Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance

Updated June 27, 2025 (R47162)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Environmental Infrastructure Assistance

Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Evolution of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance

FY2020 and FY2021 Appropriations

FY2022 Through FY2024 Appropriations

FY2025 Appropriations

Analysis of Funding from FY2020 Through FY2025

Considerations for Congress

Adding, Amending, or Deauthorizing EI Assistance Authorities

Funding EI Assistance Authorities

Oversight of EI Assistance Activities

Figures

Figure 1. Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Funding by State

Tables

Table 1. Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance, FY2020-FY2025

Table B-1. Summary of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Appendixes

Appendix A. Examples of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Appendix B. Summary of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Summary

Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance for the design and construction of certain infrastructure in specified municipalities, counties, and states. This assistance supports different projects at publicly owned and operated facilities. Projects include construction of water distribution works, stormwater management, surface water protection, and environmental restoration, among others. EI assistance authorities generally fall into one of three categories:

Section 219 EI. Assistance at specific geographic locations (e.g., city, county, multiple counties) authorized under Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 1992; P.L. 102-580), as amended.

Non-Section 219 EI Projects. Projects authorized in provisions other than Section 219 of WRDA 1992.

EI Programs. EI programs authorized for broader geographic areas (e.g., states or regions of states), with various eligible types of assistance.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has reviewed enacted legislation since WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662) that was likely to include EI assistance authorities and deauthorization lists. CRS has identified over 600 EI assistance authorities with cumulative authorizations of appropriations totaling approximately $18.1 billion. In the 118th Congress, WRDA 2024 (Division A of P.L. 118-272) amended existing EI assistance authorities and enacted new EI assistance authorities, which provided a combined increase in authorization of appropriations of $5.4 billion for these authorities. Individual authorizations of appropriations for EI assistance authorities vary widely, from $100,000 for a water monitoring station to $1.1 billion for a seven-state EI program. CRS has identified authorized EI assistance in at least 46 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. CRS has not identified authorities for EI assistance in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, or the remaining territories.

USACE evaluates an activity's eligibility for assistance by identifying whether an EI assistance authorization exists for the project's geographic area, and whether the proposed work is an eligible type of assistance provided for in the authorization. Individual authorizations typically specify the nature of USACE's involvement and the nonfederal cost share. USACE is authorized to perform design and/or construction work with USACE funds and, for certain programmatic authorities, may use appropriated funds to reimburse nonfederal sponsors for work they perform. Most USACE EI assistance requires cost sharing at 75% federal and 25% nonfederal, and the nonfederal sponsor—the owner of constructed facilities—is responsible for operations and maintenance. WRDA 2024 authorized a 90% federal cost share under some authorities for projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities. Unlike traditional USACE water resource projects, EI assistance is not subject to the USACE planning process (e.g., it does not require a feasibility study); however, other federal laws apply to EI assistance, including the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq).

Congress typically funds EI assistance through USACE's Construction account in Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies annual appropriations acts, and sometimes in supplemental appropriations acts. Presidential budget requests typically do not include funding for EI assistance, with an exception for FY2024. For FY2025, Congress enacted annual appropriations for USACE civil works activities as part of a full-year continuing appropriations act (commonly known as a continuing resolution, or CR). The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4), directed USACE to allocate in a work plan funding provided for certain USACE accounts, including the Construction account. USACE's FY2025 work plan did not allocate Construction funding to EI assistance projects. However, the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of P.L. 118-158), previously provided emergency supplemental appropriations of $300 million in FY2025 to fund EI assistance; as directed, USACE allocated the funding in a work plan. For FY2026, President Trump's budget does not request funding for EI assistance.

Congress may conduct oversight of USACE's EI assistance activities and whether the activities are meeting Congress's expectations. Questions facing Congress include the following: How efficient is USACE at implementing EI assistance? How effective is USACE's EI assistance in accomplishing the authorized EI assistance purposes? Considerations for Congress may include whether to amend, add, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities and, if so, how to address those provisions. Congress also may weigh its support for USACE's EI assistance activities generally, in view of other federal programs that provide assistance for similar projects and activities. Another consideration for Congress may be how funding is allocated among EI assistance authorities, whether based on Member requests, certain criteria, or other considerations.

Environmental Infrastructure Assistance

Congress has authorized and funded the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to assist with the design and construction of certain infrastructure in specified municipalities, counties, and states. This assistance supports projects at publicly owned and operated facilities, such as design and construction of water distribution works, stormwater collection efforts, surface water protection projects, and environmental restoration projects, among others. This USACE assistance is broadly referred to as environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance. Aside from EI assistance, USACE has water resources development authorities for navigation, flood risk reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration activities.¹

Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Congress first authorized USACE to perform EI assistance in 1992. Congress typically authorizes USACE activities in omnibus authorization laws, often titled Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs).² WRDA 1992 (P.L. 102-580) contained the first EI assistance authorities. Following WRDA 1992, Congress authorized new or amended EI assistance authorities in subsequent WRDAs and in some appropriations acts (i.e., in acts aside from WRDAs), as described in "Evolution of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities." Appendix A provides the legislative text of example EI assistance authorities.

EI assistance authorities generally fall into one of three categories:

Section 219 EI. Assistance at specific geographic locations (e.g., city, county, multiple counties) authorized under Section 219 of WRDA 1992, as amended.³

Non-Section 219 EI Projects. Projects authorized in provisions other than Section 219 of WRDA 1992.⁴

EI Programs. EI programs authorized for broader geographic areas (e.g., states or regions of states), with generally multiple types of assistance authorized.⁵ Some EI programs focus more on restoration than on other types of assistance.

Based on a review of enacted legislation since WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662) likely to include EI assistance authorities, and a review of deauthorization lists,⁶ the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has identified over 600 EI assistance authorities with cumulative authorizations of appropriations totaling approximately $18.1 billion (see Appendix B).⁷ The authorizations for these activities vary widely, from $100,000 for a water monitoring station to $1.1 billion for a seven-state EI program. These authorizations are at fixed levels (i.e., not indexed for inflation).⁸ CRS has identified EI assistance authorities in at least 46 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. CRS has not identified authorities for EI assistance in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, or the remaining territories.

An authorization's specifics determine the nature of USACE's involvement and applicable nonfederal cost share. A project's eligibility for assistance is based on whether an EI assistance authorization exists for the project's geographic area and whether the proposed work is an eligible type of assistance provided for in the authorization. USACE is authorized to perform design and/or construction work with appropriated funds and, generally for programmatic authorities, may use appropriated funds to reimburse nonfederal sponsors for work they perform. Most USACE EI assistance requires cost sharing at 75% federal and 25% nonfederal,⁹ with WRDA 2024 (Division A of P.L. 118-272) providing a 90% federal cost share under some authorities for projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities.¹⁰ The nonfederal sponsor is generally the owner of constructed facilities and is responsible for 100% of operations and maintenance. USACE and nonfederal sponsors sign an agreement before USACE provides assistance.¹¹ Unlike traditional USACE water resource projects, EI assistance is not subject to the USACE planning process (e.g., it does not require a feasibility study). However, projects that receive EI assistance are required to comply with other federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.). Generally, this results in USACE preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for its actions related to the project and ultimately signing a Finding of No Significant Impact if USACE is to proceed with the project.¹²

Evolution of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Since 1992, Congress has authorized EI assistance for specific geographic areas, amended existing EI authorities, and established processes that deauthorized some EI authorities. Originally, Section 219 of WRDA 1992 authorized design assistance for 18 projects. Other sections of WRDA 1992 authorized design and construction assistance for EI assistance projects and programs in selected geographic areas (e.g., Section 340, Southern West Virginia). WRDA 1996 (P.L. 104-303) added construction assistance for certain Section 219 authorities. In subsequent WRDAs through WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114) and in selected appropriations laws (e.g., Appendix D of Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001; P.L. 106-554), Congress authorized new and amended existing USACE EI assistance authorities. For example, WRDA 2007 added approximately $2.7 billion in authorization of appropriations for EI assistance.

Authority Modifications from 2014 to 2020

Congress did not authorize new EI assistance in WRDAs from 2014 through 2020, but modified certain EI authorities in these WRDAs. Among other reasons, Congress did not enact new authorities during this time due to policies restricting congressionally directed authorization and appropriations (i.e., earmarks) in the 112th-116th Congresses.

Congress provided a process for nonfederal sponsors to propose modifications to EI assistance authorities when WRDA 2016 (P.L. 114-322, Title I) expanded Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121).¹³ Through the Section 7001 proposal process, nonfederal sponsors may propose modifications to existing EI assistance authorizations (e.g., expand the location, amend eligible project types, or adjust the authorization of appropriations).¹⁴ This process requires USACE to annually submit a report to Congress identifying proposals by nonfederal interests that meet certain criteria. Congress may consider these proposals as part of WRDA deliberations. For example, in WRDA 2020 (P.L. 116-260, Division AA), Congress amended 14 EI assistance authorities to increase their authorizations of appropriations as proposed through the 7001 process. For four of the EI authorities, WRDA 2020 expanded the authorized geographic scope or types of eligible activities.

New and Modified Authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024

The 117th and 118th Congresses enacted new and amended EI assistance authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024. Due to changes in policies that previously restricted congressionally directed authorizations, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) both considered Member proposals to add or amend EI assistance authorities and proposals transmitted by the Administration (e.g., nonfederal proposals to amend EI assistance authorities included in a Section 7001 report) when developing WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024. In total, WRDA 2022 increased the authorization of appropriations for EI by $6.6 billion, then WRDA 2024 further increased the authorization of appropriations by an additional $5.4 billion.

EI provisions in these enacted WRDAs varied by the type of infrastructure eligible for assistance, the geographic area covered, and the authorization of appropriations. New EI assistance authorities in the WRDAs included authorities pertaining to a specific water district, cities, counties, and states. In particular, WRDA 2022 expanded the geographic scope of EI assistance authorities to include all or some parts of Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington, which previously did not have EI authorities. New authorization of appropriations for EI assistance authorities in the WRDAs ranged from $170,000 to $270.0 million, and amendments to EI assistance authorizations included increasing authorization of appropriations for those authorities ranging from $1.4 million to $184.0 million. Most provisions in the WRDAs authorized eligible activities that are similar to previous EI authorities; however, additional specified activities included groundwater recharge, water recycling, water reclamation, natural and nature-based infrastructure, water quality enhancement, and resilience measures for such infrastructure in regard to drought, coastal flooding, and earthquakes. WRDA 2024 also included cost-share adjustments for some authorities and projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities.¹⁵

WRDA 2022 included the following sections related to EI assistance authorities:¹⁶

Section 8311 amended the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority (Section 113 of WRDA 1986, as amended);

Sections 8319, 8353, and 8359 authorized new programmatic EI assistance authorities for Los Angeles County, CA; Northern Missouri; and Southwestern Oregon, respectively;

Sections 8373 and 8374 amended two programmatic EI assistance authorities for West Virginia;

Section 8375 amended 24 Section 219 EI assistance authorities, including 2 that were reauthorized, and added 132 new Section 219 assistance authorities; and

Section 8376 amended 12 programmatic EI assistance authorities.

WRDA 2024 included the following sections related to EI assistance authorities:

Section 1304(a) authorized 193 new Section 219 EI assistance authorities;

Section 1304(b)(2) amended 53 Section 219 EI assistance authorities, including one that was reauthorized, and 11 programmatic EI assistance authorities;¹⁷

Section 1305 created a seven-year pilot program to increase the federal cost share for Section 219 EI assistance projects that benefit economically disadvantaged communities from 75% to 90%;¹⁸

Sections 1332, 1340, 1344, 1348, 1349 authorized new programmatic EI assistance authorities for Western Washington State, WA; Kentucky and West Virginia; Southeastern North Carolina, NC; Oregon; and Pennsylvania, respectively;¹⁹

Sections 1330, 1347, 1352, and 1353 amended four programmatic EI assistance authorities;²⁰ and

Section 1355 amended the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority.²¹

Deauthorization Processes

In WRDAs, Congress has authorized various processes to deauthorize existing authorities meeting certain criteria.²² These processes have twice resulted in the deauthorization of EI assistance authorities.²³

In Section 1001(b)(2) of WRDA 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. §579a(b)(2)), Congress enacted a deauthorization process that USACE used in 2009 to deauthorize certain EI assistance authorities.²⁴

In WRRDA 2014, Congress enacted a one-time deauthorization process (i.e., the authority was for developing one list) that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASACW) used in 2016 to deauthorize certain EI assistance authorities.²⁵

Although Congress has amended the ASACW's authority to deauthorize USACE projects multiple times between enactment of WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2024, these processes were not used. Whereas some prior USACE deauthorization process authorities excluded EI assistance authorities, the current deauthorization process as established by WRDA 2024 (33 U.S.C. §579d–2) does not explicitly exclude EI authorities from the deauthorization process.

The current process is not automatic based on an ASACW-produced final deauthorization list. Pursuant to WRDA 2024, the ASACW's role in deauthorization concludes with the ASACW's submission of a final deauthorization list to Congress for review (i.e., no automatic deauthorization without congressional action to deauthorize authorities on the list). The current process applies to project authorities enacted before June 10, 2014 (i.e., authorities in acts prior to WRRDA 2014), that (1) have not been initiated as of WRDA 2024 enactment or (2) have not had federal or nonfederal funding for the 10 preceding fiscal years. The first step in the deauthorization is for the ASACW to produce a list of those projects (i.e., produce a preliminary deauthorization list).

Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance

The President's budget request typically does not include funding for EI assistance,²⁶ and there is no request for such funding for FY2026.²⁷ Nevertheless, Congress has typically funded EI assistance through USACE's Construction account in Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies annual appropriations acts. Congress also has funded EI assistance through supplemental or emergency appropriations. At times, Congress has provided EI assistance funding based on Member requests (i.e., earmarks) and/or as additional funding for USACE to allocate in a work plan.²⁸ Table 1 summarizes EI assistance funding information from FY2020 through FY2025. The sections below provide further details and analysis of the funding in these fiscal years.

Table 1. Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance, FY2020-FY2025

($ in millions, not adjusted for inflation)

FY2020

FY2021

FY2022

FY2023

FY2024a

FY2025

Total EI Funding

$100.0

$100.0

$299.5

$168.5

$197.7

$300.0

CPF/CDS Funding

NA

NA

$86.5

$130.5

$179.8

—

Work Plan Additional Funding

$100.0

$100.0

$13.0

$18.0b

$17.9

—

Supplemental Funding

—

—

$200.0

$20.0

—

$300.0

Number of Funded EI Authorities

27

21

46

34

44

26

Number of CPF/CDS Itemsc

NA

NA

25

33

48

—

Source: CRS, compiled from USACE Construction Work Plans (FY2020-FY2024), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), USACE's IIJA FY2022 spend plan, P.L. 117-180, and Division B of P.L. 118-158 and its EI assistance work plan.

Notes: CPF/CDS = Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending. EI = environmental infrastructure. NA = Not Applicable. Work plans may list multiple line items and projects, including CPF/CDS items, under one EI assistance authority.

a. All EI funding for FY2024, including both CPF/CDS items and allocations in the work plan, were funded using IIJA appropriations.

b. Division N, Title IV of P.L. 117-328 provided $18.0 million in emergency appropriations for USACE to allocate to EI assistance authorities in a work plan.

c. Multiple CPF/CDS items may be funded under a single EI authority.

FY2020 and FY2021 Appropriations

Prior to the 112th Congress, Congress generally funded specific EI assistance authorities through direction in report language accompanying appropriations acts. During the 112th-116th Congresses, when moratorium policies limited earmarks, Congress specified a funding amount for all EI assistance as part of the "additional funding" provided by Congress above the President's budget request. Reports and explanatory statements accompanying appropriations acts directed USACE to develop a work plan allocating additional funding, including the EI assistance funding, to projects within a certain timeframe (e.g., 60 days).²⁹ In addition, Congress provided guidance on how the Administration was to use the EI assistance funds. For both FY2020 and FY2021, Congress provided $100.0 million in additional funding that USACE allocated among EI assistance authorities in the Construction work plan. In those fiscal years, Congress did not provide supplemental or emergency appropriations for EI assistance.

FY2022 Through FY2024 Appropriations

In the 117th and 118th Congresses, annual appropriations processes allowed for Members to request funding for geographically specific projects, which were referred to as Community Project Funding (CPF) in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) in the Senate. In FY2022-FY2024, Congress funded CPF/CDS requests for EI assistance and directed USACE to allocate additional funding for EI assistance in work plans. During these fiscal years, supplemental appropriations also funded EI assistance.

For FY2022, the explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), recommended $99.5 million in annual appropriations to fund EI assistance, including (1) $86.5 million to fund 25 CPF/CDS items and (2) $13.0 million that USACE allocated to five EI authorities in its FY2022 Construction work plan.³⁰ Division J, Title III, of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) also provided $200.0 million in FY2022 Construction appropriations for EI assistance authorities, which USACE allocated in its FY2022 IIJA Construction spend plan as required by that act.³¹

In FY2023, Congress provided $168.5 million for USACE EI assistance authorities. The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), included recommendations to fund 32 CPF/CDS items for EI assistance that totaled $130.5 million.³² In addition, Division N, Title IV, of P.L. 117-328 provided $18.0 million in emergency appropriations for USACE to allocate to EI assistance authorities in a work plan; USACE allocated this funding to 13 authorities in its FY2023 Construction work plan.³³ Further, for FY2023, Division A, of the Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-180), provided $20.0 million in emergency appropriations for EI assistance, which USACE allocated to Section 219(f)(167) of WRDA 1992, as amended, for water and wastewater infrastructure in Jackson, MS.³⁴

The FY2024 President's budget request included $5.0 million for EI assistance; this was the first time an Administration had requested EI assistance funding.³⁵ Congress funded $197.7 million for EI assistance in enacted FY2024 appropriations (P.L. 118-42) through use of prior-year IIJA appropriations, including (1) $179.8 million to fund 48 CPF/CDS requests and (2) $17.9 million that USACE allocated to 8 EI authorities in its FY2024 Construction work plan.³⁶

FY2025 Appropriations

The FY2025 President's budget request did not include funding for EI assistance.³⁷ For FY2025, Congress enacted annual appropriations for USACE civil works activities as part of a full-year continuing appropriations act (commonly known as a continuing resolution, or CR). The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4), provided the same appropriations amounts for USACE accounts as FY2024 appropriations and directed USACE to allocate in a work plan funding for certain USACE accounts, including the Construction account.³⁸ USACE's FY2025 work plan did not allocate Construction funding to EI assistance projects.³⁹

The Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of P.L. 118-158), enacted on December 21, 2024, appropriated $700.0 million in emergency funding for USACE's Construction account, including $300.0 million for USACE EI assistance.⁴⁰ The act further directed USACE to allocate Construction funds in a work plan. On January 24, 2025, USACE published a work plan allocating EI funding to 26 authorities for projects in 19 states.⁴¹ Individual project allocations ranged from $250,000 to $40.8 million, with the work plan specifying the estimated obligations from FY2025 through future fiscal years.⁴²

Analysis of Funding from FY2020 Through FY2025

From FY2020 through FY2025, 36 states with EI assistance authorizations received funding from annual appropriations and supplemental appropriations (Figure 1). Ten states, four territories, and the District of Columbia all had at least one EI assistance authorization but did not receive funding from FY2020 through FY2025. Between FY2020 through FY2025, funding in a fiscal year for individual Section 219 EI assistance authorities ranged from $20,000 to $40.8 million. For programmatic EI assistance authorities, funding in a fiscal year ranged from $100,000 for the Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration authority in FY2023 to $44.0 million for the Western Rural Water authority in FY2022.⁴³ Government Accountability Office (GAO) data shows that by the end of FY2023, USACE had obligated 30% of FY2022 CPF/CDS funding and 15% of FY2023 CPF/CDS funding for EI assistance.⁴⁴

Work plans, spend plans, and explanatory statements provide limited information on the type of projects and work to be accomplished under these authorities from the appropriations provided by the acts. The documents may include multiple line items of funding that are under one EI authority. These line items may be for different projects pursuant to one authority or for work in different states pursuant to a multistate authority. Some line items may fund multiple projects under that line item.

Figure 1. Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Funding by State

(FY2020-FY2025; nominal dollars)

Source: CRS, using USACE work plans (FY2020-FY2024); Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58); FY2022 IIJA Construction spend plan (February 16, 2022) and FY2024 Construction spend plan addendum (January 25, 2025); P.L. 117-180; and Division B of P.L. 118-158 and its EI work plan.

Note: Includes both annual and supplemental appropriations for these fiscal years.

Considerations for Congress

Adding, Amending, or Deauthorizing EI Assistance Authorities

A consideration for Congress may include whether to add, amend, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities and, if so, the process to enact such changes. During the earmark moratorium in the 112th-116th Congresses, Congress only amended existing EI assistance authorities, including adding counties and states to some authorities. In contrast, WRDAs in the 117th and 118th Congresses included both new and amended EI assistance authorities. Most of the EI assistance provisions in these latest WRDAs were proposed through Member submissions to the authorizing committees.⁴⁵ Future Congresses may debate whether and how to further address EI assistance requests. Such options may include amending existing EI assistance authorities, providing new authorities, and authorizing a nationwide program, among others. Congress may also consider whether to solicit such proposals through requests from Member offices or an alternative process.

When determining whether to amend or add EI assistance authorities, Congress may consider various aspects of these authorities, such as geographic area covered, authorization of appropriations, purposes, and cost sharing. For instance, WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024 EI assistance provisions varied widely in the authorization of appropriations and eligible geographic areas, and both bills included new eligible purposes for EI assistance.⁴⁶ Congress may consider the distribution of EI assistance authorities across states and regions. While multiple authorities cover large areas of some states, and some authorities cover entire states, EI assistance authorities are still limited in many other states (e.g., covering only a certain city, county, or region of the state), and no such assistance is authorized in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and American Samoa. Further, WRDA 2024 authorized increased federal cost shares for Section 219 projects under a pilot program and for projects under some programmatic authorities, if the projects are expected to benefit economically disadvantaged communities.⁴⁷ However, most programmatic authorities do not include a cost-share modification for such projects, and the Section 219 pilot program includes an annual funding cap and expiration date.

Congress also may consider deauthorizing EI assistance authorities. For some locations, multiple EI authorities apply. For example, there are multiple authorities applicable to all or portions of Los Angeles County and at least 10 occurrences of 2 Section 219 authorities having the same location in the name. Some EI assistance authorities have not received funding in recent years, and many EI assistance authorities have never received funding. Some of these unfunded authorities may no longer reflect a current EI assistance need or may no longer have a nonfederal entity interested in sponsoring a project's nonfederal responsibilities (e.g., cost share, operation and maintenance). However, a potential benefit of maintaining these authorities could be their application for other future EI projects in similar authorized areas (i.e., without having to authorize new assistance). Notably, Congress reauthorized some EI assistance authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024 that were previously deauthorized through the deauthorization process enacted in WRRDA 2014.

Funding EI Assistance Authorities

Although Congress regularly funds USACE EI assistance, no Administration had requested funding for the EI authorities until the FY2024 President's budget request. Some in Congress also have considered whether EI assistance activities belong in USACE. For example, a proposed amendment in the Senate to the FY2017 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill would have eliminated funding for EI assistance. Those in favor of the amendment argued that these activities were primarily nonfederal responsibilities, supported by other federal programs, and were outside of USACE's traditional missions.⁴⁸ The amendment did not pass.⁴⁹ Other federal programs may provide assistance to similar water projects on a competitive basis using established criteria (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency's state revolving funds, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's small watershed loans).⁵⁰ Unlike EI assistance, some of these programs do not restrict assistance to specific geographic areas. These programs may also differ from EI authorities by leveraging funding to provide financial assistance mainly as loans, while USACE EI assistance is cost shared (mostly at a federal share of 75%). In addition to funding, USACE EI assistance includes design and construction assistance from USACE staff. Congress may consider how much funding to provide USACE for EI assistance relative to other programs that may address similar water infrastructure needs.

Congress enacted $5.4 billion in additional authorizations of appropriations for EI assistance authorities in WRDA 2024, resulting in $18.1 billion in total authorized appropriations for USACE EI assistance. From FY2020 to FY2025, appropriations for EI assistance ranged from $100.0 million to $300.0 million. Thus, there is a significant difference in appropriated EI funding relative to authorized appropriations. In future appropriations bills, Congress may consider how much EI assistance to fund and how much of that funding is for Member requests (i.e., CPF/CDS requests) versus for additional funding for USACE to allocate. For FY2023, 77% of EI funding was for CPF/CDS requests, and in FY2024, the percentage increased to 91%.⁵¹ In contrast, the enacted full-year CR for FY2025 annual appropriations did not provide funding for CPF/CDS items.

In future fiscal years, Congress may consider how to fund EI assistance projects, whether by identifying funding for specific projects in appropriations acts or directing USACE to allocate the funding in a work plan. Congress has more influence and control of projects receiving EI assistance if directly specifying the projects in appropriations acts. For example, in annual appropriations act for FY2022 through FY2024, Congress directed the majority of EI assistance funding through CPF/CDS requests. However, this approach may result in a distribution of funding for EI assistance authorities that does not reflect certain criteria, such as prioritization of disadvantaged communities. Providing EI assistance funding that USACE is to allocate may instead result in funding projects that better reflect needs, as identified by USACE, and also may more closely match the agency's capacity to expend the funds. This approach would cede funding decisions to the Administration developing the work plan, which may prioritize projects differently than Congress. Still, Congress may choose to provide broad direction to the agency on how to allocate such funding. For example, the explanatory statement for FY2024 appropriations directed the majority of additional funding for EI assistance to support multistate authorities.⁵²

Oversight of EI Assistance Activities

Another consideration for Congress may be how to conduct oversight of USACE EI assistance activities.⁵³ For instance, Congress could consider requiring reporting information on EI assistance policies and execution. Public information on USACE's EI assistance activities is limited. USACE budget justifications provide information on USACE studies and projects included in the budget request; and because USACE usually does not request EI assistance funding, budget justifications usually do not include information on these authorities. Some USACE district webpages provide information on USACE EI assistance authorities, including through project factsheets, project initiation guidelines, and EAs,⁵⁴ while other districts provide no such information. USACE publishes model project partnership agreements that cover many EI assistance authorities,⁵⁵ but CRS could not identify further overall policy guidance (e.g., a USACE engineering regulation) on USACE's EI assistance.

In 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied how USACE allocated funding for Section 219 EI assistance. In its report, GAO found USACE was not following any national criteria or policy in funding these projects, despite congressional guidance provided in explanatory statements and conference reports accompanying enacted appropriations laws.⁵⁶ Following GAO's report, Section 137 of WRDA 2020 directed the ASACW to develop specific criteria for evaluating and ranking individual EI assistance projects, while specifying certain considerations that should be included in the criteria. In addition, the section directed the ASACW to submit with USACE's FY2022 budget request, and with every other subsequent budget request, a report that identifies the ASACW's ranking of individual EI assistance projects for the ASACW to carry out. Subsequent budget requests have not included this information. As of June 2025, CRS did not identify any USACE criteria or reports pursuant to the provision. However, GAO reports that in March 2021, USACE incorporated criteria into a Program Development Manual for the allocation of Section 219 project funding, which USACE stated it uses to rank and prioritize Section 219 projects for funding.⁵⁷

Congress may also examine how efficiently the EI assistance funds are spent on projects and how effective the funded projects are in accomplishing their authorized purposes. The 2019 GAO report on EI assistance only analyzed Section 219 assistance for FY2013 through FY2017, and GAO reported that USACE developed a database to capture data and metrics associated with criteria for Section 219 projects.⁵⁸ More recent GAO analysis of CPF/CDS items provides some information on USACE obligation and allocation of such EI assistance funding for FY2022 and FY2023 through the end of FY2023.⁵⁹ Congress may be interested in further analysis of this issue, potentially extending to all EI assistance activities, including those under programmatic authorities, and all funding, including funding not provided by CPF/CDS.

Appendix A. Examples of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Congress has authorized and amended USACE environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance in omnibus authorization laws, often titled Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), and in appropriations acts. Below are examples of EI assistance authorities that have been enacted into law. More EI authorities, as amended, may be located in the statute compilations maintained by the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.⁶⁰ Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 1992; P.L. 102-580), as amended, includes the majority of EI assistance authorities. The excerpt below of Section 219 is abridged for brevity. Other examples include the following:

a non-Section 219 EI project authority—Acequias Irrigation System (Section 1113 of WRDA 1986 [P.L. 99-662] as amended), and

EI programmatic authorities—

for a restoration example, Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration (Section 108, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 [Division C of P.L. 108-447]),

for an example of regions within a state, Southern and Eastern Kentucky (Section 531, WRDA 1996 [P.L. 104-303], as amended), and

for a multistate example, Western Rural Water (Section 595 of WRDA 1999 [P.L. 106-53], as amended).

Section 219, WRDA 1992, as Amended⁶¹

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects described in subsection (c), including waste water treatment and related facilities and water supply, storage, treatment, and distribution facilities. Such assistance may be in the form of technical and planning and design assistance. If the Secretary is to provide any design or engineering assistance to carry out a project under this section, the Secretary shall obtain by procurement from private sources all services necessary for the Secretary to provide such assistance, unless the Secretary finds that—

(1) the service would require the use of a new technology unavailable in the private sector, or

(2) a solicitation or request for proposal has failed to attract 2 or more bids or proposals.

(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost of projects for which assistance is provided under this section shall not be less than 25 percent, except that such share shall be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay, including the procedures and regulations relating to ability to pay established under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

(c) PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.—The projects for which the Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under subsection (a) are as follows:

(2) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—A combined sewer overflow treatment facility for the city of Atlanta, Georgia.

(3) HAZARD, KENTUCKY.—A water system (including a 13,000,000 gallon per day water treatment plant), intake structures, raw water pipelines and pumps, distribution lines, and pumps and storage tanks for Hazard, Kentucky.

(4) ROUGE RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Completion of a comprehensive streamflow enhancement project for the Western Townships Utility Authority, Rouge River, Wayne County, Michigan.

(5) JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Provision of an alternative water supply and a project for the elimination or control of combined sewer overflows projects for the design, installation, enhancement, or repair of sewer systems for Jackson County, Mississippi.

....

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated for providing assistance under this section $30,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.—There are authorized to be appropriated for providing construction assistance under this section—

(1) $57,500,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(5);

(5) $100,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(2);

...

(f) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide assistance under subsection (a) and assistance for construction for the following:

(1) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—The project described in subsection (c)(2), modified to include watershed restoration and development in the regional Atlanta watershed, including Big Creek and Rock Creek.

(10) EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—$52,000,000 for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, and environmental restoration projects in the counties of Accomack, Northampton, Lee, Norton, Wise, Scott, Russell, Dickenson, Buchanan, and Tazewell, Virginia.

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), towards the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

(11) NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.—$70,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including water supply in the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, and Monroe, Pennsylvania, including assistance for the Montoursville Regional Sewer Authority, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.

(12) CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—$120,000,000 for water related infrastructure projects in the counties of Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter, Indiana.

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), towards the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

(13) CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,000,000 for water related infrastructure in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.

(21) BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.—$100,000,000 for water related infrastructure for the parishes of East Baton Rouge, Ascension, and Livingston, Louisiana.

...

(598) OTHELLO, WASHINGTON.—$14,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, storage, and treatment, and aquifer storage and recovery), in the city of Othello, Washington.

Section 1113, WRDA 1986, as Amended⁶²

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

(a)(1) The Congress finds that the irrigation ditch systems in New Mexico, known as the Acequia systems, date from the eighteenth century, and that these early engineering works have significance in the settlement and development of the western portion of the United States.

(2) The Congress, therefore, declares that the restoration and preservation of the Acequia systems has cultural and historic values to the region.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary shall carry out, without regard to economic analysis, such measures as are necessary to protect and restore the river diversion structures and associated channels attendant to the operations of the community ditch and Acequia systems in New Mexico that—

(1) are declared to be a political subdivision of the State; or

(2) belong to an Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).

(c) INCLUSIONS.—The measures described in subsection (b) shall, to the maximum extent practicable—

(1) ensure greater resiliency of diversion structures, including to flow variations, prolonged drought conditions, invasive plant species, and threats from changing hydrological and climatic conditions; or

(2) support research, development, and training for innovative management solutions, including those for controlling invasive aquatic plants that affect acequias.

(d) COST SHARING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of carrying out the measures described in subsection (b), including study costs, shall be 25 percent, except that in the case of a measure benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), including economically disadvantaged communities located in urban and rural areas, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out such measure shall be 90 percent.

(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Federal share of a reconnaissance study carried out by the Secretary under this section shall be 100 percent.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the measures described in subsection (b) $90,000,000.

(f) PUBLIC ENTITY STATUS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall consider the historic Acequia systems (community ditches) of the southwestern United States as public entities, if these systems are chartered by the respective State laws as political subdivisions of that State or belong to an Indian Tribe within the State of New Mexico.

(2) EFFECT.—The public entity status provided under paragraph (1) shall allow the officials of the Acequia systems described in such paragraph to enter into agreements and serve as local sponsors of water-related projects of the Secretary.

Section 108, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005, as Amended⁶³

LAKE TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA.

(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ``Lake Tahoe Basin'' means the entire watershed drainage of Lake Tahoe including that portion of the Truckee River 1,000 feet downstream from the United States Bureau of Reclamation dam in Tahoe City, California.

(b) Establishment of Program.—The Secretary may establish a program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Lake Tahoe Basin.

(c) Form of Assistance.—Assistance under this section may be in the form of planning, design, and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Lake Tahoe Basin—

(1) urban stormwater conveyance, treatment and related facilities;

(2) watershed planning, science and research;

(3) environmental restoration; and

(4) surface water resource protection and development.

(d) Public Ownership Requirement.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.

(e) Local Cooperation Agreement.—

(1) In general.—Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance.

(2) Requirements.—Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:

(A) Plan.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State and Regional officials, of appropriate environmental documentation, engineering plans and specifications.

(B) Legal and institutional structures.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.

(3) Cost sharing.—

(A) In general.—The Federal share of project costs under each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.

(B) Credit for design work.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of planning and design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a project.

(C) Land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.

(D) Operation and maintenance.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.—Nothing in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided under this section.

(g) Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section for the period beginning with fiscal year 2005, $50,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Section 531, WRDA 1996, as Amended

SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish a program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in southern and eastern Kentucky.

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water related environmental infrastructure, environmental restoration, and resource protection and development projects in southern and eastern Kentucky, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, surface water resource protection and development, and small stream flooding, local storm water drainage, and related problems.

(c) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.

(d) PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with such assistance. Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, with the consent of the affected local government, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each agreement entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities development plan or resource protection plan, including appropriate plans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Total project costs under each agreement entered into under this subsection shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal. The Federal share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work completed by such interest before entering into the agreement with the Secretary.

(C) CREDIT FOR CERTAIN FINANCING COSTS.—In the event of a delay in the reimbursement of the non-Federal share of a project, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest and other associated financing costs necessary for such non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal share of the project's cost.

(D) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Federal interest toward its share of project costs (including costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the placement of such project on publicly owned or controlled lands), but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed under an agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 100 percent.

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided under this section.

(f) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 1999, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the program carried out under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether or not such program should be implemented on a national basis.

(g) SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ''southern and eastern Kentucky'' means Morgan, Floyd, Pulaski, Wayne, Laurel, Knox, Pike, Menifee, Perry, Harlan, Breathitt, Martin, Jackson, Wolfe, Clay, Magoffin, Owsley, Johnson, Leslie, Lawrence, Knott, Bell, McCreary, Rockcastle, Whitley, Lee, Boyd, Carter, Elliott, Lincoln, Bath, Rowan, and Letcher Counties, Kentucky.

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000.

(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

Section 595, WRDA 1999, as Amended

WESTERN RURAL WATER

(a) DEFINITION.—ln this section:

(1) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The term 'non-Federal interest' includes an entity declared to be a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico

(2) RURAL NEVADA.—The term 'rural Nevada' means—

(A) the counties of Lincoln, White Pine, Nye, Eureka, Elko, Humboldt, Pershing, Churchill, Storey, Lyon, Carson, Douglas, Mineral, Esmeralda, and Lander, Nevada;

(B) the portions of Washoe County,· Nevada, that are located outside the cities of Reno and Sparks; and

(C) the portions of Clark County, Nevada, that are located outside the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson and the unincorporated portion of the county in the Las Vegas Valley.

(3) RURAL UTAH.—The term 'rural Utah' means-

(A) the counties of Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Tooele, Morgan, Summit, Daggett, Wasatch, Duchesne, Uintah, Juab, Sanpete, Carbon, Millard, Sevier, Emery, Grand, Beaver, Piute, Wayne, Iron, Garfield, San Juan, and Kane, Utah; and

(B) the portions of Washington County, Utah, that are located outside the city of St. George, Utah.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish a program for providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming.

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.-Assistance under this section may be in the form of—

(1) design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure, including natural and nature-based infrastructure and resource protection and development in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming, including projects for—

(A) wastewater treatment and related facilities;

(B) water supply and related facilities;

(C) environmental restoration;

(D) surface water resource protection and development; and

(E) drought resilience measures; and

(2) technical assistance to small and rural communities for water planning and issues relating to access to water resources.

(d) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.

(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.—-

(1) IN GENERAL—Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall provide for the following:

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of project costs under each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.

(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work completed by the non-Federal interest before entering into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a project.

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—ln case of a delay in the funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project costs.

(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND RELOCATIONS.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided under this section.

(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the program carried out under this section, including recommendations concerning whether the program should be implemented on a national basis.

(h) ELIGIBILITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Assistance under this section shall be made available to all eligible States and locales described in subsection (b) consistent with program priorities determined by the Secretary in accordance with criteria developed by the Secretary to establish the program priorities.

(2) SELECTION OF PROJECTS.—ln selecting projects for assistance under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to a project located in an eligible State or local entity for which the project sponsor is prepared to—

(A) execute a new or amended project cooperation agreement; and

(B) commence promptly after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.

(3) RURAL PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall consider a project authorized under this section and an environmental infrastructure project authorized under section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580; 106 Stat. 4835) for new starts on the same basis as any other similarly funded project.

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, to remain available until expended—

(1) for the period beginning with fiscal year 2001, $850,000,000 for Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming; and

(2) $250,000,000 for Arizona.

Appendix B. Summary of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Table B-1. Summary of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Name

Authority

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 219 Project Authorities

Colonias Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Section 219(c)(18) as modified by (e)(9), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Lake Tahoe Basin

Section 219(f)(433), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Alabama

Section 219(f)(274), WRDA 1992, as amended

$85,000,000

St. Clair, Blount, and Cullman Counties, AL

Section 219(f)(78), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Crawford County, AR

Section 219(f)(79), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Eastern Arkansas Enterprise Community, AR

Section 219(c)(20) as modified by (e)(11), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Buckeye, AZ

Section 219(f)(406), WRDA 1992, as amended

$12,000,000

Chandler, AZ

Section 219(f)(275), WRDA 1992, as amended

$18,750,000

Flagstaff, AZ

Section 219(f)(407), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Glendale, AZ

Section 219(f)(408), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,200,000

Marana, AZ

Section 219(c)(19) as modified by (e)(10), WRDA 1992, as amended

$27,000,000

Page, AZ

Section 219(f)(409), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Pinal County, AZ

Section 219(f)(276), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Sahuarita, AZ

Section 219(f)(410), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,800,000

Tempe, AZ

Section 219(f)(277), WRDA 1992, as amended

$37,500,000

Tohono O'odham Nation, AZ

Section 219(f)(411), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Tucson, AZ

Section 219(f)(412), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Winslow, AZ

Section 219(f)(413), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Adelanto, CA

Section 219(f)(414), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, CA

Section 219(f)(80), WRDA 1992, as amended

$45,000,000

Alameda County, CA

Section 219(f)(278), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Aliso Creek, Orange County, CA

Section 219(f)(81), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Alpine, CA

Section 219(f)(77), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Amador County, CA

Section 219(f)(82), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Aptos, CA

Section 219(f)(415), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Arcadia, Sierra Madre, and Upland, CA

Section 219(f)(83), WRDA 1992, as amended

$33,000,000

Bell Gardens, CA

Section 219(f)(279), WRDA 1992, as amended

$12,500,000

Big Bear Area Region Wastewater Agency, CA

Section 219(f)(84), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Bishop, CA

Section 219(f)(417), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,500,000

Bloomington, CA

Section 219(f)(418), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Brawley Colonia, Imperial County, CA

Section 219(f)(85), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,400,000

Butte County, CA

Section 219(f)(419), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Calaveras County, CA

Section 219(f)(86), WRDA 1992, as amended

$16,300,000

California City, CA

Section 219(f)(420), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,902,808

Calimesa, CA

Section 219(f)(280), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,500,000

Cambria, CA

Section 219(f)(48), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,300,000

Carson, CA

Section 219(f)(421), WRDA 1992, as amended

$11,000,000

Cedar Glen, CA

Section 219(f)(422), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Colton, CA

Section 219(f)(424), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Compton Creek, CA

Section 219(f)(281), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,165,000

Contra Costa Water District, CA

Section 219(f)(87), WRDA 1992, as amended

$80,000,000

Coronado, CA

Section 219(f)(71), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Culver City, CA

Section 219(f)(423), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Desert Hot Springs, CA

Section 219(c)(23) as modified by (e)(12), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Downey, CA

Section 219(f)(282), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara Areas, CA

Section 219(f)(88), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

East County, San Diego County, CA

Section 219(f)(283), WRDA 1992, as amended

$70,000,000

East Palo Alto, CA

Section 219(f)(89), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

East San Fernando Valley, CA

Section 219(f)(425), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

East San Joaquin County, CA

Section 219(f)(22), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Eastern Los Angeles County, CA

Section 219(f)(284), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Escondido Creek, CA

Section 219(f)(285), WRDA 1992, as amended

$34,000,000

Fontana, CA

Section 219(f)(286), WRDA 1992, as amended

$16,000,000

Fresno County, CA

Section 219(f)(426), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, CA

Section 219(f)(427), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,500,000

Grand Terrace, CA

Section 219(f)(428), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Harbor/South Bay, CA

Section 219(f)(43), WRDA 1992, as amended

$70,000,000

Hayward, CA

Section 219(f)(429), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Healdsburg, CA

Section 219(f)(287), WRDA 1992, as amended

$23,500,000

Hollister, CA

Section 219(f)(430), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Huntington Beach, CA

Section 219(c)(25) as modified by (e)(13), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Imperial County, CA

Section 219(f)(90), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Inglewood, CA

Section 219(c)(26) as modified by (e)(14), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Inland Empire, CA

Section 219(f)(288), WRDA 1992, as amended

$60,000,000

Kern County, CA

Section 219(f)(431), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

La Habra, CA

Section 219(f)(91), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

La Mirada, CA

Section 219(f)(92), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

La Quinta, CA

Section 219(f)(434), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Lake County, CA

Section 219(f)(432), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Lakewood, CA

Section 219(f)(435), WRDA 1992, as amended

$8,000,000

Lancaster, CA

Section 219(f)(41), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,500,000

Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada Counties, CA

Section 219(f)(74), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Lawndale, CA

Section 219(f)(436), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Lomita, CA

Section 219(f)(289), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,716,600

Lomita, CA

Section 219(f)(438), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,500,000

Lone Pine, CA

Section 219(f)(437), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Los Angeles County, CA

Section 219(f)(93), WRDA 1992, as amended

$128,000,000

Los Angeles County, CA

Section 219(f)(94), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Los Banos, CA

Section 219(f)(439), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Los Olivos, CA

Section 219(f)(440), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Los Osos, CA

Section 219(c)(27) as modified by (e)(15), WRDA 1992, as amended

$43,000,000

Lynwood, CA

Section 219(f)(441), WRDA 1992, as amended

$12,000,000

Madera County, CA

Section 219(f)(442), WRDA 1992, as amended

$27,500,000

Malibu, CA

Section 219(f)(95), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Marin County, CA

Section 219(f)(290), WRDA 1992, as amended

$28,000,000

Maywood, CA

Section 219(f)(291), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Milpitas, CA

Section 219(f)(443), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Montebello, CA

Section 219(f)(96), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Montecito, CA

Section 219(f)(444), WRDA 1992, as amended

$18,250,000

Monterey Peninsula, CA

Section 219(f)(292), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

New River, CA

Section 219(f)(97), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

North Richmond, CA

Section 219(f)(293), WRDA 1992, as amended

$45,000,000

North Valley Region, Lancaster, CA

Section 219(f)(50), WRDA 1992, as amended

$24,500,000

Norwalk, CA

Section 219(c)(28) as modified by (e)(16), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Oakland-Alameda Estuary, CA

Section 219(f)(445), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Ontario, CA

Section 219(f)(294), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,700,000

Orange County, CA

Section 219(f)(98), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Oxnard, CA

Section 219(f)(446), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Paramount, CA

Section 219(f)(295), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Patterson, CA

Section 219(f)(447), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Perris, CA

Section 219(f)(100), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Petaluma, CA

Section 219(f)(296), WRDA 1992, as amended

$13,700,000

Placer and El Dorado Counties, CA

Section 219(f)(73), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Placer County, CA

Section 219(f)(297), WRDA 1992, as amended

$21,000,000

Pomona, CA

Section 219(f)(448), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Port of Stockton, Stockton, CA

Section 219(f)(99), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Rialto, CA

Section 219(f)(298), WRDA 1992, as amended

$27,500,000

Rincon Reservation, CA

Section 219(f)(299), WRDA 1992, as amended

$38,000,000

Rohnert Park, CA

Section 219(f)(449), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, Bay-Delta, CA

Section 219(f)(416), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Sacramento Area, CA

Section 219(f)(23), WRDA 1992, as amended

$45,000,000

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CA

Section 219(f)(300), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Salinas, CA

Section 219(f)(450), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

San Benito County, CA

Section 219(f)(451), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

San Bernardino County, CA

Section 219(f)(101), WRDA 1992, as amended

$24,000,000

San Buenaventura, CA

Section 219(f)(452), WRDA 1992, as amended

$18,250,000

San Diego County, CA

Section 219(f)(453), WRDA 1992, as amended

$200,000,000

San Joaquin and Stanislaus, CA

Section 219(f)(301), WRDA 1992, as amended

$200,000,000

San Luis Obispo County, CA

Section 219(f)(455), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

San Ramon Valley, CA

Section 219(f)(42), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Santa Clara County, CA

Section 219(f)(102), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,500,000

Santa Monica, CA

Section 219(f)(103), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Santa Rosa, CA

Section 219(f)(302), WRDA 1992, as amended

$19,400,000

Sierra Madre, CA

Section 219(f)(303), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Smith River, CA

Section 219(f)(304), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

South Gate, CA

Section 219(f)(454), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Southern Los Angeles County, CA

Section 219(f)(104), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

South Perris, CA

Section 219(f)(52), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

South San Francisco, CA

Section 219(f)(305), WRDA 1992, as amended

$270,000,000

Stanislaus County, CA

Section 219(f)(456), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Stockton, CA

Section 219(f)(105), WRDA 1992, as amended

$33,000,000

Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, CA

Section 219(f)(106), WRDA 1992, as amended

$375,000

Temecula, CA

Section 219(f)(306), WRDA 1992, as amended

$18,000,000

Tijuana River Valley Watershed, CA

Section 219(f)(457), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Torrance, CA

Section 219(f)(307), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

Tulare County, CA

Section 219(f)(458), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Watsonville, CA

Section 219(f)(459), WRDA 1992, as amended

$28,000,000

Western Contra Costa County, CA

Section 219(f)(308), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Whittier, CA

Section 219(f)(107), WRDA 1992, as amended

$8,000,000

Yolo County, CA

Section 219(f)(309), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Yolo County, CA

Section 219(f)(460), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Yorba Linda Water District, CA

Section 219(f)(461), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,500,000

Arkansas Valley Conduit, CO

Section 219(f)(108), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Boulder County, CO

Section 219(f)(109), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

El Paso County, CO

Section 219(f)(462), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Fremont County, CO

Section 219(f)(463), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Montezuma and La Plata Counties, CO

Section 219(f)(110), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, CO

Section 219(f)(111), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Pueblo and Otero Counties, CO

Section 219(f)(112), WRDA 1992, as amended

$34,000,000

East Hampton, CT

Section 219(f)(464), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

East Lyme, CT

Section 219(f)(465), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Enfield, CT

Section 219(f)(113), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Hebron, CT

Section 219(f)(310), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,700,000

Ledyard and Montville, CT

Section 219(f)(114), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,113,000

New Haven, CT

Section 219(f)(115), WRDA 1992, as amended

$300,000

New London, CT

Section 219(f)(311), WRDA 1992, as amended

$16,000,000

Norwalk, CT

Section 219(f)(116), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Plainville, CT

Section 219(f)(117), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,280,000

Southington, CT

Section 219(f)(118), WRDA 1992, as amended

$9,420,000

Windham, CT

Section 219(f)(312), WRDA 1992, as amended

$18,000,000

District of Columbia

Section 219(f)(120), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Anacostia River, DC and MD

Section 219(f)(119), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Washington, DC

Section 219(f)(316), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Kent, DE

Section 219(f)(313), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

New Castle, DE

Section 219(f)(314), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Pickering Beach, Kitts Hummock, Bowers Beach, South Bowers Beach, Slaughter Beach, Prime Hook Beach, Milton, Milford, DE

Section 219(f)(468), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Rehoboth Beach, Lewes, Dewey, Bethany, South Bethany, Fenwick Island, DE

Section 219(f)(466), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Sussex, DE

Section 219(f)(315), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Wilmington, DE

Section 219(f)(467), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Broward County, FL

Section 219(f)(469), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Central Florida, FL

Section 219(f)(475), WRDA 1992, as amended

$45,000,000

Charlotte County, FL

Section 219(f)(121), WRDA 1992, as amended

$33,000,000

Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, FL

Section 219(f)(122), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Collier County, FL

Section 219(f)(123), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Deltona, FL

Section 219(f)(470), WRDA 1992, as amended

$31,200,000

Hillsborough County, FL

Section 219(f)(124), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,250,000

Jacksonville, FL

Section 219(f)(125), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Longboat Key, FL

Section 219(f)(317), WRDA 1992, as amended

$12,750,000

Longboat Key, FL

Section 219(f)(471), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Marion County, FL

Section 219(f)(472), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Martin, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach Counties, FL

Section 219(f)(318), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

Miami-Dade County, FL

Section 219(f)(128), WRDA 1992, as amended

$190,250,000

Palm Beach County, FL

Section 219(f)(129), WRDA 1992, as amended

$57,500,000

Polk County, FL

Section 219(f)(319), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Okeechobee County, FL

Section 219(f)(320), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Orange County, FL

Section 219(f)(321), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Osceola County, FL

Section 219(f)(474), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Oviedo, FL

Section 219(f)(473), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Sarasota County, FL

Section 219(f)(126), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

South Seminole and North Orange County, FL

Section 219(f)(127), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Georgia (subset of counties)

Section 219(f)(322), WRDA 1992, as amended

$75,000,000

Albany, GA

Section 219(f)(130), WRDA 1992, as amended

$109,000,000

Atlanta, GA

Section 219(c)(2) as modified by (e)(5) and (f)(1), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

Banks County, GA

Section 219(f)(131), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Berrien County, GA

Section 219(f)(132), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Chattooga County, GA

Section 219(f)(133), WRDA 1992, as amended

$8,000,000

Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon, Walker, and Whitfield Counties, GA

Section 219(f)(134), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Coastal Georgia, GA

Section 219(f)(476), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Cobb County, GA

Section 219(f)(478), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Dahlonega, GA

Section 219(f)(135), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Dekalb County, GA

Section 219(f)(479), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

East Point, GA

Section 219(f)(136), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Fayetteville, Grantville, Lagrange, Pine Mountain (Harris County), Douglasville, and Carrollton, GA

Section 219(f)(137), WRDA 1992, as amended

$24,500,000

Meriwether and Spalding Counties, GA

Section 219(f)(138), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Moultrie, GA

Section 219(f)(139), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Muscogee, Henry, and Clayton Counties, GA

Section 219(f)(477), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Porterdale, GA

Section 219(f)(480), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Stephens County/City of Toccoa, GA

Section 219(f)(140), WRDA 1992, as amended

$8,000,000

Guam

Section 219(f)(323), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

State of Hawaii

Section 219(f)(324), WRDA 1992, as amended

$75,000,000

County of Hawaii, HI

Section 219(f)(325), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Honolulu, HI

Section 219(f)(326), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Kaua´i, HI

Section 219(f)(327), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Maui, HI

Section 219(f)(328), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Burley, ID

Section 219(f)(481), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Belvidere, IL

Section 219(f)(482), WRDA 1992, as amended

$17,000,000

Calumet City, IL

Section 219(f)(483), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Cook County and Lake County, IL

Section 219(f)(54), WRDA 1992, as amended

$149,000,000

Dixmoor, IL

Section 219(f)(329), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Dupage County, IL

Section 219(f)(484), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Forest Park, IL

Section 219(f)(330), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Fox River, IL

Section 219(f)(485), WRDA 1992, as amended

$9,500,000

German Valley, IL

Section 219(f)(486), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

LaSalle, IL

Section 219(f)(487), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Lemont, IL

Section 219(f)(331), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,135,000

Lockport, IL

Section 219(f)(332), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,550,000

Madison and St. Clair Counties, IL

Section 219(f)(55), WRDA 1992, as amended

$150,000,000

Rockford, IL

Section 219(f)(488), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Savanna, IL

Section 219(f)(489), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Sherrard, IL

Section 219(f)(490), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

South Central Illinois, IL

Section 219(f)(333), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Will County, IL

Section 219(f)(334), WRDA 1992, as amended

$36,000,000

Calumet Region, IN

Section 219(f)(12), WRDA 1992, as amended

$125,000,000

Indianapolis, IN

Section 219(f)(75), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,430,000

North Vernon and Butlerville, IN

Section 219(f)(141), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,700,000

Salem, Washington County, IN

Section 219(f)(142), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,200,000

Atchison, KS

Section 219(f)(143), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Wyandotte County and Kansas City, KS

Section 219(f)(491), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Brownsville, KY

Section 219(f)(492), WRDA 1992, as amended

$14,000,000

Central Kentucky, KY

Section 219(f)(144), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Hazard, KY

Section 219(c)(3), WRDA 1992, as amended

—

Winchester, KY

Section 219(c)(41), WRDA 1992, as amended

—

Baton Rouge, LA

Section 219(f)(21), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

Iberia Parish, LA

Section 219(f)(56), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Lafayette, LA

Section 219(f)(145), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,200,000

Lafourche Parish, LA

Section 219(f)(146), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,300,000

Lake Charles, LA

Section 219(f)(147), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Monroe, LA

Section 219(f)(493), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, LA

Section 219(f)(148), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Orleans Parish, LA

Section 219(f)(335), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

Ouachita Parish, LA

Section 219(f)(149), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Plaquemine, LA

Section 219(f)(150), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Point Celeste, LA

Section 219(f)(494), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Rapides Area Planning Commission, LA

Section 219(f)(151), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Shreveport, LA

Section 219(f)(152), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

South Central Planning and Development Commission, LA

Section 219(f)(153), WRDA 1992, as amended

$17,500,000

St. Charles, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines Parishes, LA

Section 219(c)(33) and (e)(18), WRDA 1992, as amended

$70,000,000

St. John the Baptist, St. James, and Assumption Parishes, LA

Section 219(c)(34) and (e)(19), WRDA 1992, as amended

$36,000,000

Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply Project, LA

Section 219(f)(154), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Easthampton, MA

Section 219(f)(495), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Fitchburg, MA

Section 219(f)(336), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Franklin, MA

Section 219(f)(496), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Haverhill, MA

Section 219(f)(337), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Lawrence, MA

Section 219(f)(338), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Lowell, MA

Section 219(f)(339), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Methuen, MA

Section 219(f)(340), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Northampton, MA

Section 219(f)(497), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Winthrop, MA

Section 219(f)(498), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Maryland

Section 219(f)(341), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

Boonsboro, MD

Section 219(f)(342), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Brunswick, MD

Section 219(f)(343), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Chesapeake Bay Improvements, MD, VA, and DC

Section 219(f)(155), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Chesapeake Bay Region, MD and VA

Section 219(f)(156), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Michigan

Section 219(f)(157), WRDA 1992, as amended

$160,000,000

Cascade Charter Township, MI

Section 219(f)(344), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,200,000

Genesee County, MI

Section 219(f)(59), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,700,000

Macomb County, MI

Section 219(f)(345), WRDA 1992, as amended

$90,000,000

Milan, MI

Section 219(f)(499), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Negaunee, MI

Section 219(f)(60), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Oakland County, MI

Section 219(f)(29), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Rouge River, MI

Section 219(c)(4), WRDA 1992, as amended

—

Southeast Michigan, MI

Section 219(f)(500), WRDA 1992, as amended

$58,000,000

Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District, MN

Section 219(f)(158), WRDA 1992, as amended

$12,000,000

Central Lake Region Sanitary District, MN

Section 219(f)(159), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Elysian, MN

Section 219(f)(501), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Garrison, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County, Mille Lacs Indian Reservation, and Kathio Township, MN

Section 219(f)(61), WRDA 1992, as amended

$17,000,000

Goodview, MN

Section 219(f)(160), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Grand Rapids, MN

Section 219(f)(161), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Le Sueur, MN

Section 219(f)(502), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,200,000

Northfield, MN

Section 219(f)(346), WRDA 1992, as amended

$33,450,000

Willmar, MN

Section 219(f)(162), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Centertown, MO

Section 219(f)(347), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,900,000

St. Louis, MO

Section 219(f)(32), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

St. Louis, MO

Section 219(f)(348), WRDA 1992, as amended

$45,000,000

St. Louis County, MO

Section 219(f)(349), WRDA 1992, as amended

$45,000,000

Saipan, MP

Section 219(f)(203), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Biloxi, MS

Section 219(f)(163), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Byram, MS

Section 219(f)(503), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Clinton, MS

Section 219(f)(350), WRDA 1992, as amended

$13,600,000

Columbia, MS

Section 219(f)(504), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Corinth, MS

Section 219(f)(164), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,500,000

Desoto County, MS

Section 219(f)(30), WRDA 1992, as amended

$170,000,000

Diamondhead, MS

Section 219(f)(505), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Gulfport, MS

Section 219(f)(165), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Hancock County, MS

Section 219(f)(506), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Harrison County, MS

Section 219(f)(166), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Jackson, MS

Section 219(f)(167), WRDA 1992, as amended

$139,000,000

Jackson County, MS

Section 219(c)(5) as modified by (e)(1), WRDA 1992, as amended

$57,500,000

Laurel, MS

Section 219(f)(507), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Madison, MS

Section 219(f)(508), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Madison County, MS

Section 219(f)(351), WRDA 1992, as amended

$24,000,000

Meridian, MS

Section 219(f)(352), WRDA 1992, as amended

$26,000,000

Moss Point, MS

Section 219(f)(509), WRDA 1992, as amended

$11,000,000

Olive Branch, MS

Section 219(f)(510), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Oxford, MS

Section 219(f)(353), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Pearl, MS

Section 219(f)(511), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Picayune, MS

Section 219(f)(512), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Rankin County, MS

Section 219(f)(354), WRDA 1992, as amended

$24,000,000

Starkville, MS

Section 219(f)(513), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Cabarrus County, NC

Section 219(f)(191), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,500,000

Canton, NC

Section 219(f)(543), WRDA 1992, as amended

$41,025,650

Cary, Wake County, NC

Section 219(f)(192), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Charlotte, NC

Section 219(f)(193), WRDA 1992, as amended

$14,000,000

Fairmont, NC

Section 219(f)(544), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,137,500

Fayetteville, Cumberland County, NC

Section 219(f)(194), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Mooresville, NC

Section 219(f)(195), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Murphy, NC

Section 219(f)(545), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,500,000

Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority, NC

Section 219(f)(196), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Richmond County, NC

Section 219(f)(197), WRDA 1992, as amended

$13,500,000

Robbinsville, NC

Section 219(f)(546), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,474,350

Stanly County, NC

Section 219(f)(64), WRDA 1992, as amended

$8,900,000

Union County, NC

Section 219(f)(198), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Washington County, NC

Section 219(f)(199), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Weaverville, NC

Section 219(f)(547), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Winston-Salem, NC

Section 219(f)(200), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

North Dakota

Section 219(f)(201), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Devils Lake, ND

Section 219(f)(202), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

New Hampshire

Section 219(f)(518), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Lebanon, NH

Section 219(f)(37), WRDA 1992, as amended

$8,000,000

Manchester, NH

Section 219(f)(355), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Bayonne, NJ

Section 219(f)(356), WRDA 1992, as amended

$825,000

Belmar, NJ

Section 219(f)(519), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Camden, NJ

Section 219(f)(357), WRDA 1992, as amended

$143,800,000

Cape May, NJ

Section 219(f)(520), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Colesville, NJ

Section 219(f)(521), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Cranford Township, NJ

Section 219(f)(175), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Deptford Township, NJ

Section 219(f)(522), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Essex and Sussex Counties, NJ

Section 219(f)(358), WRDA 1992, as amended

$60,000,000

Flemington, NJ

Section 219(f)(359), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,500,000

Jefferson, NJ

Section 219(f)(360), WRDA 1992, as amended

$90,000,000

Kearny, NJ

Section 219(f)(361), WRDA 1992, as amended

$69,900,000

Lacey Township, NJ

Section 219(f)(523), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Long Hill, NJ

Section 219(f)(362), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,500,000

Merchantville, NJ

Section 219(f)(524), WRDA 1992, as amended

$18,000,000

Middletown Township, NJ

Section 219(f)(176), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,100,000

Morris County, NJ

Section 219(f)(363), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Park Ridge, NJ

Section 219(f)(525), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Passaic, NJ

Section 219(f)(364), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Paterson, NJ

Section 219(f)(177), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Phillipsburg, NJ

Section 219(f)(365), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,600,000

Rahway, NJ

Section 219(f)(366), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,250,000

Rahway Valley, NJ

Section 219(f)(178), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Roselle, NJ

Section 219(f)(367), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

South Orange Village, NJ

Section 219(f)(368), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,500,000

Summit, NJ

Section 219(f)(369), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Warren, NJ

Section 219(f)(370), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,550,000

Washington Township, NJ

Section 219(f)(526), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,200,000

Bernalillo, NM

Section 219(f)(527), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Bosque Farms, NM

Section 219(f)(528), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Espanola, NM

Section 219(f)(371), WRDA 1992, as amended

$21,995,000

Farmington, NM

Section 219(f)(372), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,500,000

Mora County, NM

Section 219(f)(373), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,874,000

Santa Fe, NM

Section 219(f)(374), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,700,000

Clark County, NV

Section 219(f)(168), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Clean Water Coalition, NV

Section 219(f)(169), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Glendale Dam Diversion Structure, NV

Section 219(f)(170), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Henderson, NV

Section 219(f)(171), WRDA 1992, as amended

$13,000,000

Indian Springs, NV

Section 219(f)(172), WRDA 1992, as amended

$12,000,000

Laughlin, NV

Section 219(f)(514), WRDA 1992, as amended

$29,000,000

Nye County, NV

Section 219(f)(515), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Pahrump, NV

Section 219(f)(516), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Reno, NV

Section 219(f)(173), WRDA 1992, as amended

$13,000,000

Storey County, NV

Section 219(f)(517), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Washoe County, NV

Section 219(f)(174), WRDA 1992, as amended

$14,000,000

Babylon, NY

Section 219(f)(179), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Carmel, NY

Section 219(f)(529), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,450,000

Chenango County, NY

Section 219(c)(14), WRDA 1992, as amended

—

Clarkstown, NY

Section 219(f)(375), WRDA 1992, as amended

$14,600,000

Dutchess County, NY

Section 219(f)(530), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Ellicottville, NY

Section 219(f)(180), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Elmira, NY

Section 219(f)(181), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Essex Hamlet, NY

Section 219(f)(182), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Fleming, NY

Section 219(f)(183), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Genesee, NY

Section 219(f)(376), WRDA 1992, as amended

$85,000,000

Kings County, NY

Section 219(f)(531), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

Kiryas Joel, NY

Section 219(f)(184), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Mohawk River and Tributaries, NY

Section 219(f)(532), WRDA 1992, as amended

$100,000,000

Mount Pleasant, NY

Section 219(f)(533), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Niagara Falls, NY

Section 219(f)(185), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

New Rochelle, NY

Section 219(f)(534), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Newtown Creek, NY

Section 219(f)(535), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

New York County, NY

Section 219(f)(536), WRDA 1992, as amended

$60,000,000

Orange County, NY

Section 219(f)(537), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Otsego County, NY

Section 219(c)(13), WRDA 1992, as amended

—

Patchogue, NY

Section 219(f)(186), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Queens, NY

Section 219(f)(377), WRDA 1992, as amended

$190,000,000

Ramapo, NY

Section 219(f)(540), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Rikers Island, NY

Section 219(f)(541), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Sennett, NY

Section 219(f)(187), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,500,000

Sleepy Hollow, NY

Section 219(f)(538), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Springport and Fleming, NY

Section 219(f)(188), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Ulster County, NY

Section 219(f)(539), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Wellsville, NY

Section 219(f)(189), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Yates County, NY

Section 219(f)(190), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Yorktown, NY

Section 219(f)(378), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Yorktown, NY

Section 219(f)(542), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Akron, OH

Section 219(f)(204), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Akron, OH

Section 219(f)(548), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,500,000

Apple Creek, OH

Section 219(f)(549), WRDA 1992, as amended

$350,000

Ashtabula County, OH

Section 219(f)(550), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,500,000

Bloomingburg, OH

Section 219(f)(551), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,500,000

Brooklyn Heights, OH

Section 219(f)(552), WRDA 1992, as amended

$170,000

Brunswick, OH

Section 219(f)(379), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,510,000

Burr Oak Regional Water District, OH

Section 219(f)(205), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Chagrin Falls Regional Water System, OH

Section 219(f)(553), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,500,000

Cincinnati, OH

Section 219(f)(206), WRDA 1992, as amended

$31,000,000

Cleveland, OH

Section 219(f)(207), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,500,000

Columbus, OH

Section 219(f)(208), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,500,000

Cuyahoga County, OH

Section 219(f)(554), WRDA 1992, as amended

$11,500,000

Dayton, OH

Section 219(f)(209), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Defiance County, OH

Section 219(f)(210), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

East Cleveland, OH

Section 219(f)(555), WRDA 1992, as amended

$13,000,000

Erie County, OH

Section 219(f)(556), WRDA 1992, as amended

$16,000,000

Fostoria, OH

Section 219(f)(211), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Fremont, OH

Section 219(f)(212), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Huron, OH

Section 219(f)(557), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,100,000

Kelleys Island, OH

Section 219(f)(558), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Lake County, OH

Section 219(f)(213), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,500,000

Lawrence County, OH

Section 219(f)(214), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Meigs County, OH

Section 219(f)(215), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Mentor-on-Lake, OH

Section 219(f)(216), WRDA 1992, as amended

$625,000

North Olmsted, OH

Section 219(f)(559), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,175,165

Painesville, OH

Section 219(f)(560), WRDA 1992, as amended

$11,800,000

Solon, OH

Section 219(f)(561), WRDA 1992, as amended

$14,137,341

Stark County, OH

Section 219(f)(563), WRDA 1992, as amended

$24,000,000

Struthers, OH

Section 219(f)(564), WRDA 1992, as amended

$500,000

Summit County, OH

Section 219(f)(562), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Toledo and Oregon, OH

Section 219(f)(565), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,500,000

Vermilion, OH

Section 219(f)(566), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,400,000

Vinton County, OH

Section 219(f)(217), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Westlake, OH

Section 219(f)(567), WRDA 1992, as amended

$750,000

Willowick, OH

Section 219(f)(218), WRDA 1992, as amended

$665,000

Ada, OK

Section 219(f)(219), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,700,000

Alva, OK

Section 219(f)(220), WRDA 1992, as amended

$250,000

Ardmore, OK

Section 219(f)(221), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,900,000

Bartlesville, OK

Section 219(f)(222), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,500,000

Bethany, OK

Section 219(f)(223), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,500,000

Chickasha, OK

Section 219(f)(224), WRDA 1992, as amended

$650,000

Disney and Langley, OK

Section 219(f)(225), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,500,000

Durant, OK

Section 219(f)(226), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,300,000

Eastern Oklahoma State University, Wilberton, OK

Section 219(f)(227), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Guymon, OK

Section 219(f)(228), WRDA 1992, as amended

$16,000,000

Konawa, OK

Section 219(f)(229), WRDA 1992, as amended

$500,000

Lawton, OK

Section 219(f)(40), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Lugert-Altus Irrigation District, Altus, OK

Section 219(f)(230), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Midwest City, OK

Section 219(f)(231), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Mustang, OK

Section 219(f)(232), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,325,000

Norman, OK

Section 219(f)(233), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Oklahoma Panhandle State University, Guymon, OK

Section 219(f)(234), WRDA 1992, as amended

$275,000

Stillwater, OK

Section 219(f)(568), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Weatherford, OK

Section 219(f)(235), WRDA 1992, as amended

$500,000

Woodward, OK

Section 219(f)(236), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Yukon, OK

Section 219(f)(65), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,500,000

Albany, OR

Section 219(f)(237), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Beaverton, OR

Section 219(f)(569), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Brookings, OR

Section 219(f)(380), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Clackamas County, OR

Section 219(f)(570), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Lane County, OR

Section 219(f)(383), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Monroe, OR

Section 219(f)(381), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Newport, OR

Section 219(f)(382), WRDA 1992, as amended

$60,000,000

Washington County, OR

Section 219(f)(571), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Pennsylvania

Section 219(f)(572), WRDA 1992, as amended

$38,600,000

Allegheny County, PA

Section 219(f)(66), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Beaver Creek Reservoir, PA

Section 219(f)(238), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Berks County, PA

Section 219(f)(573), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Chester County, PA

Section 219(f)(574), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Clinton County, PA

Section 219(f)(13), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Franklin Township, PA

Section 219(f)(575), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Hatfield Borough, PA

Section 219(f)(239), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Indian Creek, PA

Section 219(f)(576), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Lehigh County, PA

Section 219(f)(240), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

North Wales Borough, PA

Section 219(f)(241), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,516,584

Northeast Pennsylvania

Section 219(f)(11), WRDA 1992, as amended

$70,000,000

Palmyra, PA

Section 219(f)(384), WRDA 1992, as amended

$36,300,000

Pen Argyl, PA

Section 219(f)(242), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,250,000

Pen Argyl, PA

Section 219(f)(577), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Philadelphia, PA

Section 219(f)(243), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Phoenixville Borough, Chester County, PA

Section 219(f)(68), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Pike County, PA

Section 219(f)(385), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Pittsburgh, PA

Section 219(f)(386), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Pocono, PA

Section 219(f)(387), WRDA 1992, as amended

$22,000,000

Stockerton Borough, Tatamy Borough, and Palmer Township, PA

Section 219(f)(244), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,000,000

Vera Cruz, PA

Section 219(f)(245), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,500,000

Westfall, PA

Section 219(f)(388), WRDA 1992, as amended

$16,880,000

Whitehall, PA

Section 219(f)(389), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Section 219(f)(246), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Beaufort, SC

Section 219(f)(390), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,462,000

Charleston, SC

Section 219(f)(247), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Charleston, SC

Section 219(f)(391), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,583,000

Charleston and West Ashley, SC

Section 219(f)(248), WRDA 1992, as amended

$6,000,000

Cheraw, SC

Section 219(f)(579), WRDA 1992, as amended

$8,800,000

Chesterfield County, SC

Section 219(f)(578), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, SC

Section 219(f)(249), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

Florence County, SC

Section 219(f)(580), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Horry County, SC

Section 219(f)(392), WRDA 1992, as amended

$19,000,000

Lake City, SC

Section 219(f)(581), WRDA 1992, as amended

$15,000,000

Lakes Marion and Moultrie, SC

Section 219(f)(25), WRDA 1992, as amended

$235,000,000

Mount Pleasant, SC

Section 219(f)(393), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Myrtle Beach and Vicinity, SC

Section 219(f)(250), WRDA 1992, as amended

$31,000,000

North Myrtle Beach and Vicinity, SC

Section 219(f)(251), WRDA 1992, as amended

$74,000,000

Surfside, SC

Section 219(f)(252), WRDA 1992, as amended

$11,000,000

Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation (Dewey and Ziebach Counties) and Perkins and Meade Counties, SD

Section 219(f)(253), WRDA 1992, as amended

$65,000,000

Athens, TN

Section 219(f)(254), WRDA 1992, as amended

$16,000,000

Blaine, TN

Section 219(f)(255), WRDA 1992, as amended

$500,000

Claiborne County, TN

Section 219(f)(256), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,250,000

Cumberland County, TN

Section 219(f)(24), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Giles County, TN

Section 219(f)(257), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Grainger County, TN

Section 219(f)(258), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,250,000

Hamilton County, TN

Section 219(f)(259), WRDA 1992, as amended

$500,000

Harrogate, TN

Section 219(f)(260), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Johnson County, TN

Section 219(f)(261), WRDA 1992, as amended

$600,000

Knoxville, TN

Section 219(f)(262), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Nashville, TN

Section 219(f)(263), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, TN

Section 219(f)(264), WRDA 1992, as amended

$2,000,000

Oak Ridge, TN

Section 219(f)(265), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Plateau Utility District, Morgan County, TN

Section 219(f)(266), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Portland, TN

Section 219(f)(394), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,850,000

Shelby County, TN

Section 219(f)(267), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Smith County, TN

Section 219(f)(395), WRDA 1992, as amended

$69,500,000

Tipton County, TN

Section 219(f)(582), WRDA 1992, as amended

$35,000,000

Tipton, Haywood, and Fayette Counties, TN

Section 219(f)(583), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Trousdale, Macon, and Sumner Counties, TN

Section 219(f)(396), WRDA 1992, as amended

$178,000,000

Amarillo, TX

Section 219(f)(585), WRDA 1992, as amended

$38,000,000

Austin, TX

Section 219(f)(584), WRDA 1992, as amended

$50,000,000

Brownsville, TX

Section 219(f)(586), WRDA 1992, as amended

$40,000,000

Central Texas, TX

Section 219(f)(268), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Clarendon, TX

Section 219(f)(587), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

El Paso County, TX

Section 219(f)(269), WRDA 1992, as amended

$75,000,000

Ft. Bend County, TX

Section 219(f)(270), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Quinlan, TX

Section 219(f)(588), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,250,000

Runaway Bay, TX

Section 219(f)(589), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,000,000

Webb County, TX

Section 219(f)(590), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Zapata County, TX

Section 219(f)(591), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Duchesne, Iron, and Uintah Counties, UT

Section 219(f)(271), WRDA 1992, as amended

$10,800,000

Park City, UT

Section 219(c)(40) as modified by (e)(17), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia, VA

Section 219(f)(10), WRDA 1992, as amended

$52,000,000

King William County, VA

Section 219(f)(592), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,300,000

Lynchburg, VA

Section 219(c)(16) as modified by (e)(7), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Potomac River, VA

Section 219(f)(593), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,000,000

Richmond, VA

Section 219(c)(17) as modified by (e)(8), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

U.S. Virgin Islands

Section 219(f)(273), WRDA 1992, as amended

$25,000,000

U.S. Virgin Islands

Section 219(f)(397), WRDA 1992, as amended

$1,584,000

Bonney Lake, WA

Section 219(f)(398), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Burien, WA

Section 219(f)(399), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Chelan, WA

Section 219(f)(594), WRDA 1992, as amended

$9,000,000

College Place, WA

Section 219(f)(595), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Ellensburg, WA

Section 219(f)(400), WRDA 1992, as amended

$3,000,000

Ferndale, WA

Section 219(f)(596), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

Lynden, WA

Section 219(f)(597), WRDA 1992, as amended

$4,000,000

North Bend, WA

Section 219(f)(401), WRDA 1992, as amended

$30,000,000

Othello, WA

Section 219(f)(598), WRDA 1992, as amended

$14,000,000

Port Angeles, WA

Section 219(f)(402), WRDA 1992, as amended

$7,500,000

Snohomish County, WA

Section 219(f)(403), WRDA 1992, as amended

$56,000,000

Milwaukee, WI

Section 219(f)(405), WRDA 1992, as amended

$11,000,000

St. Croix Falls, WI

Section 219(f)(76), WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Northern West Virginia, WV

Section 219(f)(272), WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Non-Section 219 Project Authorities

Jackson County, AL

Section 522, WRDA 1996

$3,000,000

Environmental Infrastructure Assistance for Benton and Washington Counties, AR

Section 220, WRDA 1992, as amended

$5,000,000

Demonstration of Waste Water Technology, Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Jose, CA

Section 218, WRDA 1992

$10,000,000

Reuse of Waste Water in Santa Rosa, CA and Monterey County, CA

Section 217, WRDA 1992

$5,000,000

Water Monitoring Station, MT

Section 584, WRDA 1996, as amended

$100,000

Hackensack Meadowlands Area, NJ

Section 324, WRDA 1992, as amended

$20,000,000

Acequia Irrigation System, NM

Section 1113, WRDA 1986, as amended

$90,000,000

Programmatic Authorities

Western Rural Water for Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Rural Nevada, New Mexico, Rural Utah, and Wyoming

Section 595, WRDA 1999, as amended

$1,100,000,000

Kentucky and West Virginia

Section 1340, WRDA 2024

$75,000,000

Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration, NV and CA

Section 108, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005, as amended

$50,000,000

Ohio and North Dakotaa

Section 594, WRDA 1999, as amended

$550,000,000

Southeastern Pennsylvania and Lower Delaware Basin, PA, NJ, and DE

Section 566, WRDA 1996, as amended

$70,000,000

Lake Champlain Watershed, VT and NYa

Section 542, WRDA 2000, as amended

$100,000,000

Alaska

Section 570, WRDA 1999, as amended

$45,000,000

California

Section 5039, WRDA 2007

$40,000,000

Los Angeles County, CAa

Section 8319, WRDA 2022

$100,000,000

Placer and El Dorado Counties, CA

Section 130, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004

$40,000,000

Upper Klamath Basin, CA

Section 132, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004

$25,000,000

East Central and Northeast Florida, FL

Section 5061, WRDA 2007

$40,000,000

Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, FL

Section 109, Division B of Appendix D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, as amended

$200,000,000

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, GA

Section 5065, WRDA 2007

$20,000,000

Southwest Illinois, IL

Section 5074, WRDA 2007

$40,000,000

Southern and Eastern Kentucky, KY

Section 531, WRDA 1996, as amended

$100,000,000

East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite River Basin Region, LA

Section 5082, WRDA 2007, as amended

$45,000,000

Southeast Louisiana Region, LA

Section 5085, WRDA 2007, as amended

$22,000,000

Northeastern Minnesota, MN

Section 569, WRDA 1999, as amended

$80,000,000

Northern Missouri, MOa

Section 8353, WRDA 2022, as amended

$50,000,000

Mississippi

Section 592, WRDA 1999, as amended

$300,000,000

Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Restoration Projects, MS

Section 528, WRDA 2000

$10,000,000

North Carolina

Section 5113, WRDA 2007, as amended

$50,000,000

Southeastern North Carolina, NCa

Section 1344, WRDA 2024

$50,000,000

Central New Mexico, NM

Section 593, WRDA 1999, as amended

$150,000,000

Onondaga Lake, NY

Section 573, WRDA 1999, as amended

$30,000,000

New York City Watershed, NY

Section 552, WRDA 1996, as amended

$42,500,000

Oregon

Section 1348, WRDA 2024

$40,000,000

Southwestern Oregon, OR

Section 8359, WRDA 2022, as amended

$100,000,000

Pennsylvania

Section 1349, WRDA 2024

$25,000,000

South Central Pennsylvania, PA

Section 313, WRDA 1992, as amended

$410,000,000

East Tennessee, TN

Section 5130, WRDA 2007

$40,000,000

Texas

Section 5138, WRDA 2007, as amended

$200,000,000

Dallas County Region, TX

Section 5140, WRDA 2007, as amended

$100,000,000

Western Washington State, WAa

Section 1332, WRDA 2024

$242,000,000

Northern Wisconsin, WI

Section 154, Division B of Appendix D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, as amended

$60,000,000

Northern West Virginia, WVa

Section 571, WRDA 1999, as amended

$150,000,000

Southern West Virginia, WVa

Section 340, WRDA 1992, as amended

$170,000,000

Source: CRS, using public laws and deauthorization lists (see lists published in 74 Federal Register 31713-31715, July 2, 2009, and in 81 Federal Register 16147-16153, March 25, 2016).

Notes: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 = P.L. 106-554; Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 = P.L. 108-137; Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 = Division C of P.L. 108-447; WRDA = Water Resources Development Act; WRDA 1992 = P.L. 102-580; WRDA 1996 = P.L. 104-303; WRDA 1999 = P.L. 106-53; WRDA 2000 = P.L. 106-541; WRDA 2007 = P.L. 110-114; WRDA 2022 = Division H, Title LXXXI of P.L. 117-263; WRDA 2024 = Division A of P.L. 118-272. Congress provided no specific authorization of appropriations for assistance for Section 219(c) of WRDA 1992 authorities, but provided $30 million total authorization of appropriations for design assistance for projects under Section 219(c). Congress amended some of the 219(c) provisions to provide specific authorization of appropriations for construction assistance. Thus, some of the 219(c) authorities in the table have a dash (—) under the Authorization of Appropriations column. The table also does not include or reflect the amount of appropriations that have funded EI assistance authorities in the table.

a. These programmatic authorities provide for a federal cost share of 90% for projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities.

Andrew Spurgeon, CRS intern, contributed to legislative analysis for this report.

Footnotes

1.

For more information on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) civil works activities, see CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand.

2.

For more information on Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), see CRS In Focus IF11322, Water Resources Development Acts: Primer and Action in the 118th Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand.

3.

These authorities range from covering single municipalities to covering multiple counties in a state to covering a state or territory.

4.

One USACE non-Section 219 environmental infrastructure (EI) project authority has statutory roots that precede WRDA 1992 (P.L. 102-580). In Section 1113 of WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), as amended, Congress authorized USACE to "carry out, without regard to economic analysis, such measures as are necessary to protect and restore the river diversion structures and associated channels attendant to the operations of the community ditch and Acequia systems in New Mexico that—(1) are declared to be a political subdivision of the State; or (2) belong to an Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304))." USACE has allocated funds that Congress appropriated for EI assistance to activities authorized by Section 1113. No other non-Section 219 EI project authority has received funding in recent fiscal years.

5.

EI assistance program authorities state that the authority is for a program, with criteria defining what type of projects or type of assistance are eligible for assistance under the authority. These programmatic authorities also include direction on how to operate the authority as a program (e.g., provisions on credit toward the nonfederal cost share) and most include the ability for USACE to reimburse the nonfederal sponsor for work performed by the sponsor. By contrast, EI assistance authorities for projects generally may be for more specific projects, may provide less direction on executing the authority than programmatic EI assistance authorities, and do not allow for reimbursement to the nonfederal sponsor.

6.

USACE published lists in the Federal Register to deauthorize certain USACE authorities pursuant to direction in WRDA 1986 and in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121). For more information, see the report section on "Deauthorization Processes."

7.

Neither Congress nor USACE has defined environmental infrastructure, but authorities that receive appropriations for EI assistance have some characteristic authorizing language. This report and its tables may reference authorities that some may not consider to be EI assistance and may not reference authorities that some consider to be EI assistance. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has included authorities that direct the Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to provide assistance to nonfederal interests and that include environmental infrastructure in the authority or name of the authority. CRS also has included assistance authorities that do not explicitly include the phrase environmental infrastructure but describe similar activities (e.g., water supply, wastewater or sewage treatment, stormwater management) and have similar characteristics (e.g., 25% nonfederal cost share for assistance and 100% nonfederal operation and maintenance responsibilities) to assistance authorities with the phrase environmental infrastructure. These inclusions are generally for some non-Section 219 project authorities. The "Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure Projects" spreadsheet that USACE provided to CRS in 2012 also identified some authorities related to environmental restoration activities; some of these are included as EI assistance in this report, while others are not. For example, Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program (Section 510 of WRDA 1996 [P.L. 104-303], as amended) was included in the USACE spreadsheet, but USACE has allocated funding for aquatic ecosystem restoration to the authority, thus CRS has not labeled it as an EI assistance authority. Although Section 542 of WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-541), as amended, for Lake Champlain, VT and NY, was not included in the USACE spreadsheet, USACE has allocated EI funding in work plans to the program; for this reason, CRS has included that authority as EI assistance.

8.

Section 584 of WRDA 1996 (P.L. 104-303), as amended, authorized the water monitoring station and Section 595 of WRDA 1999 (P.L. 106-53), as amended, authorized the Western Rural Water seven-state EI program.

9.

The nonfederal sponsor must provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRD) necessary for construction, operation and maintenance of a project; these may credit toward the value of the nonfederal sponsor's cost share. Section 8149 of WRDA 2022 (Division H, Title LXXXI; P.L. 117-263) amended 33 U.S.C. §2222, an authority regarding the use of other federal funds for nonfederal cost shares for USACE studies or projects. The amendment expanded the provision to include "a study or project under an environmental infrastructure assistance program." Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASACW), "Implementation Guidance for Section 8149 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, Use of Other Federal Funds," November 8, 2024, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll5/id/38398.

10.

An economically disadvantaged community in these provisions is defined pursuant to Section 160 of WRDA 2020. USACE published a memorandum on Implementation Guidance for Section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, Definition of Economically Disadvantaged Community, on March 14, 2023, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll5/id/36002. For more information on this cost-share modification, see section "New and Modified Authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024."

11.

Model agreements are located at USACE, "Model Agreements and Templates," https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Partnership-Agreements/#Environmental%20Infrastructure.

12.

For instance, USACE has developed Program Implementation Guidance for the Northern West Virginia EI program, authorized by Section 571 of WRDA 1999, as amended (originally the Central West Virginia EI program until WRDA 2022). The guidance states: "Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires the development and coordination of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact or an Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, as appropriate." The guidance also states that the nonfederal sponsor is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and licenses. USACE, Central West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure and Resource Protection and Development Program, Program Implementation Guidance, December 20, 2020, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p16021coll11/id/4822/download. For more information on the National Environmental Policy Act, see CRS In Focus IF12560, National Environmental Policy Act: An Overview, by Kristen Hite and Heather McPherron.

13.

See 33 U.S.C. §2282d.

14.

For more information on the Section 7001 proposal process, see CRS Insight IN11118, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Section 7001 Report on Future Studies and Projects, by Anna E. Normand.

15.

Generally, these provisions increased the federal cost share to 90% for projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities. WRDA 2024 did not authorize this cost-share adjustment for all authorities (i.e., some programmatic authorities do not include this provision), and the provision relating to Section 219 authorities is a pilot program with an annual limit on the increased federal costs.

16.

In addition, Section 8376 amended the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program (§510 of WRDA 1996 [P.L. 104-303], as amended) to include eligible activities that are similar to other EI assistance authority activities. USACE has allocated funding for aquatic ecosystem restoration to this program (i.e., the program does not receive EI assistance funding). WRDA 2022 also authorized a Chattahoochee River Program at $40.0 million (§8144) and Lower Mississippi River Demonstration Program at $40.0 million (§8145); both program authorities have similarities to the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program and EI assistance authorities, but CRS could not determine if Congress or USACE would consider the programs as EI assistance authorities or aquatic ecosystem restoration authorities.

17.

This section included amendments to the Los Angeles County and Northern Missouri programmatic authorities to provide for a federal cost share of 90% for projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities; other amendments to programmatic authorities in this section did not include this cost-share adjustment.

18.

The authorization also limits the total increase in the federal share for all projects in a fiscal year to $10 million.

19.

Sections 1332 and 1344 provide for a federal cost share of 90% for projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities. Section 1332 also repealed Section 219(f)(404) of WRDA 1992, as amended.

20.

Amendments to these authorities included providing for a federal cost share of 90% for projects that benefit economically disadvantaged communities.

21.

The Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority already included a 90% federal cost share for projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities. The amendment to the authority provided that reconnaissance studies are to be 100% federal.

22.

For more information on processes to deauthorize USACE authorities, see section on "Deauthorization and Divestiture" in CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand.

23.

CRS has not identified any enacted provisions where Congress has deauthorized individual EI assistance authorities.

24.

See the deauthorization list published in 74 Federal Register 31713-31715, July 2, 2009, which deauthorized six authorities.

25.

See the deauthorization list published in 81 Federal Register 16147-16153, March 25, 2016, which deauthorized 59 authorities. WRDA 2022 reauthorized two authorities for Louisiana parishes, and WRDA 2024 reauthorized one authority for Chester County, PA.

26.

The FY2024 President's budget request included $5 million for EI assistance, which was the only time an Administration requested such funding. USACE, FY2024 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Press Book, March 2023, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2317.

27.

USACE, FY2026 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Press Book, May 2025, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2554.

28.

Since FY2012, Congress has directed USACE to produce an annual work plan describing how additional funds are to be allocated at the project level. Generally, Congress directs USACE, within 60 days after enactment of the annual appropriations bill, to issue a work plan that includes the specific amount of additional funding to be allocated to each project, including EI assistance projects. USACE develops the work plan, which typically consists of tables that list the projects, the amount of additional funding that each project is to receive, and a one- or two-sentence description of what USACE plans to accomplish with the funds for the project.

29.

USACE work plans are available at USACE, "Civil Works and Budget Performance," https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/#Work-Plans.

30.

The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), is available at https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20-pt1-PgS7819-2.pdf.

31.

Congress provided no direction in the act on which EI assistance authorities to fund. See CRS Insight IN11723, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Civil Works, by Anna E. Normand and Nicole T. Carter, for more information on USACE IIJA funding and required reporting.

32.

The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), is available at https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20.pdf.

33.

See FY2023 USACE Construction Work Plan at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2303.

34.

Correspondence between CRS and USACE on January 4, 2023.

35.

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, "USACE 2024 Civil Works Budget Press Conference," March 9, 2023; USACE, FY2024 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Press Book, March 2023, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2317.

36.

The act directed USACE to allocate $1.43 billion from unobligated and unallocated prior-year IIJA Construction appropriations to fund projects listed in the Construction table of the explanatory statement. In its FY2024 Construction spend plan, USACE identified prior-year IIJA Construction appropriations as funding all line items labeled as EI assistance, including ones receiving "additional funding."

37.

USACE, FY2025 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Press Book, March 2024, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2476.

38.

For more information, see CRS In Focus IF12648, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: FY2025 Appropriations, by Anna E. Normand and Nicole T. Carter.

39.

See FY2025 USACE Construction Work Plan at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2548.

40.

The Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of P.L. 118-158) directed USACE to use the funds "to complete, or initiate and complete, without regard to new start or new investment decision considerations, a useful increment of work for water-related environmental infrastructure assistance in States and insular areas that were impacted by disasters occurring in or prior to calendar year 2024."

41.

Construction—Environmental Infrastructure Work Plan, available at USACE, "Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2025," https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Supplemental-Work/DRSAA25/.

42.

Estimated obligations included fiscal years beyond FY2025 for some projects, including through FY2028 for some.

43.

FY2022 funding for the Western Rural Water authority was totaled from multiple funding line items in the FY2022 Construction work plan and the FY2022 IIJA Construction spend plan.

44.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Tracking the Funds: Update on Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending," https://files.gao.gov/multimedia/gao-25-107274/interactive/index.html.

45.

For example, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's instructions for Member proposals for WRDA 2022 stated, "Members may submit up to a total of five (5) requests for the authorization of new, project-specific environmental infrastructure authorities, or the modification of existing environmental infrastructure authorities." Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Instructions: Member Electronic Submissions to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for Consideration in the Water Resource Development Act of 2022, January 2022.

46.

See above section "New and Modified Authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024" for examples of the range of provisions in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024.

47.

The programmatic authorities section in Table B-1 designates which authorities may provide a reduced cost share for projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities.

48.

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 162. No. 64 (April 26, 2016), p. S2429.

49.

Chamber Action, Congressional Record, vol. 162. No. 64 (April 26, 2016), p. D428.

50.

See CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water, and Water Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L. Ramseur.

51.

CRS analysis using FY2023 and FY2024 work plans available at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/.

52.

The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42), is available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-118HPRT56550/pdf/CPRT-118HPRT56550.pdf.

53.

For more information on potential oversight mechanisms, see CRS Report RL30240, Congressional Oversight Manual, coordinated by Ben Wilhelm, Todd Garvey, and Christopher M. Davis.

54.

For example, see USACE Philadelphia District & Marine Design Center website, "Southeastern PA Environmental Improvements Program," https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/SE-PA-Environmental-Improvement-Program/; USACE Digital Library, "Section 219 Northeast Pennsylvania Environmental Infrastructure Program, PA," https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll11/id/615/; USACE Los Angeles District, "Arizona and Rural Nevada 595 Program, Steps for Project Initiation," https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/595-Program/595-Program-Steps-for-Project-Initiation/; and USACE Walla Walla District, Environmental Assessment, City of Dayton Water System Improvements Project, Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Dayton, Idaho, April 2024, https://www.nww.usace.army.mil/Portals/28/Final_Dayton_595_EA_042424.pdf.

55.

Model agreements are located under the "Environmental Infrastructure" heading at USACE, "Model Agreements and Templates," https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Partnership-Agreements/.

56.

GAO, Army Corps of Engineers: Process for Selecting Section 219 Projects for Funding Could Be Strengthened, GAO-19-487, June 13, 2019, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-487, hereinafter GAO, Section 219.

57.

GAO, Section 219.

58.

GAO, Section 219.

59.

GAO, "Tracking the Funds: Update on Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending," https://files.gao.gov/multimedia/gao-25-107274/interactive/index.html.

60.

The Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives, "Statute Compilations," https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/comps/.

61.

In this section, CRS has included the main provisions of this authority but has omitted most geographic specific provisions for brevity. See Appendix B for a list of all Section 219 geographic provisions. For the full Section 219 authority, as amended, see the statute compilation for WRDA 1992 at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-2982/pdf/COMPS-2982.pdf.

62.

Although Section 1113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986; P.L. 99-662), as amended, was enacted before other environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance provisions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has provided funding for the authority using appropriations Congress has specified for EI assistance.

63.

Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration is an example of an EI assistance authority with an environmental restoration focus, but USACE has provided funding for the authority using appropriations Congress has specified for EI assistance.