Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource
Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Charles V. Stern
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
August 19, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41243
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Summary
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers undertakes activities to maintain navigable channels, reduce
flood and storm damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Congress directs the Corps through
authorizations, appropriations, and oversight of its studies, construction projects, and other
activities. Historically, the agency’s authorizations and appropriations have been largely project-
based, with the projects being in specific locations. There is some uncertainty about legislation
related to the Corps during the 112th Congress, in light of the House Republican Conference
standing order in its conference rule and the Senate Republican Conference resolution supporting
a moratorium on member earmark requests. This report summarizes congressional authorization
and appropriations processes for the Corps and explains the standard Corps project development
process. It also discusses agency activities under general authorities.
Authorization of Water Resources Activities. Congress generally authorizes Corps activities
and provides policy direction in Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs). Beginning in
1986, a biennial WRDA consideration was loosely followed; enactment has been less regular. The
most recent WRDA was enacted in 2007 (P.L. 110-114). Pressure to authorize new projects,
increase authorized funding levels, and modify existing projects promotes fairly regular WRDA
consideration. WRDAs historically have been omnibus bills including many provisions for site-
specific activities. Authorizations of many Corps activities were included under the House
Republican Conference 2010 moratorium on members requesting earmarks. Congress also
authorizes some studies through resolutions passed by an authorizing committee.
Annual Agency Appropriations. Federal funding is provided for most Corps civil works
activities through annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts or supplemental
appropriations acts. At times appropriations acts also have included Corps authorizations. In part
because of competition for funds and because Corps authorizations outpace appropriations, many
authorized activities have not received appropriations. There is a backlog of more than 1,000
authorized studies and construction projects. In recent years, few new studies and new
construction activities have been included in either the President’s budget request or enacted
appropriations. Most of the congressionally directed spending items added to the Corps budget
have funded the continuation of ongoing Corps activities not included in the President’s budget.
Standard Project Development. The standard process for a Corps project requires two separate
congressional authorizations—one for investigation and one for construction—as well as
appropriations. The investigation phase starts with Congress authorizing a study; if it is funded,
the Corps conducts an initial reconnaissance study followed by a more detailed feasibility study.
Congressional authorization for construction is based on the feasibility study. For most activities,
Congress also requires a nonfederal sponsor to share some portion of study and construction
costs. These cost-sharing requirements vary by the type of project. For many project types (e.g.,
levees), the nonfederal sponsors are responsible for regular operation and maintenance.
Other Corps Activities and Authorities. Although the project development process just
described is standard, there are exceptions. Congress has granted the Corps some general
authorities to undertake some studies, small projects, technical assistance, and emergency actions
such as flood-fighting and repair of damaged levees. Additionally, the Corps conducts emergency
response actions directed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Congress also has
specifically authorized Corps participation in numerous environmental infrastructure projects
(e.g., municipal water and wastewater treatment systems).
Congressional Research Service
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Contents
Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................................................................ 1
Civil Works Responsibilities and Organization......................................................................... 1
Authorizations and Water Resources Development Acts .......................................................... 1
WRDA Process.................................................................................................................... 2
Most Recent WRDA Consideration .................................................................................... 3
Energy and Water Development Appropriations ....................................................................... 4
Standard Corps Project Development Process................................................................................. 5
Study Authority to Initiate a Corps Project................................................................................ 6
Reconnaissance Study ............................................................................................................... 7
Feasibility Study and Construction Authorization..................................................................... 7
Cost Shares for Construction and Operation and Maintenance........................................... 8
Engineering and Design ............................................................................................................ 8
Changes After Construction Authorization................................................................................ 8
Study and Project Deauthorization .......................................................................................... 10
Other Corps Activities and Authorities.......................................................................................... 10
Small Projects Under Continuing Authorities Programs ......................................................... 10
Technical Assistance................................................................................................................ 12
Natural Disaster and Emergency Response Activities............................................................. 12
National Response Framework Activities Under FEMA .................................................. 12
Flood-Fighting and Emergency Response ........................................................................ 13
Repair of Damaged Levees and Other Flood and Storm Projects..................................... 13
Environmental Infrastructure/Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects............................... 15
Tables
Table 1. Corps Project Phases, Average Duration, and Federal Cost............................................... 6
Table 2. Cost-Shares for Construction and Operation of New Corps Projects ................................ 9
Table 3. Select Corps Continuing Authorities Programs ............................................................... 11
Table 4. Corps Technical Assistance Authorities ........................................................................... 12
Appendixes
Appendix. Evolution of the Army Corps Civil Works Mission ..................................................... 16
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is an agency in the Department of Defense with both military
and civilian responsibilities. Under its civil works program, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and
maintains a wide range of water resources facilities. The Corps attracts congressional attention
because its projects can have significant local and regional economic benefits and environmental
effects, in addition to their water resource development purposes. Congress directs the Corps
through authorizations, appropriations, and oversight of studies, construction projects, and other
activities. There is some uncertainty about legislation related to the Corps during the 112th
Congress, in light of various earmark moratoriums that apply not only to appropriations but also
authorizations of site-specific projects.
This report provides an overview of the Corps civil works program. It covers the congressional
authorization and appropriation process, the standard project development process, and other
Corps activities and authorities. It provides a limited discussion of the earmark debate as it relates
to Corps authorizations and appropriations. It describes the limits on the Corps’ role in levee
accreditation and improvements for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It also
includes an Appendix on the evolution of Corps civil works missions and authorities.
Civil Works Responsibilities and Organization
The Corps’ long-standing civil works responsibilities are creating and maintaining navigable
channels and reducing flood and storm damage. Congress also has provided the Corps with an
aquatic ecosystem restoration and environmental protection mission. Other Corps responsibilities
include flood emergency and natural disaster response, such as flood-fighting, repair to damaged
levees, and emergency water supply assistance. Congress also has authorized Corps participation
in select environmental infrastructure projects (e.g., municipal water and wastewater treatment
systems) and other nontraditional activities. The civil works program is led by a civilian Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. A military Chief of Engineers oversees the Corps’ civil
and military operations and reports on civil works matters to the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Works. A Director of Civil Works reports to the Chief of Engineers. The Corps’ civil works
responsibilities are organized under eight divisions that are further divided into 38 districts.1
Authorizations and Water Resources Development Acts
The Corps must have an authorization to undertake an activity. However, authorizations by
themselves are usually insufficient for a Corps study or construction project to proceed;
authorized activities typically must receive funding to proceed. Congress authorizes most Corps
civil works activities in Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs).2 In addition, an
authorizing committee can authorize a study to reexamine a geographic area previously studied
by the Corps for a similar purpose.3 Some Corps studies that review operations of completed
1A division map and district links are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/about/Pages/Locations.asp.
2 WRDAs are distinguished from each other by referencing the year of enactment; that is, WRDA 1986 refers to the act
passed in 1986, while WRDA 2007 refers to the last enacted WRDA from November 2007 (P.L. 110-114).
3 Sec. 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1913 (37 Stat. 801, 33 U.S.C. §542).
Congressional Research Service
1
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
projects can proceed under general study authorizations without congressional action.4
Authorizations at times have appeared in appropriations bills, especially in years when a WRDA
is not enacted. Authorizations in appropriations bills, however, are discouraged. If they are
included in a bill, they can be subject to a point of order on the floor for being non-germane.
WRDAs generally authorize Corps studies, projects, and programs and establish policies for
Corps civil works activities, such as cost-share requirements. A WRDA for the most part is not a
reauthorization bill, but an authorization bill. That is, it authorizes new activities that are added to
the pool of existing authorized activities. Project authorizations in WRDAs usually fall into three
general categories: studies, projects, and modifications to existing authorizations. WRDAs also
can contain general civil works policy provisions. WRDAs do not appropriate funds for activities;
WRDAs simply provide the authority for funds to subsequently be provided and used.
WRDA Process
Beginning in 1986, a biennial WRDA cycle was loosely followed for a number of years. WRDAs
were 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).5 Pressure to authorize new projects, increase
authorized funding levels, and modify existing projects is often intense, thus promoting a fairly
regular biennial consideration of WRDA, although enactment has been less consistent.
Controversial project authorizations and disagreements over the need for and direction of changes
to the way the Corps plans, constructs, and operates projects contributed to WRDA bills not being
enacted in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. The 110th Congress enacted WRDA 2007 in
November 2007, overriding a presidential veto. It authorized $29.8 billion in Corps activities.6
With enactment of WRDA 2007, the Corps now has an estimated “backlog” of more than 1,000
authorized activities, with authorized funding estimated to exceed $60 billion.7
Once a committee of jurisdiction—the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee
or the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee—decides to consider a WRDA,
members of Congress may request that the appropriate committee chair include general
provisions or site-specific study authorizations, project authorizations, or project modifications.8
Starting with WRDA 2007, the member or members of Congress requesting site-specific
provisions generally have been listed in a table of congressional earmarks included in the report
accompanying reported WRDA bills.
4 Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611, 33 U.S.C. §549a).
5 WRDA 1986 marked the end of a stalemate between the Congress and the executive branch regarding authorizations.
It resolved long-standing disputes related to cost-sharing, user fees, and environmental requirements. Prior to 1986,
disputes over these and other matters had largely prevented enactment of major civil works legislation since 1970.
Biennial authorizations were resumed after WRDA 1986 to avoid long delays between the planning and execution of
projects and so that Congress could review proposed projects on a regular basis.
6 Data provided by the Corps to CRS in March 2010. The $29.8 billion total represents $21.8 billion in federal
investments and $8 billion in nonfederal investments.
7 For more information on the Corps backlog, see CRS Report R41961, Army Corps Fiscal Challenges: Frequently
Asked Questions, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern.
8 If the Administration proposes a WRDA, Congress generally receives the proposal during February of the second year
of a Congress, at the same time as the President’s budget. There have been no Administration-proposed WRDA bills
transmitted to Congress in recent years.
Congressional Research Service
2
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Most Recent WRDA Consideration
The authorizing committee develops a bill for introduction. Drafting often occurs after the
committee receives member requests for specific activities or general provisions, and at times
after receiving draft language from the Administration.
As of August 2011, no WRDA bill had been introduced in the 112th Congress. The Senate EPW
notified Senators in early 2011 that the Committee was accepting WRDA requests. The most
recent WRDA considered was the Water Resources Development Act of 2010, H.R. 5892 (111th
Congress). It was reported on September 29, 2010. Its sponsors estimated that the bill contained
$6 billion in authorizations. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill as reported
would cost $1.3 billion to implement from 2011 to 2015.9 The Senate EPW Committee accepted
member requests for a WRDA bill in spring 2010 and held a hearing on November 17, 2010.
Consideration of WRDA 2010 in the House was affected by the House Republican Conference
moratorium on members requesting congressional earmarks in 2010, which included requests for
both authorizations and appropriations.10 WRDAs historically have been omnibus bills including
many provisions for site-specific activities. H.Rept. 111-654, accompanying the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee-reported version of H.R. 5892, included a statement
of “minority views” that cited numerous reasons, including economic conditions, for not
supporting the bill at the time.
Others express concerns about the growing backlog of already authorized Corps projects and
suggest that another WRDA could exacerbate the backlog. These interests argue that the primary
purpose of the next WRDA bill should be to establish authorization and funding priorities,
manage the backlog, and improve performance at the project and agency level. In contrast, some
stakeholders contend that consideration of a new WRDA is warranted. They note that WRDA is
an authorization bill and that federal appropriations related to these Corps activities are handled
separately through appropriations legislation. Some of these stakeholders also assert that WRDA
2007 addressed pent-up demand for project authorizations that had accumulated since passage of
WRDA 2000, and that another WRDA is needed to re-establish regular authorization of Corps
projects to address the nation’s water resources needs. These stakeholders also argue that water
resource projects can provide both short-term employment and long-term economic and
environmental benefits.
A number of other issues also are sources of support for consideration of a WRDA. These include
unresolved issues regarding management of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund11 and the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund,12 and Corps projects that require or desire congressionally authorized
modifications. Other drivers include interest in actions supporting a national levee safety policy
and interest among some communities affected by FEMA floodplain remapping in Corps
assistance with levee technical assistance and improvements.
9 H.Rept. 111-654, p. 89.
10 The House Republican Conference moratorium in the 111th Congress reportedly referred to the House Rules XXI for
defining the term earmark. That House rule defined an earmark to include provisions or committee reports
“authorizing” some activities. The House Republican Conference moratorium for the 112th Congress and House Rule
XXI for the 112th Congress are similarly worded. The Senate Rule XLIV paragraph 5 similarly defines a
“congressionally directed spending item” to include some authorizing provisions; for the full definition, see
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXLIV.
11 CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues For Congress, by Charles V. Stern.
12 CRS Report R41042, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Expenditures, by John Frittelli.
Congressional Research Service
3
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Energy and Water Development Appropriations
The rate of Corps authorizations exceeds the rate of the agency’s annual appropriations.
Consequently, only a subset of authorized activities are included in the President’s budget request
and funded by enacted appropriations. This results in competition for funds among authorized
activities during the appropriations process. To concentrate limited resources and to move
ongoing projects toward completion, budget requests by the George W. Bush and Obama
Administrations have focused funding on projects near completion, and limited new studies and
projects. Both Administrations also have focused funds on projects within the Corps’ primary
missions of flood and storm damage reduction, navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
While this report addresses Corps appropriations in general, the following CRS reports provide
more detailed information and analysis of recent Corps funding issues:
• CRS Report R41961, Army Corps Fiscal Challenges: Frequently Asked
Questions, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern;
• CRS Report R41908, Energy and Water Development: FY2012 Appropriations,
and CRS Report R41150, Energy and Water Development: FY2011
Appropriations, coordinated by Carl E. Behrens; and
• CRS Report R40216, Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, discuss issues associated with recent Corps civil
works appropriations.
Enacted annual Corps civil works appropriations (excluding supplemental appropriations) have
remained steady or increased slightly over the last decade, ranging from $4.5 to $5.5 billion in
recent years. As the agency’s inventory of infrastructure grows and ages, an increasing share of
the agency’s appropriations is used for operations and maintenance; these activities represented at
least 32% of the agency’s FY2010 request for construction appropriations.13
Roughly 85% of the Corps budget is for geographically specified studies or projects. Such studies
and projects generally are identified in justification materials submitted as part of the
Administration’s budget request and in reports accompanying Energy and Water Development
appropriations bills. Geographically specific projects added by Congress often have been a
significant part of the congressional direction provided in appropriations legislation. This has
made the agency’s funding part of the debate over earmarking (also referred as congressionally
directed spending). Site-specific line items added or altered by Congress have been subject to
House and Senate chamber rules on earmark disclosure.
Prior to FY2011, recent congressional appropriations generally have funded a larger set of Corps
studies and projects than proposed by the Administration, but few of these have been for recently
authorized studies or projects, which are often referred to as “new starts.” The congressionally
directed additions have largely been to continue ongoing activities not included in the President’s
budget. This means that the majority of the new studies and construction projects authorized in
WRDA 2007 have received no appropriations.
13 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Army Corps of Engineers: Budget Formulation Process Emphasizes
Agencywide Priorities, but Transparency of Budget Presentation Could be Improved, GAO-10-453, April 2010.
Congressional Research Service
4
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Nonfederal Funding of Unbudgeted Corps Activities
A few limited general authorities exist that al ow nonfederal project sponsors using nonfederal funds to conduct
navigation and flood control studies or perform construction work that would more typical y be performed by the
Corps. These authorities may receive some attention during the 112th Congress as stakeholders seek ways to
proceed with water resources activities not included in the President’s budget request for the Corps or otherwise
funded through congressional appropriations. These authorities include the fol owing.
•
§ 211 of WRDA 1996, as amended (P.L. 104-303, 33 U.S.C. § 701b-13) provides that a nonfederal interest may
undertake flood control activities, including studies and construction, and later may be reimbursed (subject to
the availability of federal funds) or credited for its portion of the work subject to the approval of the Secretary
of the Army.
•
§ 203 of WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662, 33 U.S.C. § 2231) provides that a nonfederal interest may use its funds to
undertake a study of a proposed harbor or inland harbor project and may be credited for its portion of the work
subject to the Secretary’s approval.
•
§ 204 of WRDA 1986, as amended (P.L. 99-662, 33 U.S.C. § 2232) provides that a nonfederal interest may
perform navigation construction activities for authorized projects with the Secretary’s approval, and may be
reimbursed for the nonfederal portion of the construction work if federal funds become available.
These authorities, especially the navigation authorities, have not been used widely; they come with risks and
chal enges and can require significant up-front financing by nonfederal interests. For example, Corps studies and
construction projects must comply with applicable federal laws and regulations, a process which is not simple.
Producing a compliant study or construction project may be a chal enge for many nonfederal interests that lack the
Corps’ experience. One way the above authorities have been used in the past is for the nonfederal interest to use its
own funds to hire the Corps to perform some of the work. Currently, there are uncertainties about whether
nonfederal interests can use their funds to hire the Corps to perform work to support study or construction
activities undertaken under the above authorities. It depends on the interpretation and implementation of § 211 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541, 31 U.S.C. 6505), commonly known as the Thomas
Amendment. This provision limits the Corps to performing only those specialized or technical services that cannot be
reasonably and quickly provided by the private sector, and it requires the Secretary to certify that the Corps is
uniquely equipped to perform the services. Similarly, some uncertainty exists about the mechanism and how quickly
reimbursement may take place, given both the current fiscal climate and restrictions on Corps reprogramming
activities in recent years.
Standard Corps Project Development Process
This section and its subsections describe the study and construction process for most Corps water
resources projects. The next section describes some exceptions to the standard process. The
standard process has the following basic steps (also see Table 1):
• Congressional study authorization is obtained in WRDA or a committee
resolution.
• The Corps performs a reconnaissance study using appropriated funds.
• The Corps performs a feasibility study if the reconnaissance study is favorable
and funds are appropriated.
• Congressional construction authorization is pursued. The Corps can perform
preconstruction engineering and design while construction authorization.
• Congress authorizes construction, and the Corps constructs the project using
appropriated funds.
Congressional Research Service
5
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Table 1. Corps Project Phases, Average Duration, and Federal Cost
Preconstruction
Operation &
Reconnaissance Feasibility Engineering and
Construction Maintenance
Design (PED)
Avg.
authorized
Duration
1
2-3
approx.
2
varies
project duration
(years)
Federal
varies by
varies, see
varies, see
Share of
100%
50%a
project purposeb
Table 2
Table 2
Costs
a. Inland waterways feasibility studies are a 100% federal responsibility (33 U.S.C. § 2215). These projects are
not considered “local” by their nature.
b. Generally PED costs shares are the same as construction cost-shares in Table 2.
The process is not automatic. Appropriations are required to perform studies and undertake
construction; that is, congressional study and construction authorizations are necessary but
insufficient for the Corps to pursue a project. For most activities, the Corps also needs a
nonfederal sponsor to share the study and construction costs. Nonfederal sponsors generally are
state, tribal, county, or local agencies or governments. Although sponsors typically need to have
some taxing authority, some Corps activities can be cost-shared with nonprofit and other entities.
Since WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), nonfederal sponsors are responsible for a significant portion of
the financing of studies, construction, and operation and maintenance (O&M) of most projects.
Study Authority to Initiate a Corps Project
A Corps project starts with a study of the water resource issue and alternatives to address it. The
purpose of the Corps study process is to inform federal decision-makers on whether there is a
federal interest in authorizing a Corps construction project. The Corps generally requires two
types of congressional action to initiate a study—study authorization and then appropriations.
Interest in Corps assistance with a water resource need often originates with a request from a
local or state government entity or community, business, or other local interests.
If the Corps has performed a study in the geographic area before, a new study can be authorized
by a resolution (known commonly as a “survey resolution”) of either the House T&I Committee
or the Senate EPW Committee.14 To be eligible for a resolution authorization, the new study must
stay within the scope of the authorization of the original completed report. If the Corps has not
previously investigated, Congress needs to authorize the study in legislation, typically WRDA.
Once a study is authorized, appropriations are sought through the annual Energy and Water
Development appropriations acts. Within the Corps, projects are largely planned at the district
level, then approved at the division and Corps headquarters. Early in the study process, the Corps
assesses the level of interest and support of nonfederal entities that may be potential sponsors.
The reconnaissance study, feasibility study, and preconstruction engineering and design are
14 To request a study’s inclusion in a resolution, a member of Congress may send a letter to the chairman of the House
T&I Committee or the Senate EPW Committee. The number of studies authorized by resolution varies by Congress.
The 108th Congress authorized 63 studies via survey resolutions; the 109th Congress authorized 29.
Congressional Research Service
6
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
conducted under a single congressional study authorization. The length of each phase varies by
project, with larger and more complex projects typically requiring a longer process.
Reconnaissance Study
The reconnaissance study investigates the nature of the water resources problem and assesses the
federal government’s interest. The reconnaissance study also examines the interest of nonfederal
sponsors, who are involved in all phases of project development. Corps policy is to complete
most reconnaissance studies within 12 months. The costs of reconnaissance studies and their
related project study plans generally are limited to $100,000 at full federal expense. Around one-
third of reconnaissance studies eventually lead to feasibility studies; only 16 of every 100
reconnaissance studies lead to constructed projects.15
Feasibility Study and Construction Authorization
If a nonfederal sponsorship is secured and the Corps recommends proceeding, a feasibility study
begins. The cost of the feasibility study (including related environmental studies) is split equally
between the Corps and the nonfederal project sponsor, as shown in Table 1. The objective of the
feasibility study is to formulate and recommend solutions to the water resources problem
identified in the reconnaissance phase. During the first few months of a feasibility study, the local
Corps district formulates alternative plans, investigates engineering feasibility, conducts benefit-
cost analyses, and assesses environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321).16 The evaluation of federal water resources projects,
including Corps activities, is governed by the 1983 Principles and Guidelines for Water and
Related Resources Implementation Studies, written by the Water Resources Council, and policy
direction provided in WRDA bills and other enacted legislation.17 An important outcome of the
feasibility analysis is determination of whether the project warrants further federal investment
(i.e., whether it has sufficient national economic development benefits).
The feasibility phase ends when the Chief of Engineers signs a final recommendation on the
project, known as the Chief’s Report. The Corps sends an informational copy of the Chief’s
Report to Congress when it transmits the report to the Assistant Secretary and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Since the mid-1990s, Congress has authorized a significant
number of projects based on these informational copies, prior to the projects receiving a full
review by the Assistant Secretary and OMB. Congress also has authorized construction of
projects prior to the availability of information copies of feasibility studies; these construction
authorizations generally are contingent on a favorable Chief’s Report or a determination of
feasibility by the Secretary of the Army.
15 General Robert B. Flowers, Army Corps Chief of Engineers, oral statement, Reforms to Address the Corps of
Engineers Feasibility Studies, hearing before Senate EPW Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure on
March 15, 2001, available at http://epw.senate.gov/stm1_107.htm. More recent statistics are not publicly available.
16 Generally, the district produces an environmental impact statement (EIS) during the feasibility phase. Preparation
includes public meetings to determine the view of local interests on the extent and type of improvement desired.
17 Available at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/pgr.aspx. Pursuant to WRDA 2007, the Administration is
updating the Principles and Guidelines; information on the revision process is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/PandG.
Congressional Research Service
7
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Cost Shares for Construction and Operation and Maintenance
The feasibility study also evaluates how construction costs will be split between the federal
government and the nonfederal sponsor. The split of federal and nonfederal financial
responsibilities for construction and O&M varies by project purpose, as shown in Table 2. The
Corps’ project development process is organized around projects with primary purposes of
navigation, flood and hurricane damage reduction, and/or aquatic ecosystem restoration. While
these are the primary purposes, the agency has the authority to undertake activities with other
purposes as part of multi-purpose projects. Table 2 lists these additional project purposes, which
can be added to a project that has at least one of the three primary purposes at its core.
How to allocate the construction and O&M costs of Corps projects among nonfederal sponsors
and the federal government has been debated for decades. WRDA 1986 significantly increased
local cost-share requirements; some subsequent WRDAs made further adjustments in cost
sharing. The waiving of cost-share requirements for individual projects is infrequent and requires
specific authority. Congress has established that the cost shares shall be subject to the nonfederal
sponsors’ ability to pay (33 U.S.C. §2213(m)(2)).18 Which contributions should be credited
toward the nonfederal cost share—for example, in-kind services and work performed prior to the
signing of a construction agreement—has also been debated; Section 2003 of WRDA 2007 (42
U.S.C. § 1962d-5b) provided congressional direction on this subject.
Engineering and Design
The study phase—preconstruction engineering and design—that follows the feasibility analysis
takes two years, on average, and is conducted while pursuing congressional authorization for the
project and construction funding (33 U.S.C. 2287). The preconstruction costs are distributed
between the federal and nonfederal sponsor in the same proportion as the cost-share arrangement
for the construction phase. Once the project receives congressional authorization, federal funds
for construction are sought in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. The
federal cost share for construction varies by project purpose. Nonfederal parties are responsible
for all operation and maintenance expenses, absent a few exceptions mainly for harbors and
inland waterways.
Changes After Construction Authorization
A project is likely to undergo some changes after authorization. If project features or the
estimated cost changes significantly, additional congressional authorization may be necessary.
Authorization for a significant modification is typically sought in a WRDA. For less significant
modifications, additional authorization is often not necessary. Section 902 of WRDA 1986 (33
U.S.C. § 2280) allows for increases in total project costs of up to 20% without additional
authorization for modifications that do not materially change the project’s scope or function.
18 The most recent publicly available guidance on how the Corps implements the ability to pay provision is from 1989,
which is available at http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-regs/er1165-2-121/toc.htm. It does not reflect enacted
changes in the Corps authority, including those in Sec. 2019 of WRDA 2007.
Congressional Research Service
8
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Table 2. Cost-Shares for Construction and Operation of New Corps Projects
Maximum Federal
Maximum Federal
Project Purpose
Share of Construction
Share of O&M
Navigation
Coastal
Ports—
<20
ft.
harbor
80%a
100%b
20-45 ft. harbor
65%a
100%b
>45
ft.
harbor
40%a
50%b
Inland
Waterways
100%c
100%
Flood and Hurricane Damage Reduction
Inland Flood Control
65%
0%
Coastal Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction
65%
0%
except Periodic Beach Nourishment
50%
0%
Repair of Damaged Flood and Coastal Storm Projects
Local y Constructed Flood Projects
not applicable
80%d
Federal y Constructed Flood and Coastal Projects
not applicable
100%d
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
65% 0%
Multi-Purpose Project Components
Hydroelectric Power
0%e
0%
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Storage
0%
0%
Agricultural Water Supply Storage
65%f 0%
Recreation at Corps Facilities
50%
0%
Aquatic Plant Control
not applicable
50%
Environmental Infrastructure (typically municipal
75%g
0%
water and wastewater infrastructure)
Source: 33 U.S.C. §§ 2211-2215, unless otherwise specified below.
a. These percentages reflect that the nonfederal sponsors pays (10%, 25%, or 30%) during construction and an
additional 10% over a period not to exceed 30 years.
b. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which is funded by col ections on commercial
cargo imports at federally maintained ports, are used for 100% of these costs.
c. Appropriations from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, which is funded by a fuel tax on vessels engaged in
commercial transport on designated waterways, are used for 50% of these costs.
d. 33 U.S.C. § 701n. Repair assistance is restricted to projects eligible for and participating in the Corps’
Rehabilitation and Inspection Program and to fixing damage caused by natural events, not regular
maintenance or betterments.
e. Hydroelectric capital costs initially are federally funded and are repaid by fees collected from power
customers.
f.
For the 17 western states where reclamation law applies, irrigation costs initially are funded by the Corps
but repaid by nonfederal water users.
g. Most environmental infrastructure projects are authorized with a 75% federal cost share; a few have a 65%
federal cost share.
Congressional Research Service
9
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Study and Project Deauthorization
Although WRDA is generally an authorization bill, Congress at times has used WRDA to
reauthorize activities that would soon expire under established deauthorization processes or that
have already been deauthorized. Authorizations of Corps construction projects generally are not
time-limited; however, there is a process to begin deauthorization of projects that have been
without funding for five years. In WRDA 1986, as modified by later legislation, Congress
established deauthorization processes for Corps studies and projects unless congressional
appropriations action is taken. Under 33 U.S.C. § 2264, every year the Secretary of the Army
transmits a list to Congress of incomplete authorized studies that have not received funds for five
full fiscal years. The study list is not published in the Federal Register. Congress has 90 days
after submission to appropriate funds; otherwise the study is deauthorized. Under 33 U.S.C.
§ 579a(b)(2), every year the Secretary also transmits to Congress a list of authorized projects and
separable elements of projects that have not received funding during the last full five fiscal years.
The project deauthorization list is published in the Federal Register. If funds are not obligated for
the planning, design, or construction of the project or element during the fiscal year following
that in which the list is transmitted, the project or element is deauthorized.
Other Corps Activities and Authorities
Although the project development process described above is standard, there are exceptions. The
Corps has some general authorities to undertake small projects, technical assistance, and
emergency actions. Congress also has specifically authorized the Corps to undertake numerous
municipal water and wastewater projects. These exceptions are described herein.
Small Projects Under Continuing Authorities Programs
The Corps’ authorities to undertake small projects are called Continuing Authorities Programs
(CAPs). Projects under these authorities can be conducted without obtaining a project-specific
study or construction authorization or project-specific appropriations; these activities can be
performed at the discretion of the Corps. For most CAP authorities, Congress has limited the size
and scope of the projects, as shown in Table 3.19 The CAPs are typically referred to by the section
number in the bill where the CAP was first authorized. In recent years, Congress has reduced the
Corps’ discretion in managing the CAPs by directing funds to particular CAP projects. Congress
also increasingly has authorized specific CAP projects. Some of these project-specific
authorizations under the CAPs are used to apply special rules to a project or to ensure that a
project is considered eligible under a particular CAP. Demand for CAP projects have increased in
recent years. Table 3 shows the backlog of projects competing for CAP funding.
19 There is also an authority under 33 U.S.C. § 610 for the Corps to control noxious aquatic plant growths at a 70%
federal - 30% nonfederal cost share; the authority is capped at $15 million annually. This authority has not been
operated as a CAP. Most, but not all, of the work under this authority has been for research.
Congressional Research Service
10
Table 3. Select Corps Continuing Authorities Programs
(in $ millions)
Per-
Annual
Est. Federal
Est. Federal
Max. Federal
Project
Federal
Backlog of
Backlog of
Construction
Federal Program
FY2010
FY2011
Active
Un-started
Authority Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Limit
Limit
Approp.
Work Plan
Projectsa
Projectsb
Sec. 14
Streambank and shoreline erosion of
65% $1.5
$15.0
$5.8
$0
$37.2
$35.5
public works and nonprofit services
Sec. 103
Beach erosion and hurricane storm
65% $5.0
$30.0
$3.9
$0
$39.7
$12.0
damage reduction
Sec. 107
Navigation improvements
Varies as shown in Table 2
$7.0 $35.0 $6.3
$0
$101.1
$23.9
for commercial navigation;
50% for recreational
navigation
Sec. 111
Prevention or mitigation of shore
Shared in the same portion
$5.0 n.a. $6.0 $0
$46.7
$0.8
damage caused by federal navigation
as the project causing the
projects
damage
Sec. 204,
Regional sediment
65% $5.0
$30.0
$7.8
$0
$30.0
$4.2
Sec. 207,
management/beneficial use of
Sec. 993
dredged material
Sec. 205
Flood control
65%
$7.0
$55.0
$37.8
$0
$310.4
$93.8
Sec. 206
Aquatic ecosystem restoration
65%
$5.0
$50.0
$27.1
$0
$369.8
$98.7
Sec. 208
Removal of obstructions, clearing
65% $0.5
$7.5
$0.0
$0
$0.4 $2.0
channels for flood control
Sec. 1135
Project modifications for
75% $5.0
$40.0
$24.2
$0
$173.1
$41.5
improvement of the environment
Source: CRS, compiled from H.Rept. 111-278, Corps FY2011 Work Plan, and other Corps documents, including Appendix F of Planning Guidance Notebook, Engineering
Regulation 1105-2-100, available at http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-regs/er1105-2-100/a-f.pdf, and Corps provided data to CRS in May 2010.
Note: n.a. = not applicable
a. This backlog is the federal share of active projects (i.e., projects that have received some CAP funds in the last four fiscal years) before the FY2010 appropriations.
b. This backlog is the federal share of un-started projects (i.e., projects for which nonfederal sponsors have approached the Corps and that received no CAP funding
prior to FY2010) before the FY2010 appropriations.
CRS-11
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Technical Assistance
Congress has also granted the Corps some general authorities to provide technical assistance. The
Corps does not need project-specific authority to undertake activities that are eligible under the
authorities listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Corps Technical Assistance Authorities
(in $ millions)
Federal
Max.
Share
Annual
Federal
Per-
Federal
FY2011
Cost
Project
Program
FY2010
Work
Program
Activities Authorized
Share
Limit
Limit
Approp.
Plan
Planning
Technical assistance to
50% $0.5
n.a. $7.161
$6.350
Assistance
states and communities for
annual y
to States
water resources planning of
per state
regional/comprehensive
scope
Flood Plain
Technical assistance on flood
100% for
n.a. $15.0
$8.059
$8.815
Management and floodplain issues
eligible
Service
activities
Tribal
Studies of water projects
50%a $1.0 n.a. $0.852
$1.000
Partnership
that benefit Indian tribes
Program
Source: CRS, compiled from H.Rept. 111-278, Corps FY2011 Work Plan and other Corps documents, including
Appendix G of Planning Guidance Notebook, Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100, available at
http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-regs/er1105-2-100/a-g.pdf.
Note: n.a. = not applicable
a. Section 203 of WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-541) states that any cost sharing for this CAP shal be subject to the
ability of the nonfederal entity to pay. A draft “Ability to Pay” rule is under development. When finalized,
this rule will apply to these studies. Until then, reductions in nonfederal costs are not to be applied.
Natural Disaster and Emergency Response Activities
National Response Framework Activities Under FEMA
The Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. § 5170b) authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to direct the Department of Defense to provide assistance for a major disaster or under
an emergency declaration by the President. Under the National Response Framework, the Corps
coordinates emergency support for public works and engineering. This includes technical
assistance, engineering, and construction management as well as emergency contracting, power,
and repair of public water and wastewater and solid waste facilities. The Corps also assists in
monitoring and stabilizing damaged structures and demolishing structures designated as
immediate hazards to public health and safety. It also provides technical assistance in clearing,
removing, and disposing of contaminated and uncontaminated debris from public property, and
establishing ground and water routes into affected areas; contaminated debris management is
coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Corps’ funding for these
activities is provided through FEMA appropriations, often through supplemental appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
12
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Flood-Fighting and Emergency Response
In addition to work performed as part of the National Response Framework, P.L. 84-99 (33
U.S.C. § 701n) provides the Corps with authority for emergency response and disaster
assistance.20 P.L. 84-99 authorizes disaster preparedness, advance measures, emergency
operations (disaster response and post-flood response), rehabilitation of flood control works
threatened by floods, protection or repair of federally authorized shore protection works
threatened by coastal storms, emergency dredging, and flood-related rescue operations. These
activities are limited to actions to save lives and protect improved property (public
facilities/services and residential or commercial developments). Most of the disaster response
work performed under this authority (including the repair program described below) generally is
funded through supplemental appropriations provided directly to the Corps. Until supplemental
appropriations are provided, Congress has provided the Corps with authority in 33 U.S.C. § 701n
to transfer money from ongoing Corps projects to emergency operations.
Repair of Damaged Levees and Other Flood and Storm Projects
P.L. 84-99 also authorizes the Corps to rehabilitate damaged flood control works (e.g., levees)
and federally constructed hurricane or shore protection projects (e.g., federal beach nourishment
projects) and to conduct related inspections.21 This authority is referred to as the Rehabilitation
and Inspection Program (RIP). To be eligible for rehabilitation assistance, the project must be in
active status at the time of damage by wind, wave, or water action other than ordinary nature.22
Active RIP status is maintained by proper project maintenance as determined during an annual or
semiannual inspection and by the correction of deficiencies identified during periodic
inspections.23 Approximately 14,000 miles of levees participate in RIP—2,250 miles of locally
constructed and operated levees; 9,650 miles of Corps-constructed, locally operated levees; and
2,100 miles of federally operated levees.24
For locally constructed projects, 80% of the cost to repair the damage is paid using federal funds
and 20% by the levee owner (as shown in Table 2). For federally constructed projects, the repair
cost is entirely a federal responsibility (except for cost of obtaining the sand or other material
used in the repair). For damage to be repaired, the Corps must determine that repair has a
favorable benefit-cost ratio. Local sponsors assume any rehabilitation cost for damage to an
active project attributable to deficient maintenance.
20 The Corps also has other limited authorities related to emergency response (e.g., an Emergency Streambank and
Shoreline Erosion Protection program) and recovery (e.g., a Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control program).
21 For more information on the roles of the Corps and other federal agencies in levees, see CRS Report R41752, Locally
Operated Levees: Issues and Federal Programs , by Natalie Keegan et al.
22 33 U.S.C. § 701n. For more on RIP, see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Regulation 500-1-1, Emergency
Employment of Army and Other Resources Civil Emergency Management Program.
23 An aspect of RIP implementation receiving attention is the Corps’ guidance on vegetation on levees. Some levee
owners are having difficulty conducting regular maintenance and emergency repairs while also complying with
environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act. In some areas, the vegetation on and near levees provides
species habitat and other environmental benefits. This and other environmental issues associated with levee
maintenance are beyond the scope of this report.
24 Corps data provided to CRS on April 30, 2010. In January 2009, the Corps published a temporary extension of RIP
to locally operated levees with deficient conditions if the owner is making system-wide improvements. It is available at
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/nfrmp/docs/HQS-ECOPY3I50-Exchange-01132009-162045.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
A common issue under RIP is levee owners’ interest in not only levee repair but also levee
improvements, which is prohibited under RIP. The Corps’ authority is expressly restricted to
repair or restoration to the pre-disaster level of protection; no betterments or levee setbacks are
allowed under this authority. The RIP program is not designed to evaluate the federal interest in
investments to further reduce the flood risk at a location. If federal participation is sought in
increasing protection, the typical route would be to pursue a Corps flood damage reduction study,
thus triggering the standard Corps project development process previously described.
Limited Corps Role in Levee Data Certification
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must accredit a levee in order for it to appear on FEMA’s
floodmaps for the National Flood Insurance Program. The accreditation is for showing protection from the 100-year
flood (i.e., 1% chance flood). These floodmaps are used for a variety of purposes, including determining flood
insurance premiums and mandatory purchase requirements. Since late 2005, FEMA has increased the amount of
information it requires to accredit a levee. In particular, it requests more information on the structural integrity of the
levee and the hydrology and hydraulics to which the levee is exposed (44 C.F.R. 65.10 (b)).
Preparing levee accreditation packages, including data certifications, is the responsibility of the levee owner. Local
owners of some levees previously accredited by FEMA are having trouble obtaining and paying for accreditation. They
face a lack of readily available data on their levees’ construction, materials, and structural integrity and are confronting
assessments indicating a lower level of protection than previously thought. Prior to 2006, FEMA often had accepted
the Corps’ inspection of levees for its Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP) as sufficient for the data
certification used as the basis for FEMA’s levee accreditation. Corps RIP inspections are insufficient to meet the
additional information sought by FEMA for levee accreditation after 2005.
Some levee owners have looked to the Corps to assist with levee data certification. The Corps does perform data
certification for federally operated levees, for local y operated levees that are part of a larger ongoing Corps study or
project, and at the request of another federal agency. The Corps currently has no general authority to perform NFIP-
compliant data certifications using discretionary appropriations for locally operated levees and is restricted from
performing FEMA data certification on a reimbursable basis for nonfederal entities if the work can be provided by the
private sector. This restriction is established for al Corps civil works activities of §211 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 (P.L. 106-541, 31 U.S.C. 6505), commonly known as the Thomas Amendment.
Whether the Corps should be authorized to perform NFIP levee data certifications for locally operated levees, and
who would bear (or share) the costs, are matters of active debate. Some stakeholders have expressed interest in
having the Thomas Amendment waived to allow the Corps to perform levee data certification. If such a change was
enacted, the Corps would conduct the data certifications on a 100% reimbursable basis.
It is unknown whether the cost for the Corps to perform the certification would be less than if a private sector firm
performed the certification. The Corps may be able to perform the data certification at a lower cost if it already has
some of the data (e.g., for Corps-constructed projects) and if the private sector’s cost is significantly influenced by
liability protection.
Some stakeholders have questioned whether §5004 in WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114), titled “Structural Integrity
Evaluations,” provides the Corps with authority that could be used to undertake some of the work needed to obtain
levee data certification and levee accreditation. That section included the following authority:
Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shal evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness of a
project for flood damage reduction and, if the Secretary determines that the project does not meet such minimum
standards as the Secretary may establish and absent action by the Secretary the project wil fail, the Secretary may
take such action as may be necessary to restore the integrity and effectiveness of the project.
Congress has not appropriated funds for the Corps to implement this authority, and the Corps has not produced
implementation guidance for this provision. The congressional reports accompanying WRDA 2007 did not provide
further clarification. There are many uncertainties about how the authority might be implemented or interpreted,
including what types of projects are eligible, what types of action are authorized, what constitutes project failure,
what basis the Secretary is to use for establishing minimum standards, and what the federal funding limitations may be.
Therefore, the ways in which this authority might be used, especially if the provisions of the Thomas Amendment
were waived for levee certification work, remain uncertain.
Congressional Research Service
14
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Environmental Infrastructure/Municipal Water and
Wastewater Projects
Since 1992 Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for the Corps to assist with design
and construction of municipal drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects (including
treatment facilities such as recycling and desalination plants, and distribution and collection
facilities such as stormwater collection and recycled water distribution) and surface water
protection and development projects. These projects are broadly labeled environmental
infrastructure. Although no Administration has included environmental infrastructure in a Corps
budget request since the first authorization in 1992, Congress has regularly included Corps
environmental infrastructure funds in appropriations bills. Environmental infrastructure funding
has been repeatedly called out by various Administrations as a low priority for the agency and by
the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform as illustrative cut
of activities to terminate.25
Most Corps environmental infrastructure projects are authorized for a specific geographic
location (e.g., city or county) under Section 219 of WRDA 1992 (P.L. 102-580), as amended;
however, other similar authorities, sometimes covering regions or states, exist in multiple sections
of WRDAs and in select Energy and Water Development Appropriations acts. Management of the
Corps and nonfederal financing varies according to the specifics of the authorization. Under
Section 219, the Corps performs the authorized work; for environmental infrastructure projects
authorized in other provisions, the Corps often can use appropriated funds to reimburse
nonfederal sponsors for perform the work.
The Corps is now authorized to contribute to more than 400 of these projects and programs, with
authorized appropriations totaling more than $5 billion. The Corps received $140 million for
environmental infrastructure projects in FY2010 and $200 million in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). Under the work plan developed by the Administration
under the long-term continuing resolution for FY2011 appropriations (P.L. 112-10), $1 million is
provided to complete work on an environmental infrastructure project funded in FY2010.
Because environmental infrastructure activities are not part of a Corps program per se, there are
no clear and consistent general eligibility criteria. Because the activities are not traditional Corps
water resources projects, they are not subject to the Corps planning process (e.g., a benefit-cost
analysis is not performed). The projects, however, are subject to federal laws, such as the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under most Corps environmental infrastructure
authorizations, financing is 75% federal and 25% nonfederal, as indicated in Table 2.
25 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, CoChairs’ Proposal: $200 Billion in Illustrative Savings, Draft
Document, November 12, 2010, http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/news/cochairs-proposal.
Congressional Research Service
15
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Appendix. Evolution of the Army Corps Civil
Works Mission
The Corps’ oldest civil responsibilities are creating navigable channels and flood control projects.
Navigation projects include river deepening, channel widening, lock expansion, dam operations,
and disposal of dredged material. Flood control projects are intended to reduce riverine and
coastal storm damage; these projects range from levees and floodwalls to dams and river
channelization. Many Corps projects are multipurpose—that is, they provide water supply,
recreation, and hydropower in addition to navigation or flood control. Its environmental activities
involve wetlands and aquatic ecosystem restoration and environmental mitigation activities for
Corps facilities. The agency’s regulatory responsibility for navigable waters extends to issuing
permits for private actions that might affect wetlands and other waters of the United States.
Navigation and Flood Control (1802-1950s)
In the 19th century, the Corps’ mission evolved into civil and military building for the nation. In
1824, Congress passed legislation charging military engineers with planning roads and canals to
move goods and people. In 1850, Congress directed the Corps to engage in its first planning
exercise—flood control for the lower Mississippi River. During the 1920s, Congress expanded
the Corps’ ability to incorporate hydropower into multipurpose projects and authorized the
agency to undertake comprehensive surveys to establish river-basin development plans. The
modern era of federal flood control emerged with the Flood Control Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1570),
which declared flood control a “proper” federal activity in the national interest. The 1944 Flood
Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 708) significantly augmented the Corps’ involvement in large
multipurpose projects and authorized agreements for the temporary use of surplus water. The
Flood Control Act of 1950 (33 U.S.C. § 701n) began the Corps’ emergency operations through
authorization for flood preparedness and emergency operations.26 The Water Supply Act of 1958
(43 U.S.C. § 390b) gave the Corps authority to include some storage for municipal and industrial
water supply in reservoir projects at 100% local cost.
Changing Priorities (1960-1986)
By the late 1960s, construction of major waterworks had declined. Changing national priorities
and local needs, increasing construction costs, and completed projects at most prime locations
decreased the attractiveness of water projects. Water supply for traditional off-stream uses, such
as domestic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses, was increasingly in direct competition
with in-stream uses, such as recreation, fisheries, and wildlife habitat. From 1970 to 1985,
Congress authorized no major water projects, scaled back several authorized projects, and passed
laws that altered project operations and water delivery programs to protect the environment. The
1970s marked a transformation in Corps project planning. The 1969 National Environmental
Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531) required federal agencies
to consider environmental impacts, increase public participation in planning, and consult with
other federal agencies. Executive orders (E.O. 11988 and E.O. 11990) united the goals of
26 Emergency response activities are also conducted under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. § 5121), also
known as the Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act.
Congressional Research Service
16
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
reducing flood losses and environmental damage by recognizing the value of wetlands and
required federal agencies to evaluate potential effects of actions on floodplains and to minimize
impacts on wetlands.
Corps Regulatory Activities: Permits and Their Authorities
The Corps has several different regulatory responsibilities and issues several different types of permits. Sections 10
and 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (22 U.S.C. § 407) require that a permit be obtained from the Corps for
alteration or obstruction of and refuse discharge in U.S. navigable waters. The Corps also has regulatory
responsibilities under other laws, notably Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344). Since the mid-
1960s, court decisions and administrative actions have altered the jurisdictional reach of the Corps’ regulatory
program. For more information on the Corps’ Clean Water Act authorities, see CRS Report 97-223, The Army Corps
of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program: Issues and Regulatory Developments, by Claudia Copeland and CRS Report
RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by Claudia Copeland.
Environmental Mission and Local Responsibility (1986-2000)
Congress fundamentally transformed the ground rules for Corps water project planning and
funding through WRDA 1986 (33 U.S.C. § 2211) by establishing new cost-share formulas,
resulting in greater financial and decision-making roles for local stakeholders. WRDA 1986
reestablished the tradition of a biennial omnibus authorization bill. Congress has since enacted
WRDAs in 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1999, 2000, and 2007. WRDA 1986 also provided the Corps
with authority to determine if changes can be made in existing structures or operations to improve
environmental quality. WRDA 1990 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1252, 2316) explicitly expanded the Corps’
mission to include environmental protection and increased the Corps’ responsibility for
contamination cleanup, dredged material disposal, and hazardous waste management. WRDA
1992 (33 U.S.C. § 2326) authorized the Corps to use the “spoils” from dredging in implementing
projects for protecting, restoring, and creating aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including
wetlands. WRDA 1996 (33 U.S.C. § 2330) gave the Corps the authority to undertake aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects. While the Corps has been involved with numerous environmental
restoration projects in recent years, WRDA 2000 approved a restoration program for the Florida
Everglades that represented the agency’s first multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort of this type.
These legislative changes have given the Corps an aquatic ecosystem restoration and
environmental protection mission.
Evolving Demands (2001-present)
The agency’s aging infrastructure and efforts to enhance the security of its infrastructure from
terrorism and natural threats have expanded Corps activities in infrastructure rehabilitation,
maintenance, and protection. WRDA 2007 continued the expansion of the Corps’ ecosystem
restoration activities by authorizing billions of dollars for ecosystem restoration activities,
including large-scale efforts in coastal Louisiana and in the Upper Mississippi River. The Corps
also is retooling its approach to its long-standing flood control mission in response to
congressional direction in WRDA 2007 and disasters like Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ike and
the significant floods in the Midwest. The agency is adopting and promoting a flood risk
management approach. This approach emphasizes a greater appreciation and accountability for
the shared responsibilities across levels of government for managing flood risks and making
decisions about tolerable risks for communities and investments when making infrastructure
investment and development choices.
Congressional Research Service
17
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Author Contact Information
Nicole T. Carter
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
Congressional Research Service
18