Order Code RL33504
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Corps of Engineers Project Authorization Issues
Updated July 31, 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; the most recent WRDA was enacted in 2000. Pent-
up demand for new authorizations is prompting interest in enacting a bill in 2007.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 1495) was passed by the
House on April 19, 2007; on May 16, 2007, the Senate passed its version. On July
27, 2007, conferees met and agreed to a compromise bill; the conference report is
available at [http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr1495cr.pdf].
The WRDA 2007 bills were based on the WRDA bills considered by the 109th
Congress, reportedly to facilitate consideration in their respective chambers. These
109th Congress bills failed to move beyond conference, with a number of issues
reportedly complicating negotiations (e.g., independent review, authorizations of
municipal water and wastewater projects, concerns about the overall level of
authorization). Some of the same issues continue to be part of the debate.
The Administration has expressed reservations about the total authorization
level of recent WRDA bills and about numerous specific provisions, while
supporting other provisions. The Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs) for the
WRDA 2007 bills are in strong opposition to the bills’ current form, characterizing
their levels of authorizations as “unacceptable.” The Administration supports
limiting the number of authorizations in the bill to projects in the Corps’ primary
missions (navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration)
that demonstrate an economic and environmental justification for federal
participation. 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).
The WRDA 2007 bills include authorizations for hundreds of projects and
studies over the next 15 years. They would authorize more than a billion dollars in
construction activities to restore wetlands in coastal Louisiana, as well as 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
(around $2 billion), also are included. The Senate bill also would create a National
Levee Safety Program.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
WRDAs: Authorizing Corps Studies and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
WRDAs in Past Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Corps “Reform” and Policy Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Environmental Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Coastal Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wetlands Restoration and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hurricane Protection and Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Projects Under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan . . . . 11
Modified Water Deliveries Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
WRDA in the Federal Water Resources Context
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authorizations and WRDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Coastal Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA): Corps of Engineers
Project Authorization Issues
Most Recent Developments
Congress generally authorizes new projects, studies, and policies for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers through a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).
The House passed its version of WRDA 2007 (H.R. 1495) on April 19, 2007; the
Senate passed its version on May 16, 2007. These bills are based on the bills that
reached conference in the 109th Congress, but were not enacted. Multiple issues
reportedly complicated the conference committee process. On July 27, 2007,
conferees met and agreed to a compromise bill; the conference report is available at
[http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr1495cr.pdf].
The Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs) for the WRDA 2007 bills
expressed the Bush Administration’s strong opposition to the bills’ current forms.
The Administration found the authorizations in the bills “unacceptable,” citing that
the bills would increase the federal cost-share for many projects, authorize projects
outside the Corps’ primary missions, and not ensure that projects yield high
economic and environmental returns.
Agency “Reform” Issues. The Administration stated its support for
expanded use of external independent review, while also proposing changes to §2037
(the independent review provision of the House bill) and §2007 (the independent
review provision of the Senate bill). 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.
Independent review continues to be part of the debate. The conference
committee was faced with the challenge of reconciling the House and Senate
language, which differed in significant aspects. The conference report adopts the
technical review approach of the House bill, rather than the Senate’s broader policy
review, and does not create a separate office of independent review, which had been
part of the Senate language. The conference report does include a safety assurance
review for hurricane protection and flood damage projects — a concept raised in the
Senate version — but unlike the Senate bill, the conference report gives the Corps’
Chief of Engineers discretion regarding when to call for a safety review.
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
added provisions would require that the Secretary of the Army revise the agency’s
guidance for project planning. The Senate bill differs from the House bill; it would
CRS-2
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.
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 the WRDA 2007 bills do not directly
address the impact of climate change on flood risk across the nation. During the
Senate’s floor consideration of WRDA 2007, an amendment to incorporate climate
change impacts into the planning of Corps projects failed. 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.
Authorization of municipal water and wastewater infrastructure projects (called
environmental infrastructure at the Corps) is an issue that shaped WRDA debates in
the 109th Congresses and is continuing to receive attention, especially in the context
of congressional earmark reform discussions. Some taxpayer groups have spoken out
against these authorizations, arguing that other government agencies have existing,
competitive programs1 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 authorizations are necessary to assist
programs that are ineligible or have been unsuccessful at obtaining funds through
these other 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
1 For a description of the existing programs, see CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported
Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs, by Betsy A. Cody et al.
CRS-3
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.
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, including 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
WRDA, or in a resolution by an authorizing committee — the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) or the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee. Authorization for construction 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
(estimated at $60 billion), with more than 500 projects not consistently receiving
construction appropriations.
2 For more information on the Corps’ appropriations, see CRS Report RL33346, Energy and
Water Development: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl Behrens.
CRS-4
WRDAs in Past Congresses
WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662) was a milestone for the Corps; it marked the end of
a decade-long stalemate between Congress and the executive branch regarding
authorizations, and changed the relationship and cost-sharing requirements between
the agency and the nonfederal sponsors of its projects. It also established user fees
and environmental requirements. Pressure to authorize new projects, increase
authorized funding levels, and modify existing projects is often intense, thus
promoting consideration of WRDA. Since 1986, 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). Since
2000, the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses have considered but not enacted WRDA
legislation.
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. However,
a number of factors (e.g., disagreement over the specifics of independent review
provisions and other changes to Corps policies, Administration concerns about the
overall level of authorizations, opposition to specific projects) that complicated
WRDA passage in recent Congresses remain unresolved. The authorizations in
WRDA are part of a more general debate about the missions of the Corps, and how
best to use the agency’s resources and budget.
The bills considered by the conference committee were based largely on the
bills that reached conference committee in the 109th Congress.3 Cost estimates for
both versions were around $14 billion. 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. The Administration
also opposed §2002 of the House bill, 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 the Senate
bill would allow in-kind construction work by nonfederal project sponsors to be
credited against local cost-share responsibilities for Corps projects;4 in a SAP on the
3 Although the WRDA 2007 bills were largely based on the WRDA bills of the 109th
Congress, some changes were made. For example, the WRDA 2007 bills would authorize
a $683 million modification to the American River’s Folsom Dam projects to reduce the
City of Sacramento’s vulnerability to flooding.
4 A related issue that may arise during the course of congressional consideration concerns
provisions that would allow in-kind construction work by nonfederal project sponsors to be
credited against local cost-share responsibilities for Corps projects. This crediting may raise
the issue of the responsibility of these nonfederal sponsors to pay prevailing wages under
(continued...)
CRS-5
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 proposed 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,5 107th, 108th, and 109th
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.6
4 (...continued)
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.
5 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 NRC reports 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 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
6 The Corps released five new policy documents in 2005 to be tested for two years 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
(continued...)
CRS-6
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.
The WRDA 2007 bills contain a range of provisions that would change Corps
policies. Both the House and Senate bills would create a process for technical
reviews of studies undertaken during the development of Corps projects. 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. 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 the House bill. The conference report
includes a safety assurance review for hurricane protection and flood damage
projects, but gives the Corps’ Chief of Engineers discretion regarding when to call
for a safety review. Overall, the conference report adopts the technical review
approach of the House bill, rather than the Senate’s broader policy review, and does
not create a separate office of independent review, which had been part of the Senate
language.
An amendment to the House bill agreed to on the floor replaced 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 a project
alternative other than the one that maximized national economic development
benefits. This provision was replaced by a requirement that the Secretary update the
agency’s guidance for project planning. Environmental groups criticized the original
planning provision because it clarified, but did not change, guidance that originally
had been adopted in 1982. These groups argue that the guidance is outdated,
insufficiently attentive to environmental costs and benefits of projects, and favors
structural solutions to water resources issues (in contrast to nonstructural approaches
like land acquisitions and flood proofing of structures). Opponents of the
amendment argued that the existing guidance provides sufficient flexibility to adapt
to changing water resources knowledge and challenges.
The planning provision (§2005) in the Senate bill 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. Also
6 (...continued)
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
related to planing, §2006 of the Senate bill creates a Coordinating Committee
composed of secretaries from numerous federal departments that would recommend
every five years 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.
Further examples of changes to the agency’s policies include §§2009 and 2019
of the House bill, 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.
Prioritization of Corps projects based on a comparison of the projects’ merits
has been raised as a Corps reform issue in recent Senate WRDA debates. Proponents
argue that prioritization could focus federal water resource investments on the
projects that produce the greatest benefit to the nation. Prioritization was raised in
amendments to WRDAs considered on the Senate floor, but not adopted, in the 109th
and 110th Congresses. Objections to the amendments were that they would have
reduced the congressional role in directing the agency, and that prioritization already
is already achieved through the congressional appropriations process.
Environmental Infrastructure
The Administration, some Members of Congress, and some stakeholders
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 (i.e., municipal water and wastewater 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 of Corps
involvement in environmental infrastructure argue that other government agencies
have existing, competitive programs to assist with these municipal infrastructure
needs. Proponents of environmental infrastructure argue that these Corps projects
are necessary because existing federal programs are unable to address all the existing
needs, either because of program eligibility criteria or constrained resources.
Environmental infrastructure authorizations in the House-passed bill in the 109th
Congress reportedly were one of the issues that complicated conference negotiations.
The House bill would authorize more than $800 million in federal appropriations for
new environmental infrastructure activities. The Senate bill includes more than $1.2
billion in federal appropriations authorization for environmental infrastructure
activities.
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
CRS-8
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 total 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.
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 the WRDA
2007 bills; 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 1998.7
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
7 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-9
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 the House bill 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 the House bill. 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. The House bill 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 the Senate bill is similar to the Senate-passed
WRDA legislation of the 109th Congress, except for a few critical provisions that
differ. The near-term coastal Louisiana restoration actions that would be authorized
by the Senate bill are largely the same as the authorizations in the House bill. In
general, the coastal Louisiana provisions in the House bill provide more detail,
project information, and authorization of appropriations caps than those in the Senate
bill.
The Senate bill 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 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. The House 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 the House bill.
According to the Administration’s SAPs, certain coastal Louisiana provisions
in the bill raise some constitutional concerns related to the separation of powers and
executive authority. The SAP for the House bill states: “provisions that purport to
direct the substance of, and/or determine the chain of command for, internal
CRS-10
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.”8
Hurricane Protection and Navigation. In addition to provisions
authorizing coastal wetlands restoration efforts, the WRDA 2007 bills also contain
numerous provisions related to Corps hurricane protection and navigation projects
in Louisiana. The bills 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. The bills would stipulate that the projects can exceed their
authorized level by 25%; 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 their authorized level by 20% to obtain a
legislative increase in their authorization level.
The Senate bill also provides for expedited consideration of measures analyzed
as part of a comprehensive hurricane protection study that is currently underway for
the larger coastal Louisiana area. The provision states that legislative proposals
submitted by the President based on the results of the study shall be eligible for
expedited consideration by the Senate. Expedited consideration would consist of a
45-legislative-day window for Senate Committee action, a 20-hour limitations on
Senate floor consideration, and a procedure prohibiting nongermane Senate floor
amendments.
Among their other provisions, the WRDA 2007 bills also would authorize other
hurricane protection and navigation projects, such as the $0.9 billion Morganza-to-
the Gulf of Mexico 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 used
to justify federal water resources investments. Authorization of investments in
navigation and ecosystem restoration of the UMR-IWW is part of the current WRDA
debate; namely, the urgency, necessity, and national benefit of these investments and
how, if at all, to link the funding for the navigation and ecosystem restoration efforts.
8 For a discussion of the separation of powers issue, see CRS Report RL33151, Committee
Controls of Agency Decisions, by Louis Fisher.
CRS-11
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’ Chief of Engineers approved the completed feasibility report on
UMR-IWW improvements in December 2004. The Chief’s approval and the Corps’
feasibility report failed to significantly reduce the debate over the urgency, necessity,
and national benefit of expanded navigation capacity.9 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 the WRDA 2007 bills. General
agreement exists that the ecosystem is declining, and general support exists for the
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 the House bill 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 for the House bill recommends a cost
share of 50% federal-50% nonfederal. The SAP on the Senate bill does not address
the cost share for the project, but it does suggest deleting the provision linking
restoration and navigation funding.
Everglades Restoration
Projects Under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
The largest Corps ecosystem restoration effort to date is in the Florida Everglades,
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, 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
with a three-decade, $10.9 billion restoration program. Congress approved the
Corps’ implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)
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. The WRDA 2007 bills 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.10 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. The House bill
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. The House bill would authorize the project and $144 million to fund
the project design that the Corps found to be 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. The
Senate bill does not include provisions on Mod Waters.
WRDA in the Federal Water Resources Context
In addition to directing future federal investments in water resources through
WRDA authorizations, Congress also is confronted with addressing water resources
issues that are not resolved through authorizing new projects. 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
10 This project was authorized by the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion
Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-229).
CRS-13
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
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.
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.
CRS-14
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 Projects:
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. 1495 (House) (made on April 18, 2007),
available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1495sap-r.pdf].
——. Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1495 (Senate) (made on May 11,
2007), available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1495sap-s.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-15
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.