Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource
Authorizations, Appropriations,
and Activities
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
July 28, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41243
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
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. The Corps must be authorized to undertake an activity; the authorization can be
project-specific, programmatic, or general. While necessary, authorizations usually are
insufficient for a Corps study or construction project to proceed; agency action on an
authorization requires funding. This report summarizes congressional authorization and
appropriations processes for the Corps. It also discusses agency activities under general
authorities.
Authorizations. Congress generally authorizes numerous new Corps site-specific activities and
provides policy direction in an omnibus Corps authorization bill, typically called the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) or more recently the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121). The WRDAs do not provide funds to
conduct activities, nor are they reauthorization bills.
During the 114th Congress, the Corps has continued development of implementation guidance for
200 provisions enacted in WRRDA 2014. As of early July 2015, which is roughly one year since
WRRDA 2014 was enacted, 15 projects with federal costs of $2.5 billion ($4.4 billion in total
costs) have completed Chief of Engineers reports, and six additional projects with federal costs of
$2.6 billion ($3.1 billion in total costs) have draft Chief of Engineers reports.
WRRDA 2014 created a new process for identifying potential Corps studies. In Section 7001 of
WRRDA 2014, Congress called for the Secretary of the Army to submit an annual report to the
congressional authorizing committees of potential and publicly submitted study and project
authorization for Congress to consider for authorization. This annual report, along with completed
Corps feasibility studies with Chief of Engineers reports, may form the basis for discussion of
subsequent authorization legislation. The first annual report was delivered in February 2015. The
Corps is accepting proposals from nonfederal interests through September 23, 2015, for studies
for potential inclusion in its second annual report.
Appropriations. Federal funding for Corps civil works activities is provided in annual Energy
and Water Development appropriations acts or supplemental appropriations acts. Annual Corps
civil works appropriations have ranged from $4.5 billion to $5.5 billion during the last decade. An
increasing share of the agency’s appropriations has been used for operations and maintenance.
Another long-term trend has been increasing emergency supplemental appropriations for the
agency. In part because of competition for funds and because Corps authorizations outpace
appropriations, many authorized activities have not received appropriations.
Few of the activities authorized by WRRDA 2014 were funded in FY2015 due in part to the
timing of the authorization and appropriations bills. Which WRRDA 2014 provisions are funded
in FY2016 is the subject of stakeholder and congressional attention. There is a backlog of more
than 1,000 authorized studies and construction projects. In recent years, few new studies, new
construction projects, and new programs have been in either the President’s budget request or
enacted appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Standard Project Development. The standard process for a Corps project requires two separate
congressional authorizations—one for studying feasibility and one for construction—as well as
appropriations for both. Congressional authorization for construction is based on a completed
feasibility study with a favorable Chief of Engineers report. For most activities, Congress requires
a nonfederal sponsor to share some portion of study and construction costs. Cost-sharing
requirements vary by the type of project. For many project types (e.g., levees), nonfederal
sponsors own the completed works after construction and are responsible for operation and
maintenance.
Other Corps Activities and Authorities. Although most Corps projects are developed under the
standard project development process, 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, repair of damaged levees, and limited drought assistance.
Additionally, the Corps conducts emergency response actions directed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Congressional Research Service
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Contents
Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................................................................ 1
Corps Authorizations ....................................................................................................................... 1
Corps Appropriations ....................................................................................................................... 3
Traditional Account Structure and Budgeting Approach ........................................................... 4
“Additional Funding” Categories .............................................................................................. 5
Supplemental Appropriations .................................................................................................... 6
Standard Corps Project Delivery Process ........................................................................................ 6
Study Authority ......................................................................................................................... 8
Feasibility Study ........................................................................................................................ 9
Preconstruction Engineering and Design .................................................................................. 9
Construction and Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................ 10
Construction and O&M Cost Shares ................................................................................. 10
Changes After Construction Authorization .............................................................................. 11
Study and Project Deauthorization .......................................................................................... 12
Other Corps Activities and Authorities .......................................................................................... 12
Small Projects Under Continuing Authorities Programs ......................................................... 13
Technical Assistance ................................................................................................................ 13
Natural Disaster and Emergency Response Activities ............................................................. 14
National Response Framework Activities Under FEMA .................................................. 14
Flood-Fighting and Emergency Response ........................................................................ 15
Repair of Damaged Levees and Other Flood and Storm Projects ..................................... 16
Environmental Infrastructure/Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects ............................... 16
Figures
Figure 1. Annual Budget Request and Enacted Appropriations for Corps Civil Works .................. 4
Tables
Table 1. Corps Project Phases, Average Phase Duration If Fully Funded, and Federal Cost
Share ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 2. Standard Cost Shares for Construction and Operation of New Corps Projects ............... 11
Table 3. Select Corps Continuing Authorities Programs (CAP) for Small Projects ...................... 13
Table 4. Corps Technical Assistance Authorities ........................................................................... 14
Appendixes
Appendix. Evolution of Corps Civil Works Mission ..................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Army Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is an agency within the Department of Defense with both
military and civil works responsibilities. Under its civil works program, it plans, builds, operates,
and maintains a wide range of water resource facilities. Its civil works responsibilities are
principally to support navigation, reduce flood and storm damage, and protect and restore aquatic
ecosystems.1 The agency attracts congressional attention because its projects can have significant
local and regional economic benefits and environmental effects.
The civil works program is led by a civilian Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who
reports to the Secretary of the Army. A military Chief of Engineers oversees the agency’s 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.2
This report provides an overview of the Corps civil works program, including congressional
authorization and appropriations. The report also covers the standard project development process
for Corps projects and other Corps activities and authorities.
Corps Authorizations
The Corps must be authorized to undertake an activity; the authorization can be project-specific,
programmatic, or general.3 While necessary, authorizations are usually insufficient for a Corps
study or construction project to proceed; agency action on an authorization requires funding.
In recent decades, Congress has legislated on most Corps authorizations in omnibus Water
Resources Development Acts (WRDAs).4 Authorization provisions at times have appeared in
appropriations or supplemental appropriations legislation, especially in years when a WRDA is
not enacted. If authorization provisions are included in an appropriations bill, they could be
subject to a point of order on the floor for being non-germane.
1 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 Appendix provides more on the evolution of Corps civil works missions and authorities.
2A division map and district links are available at http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Locations.aspx.
3 While most Corps authorizations are in legislation, some studies also may be undertaken under other authorities. For
example, authorizing committees can authorize a study to reexamine a geographic area previously studied by the Corps
for a similar purpose; this authority derives from §4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1913 (37 Stat. 801, 33 U.S.C.
§542). Similarly, some studies reviewing operations of completed projects proceed under general study authorizations
without new project-specific congressional action; this is pursuant to §216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-
611, 33 U.S.C. §549a).
4 WRDAs are distinguished from each other by referencing the year of enactment; that is, WRDA 1986 refers to the act
passed in 1986. The authorizing committee generally develops a bill for introduction by the chairperson; alternatively,
the Administration can propose a bill for congressional consideration. The House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee or the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are the congressional committees that generally
authorize Corps civil works activities. If the Administration proposes a WRDA, Congress generally receives the
proposal at the same time as the President’s budget. More than 15 years have passed since the last Administration-
proposed WRDA bill.
Congressional Research Service
1
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
WRDAs, or more recently the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA
2014; P.L. 113-121), authorize Corps studies, projects, and programs and establish policies for
Corps civil works activities (e.g., nonfederal cost-share requirements). A WRDA is not a
reauthorization bill; rather, it is an authorization bill. That is, WRDAs generally authorize new
activities that are added to the pool of existing authorized activities. Most project-specific
authorizations in WRDAs fall into three general categories: project studies, construction projects,
and modifications to existing project authorizations. WRDAs also have deauthorized projects and
established deauthorization processes.
WRDAs do not appropriate funds for activities; project funding is provided typically through the
annual appropriations process for the agency. That is, congressional authorizations make certain
projects and activities eligible to receive federal funding. While use of monies from trust funds
associated with Corps activities generally requires congressional appropriations action (i.e., the
funds are “on-budget”), a WRDA may be a legislative vehicle for altering trust fund collections
and disbursement policies and procedures.
Beginning with WRDA 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), 2000 (P.L. 106-541), and 2007 (P.L. 110-
114); and WRRDA 2014 was enacted in June 2014, as previously noted.
WRDA 1986 marked the end of a stalemate between Congress and the executive branch
regarding Corps 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 consideration
of authorization legislations was 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. Pressure to authorize new projects, increase authorized funding levels, and modify
existing projects is often intense, thus prompting a fairly regular biennial consideration of
WRDA.
Enactment has been less consistent. Controversial project authorizations and disagreements over
the need for and direction of change in how 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. Earmark
restrictions for site-specific authorizations complicated WRDA enactment in the 111th and 112th
Congresses. WRRDA 2014, which was enacted on June 10, 2014, overcame these concerns to
authorize 34 construction projects that had received agency review, had Chief of Engineers
reports, and had been the subject of a congressional hearing. It also altered processes and
authorizations for project delivery options, including expanded opportunities for nonfederal
entities to lead projects and for innovative financing.5
During the 114th Congress, the Corps has continued development of implementation guidance for
200 provisions in WRRDA 2014. As of early July 2015, the Corps had completed guidelines for
roughly 40% of the provisions.6 WRRDA 2014 called for the agency to submit an annual report
5 For more on WRRDA 2014 and how it evolved during congressional deliberations, see CRS Report R43298, Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions, by Nicole T. Carter et al.
6 The implementation guidelines for WRRDA 2015 provisions are being published at http://www.usace.army.mil/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
of potential and publicly submitted study and project authorizations by February 2015, and each
year thereafter. These annual reports, along with completed Corps studies, may form the basis for
discussion of subsequent authorization legislation. As of early July 2015, 15 completed feasibility
studies for projects with federal costs of $2.5 billion (total costs of $4.4 billion) have Chief of
Engineers reports and have yet to be authorized by Congress. Another six projects with federal
costs of $2.6 billion (total costs of $3.1 billion) have draft Chief of Engineers reports.
Corps Appropriations
The Corps is typically funded through congressional appropriations provided in the annual
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. Because the rate of Corps authorizations
exceeds the rate of the agency’s annual appropriations, only a subset of authorized activities
typically are included in the President’s budget request and eventually funded by enacted
appropriations. This situation results in competition for funds among authorized activities during
the budget and appropriations processes. To concentrate limited resources and 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.
Over the last decade, enacted annual Corps civil works appropriations (excluding supplemental
appropriations) have remained steady or increased slightly, ranging from $4.5 billion to $5.5
billion, whereas the President’s request typically has been less than the final enacted amount.
Most recently, Congress appropriated $5.45 billion to the Corps for FY2015 in P.L. 113-76.
Recent trends in Corps budget requests and enacted appropriations are shown below in Figure 1.
The President’s FY2016 budget request for Corps civil works projects was $4.73 billion.
(...continued)
Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectPlanning/LegislativeLinks/wrrda2014/wrrda2014_impguide.aspx. Many of the provisions
do not require new guidance.
Congressional Research Service
3
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Figure 1. Annual Budget Request and Enacted Appropriations for Corps Civil Works
Source: Congressional Research Service, using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data.
Note: Does not include supplemental appropriations.
Traditional Account Structure and Budgeting Approach
The President’s budget request for the Corps typically includes funding requests at both the
account level (i.e., investigation, construction, operations, and maintenance) and by business line
(i.e., types of activities such as navigation and flood and coastal storm damage reductions). It also
includes project-specific funding levels for those projects proposed for funding. The executive
branch justifies decisions of which projects to fund and at what level through a number of
measures, including benefit-cost ratios and other measures that are outlined in Corps budget
development guidance each year.7 Descriptions of proposed work are included in budget
justifications that are published by the Corps after the release of the President’s budget request.8
Congress generally provides money to the Corps at the account level in appropriations laws.
Accompanying congressional reports, which are sometimes incorporated into law by reference,
often identify specific Corps projects to receive appropriated funds. With the heightened attention
to and restrictions on congressionally directed spending, since FY2010 the projects identified in
these reports have been limited largely to the projects included in the President’s budget request,
and new line items at the project level have not been added by Congress. As such, congressional
action on Corps appropriations has generally been limited to (1) alteration (i.e., reductions or
increases) of the amounts requested for individual projects in the President’s request; and (2)
provision of additional funding for various types of Corps activities that Congress views as
7 For example, see http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerCirculars.aspx.
8 Recent justifications are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Budget.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
4
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
having received an inadequate funding request by the Administration (see below section,
““Additional Funding” Categories”).
The two largest Corps accounts are Construction and Operations and Maintenance (O&M), which
together account for the majority of the agency’s funding. The O&M account has made up a
growing portion of Corps funds over this time, whereas the budget for the Construction account,
including “new start” construction projects, has been reduced. This shift is consistent with recent
efforts by the Administration and Congress to limit funding for new activities and instead focus
on completing existing projects and efforts to address aging infrastructure issues. Recent enacted
appropriation bills for FY2014 and FY2015 have lifted earlier bans on new construction starts
and allowed the agency to initiate a specified number of Corps new start studies and projects.
However, numerous authorized projects have yet to be initiated.
Two congressionally authorized trust funds are administered by the Corps and require annual
appropriations. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) and the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund (IWTF) support cost-shared investments in federal navigation infrastructure for harbors and
inland waterways, respectively. Maintenance funding for harbor-related maintenance activities is
funded in part from the HMTF. This trust fund receives revenues from taxes on waterborne
commercial cargo imports and on cruise ship passengers at federally maintained ports. Similarly,
roughly half of inland waterways construction appropriations are from the IWTF, which receives
the proceeds of a fuel tax on barge fuel for vessels engaged in commercial transport on designated
waterways. Although the HMTF has a large surplus balance, appropriations from the fund
typically have not kept pace with receipts accruing to it. Conversely, the IWTF has faced revenue
shortages in recent years that have prevented it from maintaining historical levels of expenditures.
Both trust funds were addressed in 2014 authorizing legislation that made changes to their
financing structures.9 Whether these changes will be sufficient to increase spending on both
project types (a primary goal of those supporting these provisions) remains to be seen.
“Additional Funding” Categories
Roughly 85% of the Corps budget is typically for geographically specified studies or projects. In
addition to specific projects identified for funding in the President’s budget, for decades Congress
annually identified during the discretionary appropriations process many additional Corps
projects to receive funding (e.g., dredging of low- and medium-use harbors at specific
locations).10 In the 112th Congress, site-specific project line items added by Congress (i.e.,
earmarks or congressionally directed spending) were subject to newly instated House and Senate
earmark moratorium policies. Since that time (FY2010), enacted congressional appropriations
generally have adhered to these moratorium policies and refrained from inserting projects in
appropriations bills that were not requested in the President’s budget.
In lieu of the traditional project-based increases, Congress has included “additional funding”
categories for various types of Corps projects (e.g., additional funding for ongoing maintenance
of small, remote, or subsistence harbors), along with directions and limitations on the use of these
9 For more information on these trust fund expenditures, see CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals
and Issues for Congress, by Charles V. Stern and CRS Report R43222, Harbor Maintenance Finance and Funding, by
John Frittelli.
10 While congressional earmarks make up a relatively small percentage of most agency budgets, a significant number of
Corps projects historically received additional funding from Congress for construction or operational expenditures.
Congressional Research Service
5
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
funds. The Corps typically has been directed to report back to Congress in annual work plans on
how these funds will be allocated at the project level.11 Most recently, Congress continued the
practice of adding funding for various categories of Corps work within the agency’s major
accounts in in FY2015, providing over $1 billion in additional funding for various categories of
Corps projects in the Investigations, Construction, O&M, and Mississippi River and Tributaries
accounts.
Supplemental Appropriations
Emergency supplemental appropriations provided to the Corps in recent years are an additional
consideration in the context of Corps appropriations. From 1987 to 2014, Congress appropriated
$32.2 billion in supplemental funding to the Corps.12 Of this funding, $30.8 billion came through
supplemental appropriations acts enacted since 2003. This funding was approximately half of the
amount provided to the Corps in regular appropriations through FY2014 ($61.3 billion). The
majority of these supplemental appropriations funded Corps flood-fighting activities, repairs, and
storm damage infrastructure investments (e.g., activities in response to the 2005 hurricanes,
including Hurricane Katrina; the 2008 Midwest floods; and the 2011 Missouri and Mississippi
floods). Most recently, in January 2013 Congress provided the Corps with $5.3 billion in
supplemental appropriations to respond to Hurricane Sandy’s landfall. Much of this funding is
expected to be available for construction projects over a multiyear horizon. For a discussion of
Corps supplemental appropriations, see CRS Report R42841, Army Corps Supplemental
Appropriations: Recent History, Trends, and Policy Issues, by Charles V. Stern and Nicole T.
Carter.
Standard Corps Project Delivery Process
The congressional authorization and the appropriations processes are critical actions in a multi-
step process to deliver a Corps project. This section describes the standard study and construction
process for most Corps projects, and it provides some exceptions to the standard process. The
standard process consists of the following basic steps:
• Study authorization is obtained in WRDA, other legislation, or a committee
resolution.
• The Corps performs a preliminary analysis using appropriated funds.13
• The Corps performs a feasibility study if the preliminary analysis is favorable
and funds are appropriated.14
• Construction authorization is pursued. The Corps can perform preconstruction
engineering and design while awaiting construction authorization.
11 Recent Corps Work Plans are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Budget.aspx.
12 This includes $5.3 billion in supplemental funds provided for response and recovery related to Hurricane Sandy in
P.L. 113-2.
13 Section 1002 of WRRDA 2014 consolidated the contents of the Corps preliminary analysis (which previously was
reported as a separate reconnaissance study) and its feasibility study.
14 The Corps has roughly 200 active feasibility studies.
Congressional Research Service
6
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
• Congress authorizes construction in WRDA or other legislation, and the Corps
constructs the project if funds are appropriated.
The process is not automatic. Appropriations are required to perform studies and undertake
construction; that is, congressional study and construction authorizations are necessary but alone
are 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. Since WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662),
nonfederal sponsors have been responsible for a significant portion of the financing of studies,
construction, and O&M of most projects.
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. Generally, projects take longer than shown in Table
1 because some steps require congressional authorization before they can begin and action on
each step is subject to the availability of appropriations.
WRRDA 2014 expanded and consolidated the authorities for nonfederal entities to both perform
studies and construct projects (or elements of projects) that typically would be undertaken by the
Corps and for the cost of these nonfederal-led studies and construction to be shared by the federal
government largely as if the Corps had performed them. While nonfederal study and project
delivery may increase under these authorities, the process described herein is the standard Corps
process in which the Corps is the manager of the study and project, and the nonfederal sponsor
contributes a portion of the costs and associated real estate, easements, etc.
Corps projects generally have primary purposes of navigation, flood and hurricane storm damage
reduction, and/or aquatic ecosystem restoration; that is, one of these three purposes generally is at
the core of the project. The agency also has the authority to undertake activities with other
purposes as part of multipurpose projects.
Table 1. Corps Project Phases, Average Phase Duration If Fully Funded,
and Federal Cost Share
Feasibility Study
(including
Preconstruction
preliminary
Engineering and
Operation &
analysis)
Design (PED)
Construction
Maintenance
Avg. Duration (years),
once congressionally
3b
approx.
2 varies
authorized project
authorized and funded
duration
a
Federal Share of Costs
50%c
varies by
varies, see
varies,
see
Table 2
project purposed
Table 2
Source: CRS.
a. Generally projects take longer than the duration of the individual steps. Some steps require congressional
authorization before they can begin, and action on each step is subject to availability of appropriations.
b. WRRDA 2014 requires most feasibility studies to be completed within three years of initiation and
deauthorizes any feasibility study not completed after seven years.
c. Inland waterways feasibility studies are 100% federal funded (33 U.S.C. §2215). These projects are not
considered “local” by their nature. Prior to WRRDA 2014, the preliminary analysis was included within a
reconnaissance study that was produced at 100% federal expenses. Post-WRRDA 2014 cost sharing of
preliminary analysis has not been clarified. WRDA 2014 establishes a maximum federal cost of $3 mil ion
for most feasibility studies.
d. Generally, PED cost shares are the same as construction cost shares shown in Table 2.
Congressional Research Service
7
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Study Authority
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 decisionmakers 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.15
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.
Congress generally authorizes studies in WRDA legislation. WRRDA 2014 created a new process
for identifying potential Corps studies. In Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014, Congress called for the
Secretary of the Army to submit an annual report to the congressional authorizing committees
(the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee) of potential and publicly submitted study and project authorization proposals
for Congress to consider for authorization. As previously noted, this annual report, along with
completed Corps feasibility studies with Chief of Engineers reports, may form the basis for
discussion of subsequent authorization legislation.16 The Corps is accepting proposals from
nonfederal interests through September 23, 2015, for studies for inclusion in its second annual
report under the Section 7001 authority.17
15 If the Corps has performed a study in the geographic area before, a new study also 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. 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. To request a study’s inclusion in a resolution, a
Member of Congress may send a letter to the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee or
the Senate Environment and Public Works 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. More
recent Congresses have not used Corps study resolutions.
16 While the Section 7001 annual reports may be used in the development of Corps authorization legislation, WRRDA
2014 did not change the underlying responsibilities of Congress in authorizing Corps studies and construction projects.
The Section 7001 report instead is a mechanism that assists in the identification of activities that both meet the Section
7001 criteria and for which there exists nonfederal or Administration interest in congressional authorization. Prior to
attention to and chamber rules associated with authorization and appropriation earmarks, individual Members often
brought attention to similar activities for congressional authorization.
17 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Proposals by Non-Federal Interests for Feasibility Studies and for Modifications to
an Authorized Water Resources Development Project, or Feasibility Study for Inclusion in the Annual Report to
Congress on Future Water Resources Development,” 80 Federal Register 30061-30063, May 26, 2015,
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/05/26/2015-12626/proposals-by-non-federal-interests-for-feasibility-
studies-and-for-modifications-to-an-authorized. According to Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014, the criteria for inclusion
in the annual report are as follows:
The Secretary shall include in the annual report only those feasibility reports, proposed feasibility
studies, and proposed modifications to authorized water resources development projects and
feasibility studies that—(i) are related to the missions and authorities of the Corps of Engineers; (ii)
require specific congressional authorization, including by an Act of Congress; (iii) have not been
congressionally authorized; (iv) have not been included in any previous annual report; and (v) if
authorized, could be carried out by the Corps of Engineers.
The first annual report was delivered to the committees in February 2015. More information on how the Corps studies
and plans a project is available in Corps publications, such as Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Guidance Notebook,
ER 1105-2-100, Washington, DC, April 22, 2000, http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/
EngineerRegulations/ER_1105-2-100.pdf.
Hereinafter referred to as Corps Planning Guidance Notebook.
Congressional Research Service
8
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Feasibility Study
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. It
also investigates the nature of the water resources problem and assesses the federal government’s
interest.
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 identified water resources
problem. 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).18 The evaluation of Corps water resources projects remains governed by the 1983
Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Implementation Studies, and policy
direction provided in WRDA bills and other enacted legislation.19 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 recommendation on the project,
known as the Chief’s Report or Chief of Engineers report. The Corps submits the completed
Chief of Engineers reports to the congressional authorizing committees (33 U.S.C. 2282a) and
also transmits the Chief’s Report to the Assistant Secretary and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Administration review. Since the mid-1990s, Congress has authorized many
projects based on Chief of Engineers reports prior to completion of the project review by the
Assistant Secretary and OMB.20
Preconstruction Engineering and Design
Corps preconstruction engineering and design (PED) of a project may begin after the Chief of
Engineers report while awaiting congressional authorization for project construction (33 U.S.C.
18 CRS Report R43209, Environmental Requirements Addressed During Corps Civil Works Project Planning:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Linda Luther, discusses how the Corps study process is combined with its
NEPA compliance process.
19 During FY2015, the Corps remains under the 1983 Principles and Guidelines, pursuant to language in the
explanatory statement accompanying Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2015 (P.L. 113-235). As
of June 2015, most other federal water resource investments are being developed and evaluated under a set of
Administration documents known as the Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines; for more on these documents, see
CRS Report IF10221, Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources,
by Nicole T. Carter and Betsy A. Cody.
20 WRRDA 2014 authorized 34 new construction projects. Of these, 25 had been transmitted to Congress by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army, and nine were awaiting the transmittal to Congress by the Assistant Secretary when
the bill was sent to the President; all 34 projects had a Chief of Engineers report. At times 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.
Congressional Research Service
9
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
§2287). Corps work on PED is subject to the availability of Corps appropriations. Once funded,
the average duration of PED is two years, but the duration varies widely depending on the size
and complexity of a project. PED costs are distributed between the federal and nonfederal
sponsor in the same proportion as the cost-share arrangement for the construction phase.
Construction and Operation and Maintenance
Once the project receives congressional construction authorization, federal funds for construction
are sought in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. Once construction
funds are available, the Corps typically functions as the project manager; that is, Corps staff,
rather than the nonfederal project sponsor, typically is responsible for implementing construction.
While some construction may be performed by Corps personnel and equipment, the majority of
work typically is contracted out to private engineering and construction contractors. Post-
construction ownership and operations responsibilities depend on the type of project. When
construction is complete, the Corps may own and operate the constructed project (e.g., navigation
projects), or ownership may transfer to the nonfederal sponsor (e.g., most flood damage reduction
projects).
Construction and O&M Cost Shares
The cost-share responsibilities for construction and O&M vary by project purpose, as shown in
Table 2. Table 2 first provides the cost share for the primary project purposes; next, it provides
the cost shares for those 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 beneficiaries 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 typically requires specific authorization by Congress.21
21 Congress has established that cost shares shall be subject to the nonfederal sponsors’ ability to pay (33 U.S.C.
§2213(m)(2)); however, it is rarely employed. 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
10
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Table 2. Standard 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
20-50 ft. harbor
65%a
100%b
>50
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%
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
65% 0%
Multi-Purpose Project Components
Hydroelectric Power
0%d
0%
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Storage
0%
0%
Agricultural Water Supply Storage
65%e 0%
Recreation at Corps Facilities
50%
0%
Aquatic Plant Control
Not Applicable
50%
Source: 33 U.S.C. §§2211-2215, unless otherwise specified below.
a. These percentages reflect that the nonfederal sponsors pay 10%, 25%, or 50% 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. Capital costs initial y are federally funded and are repaid by fees collected from power customers.
e. For the 17 western states where reclamation law applies, irrigation costs initially are federally funded but
repaid by nonfederal water users.
Changes After Construction Authorization
A project may undergo some changes after authorization. If project features or the estimated cost
change significantly, additional congressional authorization may be necessary. Authorization for a
significant modification is typically sought in a WRDA. For less significant modifications,
additional authorization often is not necessary. Section 902 of WRDA 1986 as amended (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.
Congressional Research Service
11
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Study and Project Deauthorization
Although WRDAs largely are authorization bills, Congress at times has used WRDAs to
deauthorize projects and establish deauthorization processes. Authorizations of Corps
construction projects generally are not time limited; however, there are processes for
deauthorizing them.
• WRRDA 2014 created a one-time process to deauthorize projects with federal
costs to complete of $18 billion; this deauthorization process is restricted to
projects authorized prior to WRDA 2007.22
• WRRDA 2014 required that any project authorized in WRRDA 2014 be
automatically deauthorized if after seven years of enactment no funding had been
obligated for its construction.
• The Secretary of the Army is directed to transmit to Congress annually a list of
authorized projects and project elements that did not receive obligations of
funding during the last five full fiscal years (33 U.S.C. §579a(b)(2)). 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 following fiscal year, the project or element is deauthorized.23
For studies, there are two deauthorization processes:
• WRRDA 2014 required that any feasibility study that is not completed seven
years after initiation is automatically deauthorized.
• The Secretary of the Army is directed to transmit to Congress annually a list of
incomplete authorized studies that have not received appropriations for five full
fiscal years (33 U.S.C. §2264). The study list is not published in the Federal
Register. Congress has 90 days after submission of the study list to appropriate
funds for a study; otherwise the study is deauthorized.24
Other Corps Activities and Authorities
Although the project delivery 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 below.
22 The Corps published in February 2015 its implementation guidance for this deauthorization process; however, the
agency has delivered neither the comprehensive backlog report that had a June 2015 deadline according to WRRDA
2014 nor the interim deauthorization list required by WRRDA 2014. This list is the initial step in the $18 billion
deauthorization process.
23 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. There have been no deauthorizations under this authority since 2009.
24 CRS has no data indicating that studies have been deauthorized through this process in recent years.
Congressional Research Service
12
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
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 project-specific congressional
study or construction authorization or project-specific appropriations; these activities are
performed at the discretion of the Corps. For most CAP authorities, Congress has limited the
project size and scope as shown in Table 3.25 The CAPs typically are referred to by the section
number in the bill in which the CAP was first authorized. WRRDA 2014 requires the Assistant
Secretary of the Army to publish prioritization criteria for the CAPs and an annual CAP report.26
Technical Assistance
Congress also has 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 3. Select Corps Continuing Authorities Programs (CAP) for Small Projects
(in $ millions)
Common
Per-
Annual
Name of
Max. Federal
Project
Federal
FY2013
the CAP
Construction
Federal Program
Work
Authority Eligible Activities
Cost Share
Limit
Limit
Plan
FY2014 FY2015
§14 Streambank
and
65% $5
$20
$10.1
$4.0
$4.5
shoreline erosion of
public works and
nonprofit services
§103 Beach
erosion/
65% $5
$30
$0
$2.5
$1.3
hurricane storm
damage reduction
§107 Navigation
Commercial
$10 $50 $0 $4.7
$2.4
improvements
navigation
varies (see
Table 2); 50%
for
recreational
§111 Prevention/mitigation
Same as the
$10 Not $0.5 $1.3 $0.7
of shore damage by
project causing
Applicable
federal navigation
the damage
projects
§204, §207, Regional sediment
65% $10
$50
$3.8
$7.0
$3.5
§993
management/beneficial
use of dredged material
25 There is also an authority under 33 U.S.C. §610 for the Corps to control noxious aquatic plant growths at a 70%
federal and 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.
26 The Corps has published implementation guidance for this provision; however, no Federal Register publication or
annual report was available as of July 2015.
Congressional Research Service
13
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Common
Per-
Annual
Name of
Max. Federal
Project
Federal
FY2013
the CAP
Construction
Federal Program
Work
Authority Eligible
Activities
Cost Share
Limit
Limit
Plan
FY2014 FY2015
§205 Flood
control
65% $10 $55
$10.5
$15.0
$10.0
§206 Aquatic
ecosystem
65% $10
$50
$19.7
$8.0
$8.0
restoration
§208 Removal
of
65% $0.5
$7.5
$0
$0
$0
obstructions, clearing
channels for flood
control
§1135 Project
modifications
75% $10
$40
$10.4
$10.5
$6.6
for improvement of the
environment
Sources: CRS, using Corps Work Plans for FY2013; Rules Committee Print 113-32 accompanying Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76); explanatory statement accompanying Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235).
Table 4. Corps Technical Assistance Authorities
(in $ millions)
Max.
Per-
Annual
Federal
Project
Federal
FY2013
Activities
Cost
Federal
Program
Work
Program
Authorized
Share
Limit
Limit
Plan
FY2014 FY2015
Planning
Technical assistance to
varies $5.0
$30 for
$6.1 $4.0 $5.0
Assistance
states and communities
annual y
state
to States
for regional water
per state
assistance
resources planning, and
for state
eligible levee system
assistance
$15 for
evaluations of federally
technical
authorized levees
assistance
Flood Plain
Technical assistance on
100% for
Not
$50 $14.2 $8.0 $8.0
Management flood and floodplain
eligible
Applicable
Service
issues
activities
Tribal
Studies of water
50%
$1.0
Not
$0.7 $2.5 $1.0
Partnership
projects that benefit
Applicable
Program
Indian tribes
Sources: CRS, using Corps Work Plans for FY2013; Rules Committee Print 113-32, accompanying
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76); explanatory statement accompanying Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235).
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 a
presidential emergency declaration. Under the National Response Framework, the Corps
Congressional Research Service
14
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
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. The agency 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. Corps’ funding for
these activities is provided through FEMA appropriations, often through supplemental
appropriations.27
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
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.28 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). The Corps also has some authorities to assist with select activities during
drought.29
Most of the Corps disaster response work (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 to
transfer money from ongoing Corps projects to emergency operations (33 U.S.C. §701n).
27 For more on the Corps deployable emergency resources and expertise, see CRS Report R43560, Deployable Federal
Assets Supporting Domestic Disaster Response Operations: Summary and Considerations for Congress, coordinated
by Jared T. Brown.
28 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).
29 The Corps has authority to assist in the provision and transport of emergency water supplies when state resources
have been exceeded and there is an imminent public health threat. While the Corps is authorized to assist political
subdivisions, farmers, and ranchers with non-irrigation water, this authority largely has been used for assisting tribes
with drinking water supplies. The agency can construct wells and transport water to provide emergency drinking water
during drought conditions. Corps assistance is provided only to meet minimum public health and welfare requirements
in the immediate future that cannot be met by state or local actions or through reasonable conservation measures.
Transport expenses are nonreimbursable expenses (i.e., 100% federal); the purchase or acquisition of the water and the
storage facility at the terminal point and permanent water facilities are reimbursable expenses. This authority cannot be
used for the provision of water for livestock, irrigation, recreation, or commercial/industrial use. Eligible entities are
limited to drought-distressed political subdivisions, farmers, and ranchers. A governor, his/her representative, or the
governing body of a tribe must make a written request for Corps assistance. The Corps makes the determination that an
area has an inadequate water supply causing, or likely to cause, a substantial threat to the health and welfare of the
inhabitants of the area. Funding is provided through the Corps’ Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Account. The
Corps has authority to reprogram its civil works funds to accomplish work under this authority. The agency also has
authority to participate in temporary contracts to provide limited quantities of water (if available) for municipal and
industrial purposes (33 U.S.C. §708).
Congressional Research Service
15
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
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. 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.30 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.31 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.
For locally constructed projects, 80% of the cost to repair the damage is paid using federal funds
and 20% by the levee owner. 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.
Environmental Infrastructure/Municipal Water and
Wastewater Projects
Since 1992 Congress has authorized and provided for Corps assistance with design and
construction of municipal drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. These projects
have included treatment facilities such as recycling and desalination plants; distribution and
collection works such as stormwater collection and recycled water distribution; and surface water
protection and development projects. These projects are broadly labeled environmental
infrastructure at the Corps. 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 and others32 as a low priority for the
Corps in part because other agencies have programs for which these projects may be eligible
(e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s state revolving funds). However, recent drought
conditions in the west have increased interest in environmental infrastructure as a source of
federal support for augmenting municipal water supplies.
30 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.
31 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. WRRDA 2014 provided congressional direction regarding updating
and content of guidance associated with vegetation on levees. This and other environmental issues associated with
levee maintenance are beyond the scope of this report.
32 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 Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Most Corps environmental infrastructure projects are authorized for a specific geographic
location (e.g., city, county, multiple counties) 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.
The Corps’ involvement and nonfederal financing varies according to the specifics of the
authorization. Most Corps environmental infrastructure financing is 75% federal and 25%
nonfederal; however, some of the authorities are for 65% federal and 35% nonfederal cost
sharing. 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.
Since 1992, Congress has authorized the Corps to contribute to more than 400 of these projects
and to state and regional programs, with authorizations of appropriations totaling more than $5
billion. WRRDA 2014 expanded authorizations and authorization of appropriations for specific
environmental infrastructure activities in multiple states. 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). The Administration did not fund any environmental
infrastructure activities in its FY2013 work plan. Congress recommended $44 million for these
projects in FY2014 and $50 million for FY2015 in the explanatory statements accompanying the
appropriations bill.
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, a
feasibility report is not produced). The projects, however, are subject to federal laws, such as the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Congressional Research Service
17
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
Appendix. Evolution of Corps Civil Works Mission
The Corps’ oldest civil responsibilities are creating and regulating 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.33 The Water Supply Act of 1958
(43 U.S.C. §390b) gave the Corps authority to include some reservoir storage for municipal and
industrial water supply in reservoir projects at 100% nonfederal cost.
Corps Regulatory Activities: Permits and Their Authorities
The Corps has several 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 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. §1344), which requires a permit for
dredging or filling activities into waters of the United States. Since the mid-1960s, court decisions and administrative
actions have altered the jurisdictional reach of the Corps’ regulatory program, and in June 2015, the Corps and the
Environmental Protection Agency jointly promulgated revised rules to define the regulatory scope of CWA
jurisdiction under Section 404 and other provisions of that act. For more information, see CRS Report R43455, EPA
and the Army Corps’ Rule to Define “Waters of the United States”, by Claudia Copeland and CRS Report 97-223, The
Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permits Program: Issues and Regulatory Developments, by Claudia Copeland. The
Corps also regulates and authorizes disposal of materials into the ocean under the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA; 33 U.S.C. §§1401-1455); for more information, see CRS Report RS20028, Ocean Dumping
Act: A Summary of the Law, by Claudia Copeland.
33 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
18
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
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
required federal agencies to evaluate potential effects of actions on floodplains and to minimize
impacts on wetlands.
Environmental Mission and Local Responsibility (1986-2000)
Congress fundamentally transformed the rules for Corps water project planning and funding
through WRDA 1986 (33 U.S.C. §2211); it established new cost-share formulas, resulting in
greater financial and decision-making roles for local stakeholders. WRDA 1986 reestablished the
tradition of biennial consideration of an omnibus Corps civil works authorization bill. 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 gave the Corps an
aquatic ecosystem restoration and environmental protection mission.
Evolving Demands and Processes (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, Ike, and Sandy and significant floods in the Midwest. This approach
emphasizes a greater appreciation 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
Congressional Research Service
19
Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities
response, infrastructure repair, and post-disaster recovery. WRRDA 2014 expanded opportunities
for nonfederal participation in project delivery and financing and aimed to improve the efficiency
of Corps planning activities.
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
20