April 7, 2015
Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
Overview
Figure 2. Recent Corps Funding by Account
The Energy and Water Development bill provides funding
for the civil program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), 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 in part because its projects can have
significant local and regional economic benefits and
environmental effects, in addition to their water resource
development purposes. Corps appropriations generally are
authorized in water resources development acts. Most
recently, Congress enacted a new water resources
development act in June 2014, the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014).
In most years, the President’s budget request for the Corps
is below the agency’s enacted appropriation. For FY2015,

Congress appropriated $5.5 billion for the Corps, almost $1
Source: Congressional Research Services, with data from the Army
billion more than the requested amount. The President’s
Corps of Engineers.
FY2016 request for the Corps is $4.7 billion. Recent trends
Earmarks and the Corps of Engineers
in budgeted and enacted amounts are shown below in
Figure 1.
Corps funding is part of the debate over congressionally
directed spending, or earmarks. Unlike highways and
Figure 1. Trends in Proposed and Appropriated
municipal water infrastructure, federal funds for the Corps
Funding, FY2001-FY2016
are not distributed to states or projects based on a formula
or competitive grants. About 85% of appropriations for
Corps civil works activities are for specific projects.
In addition to specific projects identified for funding in the
President’s budget, for decades Congress annually
identified during the discretionary appropriations process
additional Corps projects to receive funding. In the 112th
Congress, site-specific project line items added by Congress
(i.e., earmarks) became subject to House and Senate
earmark moratorium policies. As a result, Congress
generally has not added funding at the project level since
that time. In lieu of the traditional project-based increases,
Congress has included “additional funding” for select
categories of Corps projects (e.g., “additional funding for

ongoing navigation work”) and provided direction and
limitations on the use of these funds. Congress continued
Source: Congressional Research Services, with data from the Army
this practice in FY2015, providing $974 million in
Corps of Engineers.
“additional funding” for select categories of Corps projects
Corps Budget Request Structure
in multiple accounts.
Corps funding typically is requested at the account level,
Key Policy Issues
with the two largest accounts being Operations and
Project Backlog and New Starts
Maintenance and Construction. The Corps also sometimes
depicts its request by business lines (e.g., navigation, flood
The large number of authorized Corps studies and projects
control, etc.). Figure 2 shows recent enacted funding levels
that have not received appropriations to date, or that have
at the account level.
received funding but are incomplete, is often referred to as
the backlog of authorized projects. Estimates of the
construction backlog range from $20 billion to more than
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

---

Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
$80 billion, depending on which projects are included. The
Congress has taken measures to ensure temporary solvency
backlog raises policy questions, such as which activities to
of the IWTF, either by appropriating extra federal funds or
fund among authorized activities. It also increases
by limiting IWTF expenditures to the amount available
congressional attention on the budget for new Corps studies
under current-year fuel tax revenues.
and new construction starts (also known as new starts).
In the past, the Administration has proposed fees that would
Recent Administration budget requests proposed few new
have increased IWTF revenues, but these fees have been
studies and construction starts, and enacted appropriations
opposed by users and rejected by Congress. In a 2011 plan,
for FY2011-FY2013 barred any funding for new projects
users proposed to increase the current fuel tax while also
that had not received appropriations previously. FY2014
expanding federal cost-sharing responsibilities for inland
enacted appropriations allowed for up to nine new study
waterways.
starts and four new construction starts, and the FY2015
enacted bill provided for 10 new study starts and four new
Figure 3. Relationship of IWTF Financing and
construction starts. The President’s FY2016 budget requests
Spending, FY1987-FY2013 (nominal dollars)
funding for two new studies and four new construction
projects.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
In 1986, Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Tax to
recover operation and maintenance (O&M) costs at U.S.
coastal and Great Lakes harbors from maritime shippers.
O&M is mostly the dredging of harbor channels to their
authorized depths and widths. The tax (12.5 cents per $100
of cargo value) is levied on importers and domestic
shippers using coastal or Great Lakes ports. Tax revenues
are deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(HMTF), from which Congress appropriates funds.

In recent years, HMTF expenditures have remained flat
Source: Congressional Research Services, with data from the Army
while Harbor Maintenance Tax collections have increased
Corps of Engineers.
due to rising import volume. Consequently, a large surplus
Note: IWTF = Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
in the HMTF has developed. The maritime industry
supports a “spending guarantee” to spend down the surplus
WRRDA 2014 and subsequent 2014 legislation included
and maintain channels at their authorized depth and width.
changes for inland waterways, such as a reduction in the
Because spending from the HMTF requires an
IWTF cost share required for the Olmsted Locks and Dam
appropriation from Congress, spending more from the fund
Project on the Ohio River from 50% to 15% (and a
could reduce available funding for other Energy and Water
corresponding increase in the General Fund requirement
Development activities under congressional budget caps.
from 50% to 85%) and an increase in the ceiling on
rehabilitation projects that can be funded from the General
WRRDA 2014 included changes to the Harbor maintenance
Fund from $8 million to $20 million. P.L. 113-295, enacted
activities that sought to increase HMTF spending to levels
on December 19, 2014, included among its provisions a
based on “targeted” percentages of HMTF collections (but
$0.09 per gallon increase in the inland waterways fuel tax
only if this funding does not come at the expense of
on commercial barges. The increase had been requested by
available funding for other Corps activities). In the enacted
users. The change took effect on April 1, 2015, making the
FY2015 bill, Congress provided the Corps with $1.1
overall tax on barge fuel $0.29 per gallon. The increase to
billion, or approximately $200 million more than the
the fuel tax does not guarantee increased expenditures on
President’s FY2015 request level. For FY2016, the
inland waterways, which remain subject to discretionary
President’s requested appropriation for the HMTF is once
appropriations. Instead, it increases revenues accruing to
again $915 million. The WRRDA targeted level for
the IWTF and thus increases future IWTF balances
FY2016 is 69% of the total amount of taxes received in
available for appropriation.
FY2015 (an estimated $1.1 billion).
The President’s FY2016 budget request for funding from
Inland Waterways Trust Fund
the IWTF is $53 million, which is significantly less than the
Since the 1980s, expenditures for construction and major
FY2015 enacted level for IWTF spending. For more
rehabilitation projects on inland waterways have been cost
information, see CRS Report IF10020, Inland Waterways
shared on a 50-50 basis between the federal government
Trust Fund, by Charles V. Stern.
and users through the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
Charles V. Stern, cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
(IWTF). IWTF monies derive from a fuel tax on
commercial vessels on designated waterways, plus

investment interest on the balance. Since FY2009, there has
IF10176
been a shortfall in the IWTF (see Figure 3). In recent years,
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

---