Army Corps of Engineers: FY2017 Appropriations

Army Corps of Engineers: FY2017 Appropriations

link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 2

February 22, 2016
Army Corps of Engineers: FY2017 Appropriations
The Energy and Water Development bill provides funding
Figure 2. Corps Funding by Account, FY2012-FY2017
for the civil program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
EXPENSES & ASA
(Corps), an agency in the Department of Defense with both
Bu
B d
u g
d e
g t
t Aut
Au h
t o
h ri
o t
ri y
t
y (
no
n mi
o
n
mi al
n
al $ in
$ i
n bi
b lillilo
i n
o s
n )
military and civilian responsibilities. Under its civil works
program, the Corps plans, builds, operates, and maintains a
$6.0
REGULATORY
wide range of water resources facilities. The Corps attracts
congressional attention in part because its projects can have
$5.0
FLOOD CONTROL AND
significant local and regional economic benefits and
COASTAL
environmental effects, in addition to their water resource
$4.0
EMERGENCIES
FUSRAP
development purposes. Corps appropriations generally are
authorized in water resources development acts. Most
$3.0
recently, Congress enacted a water resources development
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND
TRIBS.
act in June 2014, the Water Resources Reform and
$2.0
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121).
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE
$1.0
In most years, the President’s budget request for the Corps
CONSTRUCTION
is below the agency’s enacted appropriations. For FY2016,
Congress appropriated almost $6 billion for the Corps,
$0.0
q
INVESTIGATIONS
more than $1 billion more than the requested amount. The
12Y
13
14
15
16
F
YF
YF
YF
YF
Re
President’s FY2017 request for the Corps was $4.6 billion.
17Y
Recent trends in budgeted and enacted amounts are shown
F

below in Figure 1.
Source: CRS, with data from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Notes: ASA = Assistant Secretary of the Army. FUSRAP = Formerly
Figure 1. Requested and Appropriated Corps Funding,
Used Sites Remedial Action Program.
FY2003-FY2017
Earmarks and “Additional Funding” Categories
Budget Authority (nominal $ in billions)
Corps funding is part of the debate over congressionally
$6.0
directed spending, or earmarks. Unlike highways and
municipal water infrastructure, federal funds for the Corps
$5.0
are not distributed to states or projects based on formula or
competitive grants. About 85% of appropriations for Corps
$4.0
civil works activities are for specific projects. Historically,
Congress identified Corps projects to receive funding
$3.0
during the discretionary appropriations process in addition
to those projects identified for funding in the President’s
$2.0
budget. Since the 112th Congress, site-specific project line
items added by Congress (i.e., earmarks) have been subject
$1.0
to House and Senate earmark moratorium policies. As a
result, Congress generally has not added funding at the
$0.0
project level since that time.
03
05
07
09
11
13
15
qe
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
R
In lieu of traditional project-based increases, Congress has
17
included additional funding for select categories of Corps
Annual Appropriation
Budget Request
FY
projects within each account (e.g., additional funding for
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), with data from the
navigation work in the Construction account) and provided
Army Corps of Engineers.
direction and limitations on the use of these funds. As
shown in Figure 3, Congress has increased funding for
Corps Budget Request Structure
these projects in recent years, and it provided more than
$1.3 billion for these projects in FY2016. The Corps
Corps funding typically is requested at the account level,
typically reports on its plans for this funding in work plans
with the two largest accounts being Operations and
released several months after appropriations are enacted.
Maintenance (O&M) and Construction. The Corps also
sometimes submits its request by business lines (e.g.,
navigation, flood control, etc.). Figure 2 compares recent
Corps funding totals at the account level.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 2 link to page 2 Army Corps of Engineers: FY2017 Appropriations
Figure 3. Additional Funding Appropriations for
value) from importers and domestic shippers using coastal
FY2012-FY2016
and Great Lakes ports. HMTF funds are made available by
Congress for certain cost-shared O&M expenses at U.S.
Budget Authority (nominal $ in millions)
coastal and Great Lakes harbors. These expenses include
$1,400
dredging of harbor channels to their authorized depths and
widths.
$1,200
In recent years, HMTF expenditures have remained flat and
Harbor Maintenance Tax collections have increased due to
$1,000
OPERATIONS AND
rising import volume. Consequently, a large surplus has
MAINTENANCE
developed in the HMTF. WRRDA 2014 included changes
$800
that sought to increase HMTF spending to levels based on
MISSISSIPPI RIVER &
targeted percentages of HMTF collections (but only if this
$600
TRIBUTARIES
funding would not detract from available funding for other
Corps activities). For FY2017, the President’s requested
$400
appropriation from the HMTF was $951 million, or
CONSTRUCTION
considerably less than the WRRDA targeted level of 71%
$200
of the annual harbor maintenance taxes expected (an
estimated $1.19 billion). Previously, final enacted
INVESTIGATIONS
appropriations for FY2016 exceeded the WRRDA 2014
$0
FY2012 FY2013^ FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
HMTF target, providing $1.282 billion.
Sources: FY2012 and FY2014-FY2016 figures based on data from
conference reports for enacted appropriations from FY2012 to
Inland Waterways Trust Fund
FY2016. FY2013 figure is a CRS estimate based on data in the Corps
Work Plan for FY2013.
Most expenditures for construction and major rehabilitation
Note: FY2013 funds were provided under a long-term continuing
projects on federal inland waterways are cost shared on a
resolution at the FY2012 enacted level, minus additional reductions
50-50 basis between the federal government and users
for sequestration.
through the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). IWTF
monies derive from a fuel tax on commercial vessels on
Key Issues
federal waterways, plus investment interest on the balance.
Project Backlog and New Starts
Since FY2009, there has been a shortfall in the IWTF. To
ensure trust fund solvency, beginning at that time Congress
The large number of authorized Corps studies and projects
limited IWTF expenditures to the amount available under
that have not received appropriations to date (or that
current-year fuel tax revenues. In an effort to make more
received funding but are incomplete) is often referred to as
funding available for these projects, WRRDA 2014
the backlog of authorized projects. Estimates of the
significantly reduced the IWTF cost share required for one
construction backlog range from $20 billion to $80 billion,
large project (the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project) and
depending on which projects are included. The backlog
increased the cost ceiling (from $8 million to $20 million)
increases congressional attention on proposals for new
for minor rehabilitation projects that can be fully funded by
studies and construction starts (known as new starts).
the General Fund (i.e., reducing IWTF requirements).
Additionally, P.L. 113-295 (enacted on December 19,
Table 1. Corps New Starts
2014) included among its provisions a $0.09 per gallon
increase in the inland waterways fuel tax, resulting in a
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
barge fuel tax of $0.29 per gallon as of April 2015. These

Request
changes increased revenues accruing to the IWTF, but they
Studies
9
10
10
0
do not guarantee increased spending; that outcome can only
come from congressional appropriations.
Construction
4
4
6
1
Sources: Conference reports for enacted appropriations legislation
Unlike the aforementioned HMTF changes, WRRDA 2014
and Corps of Engineers budget requests
did not set targets in law for IWTF spending. The
President’s FY2017 request for IWTF funding was $45
million, which was significantly less than the FY2016
Enacted appropriations for FY2011-FY2013 barred any
enacted level of $108 million and less than half of the
funding from being used for new starts. As shown in Table
revenues expected to accrue to the trust fund in FY2017.
1, enacted appropriations since that time have allowed for
limited new studies and construction. The Administration’s
FY2017 budget requested funding for one new construction
Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
project and no new studies.
IF10361
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
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: FY2017 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 | IF10361 · VERSION 2 · NEW