Order Code RL33504
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA):
Corps of Engineers Project Authorization Issues
Updated October 4, 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.
WRDA 2007 (H.R. 1495), which would authorize hundreds of projects and studies,
was cleared for the White House on September 24, 2007. The conference report was
agreed to in the House by a vote of 381-40, and in the Senate by a vote of 81-12.
A central issue in the current debate over the bill is its level of authorizations.
A recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R. 1495 estimated the 15-year
impact of the bill at $23 billion. The conference report would authorize the majority
of projects in the earlier House and Senate versions of the bill; because many
authorizations were in either the Senate or House bill but not in both, and because the
Army Corps increased cost estimates in August 2007 for New Orleans hurricane
protection authorized in the bill, the conference report authorization level exceeded
the cost estimates of each chamber’s bill.
An August 1, 2007, Administration letter stated that the President anticipated
vetoing the bill, citing among other reasons the authorization level. The White House
veto threat has prompted speculation about a congressional override. The
Administration supports limiting authorizations 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 the WRDA 2007 debate include different
opinions on Corps reform measures (such as independent review and project
planning) and the need for prioritizing among authorized projects, 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 would authorize more than two billion dollars in construction
activities to restore wetlands in coastal Louisiana, as well as actions to improve
hurricane protection in New Orleans. Authorizations for navigation improvements
($2.2 billion) and ecosystem restoration ($1.7 billion) on the Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway and Florida Everglades restoration (around $2 billion), also
are included. The conference bill would create a Committee on Levee Safety that
would make recommendations for a national levee safety program. The conference
bill’s independent review provisions would require technical review of plans for
Corps projects exceeding $45 million and a safety review of construction activities
for flood and storm damage projects at the discretion of the agency’s Chief of
Engineers.

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
WRDAs: Authorizing Corps Studies and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
WRDAs in Past Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Projects Under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan . . . . 12
Modified Water Deliveries Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
WRDA in the Federal Water Resources Context
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
Congress generally authorizes new Army Corps of Engineers water resources
studies and projects before appropriating funds for these activities. Authorization
typically occurs in a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The 107th, 108th,
and 109th Congresses considered but did not enact WRDA legislation; the most
recent WRDA was enacted in 2000. WRDA 2007, which would authorize hundreds
of projects and studies, was cleared for the White House on September 24, 2007.
The conference report was agreed to in the House by a vote of 381-40, and in the
Senate by a vote of 81-12.
A central issue in the current debate over the bill is its level of authorizations.
A recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R. 1495 estimated the 15-year
impact of the bill at $23 billion. The conference report’s authorization level
exceeded the estimates for the House and Senate versions of the bill, which were
around $14 billion and $15 billion. Principal among the reasons for the higher
authorization levels in the conference report are that
! it includes a majority of authorizations in the House and Senate bills,
and many of the authorizations were only in one of those bills;

! the Army Corps in August 2007 increased federal cost estimates for
New Orleans hurricane protection by approximately $3.6 billion
(previous estimates had been for approximately $2.2 billion in
federal funding beyond the supplemental appropriations already
provided for this work);
! and, to a lesser extent, approximately 20 provisions in the
conference report were in neither the House bill nor the Senate bill,
including a $270 million modification to the Santa Ana (CA) River
Mainstem project.
An August 1, 2007, Administration letter stated that the President anticipates
vetoing the bill, citing among other reasons the authorization level. The White House
veto threat has prompted speculation about a congressional override. (For
information on the override process, see CRS Report RS22654, Veto Override
Procedures in the House and Senate
, by Elizabeth Rybicki.)
The Administration supports limiting authorizations to projects in the Corps’
primary missions (navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem

CRS-2
restoration) that demonstrate an economic and environmental justification for federal
participation. Other issues that shaped WRDA 2007 include different opinions on
Corps reform measures (such as independent review and project planning) and the
need for prioritizing among authorized projects, increases in the federal cost for some
water resources activities and nonfederal cost share credits, and expansion of Corps
authorizations in municipal water and wastewater infrastructure (called
environmental infrastructure projects).
Senate floor consideration was shaped by debate over whether restrictions on
adding provisions during conference that were in neither the House nor the Senate
bill applied to authorization bills like WRDA.
Agency “Reform” Issues. Throughout congressional consideration of the
bill, independent review remained a debated policy issue. Conferees were faced with
the challenge of reconciling the House and Senate language. The provisions had
differed 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 conference report adopted 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 included 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 gave the Corps’ Chief of Engineers discretion
regarding when to call for a safety review. In its SAPs, 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).
Regional Project Authorizations. Other issues that shaped WRDA 2007
consideration included 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 authorization levels and specifics of
wetlands restoration activities 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 entered the WRDA debate during
consideration by the 110th Congress. For example, some environmental groups raised
concerns that WRDA 2007 bill did not directly address the impact of climate change
on flood risk across the nation. Language requiring the Corps to consider climate
change impacts on its water resources projects, which is similar to language in a
WRDA amendment that failed on the Senate floor, is included in H.R. 3221 — New

CRS-3
Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act
— as passed by the House. 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 continued to receive attention, especially in the context of
congressional earmark reform discussions. The conference report combined
environmental infrastructure authorizations in the House and Senate versions of the
bill; the conference report contains more than 200 Corps environmental infrastructure
project authorizations. 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.
The conference language would create a Committee on Levee Safety that would
make recommendations for a national levee safety program. The Senate bill would
have created a levee safety program; the House bill had not included levee safety
provisions.
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.
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
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-4
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 has an existing “backlog” of more than 800 authorized projects
with more than 500 projects not consistently receiving construction appropriations.
The current backlog is estimated at $38 billion to $60 billion depending on the suite
of project authorizations considered.
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.
2 For more information on the Corps’ appropriations, see CRS Report RL33346, Energy and
Water Development
: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl Behrens.

CRS-5
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) complicated WRDA
2007 enactment. 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 Bush Administration did not send Congress a WRDA proposal; instead,
it expressed its position through Administration letters and Statements of
Administration Policy by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
Administration has threatened a veto, citing the conference language that would
authorize billions in new authorizations, including billions for projects that the
Administration considers to be outside the core mission of the agency. The
Administration also opposed provisions that would increase the federal financing of
Corps projects. Provisions in the conference bill that would allow in-kind
construction work and work prior to the federal-nonfederal project cooperation
agreement by nonfederal project sponsors to be credited against local cost-share
responsibilities and for Corps projects could increase the federal share of project
costs.3
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.
3 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
the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5). The application of prevailing wages
to activities of nonfederal sponsors was an issue that delayed a WRDA bill’s consideration
in 2000. For more information on the Davis-Bacon Act, see CRS Report 94-908, Davis-
Bacon: The Act and the Literature
, by William G. Whittaker.

CRS-6
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
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.
The conference report for H.R. 1495 contains a range of provisions that would
change Corps policies. Of these provisions, the independent review language
continues to receive congressional attention and be the subject of debate. The House
and Senate provisions differed 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 included 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 was included in the House bill.
4 Although the 106th Congress did not enact Corps changes, it asked the National Academy
of Sciences to review Corps planning in §216 of WRDA 2000. In April 2004, the
Academy’s National Research Council (NRC) published four reports from this review.
Each report recommended changes in Corps practices and the larger federal water resources
management and organizational context. The four 2004 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).
5 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
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
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. The conference language adopts the
sunset provision for the independent review requirements from the House bill but
extends the deadline from four years to seven years. The conference language allows
the Chief of Engineers to exempt from review projects that are considered routine,
some projects involving rehabilitation and replacement, and projects that pose
minimal loss of life risks.
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. The
conference language would authorize more than 200 new Corps environmental
infrastructure projects.
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 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

CRS-8
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 65% 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 1998.6
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 the WRDA 2007 conference report combines
provisions in the House and Senate-passed bills, generally adding more specificity
and detail, but also making a few more significant changes from both these bills. The
House-passed bill 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
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-9
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 would authorize many of the same
actions as the House bill. Where the bills differ, the Senate bill generally provides
less detail and project information. More specifically, 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.
The conference committee did not eliminate any coastal Louisiana ecosystem
restoration projects that had been in the House- and Senate-passed bills. It did make
a number of adjustments to language about what is to be considered in the
restoration, often combining language from both bills. It would authorize more
projects than either of the passed bills, either directly if the Secretary determines they
are feasible, or with the approval by resolution of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee or the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
A new subsection (Section 7006(c)(4)) would limit cost increases for each of the 5
initial projects to 150% of the current estimated cost. The conference committee bill,
in Section 7006(3)(A), would authorize six additional projects with a total cost of
$542 million that were not identified in either the House-passed or Senate-passed
bills if the Chief issues a favorable report before December 31, 2010.
According to the Administration’s SAPs for the House and Senate bills, 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 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

CRS-10
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.”7 This concern did not appear to be addressed by
the conference committee.
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). Many of these
activities were already appropriated funds through supplemental appropriations
legislation in FY2006. Since the supplemental funds were appropriated, revised
estimates for the work indicate that nearly $6 billion in additional federal
appropriations would be needed to complete the activities.8
The conference report stipulates 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 conference report 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.

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
7 For a discussion of the separation of powers issue, see CRS Report RL33151, Committee
Controls of Agency Decisions
, by Louis Fisher.
8 On August 22, 2007, the Corps announced over $6 billion in increases in cost estimates for
New Orleans hurricane protection since the supplemental appropriations in 2006 (see the
press release for more information at
[http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/hot_topics/ht_2007/orleans_risk_maps.pdf]).
The August 2007 estimate for federal funding for the work was approximately $3.6 billion
more than the previous estimate; the previous estimate had been for $2.2 billion in federal
funding beyond the supplemental appropriations already provided for this work.

CRS-11
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.
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. Critics of the project
argue that the economic justification for the navigation lock investments are
decreasing as the result of anticipated use of corn in the region for ethanol production
rather than for shipment to international markets. Supporters of the investments
argue that competitiveness of U.S. products is harmed by the additional cost and
travel time incurred during transit through and waiting for availability of the existing
shorter locks.
The Corps’ ecosystem restoration plan has been less controversial than the $2.2
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
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
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 $1.7 billion in restoration activities has been estimated as being
split at 91% federal-9% nonfederal. The SAP for the House bill recommended a cost
share of 50% federal-50% nonfederal. The SAP on the Senate bill did 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,
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 would
have addressed 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 have authorized the $144 million 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). The Senate bill did not include provisions on Mod Waters. H.Rept. 110-
280 states that “the managers are concerned that continuing re-analysis of options for
10 This project was authorized by the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion
Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-229).

CRS-13
modifying water deliveries will only delay benefits to the Everglades.” The
conference report deletes the House authorization but provides multiple directions
to the Corps in report language. For example, report language would direct the Chief
of Engineers to take immediate steps to increase flows to the Park, without
significantly increasing the risk of roadbed failure. H.Rept. 110-280 also would direct
the Chief of Engineers to reexamine prior reports and environmental documentation
associated with modifying water deliveries to the Everglades National Park and to
submit to Congress no later than July 1, 2008, recommendations on practicable
alternatives for increasing the flow of water under Tamiami Trail and into the Park.
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
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.

CRS-14
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 debates surrounding WRDA 2007 illustrated the continuing
differences of opinions over the role of authorizations in guiding and prioritizing the
agency’s activities. 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-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 Projects:
Authorization and Appropriations, by Nicole T. Carter and H. Steven Hughes.
Authorizations and WRDA
Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 1495 Water Resources Development Act of 2007,
as reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on
March 15, 2007
, [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/79xx/doc7974/hr1495.pdf].
——.Letter to Honorable Barbara Boxer, May 8, 2007, on amendment in nature of
a substitute to S. 1248, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007,
available at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8093/s1248am.pdf].
——. H.R. 1495 Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Conference Report filed
on July 31, 2007, available at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8651/
hr1495conference.pdf].
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/hr1495
sap-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].
Rob Portman (Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget)
and John Paul Woodley, Jr. (Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),
letter to Chairman James Oberstar, August 1, 2007.
Coastal Louisiana
CRS Report RS22276, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration After Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS22110, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration: The Recommended
Corps Plan, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RS22467, Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
(CWPPRA): Effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.

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