Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource
Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
June 11, 2013
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. This report summarizes congressional authorization and appropriations processes for
the Corps. 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). The most recent
WRDA was enacted in 2007 (P.L. 110-114). The Senate passed a WRDA 2013, S. 601, on May
15, 2013. S. 601 would authorize Corps activities and modifications of existing authorizations
that meet certain criteria; the bill includes numerous other provisions as it attempts to address
issues with the duration and cost of Corps projects. The bill also would establish new procedures
for using Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund monies, in an effort to expand spending above current
levels.
Pressure to authorize new projects and modify existing projects promotes fairly regular WRDA
consideration, while enactment has been less regular. WRDAs historically have been omnibus
bills including many provisions for site-specific activities. How to construct a WRDA bill that
complies with House rules related to a moratorium on Member-requested earmarks complicated
WRDA consideration in the 112th Congress.
Agency Appropriations. Federal funding for most Corps civil works activities is provided in
annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts or supplemental appropriations acts.
At times these 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
in either the President’s budget request or enacted appropriations.
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 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),
nonfederal sponsors are responsible for operation and maintenance once construction is complete.
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.
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
WRDA in the 113th Congress .................................................................................................... 3
Senate WRDA Consideration: S. 601, Water Resources Development Act of 2013 ........... 3
House WRDA Deliberations ............................................................................................... 4
Issues Shaping WRDA Consideration ................................................................................. 5
Energy and Water Development Appropriations ....................................................................... 6
Standard Corps Project Development Process ................................................................................. 7
Study Authority to Initiate a Corps Project ................................................................................ 8
Reconnaissance Study ............................................................................................................... 8
Feasibility Study and Construction Authorization ..................................................................... 9
Cost Shares for Construction and Operation and Maintenance ........................................... 9
Engineering and Design .......................................................................................................... 11
Changes After Construction Authorization .............................................................................. 11
Study and Project Deauthorization .......................................................................................... 11
Other Corps Activities and Authorities .......................................................................................... 12
Small Projects Under Continuing Authorities Programs ......................................................... 12
Technical Assistance ................................................................................................................ 14
Natural Disaster and Emergency Response Activities ............................................................. 14
National Response Framework Activities Under FEMA .................................................. 14
Flood-Fighting and Emergency Response ........................................................................ 14
Repair of Damaged Levees and Other Flood and Storm Projects ..................................... 15
Environmental Infrastructure/Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects ............................... 16
Tables
Table 1. Corps Feasibility Studies with Chiefs Reports Recommending Construction
Authorization ................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. Corps Project Phases, Average Duration If Fully Funded, and Federal Cost ..................... 8
Table 3. Cost-Shares for Construction and Operation of New Corps Projects .............................. 10
Table 4. Select Corps Continuing Authorities Programs (CAP) for Small Projects ...................... 13
Table 5. Corps Technical Assistance Authorities ........................................................................... 14
Appendixes
Appendix. Evolution of the Army Corps Civil Works Mission ..................................................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 19
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 civil works responsibilities. Under its civil works program, the Corps plans, builds, operates,
and maintains a wide range of water resources facilities. The agency attracts congressional
attention because its projects can have significant local and regional economic benefits and
environmental effects. Congress directs the Corps through authorizations; appropriations; and
oversight of studies, construction projects, and other activities. Earmark moratoriums that apply
not only to appropriations but also authorizations of site-specific projects have influenced recent
congressional action related to the Corps. Hurricane Sandy and ongoing drought also have
brought attention to Corps actions, authorities, and funding.
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. The Corps
faces a number of broad financial challenges in the authorization and appropriations process. For
more on some of these issues, see CRS Report R41961, Army Corps Fiscal Challenges:
Frequently Asked Questions, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern.
Civil Works Responsibilities and Organization
The Corps’ long-standing civil works responsibilities are to support navigation and reduce 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, a
congressional 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
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 Section 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
of completed 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. If authorizations are included in an appropriations 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 appropriations estimated at $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 particular
provisions.8 Starting with WRDA 2007, site-specific provisions requested by Members of
Congress are 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. No Administration-proposed WRDA bills have been
transmitted to Congress in recent years. Rather than an individual Member drafting a WRDA bill, the authorizing
committee generally develops a bill for introduction by the chairperson. Drafting often occurs after the committee
receives Member requests, and at times after receiving draft language from the Administration.
Congressional Research Service
2
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
WRDA in the 113th Congress
Senate WRDA Consideration: S. 601, Water Resources Development Act of
2013
The 113th Congress began consideration of a WRDA with S. 601 in March 2013; the bill was
reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with S.Rept. 113-13, and
passed by the Senate on May 15, 2013.
Among other things, S. 601 includes project-related provisions that
• authorize Corps activities and projects, and modifications to existing
authorizations that meet certain criteria;
• amend the process for complying with environmental documentation
requirements; and
• authorize an effort to review and possibly deauthorize activities approved by
Congress prior to WRDA 1996.
S. 601 would change water resource project financing through provisions that
• expand crediting opportunities for nonfederal work on Corps projects and
increase the opportunities for nonfederal roles in project management; and
• create new funding mechanisms for certain projects, such as a pilot program for
the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide
financial assistance in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees for certain
flood control and water supply projects.9
For navigation infrastructure, S. 601 would
• establish new procedures for using the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF)
monies, in an effort to expand harbor maintenance spending above current
levels;10 and
• authorize alterations to the delivery process for inland waterways projects, but
not alter the financing mechanism and cost-sharing policies for these projects.11
S. 601 would address flood infrastructure issues through provisions that
• expand Corps authorities for levee improvements and certifications;
9 While WRDA bills generally have been largely focused on Corps civil works activities, other agencies’ activities have
been included when water resources actions are undertaken in collaboration or jointly with the Corps (e.g., FEMA’s
role in the National Dam Safety Program). The new funding mechanism is among several proposals for financing water
infrastructure; for a discussion of the legislative options for water infrastructure financing, see CRS Report R42467,
Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure, by Claudia Copeland, Steven Maguire, and William J. Mallett.
10 The HMTF has a growing balance. For more on the HMTF, see CRS Report R41042, Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund Expenditures, by John Frittelli.
11 The Inland Waterway Trust Fund (IWTF) has a declining balance that appears to have limited waterway construction
in recent years. While S. 601 would implement previously recommended changes related to the delivery of inland
waterway projects, it would not alter the underlying financing structure supporting these projects. For more details on
the IWTF and proposals for altering inland waterways financing arrangement, see CRS Report R41430, Inland
Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for Congress, by Charles V. Stern.
Congressional Research Service
3
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
• authorize federal support for the creation of state levee safety programs and
grants for levee safety activities;12 and
• reauthorize appropriations (which expired in September 2011) for and
modifications to the National Dam Safety Program.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) commented on the Administration’s
preferences for a WRDA bill in the 113th Congress in a letter sent to the authorizing committee
dated March 14, 2013, just prior to the introduction of S. 601.13 For many of the items raised in
the letter, the approach taken in S. 601 and the Administration’s desired direction for the WRDA
bill appear not to coincide. The Administration also produced a Statement of Administration
Policy on S. 601 on May 6, 2013.14 It stated: “S. 601 would weaken Congressional involvement
and transparency in the authorization of Corps studies and construction projects while expanding
Federal obligations without ensuring taxpayer dollars are targeted to achieve the highest overall
return to the Nation.” The Administration raises concerns about both what is included in S. 601
(e.g., tripling of federal spending for harbor maintenance, reduced nonfederal cost shares for
some projects, and changes to project permitting) and what is not included (e.g., Administration’s
proposal to raise more revenue for inland water waterway construction financing).
House WRDA Deliberations
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing on June 5, 2013, on water
resources infrastructure projects, which focused on Corps projects that had completed Chief’s
Reports and the process to develop these reports. In addition to documenting the multiple steps in
the project planning process, numerous questions at the hearing focused on whether, and if so
how, the Corps’ process might be made more efficient. The topic of how to prioritize Corps
projects and the role of Congress in that prioritization also was discussed.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee most recently considered a WRDA bill
in 2010. The proposed WRDA 2010, H.R. 5892 (111th Congress), was reported on September 29,
2010.15 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.16 The extent to
which the concerns raised in this statement remain and, if so, how they may influence House
consideration of a WRDA bill remain to be seen.
12 The S. 601 national levee safety program is similar to recommendations made by the National Levee Safety
Committee established by WRDA 2007. The program would promote the establishment of state and tribal levee safety
programs through a federal grant program, create a National Levee Safety Advisory Board to annually report on the
effectiveness of the program, and establish federal leadership in developing national levee safety standards and
guidelines and the provision of technical assistance.
13 Letter from Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), to Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman,
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, March 14, 2013.
14 Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy, S. 601—Water Resources Development Act of
2013, May 6, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saps601s_20130506.pdf.
15 Its sponsors estimated that the bill contained $6 billion in authorizations. The Congressional Budget Office estimated
that the bill as reported would cost $1.3 billion to implement from 2011 to 2015 (H.Rept. 111-654, p. 89).
16 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 were 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.
Congressional Research Service
4
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Issues Shaping WRDA Consideration
Some stakeholders support enactment of a WRDA in order to address developments since WRDA
2007, including authorization of activities covered in Corps reports recommending new
construction projects and Corps reports recommending changes to authorized construction
projects. Supporters of action on WRDA also point to the short-term employment and long-term
economic and environmental benefits of water resources projects as a reason for WRDA action.
Others argue that a typical WRDA may exacerbate rather than alleviate issues with the Corps,
such as a growing backlog of authorized projects. These interests argue that if WRDA
consideration is pursued, the bill should establish authorization and funding priorities, manage the
backlog, and improve performance at the project and agency level.
The Corps has 200 active feasibility studies as of early 2013; a number of these studies are
completed or nearing completion, as shown in Table 1. The 21 reports that have been transmitted
would be eligible for authorization under Section 1002 of S. 601.17 Another four Chief’s Reports
were completed and awaiting transmittal, which would occur after a policy review by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army and the Office of Management and Budget. If the transmission
occurs prior to enactment, the activities covered by those reports would also be authorized under
Section 1002 of S. 601.
Table 1. Corps Feasibility Studies with Chiefs Reports
Recommending Construction Authorization
Total Authorization of
Federal Authorization
Number of
Appropriations
of Appropriations
Status of Corps Projects
Reports
($ in billions)a
($ in billions)a
Chief’s Report Transmitted to Congress
21
$11.2
$6.6
Chief’s Report Awaiting Transmission
4
$5.0
$3.2
Draft Feasibility Report
5
$10.8b $7.0
Chiefs Report Anticipated by December
13 NAc NA
2013
Source: Data as of June 10, 2013, as provided by the Corps to CRS. Data represents studies that are pending
congressional authorization or anticipated by the end of 2013.
a. Figure includes initial construction and renourishment; it does not include operation and maintenance.
b. The Morgana to the Gulf, LA, hurricane protection project at $10.3 billion represents most of the cost of
the projects in this status.
c. NA = Not Available. Data on the estimated cost of the construction projects studied in these reports
become available once the draft feasibility report becomes available.
There is no official estimate of the total authorization of appropriations covering all provisions of
S. 601. What is available is a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate for the bill as
reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; that is, CBO evaluated the
budgetary impact of the projects covered by the 20 Chief’s Reports that had been transmitted to
Congress at the time the bill was reported. According to CBO, the implementation of S. 601, as
reported, is estimated at $5.7 billion for the 2014-2018 period, and $6.5 billion from 2019 to
2023.
17 Some Chief’s Reports cover multiple projects. For example, the Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program Chief’s
Report covers 11 projects; the Louisiana Coastal Area report covers six projects.
Congressional Research Service
5
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 R43069, Energy and Water Development: FY2014 Appropriations,
Preliminary Tables, coordinated by Carl E. Behrens; CRS Report R42498,
Energy and Water Development: FY2013 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl E.
Behrens; and CRS Report R41908, Energy and Water Development: FY2012
Appropriations, coordinated by Carl E. Behrens; and
• CRS Report R42841, Army Corps Supplemental Appropriations: Recent History,
Trends, and Policy Issues, by Charles V. Stern and Nicole T. Carter.
Enacted annual Corps civil works appropriations (excluding supplemental appropriations) have
remained steady or increased slightly over the last decade, ranging from $4.5 billion 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.
Another trend has been increasing emergency supplemental appropriations for the agency. Over
the 25-year period from 1987 to 2012, Congress appropriated $26.9 billion in supplemental
funding to the Corps. Of this funding, $25.5 billion came through supplemental appropriations
acts passed between 2003 and 2012. This funding was approximately half of the amount provided
to the Corps for regular appropriations over this same period ($50 billion).
Roughly 85% of the Corps budget is for geographically specified studies or projects. Funding for
geographically specific studies or projects requested in the Administration’s budget are not
considered congressional earmarks. Prior to FY2011 and the onset of congressional earmark
moratoriums, congressional appropriations to the Corps generally funded a larger set of studies
and projects than proposed by the Administration. This made the Corps part of the debate over
earmarking (also referred as congressionally directed spending).
Most recently, due in part to earmark moratoriums, congressionally directed additions have
largely been for broad categories of ongoing activities not included in the President’s budget (e.g.,
additional funding for ongoing harbor maintenance), with the Corps responsible for selecting
which projects to use this funding on.
Few new Corps studies or projects have received funding in recent fiscal years; new activities or
activities that have not recently received funding in Administration requests are often referred to
as “new starts.” With limited new starts receiving funding, the majority of studies and
construction projects authorized in WRDA 2007 remain without federal funding.
Congressional Research Service
6
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Nonfederal Funding of Corps Activities
Nonfederal entities have shown recent interest in conducting the studies and construction activities for Corps water
resources projects and for augmenting the federal appropriations for specific Corps water resources projects. These
authorities may receive some attention during the 113th Congress as nonfederal interests seek ways to accelerate
their water resources projects. These authorities include the following.
•
33 U.S.C. 701h al ows the Secretary of the Army to accept contributed funds from states and their political
subdivisions for work on any authorized Corps water resources development study or project in connection
with federal funds when considered in the public interest by the Secretary.
•
33 U.S.C 560 al ows the Secretary to accept funds contributed by private parties for authorized work for public
improvement of rivers and harbors if considered advantageous for navigation
•
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.
•
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.
•
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 come with risks and challenges 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.
Producing a compliant study or construction project may be a chal enge for many nonfederal interests.
Standard Corps Project Development Process
This section and its subsections describe the standard study and construction process for most
Corps projects, and some exceptions to the standard process. The standard process consists of the
following basic steps (also see Table 2):
• 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.
• Construction authorization is pursued. The Corps can perform preconstruction
engineering and design while construction authorization is being pursued.
• Congress authorizes construction, and the Corps constructs the project using
appropriated funds.
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.
Generally, projects take longer than the times shown in Table 2 because they have to wait for
appropriations or congressional authorizations.
Congressional Research Service
7
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Table 2. Corps Project Phases, Average Duration If Fully Funded, and Federal Cost
Preconstruction
Engineering and
Operation &
Reconnaissance Feasibility Design (PED)
Construction Maintenance
Avg. Duration
(years), once
funding is available
authorized
to the project and
1
2-3
approx.
2
varies
project
congressional
duration
authorization is
obtained
Federal Share of
100%
50%a
varies by
varies, see
varies, see
Costs
project purposeb
Table 3
Table 3
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 3.
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 Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee or the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.18 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, and 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
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
18 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
8
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
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.19
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 2. 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).20 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.21 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 a small
set of projects prior to the availability of informational 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.
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 3. 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 3 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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
9
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Table 3. 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 Renourishment
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 pay 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.
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
Congressional Research Service
10
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
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)).22 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.
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 two deauthorization processes, one for Corps studies and one for projects, unless
congressional appropriations action is taken.
Under 33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2), every year the Secretary is directed to transmit to Congress a list of
authorized projects and project elements that have received no obligations of 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 next fiscal year, the project or element is deauthorized. The Secretary last transmitted a new
list of construction projects eligible for deauthorization in 2007; those deauthorizations became
final in 2009. Without a secretarial transmittal of a list, the deauthorization process is not
initiated. That is, there have been no deauthorizations under this authority since 2009.
22 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 Section 2019 of WRDA 2007.
Congressional Research Service
11
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Under 33 U.S.C. 2264, every year the Secretary of the Army is directed to transmit a list to
Congress of incomplete authorized studies that have not received appropriations for five full
fiscal years. The study list is not published in the Federal Register. Congress has 90 days after
submission of the study list to appropriate funds; otherwise the study 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 4.23 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 has increased in
recent years, although at the same time, Congress has criticized Corps planning for CAP projects
and considered reduced funding for some of these projects in recent years.24 Table 4 shows the
backlog of projects competing for CAP funding.
23 There is also an authority under 33 U.S.C. Section 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.
24 For instance, enacted appropriations for 2011 (P.L. 112-10, Section 1457) rescinded $100 million from prior year
Corps CAP balances. Additional reductions and a freeze on new CAP projects were proposed but not enacted in
FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
12
Table 4. Select Corps Continuing Authorities Programs (CAP) for Small Projects
(in $ millions)
Est.
Est.
Common
Per-
Annual
Federal
Federal
Name of
Max. Federal
Project
Federal
FY2011
FY2012
Backlog of
Backlog of
the CAP
Construction
Federal Program
FY2010
Work
Work
Active
Un-started
Authority Eligible
Activities
Cost Share
Limit
Limit
Approp.
Plan
Plan
Projectsa
Projectsb
§14
Streambank and shoreline
65% $1.5
$15.0
$5.8
$0
$3.9
$66.1
$19.1
erosion of public works
and nonprofit services
§103
Beach erosion/ hurricane
65% $5.0
$30.0
$3.9
$0
$0.9
$42.1
$.2
storm damage reduction
§107
Navigation improvements Commercial navigation
$7.0 $35.0 $6.3 $0 $2.9 $119.3 $39.4
varies (see Table 3);
50% for recreational
§111 Prevention/mitigation
of
Same as the project
$5.0 Not $6.0 $0 $2.9 $48.6 $0.1
shore damage by federal
causing the damage
Applicable
navigation projects
§204, §207, Regional sediment
65% $5.0
$30.0
$7.8
$0
$3.9
$65.2
$3.2
§993
management/beneficial
use of dredged material
§205 Flood
control
65%
$7.0
$55.0
$37.8
$0
$18.7
$312.4 $206.0
§206 Aquatic
ecosystem
65% $5.0
$50.0
$27.1
$0
$7.9
$422.6
$142.0
restoration
§208
Removal of obstructions,
65% $0.5
$7.5
$0.0
$0
$0
$0.4
$1.4
clearing channels for
flood control
§1135
Project modifications for
75% $5.0
$40.0
$24.2
$0
$7.9
$166.6
$84.6
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, and Corps provided data to CRS in November 2011.
a. Federal share of active CAP projects (i.e., projects that have received some CAP funds in the last four fiscal years) as of the end of FY2011.
b. Federal share of un-started CAP projects (i.e., nonfederal sponsors have approached the Corps but the project had received no CAP funding as of the end of FY2011.
CRS-13
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 5.
Table 5. Corps Technical Assistance Authorities
(in $ millions)
Federal
Max.
Share
Annual
Federal
Per-
Federal
FY2011
FY2012
Activities
Cost
Project
Program
FY2010
Work
Work
Program
Authorized
Share
Limit
Limit
Approp.
Plan
Plan
Planning
Technical assistance
50% $0.5
Not
$7.161 $6.350 $5.284
Assistance
to states and
annual y
Applicable
to States
communities for
per state
regional water
resources planning
Flood Plain
Technical assistance
100% for
Not
$15.0 $8.059 $8.815 $9.110
Management on flood and
eligible
Applicable
Service
floodplain issues
activities
Tribal
Studies of water
50%a $1.0 Not $0.852 $1.000 $0.957
Partnership
projects that benefit
Applicable
Program
Indian tribes
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.
a. Section 203 of WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-541) states that cost sharing shal be subject to the ability of the
nonfederal entity to pay. A draft “Ability to Pay” rule is under development. If finalized, this rule would
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.
Flood-Fighting and Emergency Response
In addition to work performed as part of the National Response Framework, Congress has given
the Corps its own emergency response authority. This authority is commonly referred to as the
Congressional Research Service
14
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Corps’ P.L. 84-99 authority, based on the act in which it was originally authorized, the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergency Act. P.L. 84-99 (33 U.S.C. §701n) authorizes the Corps to
perform emergency response and disaster assistance.25 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. Section 701n to transfer money from ongoing
Corps projects to emergency operations.
Repair of Damaged Levees and Other Flood and Storm Projects
In P.L. 84-99, Congress also authorized 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.26 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.27 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.28 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.29
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 3). 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.
A common issue under RIP is that nonfederal sponsors often are interested in not only repairing
but also making modifications and improvements to provide more protection, which is prohibited
under RIP. The Corps’ authority is expressly restricted to repair or restoration to the pre-disaster
25 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).
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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
15
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
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 previously
described standard Corps project development process and the related cost-sharing.
Environmental Infrastructure/Municipal Water and
Wastewater Projects
Since 1992 Congress has authorized and provided the Corps with funds 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 regularly includes Corps
environmental infrastructure funds in appropriations bills. Environmental infrastructure projects
repeatedly have been 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.30
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 work they perform.
The Corps is 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 Administration’s FY2012 work plan, $30
million is provided for these projects.
Because environmental infrastructure 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),
or to the deauthorization process previously described. The projects, however, are subject to
federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As indicated in Table 3,
most Corps environmental infrastructure financing is 75% federal and 25% nonfederal.
30 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
16
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.31 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
reducing flood losses and environmental damage by recognizing the value of wetlands and
31 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
17
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
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 retooled its long-standing flood control mission to use a flood risk management approach.
This was undertaken in response to congressional direction in WRDA 2007 and disasters like
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ike and the significant floods in the Midwest. This approach
emphasizes a greater appreciation and accountability for the shared responsibilities across levels
of government for managing flood. The regularity with which the Corps has received significant
congressional appropriations for natural disaster response has increased attention to its role in
emergency response, infrastructure repair, and post-disaster recovery.
Congressional Research Service
18
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
Limited Corps Role in Levee Data Certification
The Corps currently has a limited role in the steps leading up to the levee data certification by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for FEMA’s floodmaps for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In order for a
levee to be certified to appear on a NFIP map as providing protection it must be accredited 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. In Section 100226 of P.L. 112-141 (Biggert-
Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012), Congress cal ed for the creation of a Flood Protection Structure
Accreditation Task Force. Among its duties was the development of a process to better align the data col ected by
the Corps RIP inspections with the FEMA requirements.
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 Section 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.
Author Contact Information
Nicole T. Carter
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
Congressional Research Service
19