Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 2 
Updated February 11, 2016
Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
Overview
Maintenance and Construction. The Corps also sometimes
The Energy and Water Development bill provides funding
depicts its request by business lines (e.g., navigation, flood
for the civil program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
control). Figure 2 shows recent Corps funding totals at the
(Corps), an agency in the Department of Defense with both
account level.
military and civilian responsibilities. Under its civil works
program, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and maintains a
Figure 2. Enacted Corps Funding by Account, FY2009-
wide range of water resources facilities. The Corps attracts
FY2016
congressional attention in part because its projects can have
significant local and regional economic benefits and
Bu
B d
u g
d et
g
et Aut
Au h
t o
h ri
o t
ri y
t
y (
no
n m
o i
m n
i al
n
al $ in
$ i
n bi
b lillilo
i n
o s
n )
environmental effects, in addition to their water resource
development purposes. Corps appropriations generally are
$6.0
EXPENSES & ASA
authorized in water resources development acts. Most
recently, Congress enacted a new water resources
$5.0
REGULATORY
development act in June 2014, the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-
FLOOD CONTROL AND
$4.0
121).
COASTAL EMERGENCIES
FUSRAP
In most years, the President’s budget request for the Corps
$3.0
is below the agency’s enacted appropriation. For FY2015,
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND
TRIBS.
Congress appropriated $5.5 billion for the Corps, almost $1
$2.0
billion more than the requested amount. The President’
OPERATIONS &
s
MAINTENANCE
FY2016 request for the Corps was $4.7 billion, and the final
$1.0
CONSTRUCTION
FY2016 enacted appropriation was almost $6 billion.
Recent trends in budgeted and enacted amounts are shown
$0.0
INVESTIGATIONS
in Figure 1.
09Y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
F
YF YF YF YF YF YF YF
Figure 1. Requested and Appropriated Corps Funding,
FY2001-FY2016
Source: Congressional Research Service, with data from the Army
Corps of Engineers.
Budget Authority (nominal $ in billions)
$6.0
Earmarks and “Additional Funding” Categories
$5.0
Corps funding is part of the debate over congressionally
directed spending, or earmarks. Unlike highways and
$4.0
municipal water infrastructure, federal funds for the Corps
are not distributed to states or projects based on a formula
$3.0
or competitive grants. About 85% of appropriations for
Corps civil works activities are for specific projects. In
$2.0
addition to specific projects identified for funding in the
President’s budget, historically Congress identified
$1.0
additional Corps projects to receive funding during the
discretionary appropriations process. In the 112th Congress,
$0.0
site-specific project line items added by Congress (i.e.,
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
earmarks) became subject to House and Senate earmark
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
moratorium policies. As a result, Congress generally has
Annual Appropriation
Budget Request
not added funding at the project level since that time.
Source: Congressional Research Service, with data from the Army
In lieu of traditional project-based increases, Congress has
Corps of Engineers.
included “additional funding” for select categories of Corps
projects within each account (e.g., additional funding for
“navigation work” in the construction account) and
provided direction and limitations on the use of these funds.
Corps Budget Request Structure
As shown in Figure 3, Congress has increased funding for
these projects in recent years, and most recently provided
Corps funding typically is requested at the account level,
more than $1.3 billion for these projects in FY2016. The
with the two largest accounts being Operations and
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
Corps typically reports on its plans for this funding in
value) from importers and domestic shippers using coastal
“work plans” released several months after appropriations
and Great Lakes ports. HMTF funds are made available by
are enacted.
Congress for certain cost-shared operation and maintenance
(O&M) expenses at U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors.
Figure 3. Additional Funding for Ongoing Work:
This includes dredging of harbor channels to their
Enacted Appropriations for FY2012-FY2016
authorized depths and widths.
Budget Authority (nominal $ in millions)
In recent years, HMTF expenditures have remained flat
$1,400
while Harbor Maintenance Tax collections have increased
due to rising import volume. Consequently, a large surplus
has developed in the HMTF. WRRDA 2014 included
$1,200
changes that sought to increase HMTF spending to levels
based on “targeted” percentages of HMTF collections (but
$1,000
OPERATIONS AND
only if this funding does not come at the expense of
MAINTENANCE
available funding for other Corps activities). For FY2016,
$800
the President’s requested appropriation for the HMTF was
MISSISSIPPI RIVER &
$915 million, or considerably less than the FY2016
$600
TRIBUTARIES
WRRDA targeted level of 69% of harbor maintenance taxes
expected for FY2016 (an estimated $1.07 billion). Final
$400
enacted appropriations for FY2016 exceeded the WRRDA
CONSTRUCTION
HMTF target, providing $1.282 billion.
$200
Inland Waterways Trust Fund
INVESTIGATIONS
$0
FY2012 FY2013^ FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Expenditures for construction and major rehabilitation
Source: FY2012 and FY2014-FY2016 based on data from enacted
projects on inland waterways are cost shared on a 50-50
conference reports from FY2012-FY2016. FY2012 based on CRS
basis between the federal government and users through the
estimates.
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). IWTF monies
derive from a fuel tax on commercial vessels on designated
Notes: FY2013 funds were provided under a long-term continuing
waterways, plus investment interest on the balance.
resolution at the FY2012 enacted level, minus additional reductions
for sequestration. There was no breakdown of “additional funds”
Since FY2009, there has been a shortfall in the IWTF. To
provided by Congress, thus this figure represents a CRS estimate.
ensure trust fund solvency, in recent years, Congress
limited IWTF expenditures to the amount available under
Key Policy Issues
current-year fuel tax revenues. In an effort to make more
funding available for these projects, legislation enacted in
Project Backlog and New Starts
2014 altered IWTF financing. First, WRRDA 2014
significantly reduced the IWTF cost share required for one
The large number of authorized Corps studies and projects
large project (the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project) and
that have not received appropriations to date, or that have
increased in the ceiling on rehabilitation projects that can be
received funding but are incomplete, is often referred to as
funded from the General Fund from $8 million to $20
the backlog of authorized projects. Estimates of the
million. P.L. 113-295 (enacted on December 19, 2014)
construction backlog range from $20 billion to more than
included among its provisions a $0.09 per gallon increase in
$80 billion, depending on which projects are included. The
the inland waterways fuel tax, making the overall barge fuel
backlog raises policy questions, such as which activities to
tax $0.29 per gallon. The latter change is expected to
fund among authorized activities. It also increases
increase revenues accruing to the IWTF; however, it does
congressional attention on the budget for new Corps studies
not guarantee increased expenditures (which must come
and new construction starts (also known as new starts).
from congressional appropriations).
Enacted appropriations for FY2011-FY2013 barred funding
The President’s FY2016 budget request for funding from
for new projects that had not previously received
the IWTF was $53 million, which was significantly less
appropriations. FY2014 enacted appropriations allowed for
than the FY2015 enacted level. FY2016 enacted
9 new start studies and 4 new construction starts, and the
appropriations provided $108 million from the IWTF, an
FY2015 enacted bill allowed 10 new study starts and 4 new
amount roughly equal to anticipated IWTF receipts for
construction starts. Enacted appropriations for FY2016
FY2016.
approved 10 new studies and 6 new construction projects.
Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
IF10176
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) receives
Harbor Maintenance Taxes (12.5 cents per $100 of cargo
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10176 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
Updated February 11, 2016
Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
Overview
Maintenance and Construction. The Corps also sometimes
The Energy and Water Development bill provides funding
depicts its request by business lines (e.g., navigation, flood
for the civil program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
control). Figure 2 shows recent Corps funding totals at the
(Corps), an agency in the Department of Defense with both
account level.
military and civilian responsibilities. Under its civil works
program, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and maintains a
Figure 2. Enacted Corps Funding by Account, FY2009-
wide range of water resources facilities. The Corps attracts
FY2016
congressional attention in part because its projects can have
significant local and regional economic benefits and
Bu
B d
u g
d et
g
et Aut
Au h
t o
h ri
o t
ri y
t
y (
no
n m
o i
m n
i al
n
al $ in
$ i
n bi
b lillilo
i n
o s
n )
environmental effects, in addition to their water resource
development purposes. Corps appropriations generally are
$6.0
EXPENSES & ASA
authorized in water resources development acts. Most
recently, Congress enacted a new water resources
$5.0
REGULATORY
development act in June 2014, the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-
FLOOD CONTROL AND
$4.0
121).
COASTAL EMERGENCIES
FUSRAP
In most years, the President’s budget request for the Corps
$3.0
is below the agency’s enacted appropriation. For FY2015,
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND
TRIBS.
Congress appropriated $5.5 billion for the Corps, almost $1
$2.0
billion more than the requested amount. The President’
OPERATIONS &
s
MAINTENANCE
FY2016 request for the Corps was $4.7 billion, and the final
$1.0
CONSTRUCTION
FY2016 enacted appropriation was almost $6 billion.
Recent trends in budgeted and enacted amounts are shown
$0.0
INVESTIGATIONS
in Figure 1.
09Y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
F
YF YF YF YF YF YF YF
Figure 1. Requested and Appropriated Corps Funding,
FY2001-FY2016
Source: Congressional Research Service, with data from the Army
Corps of Engineers.
Budget Authority (nominal $ in billions)
$6.0
Earmarks and “Additional Funding” Categories
$5.0
Corps funding is part of the debate over congressionally
directed spending, or earmarks. Unlike highways and
$4.0
municipal water infrastructure, federal funds for the Corps
are not distributed to states or projects based on a formula
$3.0
or competitive grants. About 85% of appropriations for
Corps civil works activities are for specific projects. In
$2.0
addition to specific projects identified for funding in the
President’s budget, historically Congress identified
$1.0
additional Corps projects to receive funding during the
discretionary appropriations process. In the 112th Congress,
$0.0
site-specific project line items added by Congress (i.e.,
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
earmarks) became subject to House and Senate earmark
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
moratorium policies. As a result, Congress generally has
Annual Appropriation
Budget Request
not added funding at the project level since that time.
Source: Congressional Research Service, with data from the Army
In lieu of traditional project-based increases, Congress has
Corps of Engineers.
included “additional funding” for select categories of Corps
projects within each account (e.g., additional funding for
“navigation work” in the construction account) and
provided direction and limitations on the use of these funds.
Corps Budget Request Structure
As shown in Figure 3, Congress has increased funding for
these projects in recent years, and most recently provided
Corps funding typically is requested at the account level,
more than $1.3 billion for these projects in FY2016. The
with the two largest accounts being Operations and
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
Corps typically reports on its plans for this funding in
value) from importers and domestic shippers using coastal
“work plans” released several months after appropriations
and Great Lakes ports. HMTF funds are made available by
are enacted.
Congress for certain cost-shared operation and maintenance
(O&M) expenses at U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors.
Figure 3. Additional Funding for Ongoing Work:
This includes dredging of harbor channels to their
Enacted Appropriations for FY2012-FY2016
authorized depths and widths.
Budget Authority (nominal $ in millions)
In recent years, HMTF expenditures have remained flat
$1,400
while Harbor Maintenance Tax collections have increased
due to rising import volume. Consequently, a large surplus
has developed in the HMTF. WRRDA 2014 included
$1,200
changes that sought to increase HMTF spending to levels
based on “targeted” percentages of HMTF collections (but
$1,000
OPERATIONS AND
only if this funding does not come at the expense of
MAINTENANCE
available funding for other Corps activities). For FY2016,
$800
the President’s requested appropriation for the HMTF was
MISSISSIPPI RIVER &
$915 million, or considerably less than the FY2016
$600
TRIBUTARIES
WRRDA targeted level of 69% of harbor maintenance taxes
expected for FY2016 (an estimated $1.07 billion). Final
$400
enacted appropriations for FY2016 exceeded the WRRDA
CONSTRUCTION
HMTF target, providing $1.282 billion.
$200
Inland Waterways Trust Fund
INVESTIGATIONS
$0
FY2012 FY2013^ FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Expenditures for construction and major rehabilitation
Source: FY2012 and FY2014-FY2016 based on data from enacted
projects on inland waterways are cost shared on a 50-50
conference reports from FY2012-FY2016. FY2012 based on CRS
basis between the federal government and users through the
estimates.
Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). IWTF monies
derive from a fuel tax on commercial vessels on designated
Notes: FY2013 funds were provided under a long-term continuing
waterways, plus investment interest on the balance.
resolution at the FY2012 enacted level, minus additional reductions
for sequestration. There was no breakdown of “additional funds”
Since FY2009, there has been a shortfall in the IWTF. To
provided by Congress, thus this figure represents a CRS estimate.
ensure trust fund solvency, in recent years, Congress
limited IWTF expenditures to the amount available under
Key Policy Issues
current-year fuel tax revenues. In an effort to make more
funding available for these projects, legislation enacted in
Project Backlog and New Starts
2014 altered IWTF financing. First, WRRDA 2014
significantly reduced the IWTF cost share required for one
The large number of authorized Corps studies and projects
large project (the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project) and
that have not received appropriations to date, or that have
increased in the ceiling on rehabilitation projects that can be
received funding but are incomplete, is often referred to as
funded from the General Fund from $8 million to $20
the backlog of authorized projects. Estimates of the
million. P.L. 113-295 (enacted on December 19, 2014)
construction backlog range from $20 billion to more than
included among its provisions a $0.09 per gallon increase in
$80 billion, depending on which projects are included. The
the inland waterways fuel tax, making the overall barge fuel
backlog raises policy questions, such as which activities to
tax $0.29 per gallon. The latter change is expected to
fund among authorized activities. It also increases
increase revenues accruing to the IWTF; however, it does
congressional attention on the budget for new Corps studies
not guarantee increased expenditures (which must come
and new construction starts (also known as new starts).
from congressional appropriations).
Enacted appropriations for FY2011-FY2013 barred funding
The President’s FY2016 budget request for funding from
for new projects that had not previously received
the IWTF was $53 million, which was significantly less
appropriations. FY2014 enacted appropriations allowed for
than the FY2015 enacted level. FY2016 enacted
9 new start studies and 4 new construction starts, and the
appropriations provided $108 million from the IWTF, an
FY2015 enacted bill allowed 10 new study starts and 4 new
amount roughly equal to anticipated IWTF receipts for
construction starts. Enacted appropriations for FY2016
FY2016.
approved 10 new studies and 6 new construction projects.
Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
IF10176
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) receives
Harbor Maintenance Taxes (12.5 cents per $100 of cargo
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Army Corps of Engineers: FY2016 Appropriations
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10176 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED