical of the Corps UMR-IWW navigation
studies that were underway in the 1990s. The failure of Corps-constructed floodwalls
in New Orleans and the findings of subsequent investigations have strengthened
support for some Corps reform measures and heightened concerns about the quality
of the agency’s work.
Many advocates for change, primarily environmental groups, seek to modify
Corps project planning (e.g., by changing the benefit-cost 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 are referred to as “Corps reform.”
Although Corps reforms were discussed in the 106th,4 107th, 108th, and 109th
3 (...continued)
during the course of congressional consideration in the 110th Congress. For example, §2009
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.
4 Although the 106th Congress did not enact Corps changes, it asked the National Academy
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
Congresses, no significant changes were enacted. The Corps argues that it has
transformed itself by policies it has implemented since 2000; these include
refinements in consideration of environmental benefits during planning, internal peer
review, and guidance about optional external 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 Corps practices, which include many of the nonfederal 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 construction 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.
H.R. 1495 contains a range of provisions that would change Corps policies. For
example, different opinions persist over how to structure and limit independent
review of Corps projects. Section 2037 would create a process for technical reviews
of studies undertaken during the development of Corps projects. S. 1248 contains
the independent review language that was added on the Senate floor during WRDA
consideration in the 109th Congress. The House and Senate provisions 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. 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 floodwall failures in New Orleans. No similar safety review is
included in H.R. 1495.
An amendment to H.R. 1495 agreed to on the House floor substituted the
language of §2036 related to project planning. The original provision on project
planning would have clarified the Secretary’s ability to recommend for construction
4 (...continued)
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 (1) Adaptive Management for Water
Resources Planning; (2) Analytic Methods and Approaches for Water Resources Project
Planning; (3) River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; and (4) 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, which are available at [http://www.usace.army.mil/
publications/eng-circulars/ec-cw.html]. One, on collaborative planning of Corps projects,
is an update to the agency’s planning guidance. Another set out processes for the peer
review of scientific, engineering, and economic information and assessments used to inform
decision-making. A third established a Civil Works Review Board that approves the final
planning reports before submitting them to the Chief of Engineers.

---

CRS-7
a project alternative other than the one that maximized national economic
development benefits. This provision was replaced by a requirement that the
Secretary revise the agency’s guidance for project planning. Environmental groups
supported the amendment. They criticized the existing guidance, which had been
adopted in 1982, as being outdated, insufficiently attentive to environmental costs
and benefits of projects, and favoring structural solutions to water resources issues.
Opponents of the amendment argued that the existing guidance provided sufficient
flexibility to adapt to changing water resources knowledge and challenges.
The planning provision (§2005) in S. 1248 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 provisions in the bills also would alter the agency’s policies, including
§§2009 and 2019 of H.R. 1495, which would change policies related to the
agreements that the agency has with its nonfederal partners. Other provisions of both
bills would alter fish and wildlife mitigation at Corps projects. Many other sections
of the bill would also change Corps policies.
Prioritization of Corps projects as a means of focusing federal water resources
has been raised as a Corps reform issues in recent Senate WRDA debates, and is
reportedly being considered as the subject of a Senate floor amendment.
Prioritization language is included in S. 564, the Water Resources Planning and
Modernization Act of 2007. A prioritization amendment failed on the Senate floor
during the 109th Congress because of concerns that the provision’s language would
have reduced congressional ability to direct the agency.
Environmental Infrastructure
The Administration and some stakeholders and policymakers oppose
authorizations for projects outside the agency’s core mission areas of navigation,
flood control, and ecosystem restoration; in particular, they oppose “environmental
infrastructure” projects. Before 1992, the Corps had not been involved in these types
of projects. In recent years, appropriations for Corps environmental infrastructure
have ranged from $94 million in the FY2007 work plan for the agency to more than
$200 million in some years, representing between 2% and 4% of the agency’s budget.
Opponents dislike Corps involvement in these projects, arguing that other
government agencies have existing, competitive programs to assist with these
municipal infrastructure needs. Proponents of environmental infrastructure argue
that these projects are necessary because of gaps in existing federal programs.
Environmental infrastructure authorizations in the House-passed bill in the 109th
Congress reportedly were one of the issues that complicated conference negotiations.

---

CRS-8
As reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, H.R. 1495
did not authorize new environmental infrastructure projects; however, it increased
the authorization levels for some already authorized environmental infrastructure
projects. The manager’s amendment to H.R. 1495 agreed to on the House floor
authorized more than $800 million in federal appropriations for new environmental
infrastructure activities. S. 1248 includes approximately $100 million in federal
appropriations authorization for activities that some stakeholders may classify as
environmental infrastructure.
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 continues to repair and strengthen much of the
area’s hurricane protection levees and floodwalls using authority and funding
provided in supplemental appropriations legislation; funding for this work is an
ongoing appropriations issue.
The 109th Congress, on the last day of the session (December 9, 2006), passed
the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432); it shares 37.5% of
certain offshore oil and gas revenues with four specified Gulf coast states, including
Louisiana. These funds, may be almost $350 million over the next decade and more
than $25 billion over the next 45 years, according to a July 2006 OMB projection.
They are to be used for projects and activities to provide coastal protection, including
conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, and infrastructure directly
affected by coastal wetland losses, as well as fish and wildlife mitigation. The law
increases funding available in Louisiana to commit to the nonfederal portion of
restoration and hurricane protection efforts being considered in WRDA 2007.

Wetlands Restoration and Protection. Coastal wetlands in Louisiana
have been disappearing at a high rate, as a result of both human activities and natural
processes. 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,
before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It received a favorable recommendation in
January 2005 in a report by the Corps’ Chief of Engineers. The report recommended
measures totaling an estimated $1.997 billion — $1.123 billion for projects and
programs for immediate authorization, $0.145 billion for investigations of “large-
scale concepts” that have already been authorized, and $0.728 billion for future
authorization of ten restoration features. 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. (It is important to note that even if this
plan is fully implemented, losses will continue, but at a much slower rate.) The
federal government would pay about 64% of the total estimated cost. In the
diversions, wetlands would gradually reestablish themselves on newly deposited
sediments. The Corps is currently updating its overall plan, and, reportedly, may
release it by the end of 2007.

---

CRS-9
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita altered the debate over wetlands restoration
proposals and the cost-share for restoration investments. Many restoration
proponents are calling for more extensive efforts than those authorized in H.R. 1495;
generally, their support has centered on a $14 billion proposal developed by a team
of state and federal agencies in the Coast 2050 Plan from 1998.6 Decisions facing
Congress include whether to authorize any coastal Louisiana restoration effort, the
extent of the authorized effort, and how to prioritize and find synergies between
wetlands restoration and hurricane protection. At the state level, the Louisiana
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority released a draft plan in February 2007
titled Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection: Louisiana’s
Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. A final version of this plan is
to be submitted to the state legislature later in 2007. While the state is considering
this plan, federal decisions in 2007 are most likely to occur in the context of WRDA.
The Coastal Louisiana title of H.R. 1495 is similar in some ways to House-
passed WRDA legislation of the 109th Congress, but it has some significant
differences as well. The current legislation calls for the development and periodic
update of a comprehensive plan for coastal Louisiana, and lists several planning
priorities, including not only wetlands creation but also flood protection. It also
would authorize the Corps to carry out a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) program for
ecosystem restoration, and create a federal-state task force to participate in
developing and implementing the plan. The task force would also function as the
“exclusive peer review panel” for projects subject to the peer-review requirements
established in other sections of H.R. 1495. While the title discusses cost-sharing, it
does not specify the percentage to be paid by nonfederal partners. It would authorize
$10 million for modification of existing projects; $100 million for related scientific
and technical work; $100 million for demonstration projects; $828.3 million for five
specific restoration projects that are close to ready to start (including $105.3 million
for the environmental restoration of the controversial Mississippi River Gulf Outlet);
$100 million to explore using dredged materials in restoration; and $184.6 million
for four additional projects that are in the earlier stages of planning. H.R. 1495 also
would require expedited reports on several specific projects and multiple reports to
Congress on accomplishments and adjustments as the restoration effort moves
forward.
The coastal Louisiana title of S. 1248 is identical to the Senate-passed WRDA
legislation of the 109th Congress. The near-term coastal Louisiana restoration actions
that would be authorized by S. 1248 are largely the same as the authorizations in
H.R. 1495. In general, the coastal Louisiana provisions in H.R. 1495 provide more
detail, project information, and authorization of appropriations caps than those in S.
1248.
S. 1248 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
6 Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Authority, Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal
Louisiana (Baton Rouge, LA: 1998), available at [http://www.lacoast.gov/Programs/2050].

---

CRS-10
President of the Mississippi River Commission, in consultation with the Louisiana
governor. The Administration has previously objected 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. H.R. 1495 would require the establishment of the council and for it to
provide the external review for the coastal Louisiana projects; no other details
regarding the Council are provided in H.R. 1495.
According to the Administration’s SAP for H.R. 1495, certain coastal Louisiana
provisions in the bill raise some constitutional concerns related to the separation of
powers and executive authority. It states: “provisions that purport to direct the
substance of, and/or determine the chain of command for, internal Executive Branch
deliberations should be deleted as inconsistent with the President’s authority to
supervise the unitary Executive.” It also states that sections that purport to give
congressional committees the power to control the execution of certain provisions of
the bill after it has been enacted, as well as the power to appropriate funds by
committee resolution, “should be modified so as not to violate the constitutional
separation of powers and not contradict the Supreme Court’s ruling in INS v.
Chadha.”
Hurricane Protection and Navigation. In addition to provisions
authorizing coastal wetlands restoration efforts, H.R. 1495 also contains numerous
provisions related to Corps hurricane protection and navigation projects in Louisiana.
The bill would authorize multiple activities to improve New Orleans-area flood and
hurricane storm damage reduction projects, including work to provide a level of
protection that would protect the area from a 100-year flood, and thus qualify the area
for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Generally these activities were
already appropriated funds through supplemental appropriations legislation in
FY2006. H.R. 1495 provides language that stipulates that the projects can exceed
25% of their authorized amounts; any expenditures above that would require an
increase in the authorization level approved by both the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee. Standard Corps policy requires projects that exceed 20% of their
authorizations to get an increased authorization enacted in legislation.
In contrast to H.R. 1495 provisions that specifically authorize New Orleans
related hurricane protection, S. 1248 would conditionally authorize the projects being
developed under a comprehensive hurricane protection study that is currently
underway for the larger coastal Louisiana area; the authorization is contingent on the
Senate EPW and House T&I committee resolutions approving the project. This
would differ from the typical Corps process of projects requiring project-specific
authorization by Congress in enacted legislation before appropriations are directed
to the Corps for construction activities. The Administration during WRDA
consideration in the 109th Congress opposed conditional pre-authorization of projects
and noted that the hurricane protection projects are yet to be identified, and the costs
are likely to measure in the tens of billions. A Manager’s Amendment reportedly
may trim the coastal Louisiana authorizations to mirror language specific to New
Orleans hurricane protection that was in the House bill (which CBO estimated at $3
billion).

---

CRS-11
Among its other provisions, H.R. 1495 also would authorize other hurricane
protection and navigation projects, such as the $0.9 billion Morganza-to-the Gulf of
Mexico project, and modifications to the New Orleans-to-Venice hurricane
protection project.
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
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. Authorization of investments in navigation and ecosystem
restoration of the UMR-IWW is playing a role in current WRDA debates; topics
being debated include the urgency, necessity, and national benefit of expanded UMR-
IWW navigation capacity and ecosystem restoration and how, if at all, to link the
funding for the two efforts.
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 (primarily agricultural products) in some
global markets. The river is also losing the habitat diversity that allowed 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’ feasibility report failed to significantly reduce the debate over the
urgency, necessity, and national benefit of expanded navigation capacity.7 Following
the Corps’ Chief of Engineers approval of the completed feasibility report on UMR-
IWW improvements in December 2004, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) requested that an economic reevaluation of the navigation investments be
made available by the end of September 2007.
The Corps’ ecosystem restoration plan has been less controversial than the $2.0
billion in navigation investments proposed in H.R. 1495 and S. 1248. General
agreement exists that the ecosystem is declining, and general support exists for the
7 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, September 24, 2004), pp. 230 and
490. Available at [http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns/documents/
FINAL_FES_EIS_Report_Cover(2004).pdf]. 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-12
first 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. The Administration’s
SAP on H.R. 1495 was critical of the cost-share language for this restoration effort;
as the result of numerous exceptions to the 65% federal-35% nonfederal cost share,
the cost of the $1.6 billion in restoration activities has been estimated as being split
at 91% federal-9% nonfederal. The SAP recommended a cost-share of 50% federal-
50% nonfederal.
Everglades Restoration
Projects Under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
The largest Corps ecosystem restoration effort to date is in the Florida Everglades,
with a three-decade, $10.9 billion restoration program. Congress approved the
Corps’ implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as a
framework for Everglades restoration in WRDA 2000. The principal objective of
CERP is to store freshwater that currently flows to the ocean, and redirect it back to
the Everglades, where it originally was kept. The retained water is expected to help
restore the natural hydrologic functions of the Everglades ecosystem. WRDA 2000
authorized an initial set of CERP restoration projects and $700 million in federal
funds to implement them. It also established a process for additional projects
outlined in CERP to be developed and authorized. H.R. 1495 and S. 1248 would
authorize more than $1.7 billion in CERP activities, including projects developed
under the CERP process, in addition to the $1.7 billion authorized in WRDA 2000.
Some view the fate of these first projects as a test case of the CERP framework.
Modified Water Deliveries Project. Prior to CERP, the federal government
and the State of Florida had undertaken other Everglades restoration activities. The
Modified Water Deliveries Project (Mod Waters) is a controversial ecological
restoration project in south Florida designed to improve water delivery to Everglades
National Park.8 The implementation schedule of Mod Waters is of interest to
Congress partly because its completion is required before the implementation of
portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. H.R. 1495 addresses
Mod Waters by authorizing the construction of a project known as Tamiami Trail
Modifications (§6008) at a total cost of $144 million and specifying that the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior shall equally share the
construction costs. The Tamiami Trail Modifications project aims to increase water
flows to Everglades National Park by raising Tamiami Trail (a state highway) with
a 2-mile and 1-mile bridge. Some contend that this project is part of Mod Waters and
therefore authorized; others contend that is a separate project that requires
authorization. H.R. 1495 would authorize the project and $144 million to fund the
project. The Corps identified this project design as the most cost-effective. Some
stakeholders support a more ecologically desirable design, consisting of a 10.7-mile
bridge (commonly called the skyway), at an estimated cost of $280 million. S. 1248
does not include provisions on Mod Waters.
8 This project was authorized by the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act
of 1989 (P.L. 101-229).

---

CRS-13
Concluding Remarks
Recent debates about authorizations and policies for the Corps’ water resources
activities have taken place in the context of omnibus WRDA bills. Like WRDA
debates in recent Congresses, the debate in the 110th Congress is dominated by
different opinions over the desirability and need for changing the agency’s policies,
practices, and accountability, and for authorizing billions of dollars in investments
in ecosystem restoration, navigation, and flood and storm damage reduction
measures. The growing backlog of Corps construction and maintenance activities,
constraints on federal water resources funds, the nation’s aging water resources
infrastructure, failure of the Corps-constructed floodwalls in New Orleans during
Hurricane Katrina, and increased attention to the flood risks of urban areas have
raised concerns about continuing the practice of adding billions of dollars in
authorizations to the Corps’ portfolio of activities through omnibus WRDA
legislation. However, many factors maintain the popularity of this vehicle among
legislators, and nonfederal project sponsors create demand for its passage, prompting
its likely continued use.
Water resources management and policy issues facing the Corps and the nation
may arise outside of consideration of a WRDA bill. These issues may receive
legislative action in other vehicles, be the subject of amendments proposed to WRDA
bills or appropriations legislation, or be the subject of congressional oversight. An
example of an ongoing water resource issue affecting the Corps and the nation that
may receive congressional attention outside of WRDA is multi-use river
management. An array of interests are questioning current river management
practices across the nation and how management can balance benefits (and harm)
across multiple river uses, including in-stream uses. How the nation uses and values
its rivers has changed over time. Rivers now are seen as providing not only
economic benefits but also recreational opportunities and species habitat. This shift
has resulted in a reexamination by the courts, agencies, and stakeholders of the
distribution of economic and other benefits of management alternatives. For
example, Missouri River management raises some fundamental questions about
water resources management, such as whether some river uses should take priority
over others (e.g., threatened and endangered species protection over inland waterway
transportation, or vice versa) and how precedence should be decided (e.g., balancing
competing uses versus maximizing economic benefits, versus maintaining minimum
levels of some values). The river’s management is a prime example of the complex
issues in which the Corps is embroiled that often result in congressional
consideration through oversight or legislative language in WRDA or other bills.
A broad water resource issue that is unlikely to be directly addressed by WRDA,
but is significant to the agency and the nation, is the federal role in water resources.
Hurricane Katrina raised questions about this role; in particular, the disaster brought
attention to the trade-offs in benefits, costs, and risks of the current division of
responsibilities among local, state, and federal entities for flood mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery. The question of the federal role also is raised
by increasing competition over water supplies, not only in the West but also for urban
centers in the East (e.g., Atlanta), which have resulted in a growing number of
communities seeking financial and other federal assistance, actions, and permits

---

CRS-14
related to water supply development (e.g., desalination and water reuse projects,
reservoir expansions and reoperations). Congress rarely chooses to pursue broad
legislation on federal water resources policies for many reasons, including the
challenge of enacting changes that affect such a wide breadth of constituencies.
Instead, Congress traditionally has pursued incremental changes through WRDA bills
and other legislation, and this pattern seems likely to continue.

---

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.
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
Administration Policy on H.R. 2864 (made on July 14, 2005), available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr2864sap-h.pdf].
——. Statement of Administration Policy on S. 728 (made on July 18, 2006),
available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/s728sap-s.
pdf].
——. Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1495 (made on April 18, 2007),
available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1495sap-r.pdf].
Coastal Louisiana
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.
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.

---