Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

November 6, 2019 – April 7, 2023 R45997

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: April 7, 2023
Structural Features and Function
Julie M. Lawhorn
This report describes the structure, activities, legislative history, and funding history of
Analyst in Economic
the eight federal regional commissions and authorities:
Development Policy

 the Appalachian Regional Commission;
 the Delta Regional Authority;

 the Denali Commission;
 the Great Lakes Authority;
 the Northern Border Regional Commission;
 the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority;
 the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission; and the
 Southwest Border Regional Commission.
All eight regional commissions and authorities are modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission
structure, which is composed of a federal co-chair appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate, and the member state governors, of which one is appointed the state co-chair. This structure is broadly
replicated in the other commissions and authorities, albeit with notable variations and exceptions to local contexts.
In addition, the service areas for all of the federal regional commissions and authorities are defined in statute and
thus can only be amended or modified through congressional action. While the exact service areas have shifted
over time, the general areas of service, as well as the services provided, have not changed significantly.
Of the eight federal regional commissions and authorities, five could be considered active and functioning as of
the date of publication: the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali
Commission; Northern Border Regional Commission; and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission. A sixth
commission—the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC)—is expected to convene members and start
operations in FY2023. The Great Lakes Authority is inactive since it does not have a federal co-chair and has not
yet received appropriations. The funding authorization Northern Great Plans Regional Authority lapsed at the end
of FY2018 and it was not reauthorized.
The regional commissions and Delta Regional Authority each received $20 million to $200 million in annual
appropriations in FY2023 for their various activities. Each of the five functioning regional commissions and
authority engage in economic development to varying extents, and address multiple programmatic activities in
their respective service areas. These activities may include, but are not limited to, basic infrastructure; energy;
ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business development/entrepreneurship.
Though they are federally chartered, receive congressional appropriations for their administration and activities,
and include an appointed federal representative in their respective leadership structures (the federal co-chair and
his/her alternate, as applicable), the federal regional commissions and authorities are quasi-governmental
partnerships between the federal government and the constituent state(s) of a given authority or commission. This
partnership structure includes substantial input and efforts at the sub-state level, and represents a unique federal
approach to economic development.
The federal regional commissions and authorities provide a model of functioning economic development
approaches that are place-based, intergovernmental, and multifaceted in their programmatic orientation (e.g.,
infrastructure, energy, environment/ecology, workforce, business development).
Congressional Research Service

link to page 45 link to page 46 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Introduction
Congress authorized eight federal regional commissions and authorities to address instances of
major economic distress in certain defined socioeconomic regions (Table A-1):
 the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC);
 the Delta Regional Authority (DRA);
 the Denali Commission;
 the Great Lakes Authority (GLA);
 the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC);
 the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA);
 the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC); and
 the Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC).
The first such federal regional commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, was founded
in 1965. The other commissions and authorities may have roots in the intervening decades, but
were not founded until 1998 (Denali), 2000 (Delta Regional Authority), and 2002 (the Northern
Great Plains Regional Authority). The most recent commissions—Northern Border Regional
Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and Southwest Border Regional
Commission—were authorized in 2008; the Great Lakes Authority was authorized in 2022.
Six of the eight entities currently receive annual appropriations: ARC, DRA, the Denali
Commission, the NBRC, the SBRC, and the SCRC. Both the SCRC and SBRC were inactive
until relatively recently. The SCRC received regular annual appropriations since FY2010, but
lacked a Senate-confirmed federal co-chair until December 2021. The SBRC was also inactive for
approximately 15 years, and received its first appropriation in FY2021. In December 2022, the
Senate confirmed the SBRC’s inaugural federal co-chair. Confirmation of these federal co-chairs
allows these two commissions to convene and begin their activities.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to
establish the GLA.1 The GLA does not yet have a federal co-chair. The NGPRA and GLA are
currently inactive and have not received appropriations.
The federal regional commissions are functioning examples of place-based and intergovernmental
approaches to economic development, which receive regular congressional interest.2 The federal
regional commissions and authorities integrate federal and state economic development priorities
alongside regional and local considerations (Figure A-1). As federally chartered agencies created
by acts of Congress, the federal regional commissions and authorities depend on congressional
appropriations for their activities and administration, and are subject to congressional oversight.
Certain strategic emphases and programs have evolved over time in each of the functioning
federal regional commissions and authorities. However, their overarching missions to address

1 Division O, Title IV, Sec. 401 of P.L. 117-328.
2 See, for example, recent congressional interest and legislative action on new place-based programs such as the
Department of Commerce Recompete and Technology and Innovation Hub programs (authorized in FY2022 by P.L.
117-167); Opportunity Zones (CRS Report R45152, Tax Incentives for Opportunity Zones, by Donald J. Marples); and
New Market Tax Credits (CRS Report RL34402, New Markets Tax Credit: An Introduction, by Donald J. Marples),
and previous federal and congressional action on “Promise Zones” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Promise Zones Overview, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zones-
overview/); as well as various legislation relating to the federal regional commissions and authorities themselves.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 7

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

economic distress have not changed, and their associated activities have broadly remained
consistent to those goals as funding has allowed. In practice, the functioning federal regional
commissions and authorities engage in their respective economic development efforts through
multiple program areas, which may include, but are not limited to basic infrastructure; energy;
ecology/environment and natural resources; workforce; and business
development/entrepreneurship. This report describes the structure, recent activities, legislative
history, and funding history of eight federally chartered regional commissions and authorities.
Appalachian Regional Commission
The Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965 to address economic distress in
the Appalachian region.3 The ARC’s jurisdiction spans 423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (Figure 1). The ARC was originally created to
address severe economic disparities between Appalachia and that of the broader United States;
recently, its mission has grown to include regional competitiveness in a global economic
environment.
Figure 1. Map of the Appalachian Regional Commission
ARC service area, by designations of county distress, FY2023

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying
Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties, https://www.arc.gov/classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-
counties.

3 40 U.S.C. §§14101-14704.
Congressional Research Service

2

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
According to the authorizing legislation, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended,4 the ARC is a federally chartered, regional economic development entity led by a
federal co-chair, whose term is open-ended, and the 13 participating state governors, of which one
serves as the state co-chair for a term of “at least one year.”5 The federal co-chair is appointed by
the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The authorizing act also allows for the
appointment of federal and state alternates to the commission. The ARC is a federal-state
partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal government and member
states, while economic development activities are funded by congressional appropriations.
Strategic Plan
According to authorizing legislation and the ARC code,6 the ARC’s programs abide by a
Regional Development Plan (RDP), which includes documents prepared by the states and the
commission. The RDP is comprised of the ARC’s strategic plan, its bylaws, member state
development plans, each participating state’s annual strategy statement, the commission’s annual
program budget, and the commission’s internal implementation and performance management
guidelines.
The RDP integrates local, state, and federal economic development priorities into a common
regional agenda. Through state plans and annual work statements, states establish goals,
priorities, and agendas for fulfilling them. State planning typically includes consulting with local
development districts (LDDs), which are multicounty organizations that are associated with and
financially supported by the ARC and advise on local priorities.7
There are 74 ARC-associated LDDs. They may be conduits for funding for other eligible
organizations, and may also themselves be ARC grantees.8 State and local governments,
governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations are eligible for ARC investments, including
both federal- and state-designated tribal entities. Notably, state-designated tribal entities that are
not federally recognized (or “lack federal recognition”) are nevertheless eligible to receive ARC
funding. This is rare, as usually federal funding requires federal recognition.9

4 P.L. 89-4.
5 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC Code, 2022, https://www.arc.gov/arc-code.
6 Ibid. The ARC Code reflects ARC decisions and current ARC policy. The ARC Code is a statement of ARC
decisions adopted through resolutions and motions. Under Section 101(b) of the Appalachian Regional Development
Act (ARDA), the ARC Code cannot be modified or revised without a quorum of governors.
7 LDDs are not exclusive to the ARC. The DRA and NBRC also make use of them, and other inactive commissions and
authorities are authorized to organize and/or support them. Designated LDDs may also be organized as Economic
Development Administration (EDA)-designated economic development districts (EDDs), which serve a similar
purpose. They may also be co-located with Small Business Administration-affiliated small business development
centers (SBDCs).
8 Appalachian Regional Commission, Local Development Districts, https://www.arc.gov/local-development-districts/.
9 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Issues: Federal Funding for Non-Federally Recognized Tribes,
12-348, April 2012, https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590102.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

3

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

ARC’s strategic plan is a five-year document, reviewed annually, and revised as necessary. The
current strategic plan, adopted in October 2021,10 prioritizes five investment goals:
1. entrepreneurial and business development;
2. workforce development;
3. infrastructure development;
4. natural and cultural assets; and
5. leadership and community capacity.
The ARC’s 13 member states also develop four-year plans and annual strategy statements that
outline their states’ funding priorities for ARC projects.11
Designating Distressed Areas
The ARC is statutorily obligated to allocate at least 50% of funding to distressed areas.12 The
ARC is also statutorily obligated to designate counties by level of economic distress.13 Distress
designations influence funding priority and determine grant match requirements. Using an index-
based classification system, the ARC compares each county within its jurisdiction with national
averages based on three economic indicators:14 (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2)
per capita market income; and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite
index value for each county, which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each
distress level corresponds to a given county’s ranking relative to that of the United States as a
whole. These designations are defined as follows by the ARC, starting from “worst” distress:15
 distressed counties, or those with values in the “worst” 10% of U.S. counties;
 at-risk, which rank between worst 10% and 25%;
 transitional, which rank between worst 25% and best 25%;
 competitive, which rank between “best” 25% and best 10%; and
 attainment, or those which rank in the best 10%.
The designated level of distress is statutorily tied to allowable funding levels by the ARC
(funding allowance), the balance of which must be met through grant matches from other funding
sources (including potentially other federal funds) unless a waiver or special dispensation is
permitted: distressed (80% funding allowance, 20% grant match); at-risk (70%); transitional
(50%); competitive (30%); and attainment (0% funding allowance). Exceptions can be made to
grant match thresholds. Attainment counties may be able to receive funding for projects where
sub-county areas are considered to be at higher levels of distress, and/or in those cases where the
inclusion of an attainment county in a multi-county project would benefit one or more

10 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachia Envisioned: A New Era of Opportunity, Strategic Plan FY 2022-
2026, https://www.arc.gov/strategicplan/.
11 See, for example, state plans available at Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian States,
https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-states/.
12 42 U.S.C. §14524.
13 42 U.S.C. §14526.
14 Appalachian Regional Commission, Classifying Economic Distress in Appalachian Counties, https://www.arc.gov/
classifying-economic-distress-in-appalachian-counties.
15 Appalachian Regional Commission, Distressed Designation and County Economic Status Classification System,
https://www.arc.gov/distressed-designation-and-county-economic-status-classification-system.
Congressional Research Service

4

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

nonattainment counties or areas. In addition, special allowances may reduce or discharge
matches, and match requirements may be met with other federal funds.
Recent Activities16
ARC makes grant investments through the following core programs:17
 Area Development (i.e., the “base” grant program). This funding is for building
community capacity and supporting economic growth broadly. This program also
provides funding for local development districts (LDDs) and funding for business
development revolving loan funds (RLFs).18
 Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
(POWER) Initiative. The POWER Initiative provides funding for ARC communities
disproportionately affected by the downturn of the coal industry.19
 Initiative for Substance Abuse Mitigation (INSPIRE). INSPIRE funding is provided to
initiatives designed to address challenges related to substance use disorder (SUD), such
as efforts to support workforce entry or re-entry and other recovery ecosystem projects.20
 Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies (ARISE). ARC established
the ARISE initiative in 2022 to support large-scale, multi-state projects.21
 Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Grant Initiative. ARC
partners with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration
to design workforce development initiatives, with funding provided through the DOL.22
In addition to its grant programs, ARC activities include various partnerships and ongoing
initiatives (e.g., the J-1 Visa waiver program and various academies and institutes).23 ARC
collaborates with federal, state, and local agencies to develop the Appalachian Development
Highway System (ADHS) and Local Roads program.24 Additionally, ARC’s research office issues

16 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
additional Appalachian Regional Commission activities, see https://www.arc.gov.
17 Appalachian Regional Commission, About ARC Grants, https://www.arc.gov/about-arc-grants/; and Grants and
Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities.
18 Appalachian Regional Commission, Area Development, https://www.arc.gov/area-development-program/. For more
information on revolving loan funds, see CRS In Focus IF11449, Economic Development Revolving Loan Funds (ED-
RLFs), by Julie M. Lawhorn.
19 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/power.
20 Appalachian Regional Commission, Investments Supporting Partnerships in Recovery Ecosystems Initiative,
https://www.arc.gov/sud.
21 Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Regional Initiative for Stronger Economies, https://www.arc.gov/
arise.
22 Appalachian Regional Commission, Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities, https://www.arc.gov/workforce-
opportunity-for-rural-communities-worc.
23 See Appalachian Regional Commission, Additional Opportunities, https://www.arc.gov/grants-and-opportunities.
24 40 U.S.C. §14501. Congress authorized construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System as part of
ARC’s original enabling legislation in 1965. See also “Appalachian Development Highway System Program (ADHS;
IIJA Division J, Title VIII),” in CRS Report R47022, Federal Highway Programs: In Brief, by Robert S. Kirk;
Appalachian Regional Commission, Appalachian Development Highway System, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-
development-highway-system; and Transportation in Appalachia, https://www.arc.gov/transportation-in-appalachia.
Congressional Research Service

5

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Requests for Proposals for research and evaluation contracts on topics directly affecting economic
development in the Appalachian region.25
Legislative History
Appalachian Regional Development Act
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Appalachian Regional Development Act,26 which
created the ARC to address the PARC’s recommendations, and added counties in New York and
Mississippi. The ARC was directed to administer or assist in the following initiatives:
 The creation of the Appalachian
Development Highway System;
The Council of Appalachian Governors
 Establishing “Demonstration Health

Facilities” to fund health
Prior to the establishment of ARC, in 1960, the
infrastructure;
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
 Land stabilization, conservation, and
Virginia governors formed the Council of Appalachian
erosion control programs;
Governors to highlight Appalachia’s extended

economic distress and to press for increased federal
Timber development organizations,
involvement. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy
for purposes of forest management;
formed the President’s Appalachian Regional
 Mining area restoration, for
Commission (PARC) and charged it with developing an
rehabilitating and/or revitalizing
economic development program for the region.
PARC’s report, issued in 1964, cal ed for the creation
mining sites;
of an independent agency to coordinate federal and
 A water resources survey;
state efforts to address infrastructure, natural
resources, and human capital issues in the region. The
 Vocational education programs; and
PARC also included some Ohio counties as part of the

Appalachian region.27
Sewage treatment infrastructure.
Major Amendments to the ARC
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 1975
In 1975, the ARC’s authorizing legislation was amended to require that state governors
themselves serve as the state representatives on the commission, overriding original statutory
language in which governors were permitted to appoint designated representatives.28 The
amendments also included provisions to expand public participation in ARC plans and programs.
They also required states to consult with local development districts and local governments and
authorized federal grants to the ARC to assist states in enhancing state development planning.

25 Appalachian Regional Commission, Research and Data, https://www.arc.gov/research-and-data.
26 P.L. 89-4.
27 Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC History, https://www.arc.gov/about/ARCHistory.asp; and Appalachian
Regional Commission, Appalachia: A Report by the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission, 1964, April 1964.
28 P.L. 94-188.
Congressional Research Service

6

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Appalachian Regional Development Reform Act of 1998
Legislative reforms in 1998 introduced county-level designations of distress.29 The legislation
organized county-level distress into three bands, from “worst” to “best”: distressed counties;
competitive counties; and attainment counties. The act imposed limitations on funding for
economically strong counties: (1) “competitive,” which could only accept ARC funding for 30%
of project costs (with the 70% balance being subject to grant match requirements); and (2)
“attainment,” which were generally ineligible for funding, except through waivers or exceptions.
In addition, the act withdrew the ARC’s legislative mandate for certain programs, including the
land stabilization, conservation, and erosion control program; the timber development program;
the mining area restoration program; the water resource development and utilization survey; the
Appalachian airport safety improvements program (a program added in 1971); the sewage
treatment works program; and amendments to the Housing Act of 1954 from the original 1965
act.
Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2002
Legislation in 2002 expanded the ARC’s ability to support LDDs, introduced an emphasis on
ecological issues, and provided for a greater coordinating role by the ARC in federal economic
development activities.30 The amendments also provided new stipulations for the ARC’s grant
making, limiting the organization to funding 50% of project costs or 80% in designated distressed
counties. The amendments also expanded the ARC’s efforts in human capital development
projects, such as through various vocational, entrepreneurial, and skill training initiatives.
The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008
The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 made adjustments to the
ARC’s grant authorities and extended its geographic reach. The amendments included
1. various limitations on project funding amounts and commission contributions;
2. the establishment of an economic and energy development initiative;
3. the expansion of county designations to include an “at-risk” designation; and
4. the expansion of the number of counties under the ARC’s jurisdiction.31
The 2008 amendments introduced funding limitations for ARC grant activities as a whole, as well
as to specific programs. According to the 2008 legislation, “the amount of the grant shall not
exceed 50 percent of administrative expenses.” However, at the ARC’s discretion, an LDD that
included a “distressed” county in its service area could provide for 75% of administrative
expenses of a relevant project, or 70% for “at-risk” counties. Eligible activities could only be
funded by the ARC at a maximum of 50% of the project cost,32 or 80% for distressed counties and
70% for “at-risk” counties. The act introduced special project categories, including
 demonstration health projects;
 assistance for proposed low- and middle-income housing projects;

29 P.L. 105-393.
30 P.L. 107-149.
31 P.L. 110-371.
32 Where allowable, nonappropriated funds—such as those from states or localities—or even other non-ARC federal
funds may be used to fund the balance of the project costs.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 14 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 the telecommunications and technology initiative;
 the entrepreneurship initiative; and
 the regional skills partnership.
Finally, the “economic and energy development initiative” provided for the ARC to fund
activities supporting energy efficiency and renewable technologies. The legislation expanded
distress designations to include an “at-risk” category, or counties “most at risk of becoming
economically distressed.” This raised the number of distress levels to five.33 The legislation also
expanded ARC’s service area. Ten counties in four states were added to the ARC.
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271) of 2018
The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (the SUPPORT Act, P.L. 115-271), enacted in
June 2018, authorized the ARC to support projects and activities that address substance abuse,
including opioid abuse, in the region.34
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) of 2021
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, extended the
ARC’s authorization and provided funding for it through FY2026.
Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations at $200 million a year for each fiscal year
through FY2026. Within those overall authorized appropriations, the act specifically authorized
the ARC to use $20 million annually for expansion of high-speed broadband activities (an
increase from $10 million annually) and directed ARC to allocate $5 million annually for newly
authorized Appalachian Regional Energy Hub activities. The act addressed the ARC’s broadband
authorization, and outlined additional aspects of the agency’s broadband and regional energy hub
initiatives. The act also required congressional notification for grants over $50,000.35
Additionally, three counties in two states were added to the ARC. 36
Funding History
The ARC is a federal-state partnership, with administrative costs shared equally by the federal
government and states, while economic development activities are federally funded. The ARC is
also the highest-funded of the federal regional commissions and authorities. Its funding (Table 1)
increased 174% from approximately $73 million in FY2008 to $200 million in FY2023
(excluding advanced appropriations provided by the IIJA).
As noted above, Division A of the IIJA authorized appropriations of $200 million for the ARC for
each of FY2022 through FY2026, and Division J appropriated the authorized level of funding.37

33 The five designations of distress are: distressed, at-risk, transitional, competitive, and attainment. The “transitional”
designation is not defined in statute, unlike the other four categories, but it is utilized as part of the five-level distress
criteria nonetheless.
34 P.L. 115-271, Title VIII, Subtitle E—Treating Barriers to Prosperity, Sec. 8062.
35 Division A, Sec. 11506 of P.L. 117-58.
36 Union County, SC; Catawba County, NC; and Cleveland County, NC, were added to the ARC region (Division A,
Sec. 11506(a) of P.L. 117-58).
37 P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III. The IIJA also provided $1.25 billion over five years (FY2022-FY2026) for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through the Federal Highway Administration (P.L. 117-58,
Division J, Title VIII).
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 14 link to page 49 link to page 15 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

The $1 billion appropriation in Division J is made available in equal $200 million shares across
each of the five fiscal years, and each tranche remains available until it is expended.
The ARC’s funding growth is attributable to incremental increases in appropriations along with
an increase in annual appropriations set aside since FY2016 to support the POWER Initiative.38 In
FY2023, Congress directed ARC to allocate $65 million to the Partnerships for Opportunity and
Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative.39 The POWER Initiative began in
2015 to provide economic development funding for addressing economic and labor dislocations
caused by energy transition principally in coal communities in the Appalachian region.40

Table 1. ARC: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
FY21
FY22a
FY23
Appropriated
80.3
90.0
146.0
152.0
155.0
165.0
175.0
180.0
395.0
400.00
Funding
Authorized
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
200.0
200.00
Funding
Sources: Authorized funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 110-234, P.L. 113-79, P.L. 115-334,
and P.L. 116-159. Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from: P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L.
114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; P.L. 117-103; and P.L.
117-328.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 includes $195 mil ion provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 and FY2023 appropriated funding amounts include $200 mil ion for each fiscal
year provided by the Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III). The IIJA provided $200
mil ion in advance appropriations for the ARC in each fiscal year from FY2022 through FY2026. FY2022
amounts do not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian
Development Highway System (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title VIII).
Delta Regional Authority
The Delta Regional Authority was established in 2000 to address economic distress in the
Mississippi River Delta region.41 The DRA aims to “improve regional economic opportunity by
helping to create jobs, build communities, and improve the lives of the 10 million people”42 in
252 designated counties and parishes in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee (Figure 2).

38 P.L. 114-113.
39 Appalachian Regional Commission, Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization
(POWER) Initiative, https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp.
40 For more information on the POWER Initiative, see CRS Report R46015, The POWER Initiative: Energy Transition
as Economic Development, by Julie M. Lawhorn; and The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, FACT SHEET:
The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, March 27, 2015,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/27/fact-sheet-partnerships-opportunity-and-workforce-
and-economic-revitaliz.
41 P.L. 106-554, Appendix D, Title V—Lower Mississippi River Region.
42 Delta Regional Authority, About Delta Regional Authority, https://dra.gov/about.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 19

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 2. Map of the Delta Regional Authority
DRA service area, by designations of county distress, FY2023

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and data provided to CRS by email from the
Delta Regional Authority (2/10/23).
Overview of Structure and Activities
Authority Structure
Like the ARC, the DRA is a federal-state partnership that shares administrative expenses equally,
while activities are federally funded. The DRA consists of a federal co-chair appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the eight state governors, of which one is
state co-chair. The governors are permitted to appoint a designee to represent the state, who also
generally serves as the state alternate.43
Entities that are eligible to apply for DRA funding include
1. state and local governments (state agencies, cities and counties/parishes);
2. public bodies; and
3. nonprofit entities.
These entities must apply for projects that operate in or are serving residents and communities
within the 252 counties/parishes of the DRA’s jurisdiction. Unlike the other federal regional
commissions and authorities, the DRA’s service area is defined not in any one piece of legislation
but through multiple legislative developments (see “Legislative History”). In addition, there
appears to be a mechanism for adding counties/parishes to the Authority administratively based
on bill text in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 from the 103rd Congress (P.L. 103-

43 7 U.S.C. §2009aa.
Congressional Research Service

10

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

433), which incorporated H.R. 4043, the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiatives Act of 1994 as Title
XI of the bill.44
Strategic Plan
Funding determinations are assessed according to the DRA’s authorizing statute, its strategic
plan, distress designations, and state priorities. The DRA strategic plan articulates the authority’s
high-level economic development priorities. The current strategic plan—Navigating the Currents
of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV—was released in February 2023 for the
2023-2027 period.45
The strategic plan lists four primary goals:
1. Invest in public infrastructure;
2. Nurture local workforce ecosystems;
3. Promote business growth and entrepreneurship; and
4. Support community place-making and capacity-building.
States provide development plans that reflect the economic development goals and priorities of
member states and LDDs.46
DRA projects are developed in coordination with its 45 LDDs,47 which are multicounty economic
development organizations financially supported by the DRA and advise on local priorities.
LDDs “provide technical assistance, application support and review, and other services” to the
DRA and entities applying for funding. LDDs receive administrative fees paid from awarded
DRA funds, which are calculated as 5% of the first $100,000 of an award, and 1% for all dollars
above that amount.48
Designating Distressed Areas
The DRA determines a county or parish as distressed on an annual basis through the following
criteria:
1. an unemployment rate of 1% higher than the national average for the most recent
24-month period; and
2. a per capita income of 80% or less than the national per capita income.49
The DRA designates counties as either distressed or not, and distressed counties received priority
funding from DRA grant making activities. By statute, the DRA directs at least 75% of funds to

44 Of the 252 counties reported by the DRA to fall within its service area, 219 were incorporated through P.L. 100-460.
Another 20 counties in Alabama were included in P.L. 106-554 (16 counties) and P.L. 107-171 (four counties). P.L.
110-234 added 10 Louisiana parishes and two Mississippi counties. By this count, one county appears to have been
included administratively.
45 Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February
2023, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.
46 See, for example, Delta Regional Authority, Regional Development Plan: State Economic Development Plans,
https://dra.gov/about/strategic-development-plan.
47 Delta Regional Authority, Local Development Districts, https://dra.gov/resources/local-development-districts.
48 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
49 Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room.
Congressional Research Service

11

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

distressed counties and parishes and isolated areas within non-distressed counties and parishes;50
half of those funds must target transportation and basic infrastructure.51 As of FY2023, 232 of
DRA’s counties and parishes are economically distressed and 221 are in persistent poverty.52 The
DRA notes that a county may experience persistent poverty if it has poverty rates of 20% of the
population, or more, for at least 30 years (per the USDA Economic Research Service).53 The
DRA also analyzes census tracts in order to designate isolated areas of non-distressed counties or
parishes as distressed.54
Recent Activities55
By statute, DRA is required to provide funding for the following four categories:
 Basic public infrastructure in distressed counties and isolated areas of distress;
 Transportation infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating economic
development in the region;
 Business development, with emphasis on entrepreneurship; and
 Job training or employment‐related education, with emphasis on the use of
existing public educational institutions located in the region.56
DRA categorizes its core programs as critical infrastructure or human infrastructure programs.
Critical infrastructure programs include:57
 the States’ Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP);
 the Community Infrastructure Fund; and
 the Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (PWEAA) Program.58
Human infrastructure programs include:59
 the Strategic Planning Grant Program;
 the Local Development Districts (LDD) Pilot Program;
 the Delta Doctors Program;60

50 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(b).
51 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–5(d).
52 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
53 Delta Regional Authority, Navigating the Currents of Opportunity: Delta Regional Development Plan IV, February
2023, p. 5, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/APPROVED_DRA-RDP-IV_20230215.pdf.
54 Delta Regional Authority, Map Room, https://dra.gov/map-room.
55 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on other
DRA activities, see https://dra.gov.
56 7 U.S.C. §2009aa.
57 For a summary of DRA’s critical infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/critical-infrastructure/.
58 Since FY2016, Congress has directed the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to partner with DRA to
“advance economic growth by assisting communities and regions experiencing chronic high unemployment and low
per capita income to create an environment that fosters innovation, promotes entrepreneurship, and attracts increased
private capital investment.” DRA and EDA executed an MOA, which calls for EDA to invest $3 million into projects
identified by DRA through the Authority’s SEDAP application cycle. See DRA’s FY2023 CBJ, pp. 23-24.
59 For a summary of DRA’s human infrastructure programs, see https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure.
60 The Delta Doctors program is designed to address the health disparities and high levels of health professional
Congressional Research Service

12

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 the Delta Workforce Grant Program; and
 the Workforce Opportunity for Rural Communities (WORC) Program.
Other DRA activities include various partnerships and ongoing initiatives (e.g., the Innovative
Readiness Training program, academies and institutes).61
States’ Economic Development Assistance Program
The principal investment tool used by the DRA is the States’ Economic Development Assistance
Program (SEDAP), which is used to fund grants for basic public infrastructure; transportation
infrastructure; business development and entrepreneurship; and workforce training and
education.62 The DRA’s SEDAP funding is made available to each state according to a four-
factor, formula-derived allocation that balances geographic breadth, population size, and
economic distress. The factors and their respective weights are calculated as follows:
 Equity Factor (equal funding among eight states), 50%;
 Distressed Population (DRA counties/parishes), 20%;
 Distressed County Area (DRA counties/parishes), 20%; and
 Population Factor (DRA counties/parishes), 10%.63
DRA investments are awarded from state allocations. SEDAP applications are accepted through
an online portal and reviewed by LDDs for completeness. Projects are then sorted by priority. The
Board of Governors, through their Designees and Alternates, review a list of eligible projects to
make project selections. According to the DRA, “After the Federal Co-Chair and Governors agree
on the project selections for each state, a formal vote is requested to approve the projects then a
grant agreement, notice to proceed letter, and grant manual is provided to the grantees shortly
thereafter.”64 While all projects must be associated with one of the DRA’s four funding priorities,
additional prioritization determines the rank order of awards, which include county-level distress
designations; adherence to at least one of the federal priority eligibility criteria (see below);
adherence to at least one of the DRA Regional Development Plan goals (from the strategic plan);
and adherence to at least one of the state’s DRA priorities.
In recent years, the federal priority eligibility criteria were as follows:
 Innovation and small business
 Merging and consolidating
 Regional impact
public utilities
 Multiple funding partners
 Broadband infrastructure
 Emergency funding need
 Water or wastewater rate
 Registered apprenticeship
study (i.e., projects with

accredited rate study)
Infrastructure

shortages by granting J-1 visa waivers for physicians who are willing to provide medical services in distressed DRA
communities. See Delta Regional Authority, Delta Doctors, https://dra.gov/programs/human-infrastructure/health/
delta-doctors/.
61 Delta Regional Authority, Programs, https://dra.gov/programs.
62 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
63 Ibid.
64 Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, https://dra.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

13

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Legislative History
In 1988, the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY1989 (P.L. 100-460) appropriated $2 million and included language that authorized the
creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission. The LMDDC was a DRA
predecessor tasked with studying economic issues in the Delta and developing a 10-year
economic development plan. The LMDDC consisted of two commissioners appointed by the
President as well as the governors of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee. The commission was chaired by then-Governor William J. Clinton of
Arkansas, and the LMDDC released interim and final reports before completing its mandate in
1990. Later, in the White House, the Clinton Administration continued to show interest in an
expanded federal role in Mississippi Delta regional economic development.
Notably, P.L. 100-460’s $2 million in appropriations were made available to “carry out H.R. 5378
and S. 2836, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, as introduced in the House of
Representatives on September 26, 1988, and in the Senate on September 27, 1988.” Using this
language, those previously un-enacted bills were “incorporated by reference” and enacted. P.L.
100-460 also provided a definition of the Lower Mississippi Delta region through the
incorporation of H.R. 5378 and S. 2836. In 1994, Congress enacted the Lower Mississippi Delta
Region Heritage Study Act, which built on the LMDDC’s recommendations. In particular, the
1994 act saw the Department of the Interior conduct a study on key regional cultural, natural, and
heritage sites and locations in the Mississippi Delta region.
106th Congress
 In 2000, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554)
included language authorizing the creation of the DRA based on the seven
participating states of the LMDDC, with the addition of Alabama and 16 of its
counties.65
107th Congress
 The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) amended voting procedures for DRA states,
provided new funds for Delta regional projects, and added four additional
Alabama counties to the DRA.66
110th Congress
 The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234) reauthorized the DRA from FY2008 through
FY2012 and added 12 parishes to the DRA region.67

65 P.L. 106-554. This law added the following Alabama counties: Pickens, Greene, Sumter, Choctaw, Clarke,
Washington, Marengo, Hale, Perry, Wilcox, Lowndes, Bullock, Macon, Barbour, Russell, and Dallas.
66 P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This law added Butler, Conecuh, Escambia, and
Monroe counties.
67 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This law added Beauregard, Bienville, Cameron,
Claiborne, DeSoto, Jefferson Davis, Red River, St. Mary, Vermillion, and Webster Parishes in Louisiana; and Jasper
and Smith Counties in Mississippi.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

113th Congress
 The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorized the DRA through FY2018.68
115th Congress
 The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-33), reauthorized the DRA from FY2019 to
FY2023, and emphasized Alabama’s position as a “full member” of the DRA.69
Funding History
Under “farm bill” legislation, the DRA has consistently received funding authorizations of $30
million annually since it was first authorized.70 However, appropriations have fluctuated over the
years. Although the DRA was appropriated $20 million in the same legislation authorizing its
creation,71 that amount was halved in 2002,72 and continued a downward trend through its funding
nadir of $5 million in FY2004. However, funding had increased by FY2006 to $12 million. Since
FY2008, DRA’s annual appropriations have increased from almost $12 million to the current
level of $30.1 million in FY2022 (excluding appropriations provided by the IIJA). The IIJA
provided the DRA with an increase in appropriations that was five times its annual appropriation
in FY2021 (Table 2). As of March 2023, the DRA will allocate IIJA funding to five program
areas: (1) SEDAP; (2) Community Infrastructure Fund; (3) Delta Workforce Grant Program; (4)
Strategic Planning; and (5) LDD Pilot Program.73
Table 2. DRA: Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions

FY14 FY15 FY16
FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22a FY23
Appropriated 12.00 12.00
25.00
25.00
25.00 25.00 30.00 30.00 180.10
30.1
Funding
Authorized
30.00 30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
30.00
30.0
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; and P.L. 117-103.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 includes $30.1 mil ion provided through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 mil ion from the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).

68 P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014.
69 P.L. 115-334, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. See CRS In Focus IF11126, 2018 Farm Bill Primer:
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.
70 7 U.S.C. §2009aa–12.
71 P.L. 106-554.
72 P.L. 107-66.
73 Delta Regional Authority, Performance and Accountability Report September 30, 2022, p. 22, https://dra.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/02/DRA_FY2022_PAR_Final12.pdf. Estimates for the program allocations of the DRA’s IIJA
spend plan are included in the Delta Regional Authority, 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, https://dra.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DRA-FY-2024-Budget-Justification-Report-10-March-2023-FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

15

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Denali Commission
The Denali Commission was established in 1998 to support rural economic development in
Alaska.74 It is “designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support
throughout Alaska.” The Denali Commission is unique among these commissions and authorities
as a single-state entity. It is also unique because it primarily uses federal funding for
administrative expenses, rather than a combination of federal and state contributions for these
expenses.75
Figure 3. Map of the Denali Commission
Service area by distressed and expanded (plus/minus 3%) standards of distress, 2022

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and Denali Commission, 2022 Distressed
Communities Report, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/
2022DistressedCommunities.pdf. Distressed areas (red shading) meet the Denali Commissions’ “surrogate
standard.”
Overview of Structure and Activities
The commission’s statutory mission includes providing workforce and other economic
development assistance to distressed rural regions in Alaska. However, the commission no longer
engages in substantial activities in general economic development or transportation, which were
once core elements of the Denali Commission’s activities. Its recent activities are principally
limited to coastal infrastructure protection and energy infrastructure and fuel storage projects.

74 P.L. 105-277.
75 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF12165, Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities:
Administrative Expenses, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Congressional Research Service

16

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Commission Structure
The Denali Commission’s structure is unique as the only commission with a single-state mandate.
The commission is comprised of seven members (or a designated nominee), including the federal
co-chair, appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce; the Alaska governor, who is state co-
chair (or his/her designated representative); the University of Alaska president; the Alaska
Municipal League president; the Alaska Federation of Natives president; the Alaska State AFL-
CIO president; and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska president.76
These structural novelties offer a different model compared to the organization typified by the
ARC and broadly adopted by the other functioning federal regional commissions and authorities.
For example, the federal co-chair’s appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, and not the
President with Senate confirmation, allows for a potentially more expeditious appointment of a
federal co-chair.
Annual Work Plan and Strategic Plan
The Denali Commission is required by law to create an annual work plan, which solicits project
proposals, guides activities, and informs a five-year strategic plan.77 The work plan is reviewed
by the federal co-chair, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget,
and is subject to a public comment period.
The latest strategic plan, released in October 2017, lists four strategic goals and objectives: (1)
facilities management; (2) infrastructure protection from ecological change; (3) energy, including
storage, production, heating, and electricity; and (4) innovation and collaboration.
Designating Distressed Areas
The Denali Commission’s authorizing statute obligates the commission to address economic
distress in rural areas of Alaska.78 As of 2018, the commission utilizes two overlapping standards
to assess distress: a “surrogate standard,” adopted by the commission in 2000, and an “expanded
standard.” These standards are applied to rural communities in Alaska and assessed by the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL&WD), Research and Analysis Section.
DOL&WD uses the most current population, employment, and earnings data available to identify
Alaska communities and Census Designated Places considered “distressed.”
Appeals can be made to community distress determinations, but only through a demonstration
that DOL&WD data or analysis was erroneous, invalid, or outdated. New information “must
come from a verifiable source, and be robust and representative of the entire community and/or
population.” Appeals are accepted and adjudicated only for the same reporting year in question.

76 P.L. 105-277.
77 Denali Commission, Work Plans, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/.
78 P.L. 105-277.
Congressional Research Service

17

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Recent Activities79
The Denali Commission’s scope is more constrained compared to the other federal regional
commissions and authorities. The organization reported that due to funding constraints,80 the
commission reduced its involvement in what might be considered traditional economic
development and, instead, focused on rural fuel and energy infrastructure and coastal protection
efforts.81
Since the Denali Commission’s founding, bulk fuel safety and security, energy reliability and
security, transportation system improvements, and health care projects have commanded the vast
majority of Commission projects.82 In recent years, the Denali Commission’s core programs have
focused on grants for energy reliability and security and bulk fuel safety and security projects.83
Village infrastructure protection—a program launched in 2015 to address community
infrastructure threatened by erosion, flooding and permafrost degradation—is a program that is
relatively new and still funded.84 By contrast, the Denali Commission funds fewer “traditional”
economic development projects, such as housing, workforce development, and general economic
development activities.85
As noted, for several years before the enactment of the IIJA, the Denali Commission had not
received dedicated funding for transportation, sanitation, health facilities, housing, broadband,
and general economic development activities.86 However, the Commission’s FY2023 Work Plan
and the FY2022-FY2026 IIJA Work Plan indicate support for these and related activities. The
Denali Commission will allocate IIJA funding to the following activities: (1) infrastructure; (2)
village infrastructure protection; (3) energy reliability and security; (4) emergency fund; and (5)
workforce and economic development.87
The Denali Commission also receives funding from other state and federal sources. Other sources
for activities administered by the Denali Commission include:

79 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
additional Denali Commission activities, see https://www.denali.gov.
80 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/ (accessed April 23, 2021).
81 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Strategic Plan: FY2018-2022, October 4, 2017, https://www.denali.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Denali_Commission_FY2018_-_2022_Strategic_Plan_-_Final_Executed_document_-
_10-4-17.pdf.
82 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
83 The Denali Commission has made energy and bulk fuel its primary infrastructure theme since it was created in 1998.
The types of projects currently being funded include the design and construction of replacement bulk fuel storage
facilities, upgrades to community power generation and distribution systems (including interties), and energy efficiency
related initiatives. See Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8,
https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-
2024-Final.pdf.
84 Denali Commission, Village Infrastructure Protection, https://www.denali.gov/programs/village-infrastructure-
protection/.
85 Denali Commission, Denali Commission Investment Summary, March 2022, https://www.denali.gov/programs/.
86 Denali Commission, Other Programs, https://www.denali.gov/programs/other-programs/.
87 The Denali Commission no longer receives dedicated workforce development funding and it no longer has a formal
workforce development program. However, it continues to use some of its annual discretionary funding for basic
administrative and technical training that is directly related to the Energy and Bulk Program. More detail is available in
the Denali Commission’s annual work plans and FY2023 Work Plan, https://www.denali.gov/work-plans/. Denali
Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 7, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/
uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

18

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 The State of Alaska, through the Federal Highway Administration, for planning,
design, and construction of road and other surface transportation infrastructure in
Alaska Native villages and rural communities; and
 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund, for the Commission’s
bulk fuel safety and security activities.88
The Denali Commission also uses its transfer authority to receive funding from other federal
agencies, which it uses to issue grants on the agencies’ behalf.89
Legislative History
106th Congress
 In 1999, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113) authorized the
commission to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements, award grants,
and make payments “necessary to carry out the purposes of the commission.”
The act also established the federal co-chair’s compensation schedule, prohibited
using more than 5% of appropriated funds for administrative expenses, and
established “demonstration health projects” as authorized activities and
authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to make grants to the
commission to that effect.
108th Congress
 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) created an Economic
Development Committee within the commission chaired by the Alaska
Federation of Natives president, and included the Alaska Commissioner of
Community and Economic Affairs, a representative of the Alaska Bankers
Association, the chairman of the Alaska Permanent Fund, a representative from
the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from each region.
109th Congress
 In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), established the Denali Access
System Program among the commission’s authorized activities. The program was
part of its surface transportation efforts, which were active from 2005 through
2009.90

88 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) trust fund provides approximately $3 million each year in FY2023 and
FY2024. See Denali Commission, Funding, https://www.denali.gov/about/funding-2/; and FY2024 Congressional
Budget Justification, p. 7, https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-
Justification-Fiscal-Year-2024-Final.pdf.
89 42 U.S.C. 3121 note, Sec. 311. See also Denali Commission, FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8,
https://02e11d.a2cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Congressional-Budget-Justification-Fiscal-Year-
2024-Final.pdf.
90 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Fact Sheet on Highway Provisions: Denali
Access System Program, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/denali.htm.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 26 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

112th Congress
 2012’s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21 (P.L. 112-
141), authorized the commission to accept funds from federal agencies, allowed
it to accept gifts or donations of “service, property, or money” on behalf of the
U.S. government, and included guidance regarding gifts.
114th Congress
 In 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, or the WIIN
Act (P.L. 114-322), reauthorized the Denali Commission through FY2021, and
established a four-year term for the federal co-chair (with allowances for
reappointment), but provided that other members were appointed for life. The act
also allowed for the Secretary of Commerce to appoint an interim federal co-
chair, and included clarifying language on the nonfederal status of commission
staff and ethical issues regarding conflicts of interest and disclosure.
117th Congress
 Division A of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, (P.L. 117-58)
extends funding authorization for five years to carry out the Denali Access
System Program.91 The act also allows the Denali Commission to consider
funding from another federal agency as no longer subject to requirements
previously attached to those funds, including any regulatory actions by the
transferring agency.92
Funding History
Under its authorizing statute, the Denali Commission received funding authorizations for $20
million for FY1999,93 and “such sums as necessary” (SSAN) for FY2000 through FY2003.
Legislation passed in 2003 extended the commission’s SSAN funding authorization through
2008.94 Its authorization lapsed after 2008; reauthorizing legislation was introduced in 2007,95 but
was not enacted. The commission continued to receive annual appropriations for FY2009 and
several years thereafter.96 In 2016, legislation was enacted reauthorizing the Denali Commission
through FY2021 with a $15 million annual funding authorization through FY2021. The IIJA
provided the Denali Commission with an increase in appropriations that was five times its most
recent annual appropriation (Table 3).97

91 The IIJA authorized $20 million to be appropriated for each of FY2022 through FY2026 to carry out the Denali
Access System Program (Division A, Sec. 11507(a) of P.L. 117-58).
92 Division A, Sec. 11507(b) of P.L. 117-58.
93 P.L. 105-277.
94 P.L. 108-7, §504.
95 S. 1368, 110th Cong. (2007).
96 P.L. 111-8.
97 P.L. 114-322.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 26 link to page 49 link to page 27 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Table 3. Denali Commission:
Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions

FY14
FY15 FY16 FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21 FY22a FY23
Appropriated
10.00
10.00
11.00
15.00
30.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
90.1
17.0
Funding
Authorized
—
—
—
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
—
—
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 111-85; P.L. 112-
10; P.L. 112-74; P.L. 113-6; P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L.
116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; P.L. 117-103; and P.L. 117-328.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 amounts include $15.1 mil ion provided through annual appropriations (P.L. 117-103). FY2022
appropriated funding amounts include $75 mil ion from Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). FY2022 amounts do not include amounts authorized to be appropriated in
Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Denali Access System Program.
Great Lakes Authority
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, Sec. 401)
amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the Great Lakes Authority (GLA). The structure and
functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC, which were
established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (i.e., 2008 farm bill).98 The
authorizing legislation requires that before the GLA may convene, the President must nominate
and the Senate must confirm a federal co-chairperson. As of March 2023, President Biden had not
nominated a federal co-chairperson for the GLA.
The geographic boundaries of the authorized commissions’ regions are defined in statute, usually
using county-based designations. The GLA differs in that its service region is defined in statute
based on federal definitions of the area’s watershed (see Figure 4) so that the region
shall consist of areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes System (as
such terms are defined in section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)), in each of the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

98 P.L. 110-234.
Congressional Research Service

21

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 4. Map of the Great Lakes Authority

Source: Map created by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328 and U.S. Geological Survey data.
Notes: The GLA region consists of areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System in states
specifically designated in the statute.
Overview of Structure and Activities
As authorized, the GLA would share an organizing structure with the NBRC, the Southeast
Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission, as all four share
common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
Authority Structure
As authorized, the GLA would consist of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair.
There is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two
consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.
Strategic Plan
As of the date of publication, the GLA is not active and has not published a strategic plan.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the GLA would share an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to
that of the NBRC, the Southeast Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional
Commission.99

99 40 U.S.C. §15302.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 29 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Recent Activities
The GLA is not currently active. The presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of a
federal co-chair is an essential step for the GLA to start operations; as of the date of publication,
the President has not nominated a federal co-chair for the GLA. Additionally, new federal
regional commissions and authorities generally use funding from appropriations to begin
operations (i.e., funding to hire staff); as of the date of publication, the GLA has not yet received
appropriations. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal
Regional Commission, by Julie M. Lawhorn.
Legislative History
117th Congress
 P.L. 117-328 amended 40 U.S.C. §15301(a) to establish the GLA. The structure
and functions of the GLA are based on the model of the NBRC, SCRC, and
SBRC, which were established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-234).
Funding History
The GLA has not received appropriations as of the date of publication.
Northern Border Regional Commission
The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill.100 The
act also created the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) and the Southwest Border
Regional Commission (SBRC). All three commissions share common authorizing language
modeled after the ARC.
The NBRC is the only one of the three new commissions that has been both reauthorized and
received progressively increasing annual appropriations since it was established in 2008. The
NBRC was founded to alleviate economic distress in the northern border areas of Maine, New
Hampshire, New York, and, as of 2018, the entire state of Vermont (Figure 5).

100 P.L. 110-234, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 55

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 5. Map of the Northern Border Regional Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from Esri Data and Maps and NBRC, Assessing Distress in NBRC Counties,
https://www.nbrc.gov/content/distressed-counties.
Note: Vermont is the only state with all counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction.
The stated mission of the NBRC is “to catalyze regional, collaborative, and transformative
community economic development approaches that alleviate economic distress and position the
region for economic growth.”101 Eligible counties within the NBRC’s jurisdiction may receive
funding “for community and economic development” projects pursuant to regional, state, and
local planning and priorities (Table D-5).
Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
The NBRC is led by a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of
the Senate, and four state governors, of which one is appointed state co-chair. There is no term
limit for the federal co-chair. The state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may not
serve a term of less than one year. Each of the four governors may appoint an alternate; each state
also designates an NBRC program manager to handle the day-to-day operations of coordinating,
reviewing, and recommending economic development projects to the full membership.102
While program funding depends on congressional appropriations, administrative costs are shared
equally between the federal government and the four states of the NBRC. Through commission
votes, applications are ranked by priority, and are approved in that order as grant funds allow.

101 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
102 Northern Border Regional Commission, About the NBRC, http://www.nbrc.gov/content/about.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 55 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Strategic Plan
The NBRC’s activities are guided by a five-year strategic plan,103 which is developed through
“extensive engagement with NBRC stakeholders” alongside “local, state, and regional economic
development strategies already in place.” The 2017-2022 strategic plan lists three goals:
1. modernizing infrastructure;
2. creating and sustaining jobs; and
3. anticipating and capitalizing on shifting economic and demographic trends.104
The strategic plan also lists five-year performance goals, which are
 5,000 jobs created or retained;
 10,000 households and businesses with access to improved infrastructure;
 1,000 businesses representing 5,000 employees benefit from NBRC investments;
 7,500 workers provided with skills training;
 250 communities and 1,000 leaders engaged in regional leadership, learning
and/or innovation networks supported by the NBRC; and
 3:1 NBRC investment leverage.105
The strategic plan also takes stock of various socioeconomic trends in the northern border region,
including (1) population shifts; (2) distressed communities; and (3) changing workforce needs.
The NBRC member states generally use state economic development plans to outline their states’
funding priorities for NBRC projects.106
Designating Distressed Areas
The NBRC is unique in that it is statutorily obligated to assess distress according to economic as
well as demographic factors (Table D-5). These designations are made and refined annually. The
NBRC defines levels of “distress” for counties that “have high rates of poverty, unemployment,
or outmigration” and “are the most severely and persistently economic distressed and
underdeveloped.”107 The NBRC is required to allocate 50% of its total appropriations to projects
in distressed counties.108
The NBRC’s county designations are as follows, in descending levels of distress:

103 Northern Border Regional Commission, 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, http://www.nbrc.gov/
content/strategic-plan.
104 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission: 2017-2022 Strategic Plan,
http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/004%20RESOURCES/Five%20Yr%20Strat%20Plan/
NBRC%20Strategic%20Plan%2C%20Full%20Study.pdf.
105 Northern Border Regional Commission, 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, Concord, NH, 2017, p. 6.
106 See, for example, state plans available at Northern Border Regional Commission, Resources, https://www.nbrc.gov/
content/resources.
107 P.L. 110-234.
108 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic and Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021:
To Determine Categories of Distress Within the NBRC Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021,
https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINA
L.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

25

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 Distressed counties (80% maximum funding allowance);
 Transitional counties (50%); and
 Attainment (0%).
Transitional counties are defined as counties that do not exhibit the same levels of economic and
demographic distress as a distressed county, but suffer from “high rates of poverty,
unemployment, or outmigration.” Attainment counties are not allowed to be funded by the NBRC
except for those projects that are located within an “isolated area of distress,” or have been
granted a waiver.109
Distress is calculated in tiers of primary and secondary distress categories, with each category
having three factors:
 Primary Distress Categories
o Percent of population below the poverty level
o Unemployment rate
o Percent change in population
 Secondary Distress Categories
o Percent of population below the poverty level
o Median household income
o Percent of secondary and/or seasonal homes
The NBRC assesses each county annually to determine the classification. The three
classifications of economic distress are:
 Distressed counties (i.e., counties with at least three qualifying factors (of the six
total factors) and at least one factor from each category);
 Transitional counties (i.e., counties with at least one factor from either category);
and
 Attainment counties (i.e., counties that show no measures of distress).
Recent Activities110
All projects are required to address at least one of the NBRC’s four authorized program areas and
its five-year strategic plan. The NBRC’s main program areas include
 the Catalyst program (formerly the state economic and infrastructure
development (SEID) program; partially funded by IIJA appropriations);
 Forest Economy Program (formerly the “Regional Forest Economy Partnership”
Program); and

109 Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC Annual Economic and Demographic Research for Fiscal Year 2021:
To Determine Categories of Distress Within the NBRC Service Area, Concord, NH, March 2021,
https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
NBRC%20Annual%20Economic%20%26%20Demographic%20Research%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%202021_FINA
L.pdf.
110 Activities and programs in this section are illustrative examples and not comprehensive. For information on
additional Northern Border Regional Commission activities, see https://www.nbrc.gov.
Congressional Research Service

26

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 comprehensive planning for states.111
Catalyst Program
The NBRC’s Catalyst investment program is the chief mechanism for investing in economic
development programs in the participating states. The Catalyst program funds infrastructure (e.g.,
transportation, telecommunications, and basic public infrastructure) and non-infrastructure
activities. Non-infrastructure activities may include job skills training, skills development and
employment-related education, entrepreneurship, technology, and business development projects,
as well as projects designed to improve basic health care, nutrition and food security, and other
public services. Funding may also support projects designed to promote resource conservation,
tourism, recreation, and preservation of open space consistent with economic development
goals.112 The program provides approximately $5.8 million to each state for such activities.113
Eligible applicants include units of local government, 501(c) organizations, Native American
tribes, and the four state governments. Catalyst projects may require matching funds of up to 50%
depending on the level of distress. The Catalyst program is funded in part by IIJA
appropriations.114
Forest Economy Program (FEP)
The FEP is an NBRC program designed to support the forest-based economy and to assist in the
forest industry’s evolution to include new technologies and viable business models across the
four-state NBRC region.115 In FY2018, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $3 million to address
the decline in forest-based economies throughout the region.116 Each fiscal year from FY2019 to
FY2023, Congress directed NBRC to allocate $4 million for the forest-based initiatives.117 In
FY2022, NBRC revised its forest program priorities with input from regional stakeholders and
renamed the initiative the Forest Economy Program.118
State Capacity Grants
The NBRC may provide funding through non-competitive grants to assist states in developing
comprehensive economic and infrastructure development plans for their NBRC counties. These

111 Northern Border Regional Commission, Program Areas, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/program-areas.
112 Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/Catalyst.
113 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/
Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.
114 Northern Border Regional Commission, Catalyst Program, https://www.nbrc.gov/content/Catalyst.
115 Northern Border Regional Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/
Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-Report_Final-Web.pdf.
116 Northern Border Regional Commission, Regional Forest Economy Partnership: Notice of Funding Opportunity,
http://www.nbrc.gov/uploads/RegionalForestEconomyParternship(5).pdf.
117 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission Announces 2020 Regional Forest
Economy Partnership Grant Round, July 1, 2020, https://www.nbrc.gov/articles/94; and 2021 Regional Forest
Economy Partnership Overview, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/2021_RFEP_Documents/
2021%20RFEP%20Program%20Overview%20FINAL.pdf.
118 The program was formerly called the “Regional Forest Economy Partnership Program.” Northern Border Regional
Commission, FY2022 Annual Report, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Annual%20Reports/NBRC-2022-Annual-
Report_Final-Web.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

27

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

initiatives are undertaken in collaboration with LDDs, localities, institutions of higher education,
and other relevant stakeholders.119
Local Development Districts (LDD)
The NBRC uses multicounty LDDs to advise on local priorities, identify opportunities, conduct
outreach, and administer grants, from which the LDDs receive fees. LDDs receive 2% of the
NBRC grant award for their administrative work.120
Legislative History
110th Congress
 The NBRC was first proposed in the Northern Border Economic Development
Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 1548), introduced on March 15, 2007. H.R. 1548
proposed the creation of a federally chartered, multi-state economic development
organization—modeled after the ARC—covering designated northern border
counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. The bill would
have authorized the appropriation of $40 million per year for FY2008 through
FY2012 (H.R. 1548). The bill received regional co-sponsorship from Members of
Congress representing areas in the northern border region.121
 The NBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the NBRC,
the SCRC, and the SBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA (discussed
in the next section) in a combined bill.122 H.R. 3246 won a broader range of
support, which included 18 co-sponsors in addition to the original bill sponsor,
and passed the House by a vote of 264-154 on October 4, 2007.
 Upon House passage, H.R. 3246 was referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. The Senate incorporated authorizations for the
establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and the SBRC in the 2008 farm bill.123 The
2008 farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008
through FY2012 for all three new commissions.
115th Congress
 The only major changes to the NBRC since its creation were made in the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, “2018 farm bill”), which
authorized the state capacity building grant program.

119 Northern Border Regional Commission, Comprehensive Planning Investments for States, http://www.nbrc.gov/
content/planning-for-states.
120 Northern Border Regional Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, Grant Administration, Compliance
and Monitoring Manual, February 2023, https://www.nbrc.gov/userfiles/files/Resource%20Guides/
Compliance%20Manual%20February%2023%20FINAL.pdf.
121 The bill was introduced by Rep. Hodes, Paul [D-NH-2] and co-sponsored by: Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24];
Rep. Allen, Thomas H. [D-ME-1]; Rep. McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23]; Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2]; Rep.
Shea-Porter, Carol [D-NH-1]; and Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large].
122 The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, H.R. 3246.
123 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-234.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

 In addition, the 2018 farm bill expanded the NBRC to include the following
counties: Belknap and Cheshire counties in New Hampshire; Genesee, Greene,
Livingston, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Rensselaer, Saratoga,
Schenectady, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates counties in New
York; and Addison, Bennington, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington,
Windham, and Windsor counties in Vermont, making it the only state entirely
within the NBRC.
Funding History
Since its creation, the NBRC has received consistent authorizations of appropriations (Table 4).
The 2008 farm bill authorized the appropriation of $30 million for the NBRC for each of FY2008
through FY2013 (P.L. 110-234); the same in the 2014 farm bill for each of FY2014 through
FY2018 (P.L. 113-79); and $33 million for each of FY2019 through FY2023 (P.L. 115-334).
Due to its statutory linkages to the SCRC and SBRC, all three commissions also share common
authorizing legislation and identical funding authorizations. Congress has funded the NBRC since
FY2010 (Table 4). The NBRC’s appropriated funding level—excluding supplemental
appropriations—increased from $1.5 million in FY2013 to $40 million in FY2023. In FY2022,
the NBRC, like the other commissions, received five times the amount of their FY2021 annual
appropriations in the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act (Division J, Title III of P.L. 117-
58).
Table 4. NBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions

FY14
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22a
FY23
Appropriated
5.0
5.0
7.5
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
185.00
40.0
Funding
Authorized
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-
235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; P.L. 117-103;
and P.L. 117-328.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 amounts include $35 mil ion provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $150 mil ion provided by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority was created by the 2002 farm bill.124 The NGPRA
was created to address economic distress in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri (other than counties
included in the Delta Regional Authority), North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota.

124 P.L. 107-171.
Congressional Research Service

29

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 6. Map of the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority

Source: Compiled by CRS using the NGPRA jurisdiction defined in P.L. 107-171 and Esri Data and Maps.
Note: Missouri’s jurisdiction was defined as those counties not already included in the DRA.
The NGPRA appears to have been briefly active shortly after it was created, when it received its
only annual appropriation from Congress. The NGPRA’s funding authorization lapsed at the end
of FY2018; it was not reauthorized.
Structure and Activities
Overview of Structure and Activities
The NGPRA featured broad similarities to the basic structure shared among most of the federal
regional authorities and commissions, being a federal-state partnership led by a federal co-chair
(appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate) and governors of the
participating states, of which one was designated as the state co-chair.
Unique to the NGPRA were certain structural novelties reflective of regional socio-political
features. The NGPRA also included a Native American tribal co-chair, who was the chairperson
of an Indian tribe in the region (or their designated representative), and appointed by the
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tribal co-chair served as the “liaison
between the governments of Indian tribes in the region and the [NGPRA].” No term limit is
established in statute; the only term-related proscription is that the state co-chair “shall be elected
by the state members for a term of not less than 1 year.”
Another novel feature among the federal regional commissions and authorities was also the
NGPRA’s statutory reliance on a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation—Northern Great Plains, Inc.—
in furtherance of its mission. While Northern Great Plains, Inc. was statutorily organized to
complement the NGPRA’s activities, it effectively served as the sole manifestation of the
NGPRA concept and rationale while it was active, given that the NGPRA was only once
appropriated funds and never appeared to exist as an active organization. The Northern Great
Congressional Research Service

30

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Plains, Inc. was active for several years, and reportedly received external funding,125 but is
currently defunct.
Activities
Under its authorizing statute,126 the federal government would initially fund all administrative
costs in FY2002, which would decrease to 75% in FY2003, and 50% in FY2004. Also, the
NGPRA would have designated levels of county economic distress; 75% of funds were reserved
for the most distressed counties in each state, and 50% reserved for transportation,
telecommunications, and basic infrastructure improvements. Accordingly, non-distressed
communities were eligible to receive no more than 25% of appropriated funds.
The NGPRA was also structured to include a network of designated, multi-county LDDs at the
sub-state levels. As with its sister organizations, the LDDs would have served as nodes for project
implementation and reporting, and as advisors to their respective states and the NGPRA as a
whole.
Legislative History
103rd Congress
 The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (P.L. 103-318), which became
law in 1994, established the Northern Great Plains Rural Development
Commission to study economic conditions and provide economic development
planning for the Northern Great Plains region. The commission was comprised of
the governors (or designated representative) from the Northern Great Plains
states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota (prior to
Missouri’s inclusion), along with one member from each of those states
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
104th Congress
 The Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-330) provided $1,000,000
to carry out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act. The commission
produced a 10-year plan to address economic development and distress in the
five states. After a legislative extension (P.L. 104-327), the report was submitted
in 1997.127 The Northern Great Plains Initiative for Rural Development
(NGPIRD), a nonprofit 501(c)(3), was established to implement the
commission’s advisories.
107th Congress
 The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, or 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171), authorized the NGPRA, which superseded the commission. The statute

125 W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Grants: Northern Great Plains, Inc., https://www.wkkf.org/grants/grant/2007/09/the-
meadowlark-project-a-leadership-laboratory-on-the-future-of-the-northern-great-plains-3004879.
126 P.L. 107-171.
127 Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Great Plains Commission Completes Work, Looks to Region’s Future,”
Minneapolis, MN, April 1, 1997, https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/great-plains-commission-
completes-work-looks-to-regions-future.
Congressional Research Service

31

link to page 38 link to page 57 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

also created Northern Great Plains, Inc., a 501(c)(3), as a resource for regional
issues and international trade, which supplanted the NGPIRD with a broader
remit that included research, education, training, and issues of international trade.
110th Congress
 The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-
246), extended the NGPRA’s authorization through FY2012. The legislation also
expanded the authority to include areas of Missouri not covered by the DRA, and
provided mechanisms to enable the NGPRA to begin operations even without the
Senate confirmation of a federal co-chair, as well as in the absence of a
confirmed tribal co-chair.
 The Agricultural Act of 2014, or 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), reauthorized the
NGPRA and the DRA, and extended their authorizations from FY2012 to
FY2018.
Funding History
The NGPRA was authorized to receive $30 million annually from FY2002 to FY2018. It received
appropriations once for $1.5 million in FY2004.128 Its authorization of appropriations lapsed at
the end of FY2018.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission (SCRC) was created by the 2008 farm bill,129
which also created the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission. All three
commissions share common authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The SCRC received regular appropriations of $250,000 annually from FY2010 through FY2020
but did not form during that time due to the absence of an appointed federal co-chair.130 On
December 8, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the SCRC’s first federal co-chairperson, thereby
allowing the SCRC to convene and begin other activities.131
The SCRC was created to address economic distress in areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida (Figure 7) not served by the ARC or the
DRA (Table D-7).

128 P.L. 108-199.
129 P.L. 110-234.
130 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M.
Lawhorn.
131 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Hearing on the Nominations of Christopher
Frey to be Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, at the Environmental Protection Agency and
Jennifer Clyburn Reed to be Federal Co-Chair of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, 117th Cong., 1st sess.,
October 27, 2021, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=A654BF51-1207-411A-BD0E-
914CCFBDB60B, and Congress.gov, “Nomination: Jennifer Clyburn Reed—Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission,” PN957, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/957.
Congressional Research Service

32

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure 7. Map of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdiction defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps and SCRC,
SCRC Counties by Economic Designation, https://scrc.gov.
Notes: The SCRC is statutorily defined as including those counties in the named states that are not already
included in the ARC or the DRA. Florida is the only state with all counties defined as being within the SCRC.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58; enacted November 15, 2021) added three counties
that were previously in the SCRC region to the ARC region.
Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
The SCRC shares an organizing structure with the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional
Commission, as all three share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
The SCRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice and consent
of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated representatives), of
which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. There is no term limit
for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is limited to two consecutive terms, but may
not serve a term of less than one year. In December 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed the first
federal co-chair for the SCRC.
Congressional Research Service

33

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Strategic Plan
The SCRC developed its bylaws and its first strategic plan for the period FY2023-FY2027.132 The
plan includes the following goals:
1. critical infrastructure,
2. health and support services access and outcomes,
3. workforce capacity,
4. entrepreneurial and business development activities,
5. affordable housing stock and access, and
6. environmental conservation, preservation, and access.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the SCRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that
of the NBRC and the Southwest Border Regional Commission, as all three share common
statutory authorizing language.133 In FY2023, using an index-based classification system, the
SCRC compared each county within its jurisdiction with national averages based on three
economic indicators: (1) three-year average unemployment rates; (2) per capita market income;
and (3) poverty rates. These factors are calculated into a composite index value for each county,
which are ranked and sorted into designated distress levels. Each distress level corresponds to a
given county’s ranking relative to that of the United States as a whole. These designations are
defined as follows by the SCRC, starting from the highest level of distress:
 Distressed counties, which are the most severely and persistently economically
distressed and underdeveloped. They also have high rates of poverty,
unemployment, or outmigration.
 Transitional, which are counties that are economically distressed and
underdeveloped or have recently suffered high rates of poverty, unemployment,
or outmigration.
 Attainment, which are counties in the region that are not designated as distressed
or transitional counties under this subsection.134
Recent Activities
In addition to the development of bylaws and strategic plan, the SCRC hired its first chief of staff
in 2022. In FY2023, the SCRC plans to hire an executive director and develop a competitive
grant program as well as a separate J-1 visa program.135

132 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission: Bylaws,” August 2022,
https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SCRC-Bylaws-Final.pdf; and “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission:
Strategic Plan (FY2023-FY2027),” December 2022, https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SCRC-Strategic-
Plan-Final.pdf.
133 40 U.S.C. §15302.
134 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, “SCRC Economic Designation of Counties & Isolated Areas,”
https://scrc.gov.
135 SCRC, “Southeast Crescent Regional Commission,” https://scrc.gov.
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Legislative History
The SCRC concept was first introduced by university researchers working on rural development
issues in 1990 at Tuskegee University’s Annual Professional Agricultural Worker’s Conference
for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Universities.
In 1994, the Southern Rural Development Commission Act was introduced in the House
Agricultural Committee, which would provide the statutory basis for a “Southern Black Belt
Commission.”136 While the concept was not reintroduced in Congress until the 2000s, various
nongovernmental initiatives sustained discussion and interest in the concept in the intervening
period. Supportive legislation was reintroduced in 2002, which touched off other accompanying
legislative efforts until the SCRC was authorized in 2008.137
Funding History
Congress authorized $30 million funding levels for each year from FY2008 to FY2018 and $33
million for each year from FY2019 through FY2023.138 Congress appropriated $250,000 in each
fiscal year from FY2010 to FY2020. However, for FY2021, Congress provided an annual
appropriation of $1 million, which was followed by $5 million in FY2022. Congress also
provided $5 million in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title
III) in FY2022139 (Table 5). Prior to the confirmation of the federal co-chair in FY2022, the
SCRC was unable to form, despite receiving annual appropriations.140
Table 5. SCRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions

FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22a
FY23
Appropriated
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.00
10.00
20.0
Funding
Authorized
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.0
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from the fol owing: P.L. 113-76; P.L. 113-
235; P.L. 114-113; P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141; P.L. 115-244; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; P.L. 117-103;
and P.L. 117-328.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include $5 mil ion provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2022 (P.L. 117-103, Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $5 mil ion
provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).

136 H.R. 3901.
137 40 U.S.C. §15731.
138 40 U.S.C. §15751.
139 P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-58.
140 According to statute, a federal co-chair is required for the formation of a commission quorum and making decisions.
40 U.S.C. §15302.
Congressional Research Service

35

link to page 41 link to page 58

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Southwest Border Regional Commission
The Southwest Border Regional Commission (SBRC) was created with the enactment of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234), which also
created the NBRC and the SCRC. All three commissions share common statutory authorizing
language modeled after the ARC.
The SBRC was created to address economic distress in the southern border regions of Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and Texas (Figure 8; Table D-8). On December 6, 2022, the U.S.
Senate confirmed the SBRC’s first federal co-chairperson, thereby allowing the SCRC to convene
and begin other activities.141
Figure 8. Map of the Southwest Border Regional Commission

Source: Compiled by CRS using the jurisdictional data defined in P.L. 110-234 and Esri Data and Maps.
Overview of Structure and Activities
Commission Structure
The SBRC shares an organizing structure with the GLA, the NBRC, and the SCRC, as all four
share common statutory authorizing language modeled after the ARC.
By statute, the SBRC consists of a federal co-chair, appointed by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate, along with the participating state governors (or their designated
representatives), of which one would be named by the state representatives as state co-chair. As

141 Congress.gov, “Nomination: Juan Eduardo Sanchez—Southwest Border Regional Commission,” PN2450,
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/2450.
Congressional Research Service

36

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

enacted in statute, there is no term limit for the federal co-chair. However, the state co-chair is
limited to two consecutive terms, but may not serve a term of less than one year.
Strategic Plan
As of the date of publication, the SBRC has not yet published a strategic plan.
Designating Distressed Areas
As authorized, the SBRC shares an approach to designating distressed areas that is similar to that
of the NBRC and the SCRC, as all three share common statutory authorizing language.142
Recent Activities
The U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRC’s first federal co-chair in December 2022, which marked
an essential step for starting the commission’s operations.143 As of the date of publication, the
SBRC has not yet announced recent activities.
Legislative History
The concept of an economic development agency focusing on the southwest border region has
existed at least since 1976, though the SBRC was established through more recent efforts.
 Executive Order 13122 in 1999 created the Interagency Task Force on the
Economic Development of the Southwest Border,144 which examined issues of
socioeconomic distress and economic development in the southwest border
regions and advised on federal efforts to address them.
108th Congress
 In February 2003, a “Southwest Regional Border Authority” was proposed in S.
458. A companion bill, H.R. 1071, was introduced in March 2003. The SBRC
was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act
of 2003 (H.R. 3196), which would have authorized the SBRC, the DRA, the
NGPRA, and the SCRC.
109th Congress
 In 2006, the proposed Southwest Regional Border Authority Act would have
created the “Southwest Regional Border Authority” (H.R. 5742), similar to S.
458 in 2003.
110th Congress
 In 2007, SBRC was reintroduced in the Regional Economic and Infrastructure
Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 3246), which would have authorized the SBRC,

142 40 U.S.C. §15302.
143 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11744, Forming a Funded Federal Regional Commission, by Julie M.
Lawhorn.
144 Executive Order 13122, “Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southern Border,” 64
Federal Register 29201-29202, May 25, 1999.
Congressional Research Service

37

link to page 43 link to page 49 Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

the SCRC, and the NBRC, and reauthorized the DRA and the NGPRA in a
combined bill.
 Upon House passage, the Senate incorporated authorizations for the
establishment of the NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC in the 2008 farm bill. The 2008
farm bill authorized annual appropriations of $30 million for FY2008 through
FY2012 for all three of the new organizations.
117th Congress
 The U.S. Senate confirmed the SBRC’s first federal co-chair in December
2022.145
Funding History
Congress authorized annual funding of $30 million for the SBRC from FY2008 to FY2018 and
$33 million for each fiscal year from FY2019 through FY2023.146 For FY2021, Congress
provided $250,000 for the SBRC through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-
260). For FY2022, Congress provided $1.25 million for the SBRC through the IIJA (Division J,
Title III of P.L. 117-58) and $2.5 million through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L.
117-103). The IIJA provided the SBRC with an increase in appropriations that was five times the
amount of its annual appropriation in FY2021. Congress provided $5 million for the SBRC
through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328 ).
Table 6. SBRC Authorized and Appropriated Funding, FY2014-FY2023
$ in millions

FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22a
FY23
Appropriated
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.25
3.75
5.0
Funding
Authorized
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
33.00
33.00
33.00
33.0
33.0
Funding
Sources: Appropriated funding amounts compiled by CRS using data from P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-58; P.L. 117-
103; and P.L. 117-328.
Notes: For an expanded historical and comparative view of appropriations, see Table C-1.
a. FY2022 amounts include $2.5 mil ion provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103,
Division D, Title IV). FY2022 appropriated funding amounts also include $1.25 mil ion provided by of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III).
Concluding Notes
Given their geographic reach, broad activities, and integrated intergovernmental structures, the
federal regional commissions and authorities are a significant element of federal economic
development efforts. At the same time, as organizations that are largely governed by the
respective state-based commissioners, the federal regional commissions and authorities are not

145 Congress.gov, “Nomination: Juan Eduardo Sanchez—Southwest Border Regional Commission,” PN2450,
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/117th-congress/2450.
146 40 U.S.C. §15751.
Congressional Research Service

38

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

typical federal agencies but federally chartered entities that integrate federal funding and direction
with state and local economic development priorities.
This structure provides Congress with a flexible platform to support economic development
efforts. The intergovernmental structure allows for strategic-level economic development
initiatives to be launched at the federal level and implemented across multi-state jurisdictions
with extensive state and local input, and more adaptable to regional needs.
The federal regional commissions and authorities reflect an emphasis by the federal government
on place-based economic development strategies sensitive to regional and local contexts.
However, the geographic specificity and varying functionality of the statutorily authorized federal
regional commissions and authorities, both active and inactive, potentially raise questions about
the efficacy and equity of federal economic development policies.

Congressional Research Service

39

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Appendix A. Basic Information at a Glance
Table A-1. Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
$ in millions
FY2023
Year
Number
Appropriations

Authorized of States
Counties
(P.L. 117-328)
ARC
1965
13
423 counties in Alabama, Georgia,
$200.0*
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New
(an additional $200.0
York, North Carolina, Ohio,
mil ion of advance
Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
appropriations
Tennessee, Virginia, and the entire
provided in FY2023
state of West Virginia
from the IIJA
Appropriations
(P.L. 117-58)
DRA
2000
8
252 counties in Alabama, Arkansas,
$30.1
Il inois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
Denali
1998
1
Entire state of Alaska
$17.0
Commission
GLA
2022
8
Areas in the watershed of the Great
-
Lakes and the Great Lakes System
(as such terms are defined in Section
118(a)(3) of the Federal Water
Pol ution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1268(a)(3)), in each of the fol owing
states: Il inois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
NBRC
2008
4
60 counties in Maine, New
$40.0
Hampshire, New York, and Vermont
NGPRC
2002
6
86 counties in Missouri and the
N/A
entire states of Iowa, Minnesota,
North Dakota, Nebraska, and South
Dakota
SCRC
2008
7
428 counties in Alabama, Georgia,
$20.0
Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Virginia not already
served by the ARC or DRA, and the
entire state of Florida
SBRC
2008
4
93 counties in Arizona, California,
$5.0
New Mexico, and Texas
Sources: Data compiled by CRS from relevant legislation and official sources of various federal regional
commissions and authorities. Authorizing statutes include, in order of tabulation, P.L. 89-4; P.L. 106-554; P.L.
105-277; P.L. 117-328; P.L. 110-234; P.L. 107-171; P.L. 110-234; and P.L. 110-234.
Notes: The commissions and authorities in bold are considered to be active.
a. Funding in the IIJA has varying periods of availability. Appropriations for ARC are available through FY2026,
with $200 mil ion in advance appropriations to be allocated each fiscal year starting in FY2022 through
FY2026. Appropriations for the DRA, Denali Commission, NBRC, SCRC, and SBRC are available until
expended. See IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title III.
Congressional Research Service

40

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Figure A-1. Structure and Activities of the Commissions and Authorities

Sources: Compiled by CRS with information from the federal regional commissions and authorities.
Notes: For the commissions and authority that are not considered to be functioning, structural characteristics
are tabulated according to their statutory design. As noted, the first federal co-chair of the SCRC was confirmed
in December 2021, and the first federal co-chair of the SBRC was confirmed in December 2022. As of March
2023, the GLA does not have a federal co-chair and is not yet active.
Contact Information
(for active commissions and authorities)
Contact
Address/Phone/Website
Appalachian Regional Commission
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20009-1068
Phone: (202) 884-7700
Website: http://www.arc.gov
Delta Regional Authority
236 Sharkey Avenue
Suite 400
Clarksdale, MS 38614
Phone: (662) 624-8600
Website: http://www.dra.gov
Denali Commission
510 L Street
Suite 410
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: (907) 271-1414
Website: http://www.denali.gov
Northern Border Regional Commission
James Cleveland Federal Building, Suite 1201
53 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 369-3001
Website: http://www.NBRC.gov
Congressional Research Service

41

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Contact
Address/Phone/Website
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
1901 Assembly Street | Suite 370
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (202) 599-8310
Website: https://https://scrc.gov/
Congressional Research Service

42

Appendix B. Map of Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
Figure B-1. National Map of the Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities
by county or watershed

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the various commissions and authorities and Esri Data and Maps.
CRS-43

link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 51 link to page 51
Appendix C. Historical Appropriations
Table C-1. Historical Appropriations: Federal Regional Commissions (FY1986-FY2023)
$ in millions
Fiscal Year
Legislation
ARC
Denali
DRA
GLA
NGPRA
NBRC
SBRC
SCRC
1986
P.L. 99-141
130.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1987
P.L. 99-591
105.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1988
P.L. 100-202
107.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1989
P.L. 100-371
110.70
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1990
P.L. 101-101
150.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1991
P.L. 101-514
170.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1992
P.L. 102-104
190.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1993
P.L. 102-377
190.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1994
P.L. 103-126
249.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1995
P.L. 103-316
282.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1996
P.L. 104-46
170.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1997
P.L. 104-206
160.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1998
P.L. 105-62
170.00
(Authorized)a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1999
P.L. 105-245
66.40
20.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2000
P.L. 106-60
66.40
20.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2001
P.L. 106-377
66.40
30.00
20.00b
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2002
P.L. 107-66
71.29
38.00
10.00
N/A
(Authorized)c
N/A
N/A
N/A
2003
P.L. 108-7
71.29
48.00
8.00
N/A
—
N/A
N/A
N/A
2004
P.L. 108-137 /
66.00
55.00
5.00
N/A
1.50
N/A
N/A
N/A
P.L. 108-100d
2005
P.L. 108-447
66.00
67.00
6.05
N/A
1.50e
N/A
N/A
N/A
CRS-44

link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 51
Fiscal Year
Legislation
ARC
Denali
DRA
GLA
NGPRA
NBRC
SBRC
SCRC
2006
P.L. 109-103
65.47
50.00
12.00
N/A
—
N/A
N/A
N/A
2007
P.L. 110-5f
65.47
50.00
12.00
N/A
—
N/A
N/A
N/A
2008
P.L. 110-161
73.03
21.80
11.69
N/A
—
(Authorized)g (Authorized)g
(Authorized)g
2009
P.L. 111-8
75.00
11.80
13.00
N/A
—
—
—
—
2010
P.L. 111-85
76.00
11.97
13.00
N/A
—
1.50
—
0.25
2011
P.L. 112-10h
68.40
10.70
11.70
N/A
—
1.50
—
0.25
2012
P.L. 112-74
68.26
10.68
11.68
N/A
—
1.50
—
0.25
2013
P.L. 113-6i
68.26
10.68
11.68
N/A
—
1.50
—
0.25
2014
P.L. 113-76
80.32
10.00
12.00
N/A
—
5.00
—
0.25
2015
P.L. 113-235
90.00
10.00
12.00
N/A
—
5.00
—
0.25
2016
P.L. 114-113
146.00
11.00
25.00
N/A
—
7.50
—
0.25
2017
P.L. 115-31
152.00
15.00
25.00
N/A
—
10.00
—
0.25
2018
P.L. 115-141
155.00
30.00
25.00
N/A
—
15.00
—
0.25
2019
P.L. 115-244
165.00
15.00
25.00
N/A
—
20.00
—
0.25
2020
P.L. 116-94
175.00
15.00
30.00
N/A
—
25.00
—
0.25
2021
P.L. 116-260
180.00
15.00
30.00
N/A
—
30.00
0.25
1.00
2022
P.L. 117-103, P.L.
395.00
90.10
180.1
N/A
—
185.00
3.75
10.00
117-58 j, k
0
2023
P.L. 117-328, P.L.
400.00
17.00
30.10
(Authorized)l
—
40.00
5.00
20.00
117-58 k
Source: Tabulated by CRS from appropriations legislation.
Notes: A dash (“—“) indicates that no appropriation was provided.
a. P.L. 105-277.
b. The DRA was authorized in FY2001 (P.L. 106-554) and received its initial appropriations in that same fiscal year (P.L. 106-337).
c. P.L. 107-171.
CRS-45

d. For FY2004, the NGPRA received appropriations in separate legislation from the rest of the federal regional commissions.
e. The NGPRA was appropriated separately from the other federal regional commission, which can be found in Section 759 of the same legislation.
f.
FY2007 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under ful -year continuing resolution legislation.
g. In FY2008, P.L. 110-234 established the NBRC, the SBRC, and the SCRC.
h. For FY2011, appropriations for the ARC, Denali, and the DRA were appropriated separately from the broader appropriations legislation under a continuing
resolution. The NBRC, however, was subject to the continuing resolution.
i.
FY2013 appropriations were provided to the federal regional commissions under continuing resolution legislation.
j.
FY2022 appropriated funding amounts include funding provided in Division J, Title III of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58). Amounts do
not include appropriations in Division A of P.L. 117-58 pertaining to the Appalachian Development Highway System.
k. Division J, Title III of the IIJA provided $1 bil ion in appropriations for the ARC, divided into $200 mil ion tranches, one for each fiscal year FY2022-FY2026. Of the
regional commissions funded in the IIJA, the ARC was the only one to receive such a structured appropriation: all other commissions received their appropriation
solely in FY2022. All IIJA funds remain available until expended.
l.
The GLA was authorized in FY2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division O, Title IV, Sec. 401).

CRS-46

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Appendix D. Service Areas of Federal Regional
Commissions and Authorities
Appalachian Regional Commission
Table D-1. Statutory Jurisdiction of ARC
State
County
Alabama
Bibb, Blount, Calhoun, Chambers, Cherokee, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Colbert, Coosa, Cul man,
De Kalb, Elmore, Etowah, Fayette, Franklin, Hale, Jackson, Jefferson, Lamar, Lauderdale,
Lawrence, Limestone, Macon, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Morgan, Pickens, Randolph, St. Clair,
Shelby, Talladega, Tallapoosa, Tuscaloosa, Walker, Winston
Georgia
Banks, Barrow, Bartow, Carrol , Catoosa, Chattooga, Cherokee, Dade, Dawson, Douglas,
Elbert, Fannin, Floyd, Forsyth, Franklin, Gilmer, Gordon, Gwinnett, Habersham, Hall, Haralson,
Hart, Heard, Jackson, Lumpkin, Madison, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Polk, Rabun, Stephens,
Towns, Union, Walker, White, Whitfield
Kentucky
Adair, Bath, Bell, Boyd, Breathitt, Carter, Casey, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cumberland, Edmonson,
El iott, Estil , Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, Green, Greenup, Harlan, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott,
Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, McCreary, Madison, Magoffin,
Martin, Menifee, Metcalfe, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Nicholas, Owsley, Perry, Pike, Powel ,
Pulaski, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Russell, Wayne, Whitley, Wolfe
Maryland
Allegany, Garrett, Washington
Mississippi
Alcorn, Benton, Calhoun, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Clay, Itawamba, Kemper, Lee, Lowndes,
Marshall, Monroe, Montgomery, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Panola, Pontotoc, Prentiss, Tippah,
Tishomingo, Union, Webster, Winston, Yalobusha
New York
Allegany, Broome, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego,
Schoharie, Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins
North
Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba,* Cherokee, Clay,
Carolina
Cleveland,* Davie, Forsyth, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, McDowell, Macon,
Madison, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes,
Yadkin, Yancey
Ohio
Adams, Ashtabula, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Carrol , Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Gallia,
Guernsey, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Mahoning, Meigs,
Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pike, Ross, Scioto, Trumbul , Tuscarawas, Vinton,
Washington
Pennsylvania
Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Bedford, Blair, Bradford, Butler, Cambria, Cameron, Carbon,
Centre, Clarion, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Fayette, Forest, Fulton,
Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna, Lawrence, Luzerne, Lycoming,
McKean, Mercer, Mifflin, Monroe, Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Pike, Potter, Schuylkil ,
Snyder, Somerset, Sul ivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne,
Westmoreland, Wyoming
South
Anderson, Cherokee, Greenvil e, Oconee, Pickens, Spartanburg, Union*
Carolina
Tennessee
Anderson, Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Cannon, Carter, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Coffee,
Cumberland, De Kalb, Fentress, Franklin, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, Hamilton,
Hancock, Hawkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Lawrence, Lewis, Loudon, McMinn,
Macon, Marion, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Scott,
Sequatchie, Sevier, Smith, Sul ivan, Unicoi, Union, Van Buren, Warren, Washington, White
Congressional Research Service

47

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

State
County
Virginia
Alleghany, Bath, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, Carrol , Craig, Dickenson, Floyd, Giles, Grayson,
Henry, Highland, Lee, Montgomery, Patrick, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewel ,
Washington, Wise, and Wythe

The fol owing independent cities in Virginia are also within the Appalachian Region and are
merged with an adjacent or surrounding county for the purposes of data analysis and grant
management: Bristol (Washington County), Buena Vista (Rockbridge County), Covington
(Alleghany County), Galax (Carrol County), Lexington (Rockbridge County), Martinsvil e
(Henry County), Norton (Wise County), and Radford (Montgomery County)

West
Barbour, Berkeley, Boone, Braxton, Brooke, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Doddridge, Fayette, Gilmer,
Virginia
Grant, Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Harrison, Jackson, Jefferson, Kanawha, Lewis,
Lincoln, Logan, Marion, Marshall, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mineral, Mingo, Monongalia,
Monroe, Morgan, Nicholas, Ohio, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pocahontas, Preston, Putnam, Raleigh,
Randolph, Ritchie, Roane, Summers, Taylor, Tucker, Tyler, Upshur, Wayne, Webster, Wetzel,
Wirt, Wood, Wyoming
Source: Information compiled by CRS from ARC data, https://www.arc.gov/appalachian-counties-served-by-arc.
Delta Regional Authority
Table D-2. Statutory Jurisdiction of DRA
State
Counties and Parishes
Alabama
Barbour, Bul ock, Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Dallas, Escambia, Greene, Hale,
Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Monroe, Perry, Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Washington, Wilcox
Arkansas
Arkansas, Ashley, Baxter, Bradley, Calhoun, Chicot, Clay, Cleveland, Craighead,
Crittenden, Cross, Dallas, Desha, Drew, Fulton, Grant, Greene, Independence, Izard,
Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Lee, Lincoln, Lonoke, Marion, Mississippi, Monroe, Ouachita,
Phil ips, Poinsett, Prairie, Pulaski, Randolph, Searcy, Sharp, St. Francis, Stone, Union, Van
Buren, White, Woodruff
Illinois
Alexander, Franklin, Gallatin, Hamilton, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Perry, Pope,
Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Union, White, Wil iamson
Kentucky
Ballard,Caldwel , Calloway, Carlisle, Christian, Crittenden, Fulton, Graves, Henderson,
Hickman, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon, McCracken, McLean, Marshall, Muhlenberg, Todd,
Trigg, Union, Webster
Louisiana
Acadia, Allen, Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Bienvil e, Caldwel ,
Cameron, Catahoula, Claiborne, Concordia, De Soto, East Baton Rouge, East Carrol ,
East Feliciana, Evangeline, Franklin, Grant, Iberia, Ibervil e, Jackson, Jefferson, Jefferson
Davis, La Sal e, Lafourche, Lincoln, Livingston, Madison, Morehouse, Natchitoches,
Orleans, Ouachita, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, Rapides, Red River, Richland, St.
Bernard, St. Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St.
Mary, Tangipahoa, Tensas, Union, Vermil ion, Washington, Webster, West Baton Rouge,
West Carrol , West Feliciana, Winn
Mississippi
Adams, Amite, Attala, Benton, Bolivar, Carrol , Claiborne, Coahoma, Copiah, Covington,
De Soto, Franklin, Grenada, Hinds, Holmes, Humphreys, Issaquena, Jasper, Jefferson,
Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lawrence, Leflore, Lincoln, Madison, Marion, Marshall,
Montgomery, Panola, Pike, Quitman, Rankin, Sharkey, Simpson, Smith, Sunflower,
Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, Tunica, Union, Walthall, Warren, Washington, Wilkinson,
Yalobusha, Yazoo
Congressional Research Service

48

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

State
Counties and Parishes
Missouri
Bol inger, Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Crawford, Dent, Douglas, Dunklin, Howell,
Iron, Madison, Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps,
Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Ste. Genevieve, St. Francois, Stoddard, Texas,
Washington, Wayne, Wright
Tennessee
Benton, Carrol , Chester, Crockett, Decatur, Dyer, Fayette, Gibson, Hardeman, Hardin,
Haywood, Henderson, Henry, Lake, Lauderdale, Madison, McNairy, Obion, Shelby,
Tipton, Weakley
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Delta Regional Authority.
Denali Commission
Table D-3. Statutory Jurisdiction of Denali Commission
State
Counties
Alaska
Entire state of Alaska
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Denali Commission.
Congressional Research Service

49

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Great Lakes Authority
Table D-4. Statutory Jurisdiction of GLA
counties that are partially or entirely in the GLA region
State
County
Illinois
Cook, Lake
Indiana
Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Elkhart, Kosciusko, LaGrange, Lake, LaPorte, Noble, Porter, St.
Joseph, Steuben, Wells, Whitley
Michigan
Alcona, Alger, Allegan, Alpena, Antrim, Arenac, Baraga, Barry, Bay, Benzie, Berrien,

Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Clare, Clinton, Crawford,
Delta, Dickinson, Eaton, Emmet, Genesee, Gladwin, Gogebic, Grand Traverse, Gratiot,
Hil sdale, Houghton, Huron, Ingham, Ionia, Iosco, Iron, Isabella, Jackson, Kalamazoo,
Kalkaska, Kent, Keweenaw, Lake, Lapeer, Leelanau, Lenawee, Livingston, Luce, Mackinac,
Macomb, Manistee, Marquette, Mason, Mecosta, Menominee, Midland, Missaukee,
Monroe, Montcalm, Montmorency, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oakland, Oceana, Ogemaw,
Ontonagon, Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Ottawa, Presque, Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw,
Sanilac, Schoolcraft, Shiawassee, St. Clair, St. Joseph, Tuscola, Van Buren, Washtenaw,
Wayne, Wexford
Minnesota
Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Lake, Pine, St. Louis
New York
Allegany,* Cattaraugus,* Cayuga, Chautauqua,* Chemung,* Cortland,* Erie, Essex,
Franklin, Genesee, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston,
Madison, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario, Orleans, Oswego,
Schuyler,* Seneca, St. Lawrence, Steuben,* Tioga,* Tompkins,* Wayne, Wyoming,
Yates
Ohio
Allen, Ashland, Ashtabula,* Auglaize, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Defiance, Erie, Fulton,
Geauga, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Huron, Lake, Lorain, Lucas, Marion, Medina, Mercer,
Ottawa, Paulding, Portage, Putnam, Richland, Sandusky, Seneca, Shelby, Stark, Summit,
Trumbul ,* Van Wert, Wil iams, Wood, Wyandot
Pennsylvania
Crawford,* Erie,* Potter*
Wisconsin
Adams, Ashland, Bayfield, Brown, Calumet, Columbia, Dodge, Door, Douglas, Florence,
Fond du Lac, Forest, Green Lake, Iron, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Langlade, Manitowoc,
Marathon, Marinette, Marquette, Menominee, Milwaukee, Oconto, Oneida, Outagamie,
Ozaukee, Portage, Racine, Shawano, Sheboygan, Vilas, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca,
Waushara, Winnebago
Source: Tabulated by CRS based on terms in P.L. 117-328 and U.S. Geological Survey data.
Notes: The GLA region consists of areas in the watershed of the Great Lakes and Great Lakes System in states
specifically designated in the statute. Fourteen counties marked by asterisk (*) are also in the ARC region.
Eighteen counties marked in bold text are also in the NBRC region. All seven counties in Minnesota are in the
NGPRA region.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Table D-5. Statutory Jurisdiction of NBRC
counties
State
County

Maine
Androscoggin, Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Kennebec, Knox, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis,
Somerset, Waldo, Washington
Congressional Research Service

50

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

State
County

New
Belknap, Carrol , Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, Sul ivan
Hampshire
New York
Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson,
Lewis, Livingston, Madison, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Rensselaer,
Saratoga, St. Lawrence, Schenectady, Seneca, Sul ivan, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Yates
Vermont
Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Essex, Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoil e, Orange,
Orleans, Rutland, Washington, Windham, Windsor
Source: Compiled and tabulated by CRS from NBRC data.
Note: Vermont is the only NBRC state with all counties within the NBRC jurisdiction.
Northern Great Plains Regional Authority
Table D-6. Statutory Jurisdiction of NGPRA
states and counties

NGPRA Jurisdiction
Iowa
Entire State
Minnesota
Entire State
Missouri
Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Audrain, Barry, Barton, Bates, Benton, Boone, Buchanan, Caldwell,
(counties)
Callaway, Camden, Carrol , Cass, Cedar, Chariton, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cole, Cooper,
Dade, Dallas, Daviess, DeKalb, Franklin, Gasconade, Gentry, Greene, Grundy, Harrison, Henry,
Hickory, Holt, Howard, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Laclede, Lafayette, Lawrence,
Lewis, Lincoln, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Maries, Marion, McDonald, Mercer, Mil er, Moniteau,
Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Nodaway, Osage, Pettis, Pike, Platte, Polk, Pulaski,
Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Ray, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, St. Charles, St. Clair, St. Louis, St.
Louis City, Stone, Sul ivan, Taney, Vernon, Warren, Webster, Worth
Nebraska
Entire State
North
Entire State
Dakota
South
Entire State
Dakota
Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 107-171.
Note: Missouri jurisdiction represents all those counties not currently included in the DRA.
Congressional Research Service

51

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Table D-7. Statutory Jurisdiction of SCRC
states and counties

SCRC Jurisdiction
Alabama
Autauga, Baldwin, Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee, Mobile,
Montgomery County, Pike
Georgia
Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Baker, Baldwin, Ben Hil , Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley, Brantley, Brooks, Bryan,
Bul och, Burke, Butts, Calhoun, Camden, Candler, Charlton, Chatham, Chattahoochee, Clarke, Clay,
Clayton, Clinch, Cobb, Coffee, Colquitt, Columbia, Cook, Coweta, Crawford, Crisp, De Kalb,
Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Echols, Effingham, Emanuel, Evans, Fayette, Fulton,
Glascock, Glynn, Grady, Greene, Hancock, Harris, Henry, Houston, Irwin, Jasper, Jeff Davis,
Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens, Lee, Liberty, Lincoln, Long, Lowndes,
Macon, Marion, McDuffie, McIntosh, Meriwether, Mil er, Mitchell, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan,
Muscogee, Newton, Oconee, Oglethorpe, Peach, Pierce, Pike, Pulaski, Putnam, Quitman, Randolph,
Richmond, Rockdale, Schley, Screven, Seminole, Spalding, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taliaferro,
Tattnall, Taylor, Telfair, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Toombs, Treutlen, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson,
Walton, Ware, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Webster, Wheeler, White, Whitfield, Wilcox,
Wilkes, Wilkinson, Worth
Florida
Entire state
Mississippi
Clarke, Forrest, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Lauderdale, Leake,
Neshoba, Newton, Pearl River, Perry, Scott, Stone, Wayne
North
Alamance, Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Camden, Carteret, Caswel ,
Carolina
Chatham, Chowan, Clay, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Davidson, Duplin,
Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granvil e, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett,
Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Iredell, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln, Martin, Mecklenburg,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pasquotank,
Pender, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Rutherford,
Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Tyrrell, Union, Vance, Wake, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wilson
South
Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Berkeley, Calhoun, Charleston, Chester,
Carolina
Chesterfield, Clarendon, Col eton, Darlington, Dil on, Dorchester, Edgefield, Fairfield, Florence,
Georgetown, Greenwood, Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Kershaw, Lancaster, Laurens, Lee, Lexington,
Marion, Marlboro, McCormick, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Sumter, Wil iamsburg,
York
Virginia
Accomack, Albemarle, Alexandria city, Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta,
Bedford, Brunswick, Buckingham, Campbell, Caroline, Charles City*, Charlotte, Charlottesville
city, Chesapeake city, Chesterfield, Clarke, Colonial Heights city, Culpeper, Cumberland,
Danville city, Dinwiddie, Emporia city, Essex, Fairfax, Fairfax City, Fal s Church city, Fauquier,
Fluvanna, Franklin, Franklin city, Frederick, Fredericksburg city, Gloucester, Goochland,
Greene, Greensvil e, Halifax, Hampton city, Hanover, Harrisonburg city, Henrico, Hopewell
city, Isle Of Wight, James City*, King And Queen, King George, King Wil iam, Lancaster, Loudoun,
Louisa, Lunenburg, Lynchburg city, Madison, Manassas city, Manassas Park city, Mathews,
Mecklenburg, Middlesex, Nelson, New Kent, Newport News city, Norfolk city, Northampton,
Northumberland, Nottoway, Orange, Page, Petersburg city, Pittsylvania, Poquoson city,
Portsmouth city, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Prince George, Prince Wil iam, Rappahannock,
Richmond, Richmond city, Roanoke, Roanoke city, Rockingham, Shenandoah, South Boston
city, Southampton, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Staunton city, Suffolk city, Surry, Sussex, Virginia
Beach city, Warren, Waynesboro city, Westmoreland, Williamsburg city, Winchester city,
York
Source: Tabulated by CRS by cross-referencing relevant state counties against ARC and DRA jurisdictions, and
SCRC, “FY23 County and County Equivalent Listings by State,” https://scrc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/
SCRC-County-Listing-By-State.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

52

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

Notes: In Virginia, independent cities (in bold) are considered counties for U.S. census purposes and are eligible
for independent inclusion. Virginia counties with an asterisk (*) are named as cities, but are actually counties (e.g.,
James City County). With the exception of Florida, which has no coverage in another federally chartered
regional commission or authority, SCRC jurisdiction encompasses all member state counties that are not part of
the DRA and/or the ARC (see 40 U.S.C. §15731).
Southwest Border Regional Commission
Table D-8. Statutory Jurisdiction of SBRC
states and counties

SBRC Jurisdiction
Arizona
Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yuma
California
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura
New
Catron, Chaves, Dona Ana, Eddy, Grant, Hidalgo, Lincoln, Luna, Otero, Sierra, Socorro
Mexico
Texas
Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Bexar, Brewster, Brooks, Cameron, Coke, Concho, Crane, Crockett,
Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, Ector, Edwards, El Paso, Frio, Gil espie, Glasscock, Hidalgo, Hudspeth,
Irion, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg, La
Salle, Live Oak, Loving, Mason, Maverick, McMul en, Medina, Menard, Midland, Nueces, Pecos,
Presidio, Reagan, Real, Reeves, San Patricio, Shleicher, Sutton, Starr, Sterling, Terrell, Tom Green,
Upton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Ward, Webb, Wil acy, Wilson, Winkler, Zapata, Zavala
Source: Tabulated by CRS with information from P.L. 110-234.

Author Information

Julie M. Lawhorn

Analyst in Economic Development Policy

Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by former CRS Analyst Michael Cecire. Congressional clients seeking
more information and analysis on the material covered in this report should contact the current author.
Molly Cox, GIS Analyst, and Mari Lee and Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialists, developed the
figures included in this report. William Painter, Specialist in Homeland Security and Appropriations,
provided substantive edits and assistance in updating the report.
Congressional Research Service

53

Federal Regional Commissions and Authorities: Structural Features and Function

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.

Congressional Research Service
R45997 · VERSION 16 · UPDATED
54

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Apr. 7, 2023

HTML · PDF

5% changed

May. 18, 2022

HTML · PDF

<1% changed

Mar. 25, 2022

HTML · PDF

<1% changed