Contents

• Introduction
• Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
• Evolution of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
• Authority Modifications from 2014 to 2020
• New and Modified Authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024
• Deauthorization Processes
• EI Assistance Authority Proposals in WRDA 2026 Bills
• Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance
• FY2021 Appropriations
• FY2022 Through FY2024 Appropriations
• FY2025 Appropriations
• FY2026 Appropriations
• Analysis of Funding from FY2021 Through FY2026
• Considerations for Congress
• Adding, Amending, or Deauthorizing EI Assistance Authorities
• Funding EI Assistance Authorities
• Evaluating EI Assistance Activities

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 more than 600 EI assistance authorities with cumulative authorizations of appropriations totaling approximately $18.1 billion. In the 118^th 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. 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. 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 (NEPA; 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. Presidential budget requests typically do not include funding for EI assistance, with an exception for FY2024. For example, President Trump's FY2027 budget request did not include funding for EI assistance. For FY2026, P.L. 119-74 provided $360 million for EI assistance, primarily for Member-requested projects. At times, supplemental appropriations acts have provided funding for EI assistance. For example, the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of P.L. 118-158), provided emergency supplemental appropriations of $300 million in FY2025 to fund EI assistance; as directed, USACE allocated the funding in a work plan.

Congress may examine whether USACE's EI assistance activities are meeting expectations. In addition, Congress may consider whether to amend, add, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities, such as in a WRDA. In the 119^th Congress, H.R. 9497 would add 193 EI assistance authorities and amend 87 authorities, increasing authorization of appropriations by $6.6 billion; S. 4949 would increase EI assistance authorization of appropriations by nearly $1.0 billion with 78 new authorities and 37 amended authorities. S. 4949 also includes two provisions for EI assistance implementation: (1) designating projects less than $50 million in federal costs as an action categorically excluded from certain NEPA requirements and (2) allowing for Section 219 EI assistance reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors. Congress also may consider whether to deauthorize EI assistance authorities, such as the 180 authorities in USACE's draft list of authorities for deauthorization announced in the Federal Register on May 21, 2026. The level of funding for EI assistance activities relative to other priorities is also a potential consideration, including how funding is allocated among EI assistance authorities.

Introduction

Congress has authorized and funded the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to assist with the design and construction of certain water-related infrastructure in specified municipalities, counties, and states. This assistance supports projects at publicly owned and operated facilities, such as design and construction of water supply and treatment facilities, water distribution works, wastewater and sanitation systems, stormwater collection efforts, surface water protection projects, and environmental restoration projects, among others.¹ 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.²

This report describes EI assistance authorities and their implementation, and provides background on how these authorities have been enacted since 1992. (Appendixes provide example authorities and a list of current authorities.) The report also presents information on EI assistance appropriations from FY2021 through FY2026. The report concludes with issues Congress may consider in regard to authorities, funding, and oversight of EI assistance.

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).³ WRDA 1992 contained the first EI assistance authorities.⁴ Following WRDA 1992, Congress has 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.⁵
• Non-Section 219 EI Projects. Projects authorized in provisions other than Section 219 of WRDA 1992.⁶
• EI Programs. EI programs authorized for broader geographic areas (e.g., states or regions of states), generally with multiple types of assistance authorized.⁷ Some EI programs focus more on restoration than on other types of assistance.

Based on a review of enacted legislation since WRDA 1986 likely to include EI assistance authorities, and a review of deauthorization lists,⁸ 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).⁹ 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).¹⁰ 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.

Individual authorizations 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.¹¹ Most USACE EI assistance requires cost sharing at 75% federal and 25% nonfederal,¹² with WRDA 2024 providing a 90% federal cost share under some authorities for projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities.¹³ The nonfederal public sponsor is generally the owner of constructed facilities and is responsible for 100% of operations and maintenance costs.¹⁴

To initiate a request for assistance, a nonfederal project sponsor submits a letter of intent to the local USACE district.¹⁵ Once appropriations are provided to a project under an EI assistance authority, USACE and nonfederal sponsors sign an agreement before USACE provides assistance.¹⁶ 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), and the anticipated benefits of a project are determined by its nonfederal sponsor. However, projects that receive EI assistance are required to comply with other federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).¹⁷ Among other things, NEPA requires federal agencies to identify and evaluate the impacts of "major [f]ederal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" (i.e., through an environmental review) prior to finalizing certain decisions.¹⁸ The depth of analysis and type of documentation required by NEPA largely depend on the extent to which anticipated impacts are expected to be "significant."¹⁹ Generally, this process 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 determines that the proposed action or project will not have significant effects to the quality of the human environment before proceeding with the project.²⁰

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. Section 219 of WRDA 1992 authorized design assistance for 18 projects. Other sections of WRDA 1992 authorized EI design and construction assistance for projects and programs in selected geographic areas.²¹ WRDA 1996 added construction assistance for certain Section 219 authorities.²² WRDA 1999 added authorities under Section 219(f) for both design and construction assistance.²³ Both of these WRDAs also included new programmatic EI assistance authorities. In subsequent WRDAs through WRDA 2007, and in selected appropriations laws,²⁴ Congress continued to authorize new and amend existing USACE EI assistance authorities. For example, WRDA 2007 added approximately $2.7 billion in authorization of appropriations for EI assistance.²⁵

Authority Modifications from 2014 to 2020

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

Congress provided a process for nonfederal sponsors to propose modifications to EI assistance authorities when WRDA 2016 expanded Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014).²⁶ 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).²⁷ This process requires USACE to submit an annual 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, Congress amended 14 EI assistance authorities to increase their authorizations of appropriations based on the 7001 proposal process.²⁸ 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 117^th and 118^th Congresses amended existing EI assistance authorities and established new 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. WRDA 2024 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 state, which previously did not have EI authorities. New authorizations of appropriations for EI assistance authorities in the WRDAs ranged from $170,000 to $270.0 million. EI assistance amendments included increasing authorizations of appropriations for EI assistance authorities and ranged from $1.4 million to $184.0 million. Most provisions in the WRDAs authorized eligible activities that were similar to previous EI authorities. Additional specified activities included groundwater recharge, water recycling, water reclamation, natural and nature-based infrastructure, water quality enhancement, and resilience measures for such infrastructure regarding drought, coastal flooding, and earthquakes. WRDA 2024 also included cost-share adjustments for some authorities and projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities.²⁹

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

• Section 8311 amended the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority;³⁰
• Sections 8319, 8353, and 8359 authorized new programmatic EI assistance authorities for Los Angeles County; 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 1 that was reauthorized, and 11 programmatic EI assistance authorities;³¹
• Section 1305 created a seven-year pilot program to allow an increased federal cost share (up to 90%) for Section 219 EI assistance projects that benefit economically disadvantaged communities;³²
• Sections 1332, 1340, 1344, 1348, and 1349 authorized new programmatic EI assistance authorities for Lake Champlain Watershed, western Washington state; Kentucky and West Virginia; southeastern North Carolina; Oregon; and Pennsylvania, respectively;³³
• Sections 1330, 1347, 1352, and 1353 amended four programmatic EI assistance authorities;³⁴ and
• Section 1355 amended the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority.³⁵

Deauthorization Processes

In WRDAs, Congress has established various processes to deauthorize existing authorities meeting certain criteria.³⁶ These processes have twice resulted in the deauthorization of EI assistance authorities.³⁷

• In WRDA 1986, as amended, Congress established a deauthorization process that USACE used in 2009 to deauthorize certain EI assistance authorities.³⁸
• In WRRDA 2014, Congress established a one-time deauthorization process that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASACW) used in 2016 to deauthorize certain EI assistance authorities.³⁹

Congress amended the ASACW's authority to deauthorize USACE projects multiple times between enactment of WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2024, but the ASACW did not use these authorities. Although some prior USACE deauthorization process authorities excluded EI assistance authorities, the current deauthorization process as established by WRDA 2024 does not explicitly exclude EI authorities from the deauthorization process.⁴⁰ 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 process is for the ASACW to produce a list of projects it proposes to deauthorize, referred to as a preliminary deauthorization list. On May 21, 2026, as directed by the ASACW, USACE published a Federal Register notice to solicit comments from the public on a draft deauthorization list.⁴¹ The draft list includes 180 EI assistance authorities totaling over $1.8 billion in authorization of appropriations (see italicized authorities in Table B-1).⁴² Taking account of public comments, the ASACW is to publish a final deauthorization list. However, under the current process, authorities on a final deauthorization list are not automatically deauthorized. Pursuant to WRDA 2024, ASACW's role in deauthorization concludes with submission of a final deauthorization list to Congress for review.⁴³

EI Assistance Authority Proposals in WRDA 2026 Bills

In the 119^th Congress, the House T&I and Senate EPW committees approved WRDA 2026 bills—H.R. 9497 and S. 4949—respectively.⁴⁴ Both bills contain provisions to add and amend EI assistance authorities. S. 4949 also includes provisions related to EI assistance implementation. As with WRDA 2024 development, the House T&I and Senate EPW committees 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 their respective bills.⁴⁵

H.R. 9497 contains the following EI assistance provisions:

• Section 302(i) would amend the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authorities;
• Section 307(b) would authorize 195 new Section 219 EI assistance authorities;
• Section 307(c) would amend 77 Section 219 EI assistance authorities and 7 programmatic EI authorities; and
• Section 307(d) would allow the federal share of Section 219 EI project costs to be "provided in the form of reimbursement of project costs incurred by the nonfederal interest."

S. 4949 contains the following EI assistance provisions:

• Section 1109 would direct the ASACW to designate EI assistance projects that do not exceed $50 million in federal costs as an action categorically excluded from the requirements to prepare an EA or environmental impact statement (EIS) under NEPA;⁴⁶
• Section 1301(a) would amend Section 219(c) of WRDA 1992 to allow assistance "in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs" for Section 219 EI;
• Section 1301(b) would authorize 77 new Section 219 EI assistance authorities;
• Section 1301(c) would amend 29 Section 219 EI assistance authorities;
• Section 1302 would amend 2 Section 219 EI assistance authorities to decrease the nonfederal cost share to 10% projects benefitting economically disadvantaged communities;
• Sections 1307, 1328, 1342, 1343, 1347, 1352, and 1362 would amend 7 programmatic EI assistance authorities;⁴⁷ and
• Section 1337 would amend the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority.

In addition, H.R. 9497 and S. 4949 would increase authorization of appropriations for EI assistance by $6.6 billion and $932 million, respectively. New authorizations of appropriations for EI assistance authorities in the bills range from $60,000 to $155.0 million. Amendments to EI assistance authorizations in the bills include adding authorized eligible activities, expanding geographic eligibility, and increasing authorization of appropriations in the range of $1.0 million to $291.6 million, among other changes.

Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance

USACE's involvement with projects under an EI assistance authority is contingent upon available appropriations and ends once those funds are exhausted.⁴⁸ Federal funding mechanisms have varied over fiscal years. Congress has typically funded EI assistance through USACE's Construction account in Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies annual appropriations acts. At times, Congress has provided EI assistance funding as additional funding for USACE to allocate in a work plan and/or based on Member requests (i.e., earmarks).⁴⁹ Congress also has funded EI assistance through supplemental appropriations. Presidents' budget requests typically do not include funding for EI assistance.⁵⁰ The Trump Administration did not request such funding for FY2027.⁵¹ Table 1 summarizes EI assistance funding information from FY2021 through FY2026.⁵² The sections below provide further details and analysis of the funding in these fiscal years.

FY2021 Appropriations

Prior to the 112^th Congress, Congress generally funded specific EI assistance authorities through direction in report language accompanying appropriations acts. During the 112^th-116^th Congresses, when moratorium policies limited earmarks, Congress specified a funding amount for all EI assistance as part of the "additional funding" provided by appropriations acts. 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).⁵³ In addition, Congress provided guidance on how the Administration was to use the EI assistance funds. For FY2021, Congress provided $100.0 million in additional funding that USACE allocated among EI assistance authorities in the work plan. In FY2021, Congress did not provide supplemental or emergency appropriations for EI assistance.

FY2022 Through FY2024 Appropriations

In the 117^th and 118^th Congresses, annual appropriations processes allowed Members to request funding for geographically specific projects, referred to as community project funding (CPF) in the House and congressionally directed spending (CDS) in the Senate. In FY2022 through 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, as described below.

For FY2022, the explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), directed $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.⁵⁴ 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 spend plan as required by that act.⁵⁵

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.⁵⁶ 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.⁵⁷ 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.⁵⁸

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.⁵⁹ 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.⁶⁰

FY2025 Appropriations

For FY2025, Congress passed 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.⁶¹ USACE's FY2025 work plan, however, did not allocate Construction funding to EI assistance projects.⁶²

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.⁶³ 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.⁶⁴ 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.⁶⁵

FY2026 Appropriations

For FY2026, the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 119-74 recommended $360.0 million in annual appropriations to fund EI assistance, including (1) $345.9 million to fund 69 CPF/CDS items and (2) $14.1 million that USACE allocated to 8 EI authorities in its FY2026 Construction work plan.⁶⁶

Analysis of Funding from FY2021 Through FY2026

Annual EI assistance funding for individual authorities varies widely in the amount provided per authority. From FY2021 through FY2026, 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 to $46.6 million. During this time period, thirty-seven states with EI assistance authorizations received funding from annual appropriations and supplemental appropriations (Figure 1). Mississippi, South Carolina, and West Virgina each received funding over these fiscal years that totaled more than $140 million per state, while some other states received funding in two fiscal years or less, generally totaling $20 million or less over this time period. Nine states, four territories, and the District of Columbia all had at least one EI assistance authorization but did not receive funding from FY2021 through FY2026.

Figure 1. Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Funding by State (FY2021-FY2026; nominal dollars)

Source: CRS, using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) work plans (FY2020-FY2024; FY2026); 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 environmental infrastructure assistance work plan. Note: Includes both annual and supplemental appropriations for these fiscal years.

Considerations for Congress

Adding, Amending, or Deauthorizing EI Assistance Authorities

Congress may consider whether to add, amend, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities and, if so, the process to legislate such changes. During the earmark moratorium in the 112^th-116^th Congresses, Congress only amended existing EI assistance authorities, including adding counties and states to some authorities. In contrast, WRDAs in the 117^th and 118^th 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.⁶⁷

Future Congresses may debate whether and how to further address EI assistance requests. 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 by an alternative process. The House T&I and Senate EPW committees developed EI assistance provisions in their WRDA 2026 bills (H.R. 9497 and S. 4949, respectively) from Member WRDA requests. The bills would authorize new authorities under Section 219 but would not authorize new programmatic authorities. The bills would amend existing programmatic and Section 219 authorities and amend the existing authority for Acequias Irrigation Systems.

When determining whether to amend or add new EI assistance authorities, Congress may consider various aspects, such as geographic area covered, authorization of appropriations, purposes, and cost sharing. For instance, EI assistance provisions in recent WRDAs, including the 2026 bills, vary widely in the authorization of appropriations and eligible geographic areas, and both bills include new eligible purposes for EI assistance.⁶⁸ 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 limited in many other states (e.g., covering only a certain city, county, or region of the state). Also, Congress has not authorized such assistance in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, or American Samoa.

The WRDA 2026 bills include new Section 219 authorities for various geographic areas, including Rhode Island, and would expand states eligible under the Western Rural Water authority. 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.⁶⁹ S. 4949 includes provisions for such cost share modifications for two Section 219 authorities and the Western Rural Water authority. Most programmatic authorities do not include a cost-share modification for such projects. The Section 219 pilot program includes an annual funding cap and expiration date.

Congress also may consider deauthorizing EI assistance authorities. Multiple EI authorities exist for some locations. For example, multiple authorities apply to all or portions of Los Angeles County. In addition, at least 10 occurrences of multiple Section 219 authorities have 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). Congress may consider whether to deauthorize some or all of the 180 EI assistance authorities in USACE's draft list of authorities for deauthorization announced in the Federal Register on May 21, 2026. These 180 EI assistance authorities account for over $1.8 billion in authorization of appropriations. A potential benefit of maintaining EI assistance authorities could be their application for other future EI projects in the 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.

Congress also may consider provisions related to the execution of EI assistance. For instance, S. 4949 would direct the ASACW to designate EI assistance projects with up to $50 million in federal costs as categorically excluded from NEPA requirements to prepare an EA or EIS. Whether enactment of this provision would result in a statutory categorical exclusion (CE), or whether USACE would formally establish the CE through an administrative process that would require consideration of extraordinary circumstances under which a CE cannot be applied or requires additional environmental analyses, is uncertain.⁷⁰ A CE exempting USACE's environmental documentation requirements for an EI assistance project may shorten review timelines.⁷¹ Alternatively, without consideration of extraordinary circumstances, the CE could allow for its application in situations where there could be significant site-specific effects on the environment. The Community Water Project Acceleration Act (S. 4120) contains a similar provision as S. 4949, but would explicitly direct the ASACW to promulgate regulations to establish the CE and allow for consideration of extraordinary circumstances. S. 4120 would tailor the CE to apply only to projects conducted under programmatic EI authorities and at a lower federal cost.

H.R. 9497 would allow USACE to provide reimbursements for the federal share of Section 219 project costs. S. 4949 also would authorize USACE to provide assistance in the form of grants and reimbursements for the federal costs of Section 219. Implementation of such amendments to the Section 219 authority may allow nonfederal sponsors to perform the contracting for their projects and receive EI assistance from USACE in the form of reimbursements, as can be done under programmatic EI assistance authorities. Such assistance might result in expedited completion of project design and construction if the nonfederal sponsor were more efficient than USACE at performing the contracting work. If provided with this option, USACE and nonfederal sponsors may consider their respective capabilities for executing the project work.

Funding EI Assistance Authorities

Although Congress regularly funds USACE EI assistance, some in Congress have questioned 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.⁷² (The amendment did not pass.)⁷³

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).⁷⁴ 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.

The amount of appropriated EI funding differs significantly relative to the amount of authorized appropriations. Congress approved $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. WRDA 2026 bills would increase the total—H.R. 9497 by $6.6 billion and S. 4949 by $932 million. In contrast to the total EI assistance authorizations, relatively few authorities receive appropriations for projects. In addition, projects generally receive appropriations in increments across various fiscal years, which may dictate the amount and speed of work accomplished to complete a project.

From FY2021 to FY2026, appropriations for EI assistance ranged from $100.0 million to $360.0 million. For FY2023, 77% of EI funding was for CPF/CDS requests, and in FY2026, the percentage was 96%.⁷⁵ In contrast, the enacted full-year CR for FY2025 annual appropriations did not provide funding for CPF/CDS items.⁷⁶ In future appropriations bills, Congress may consider what proportion of EI assistance should be appropriated based on Member requests (i.e., CPF/CDS requests) versus what proportion should be at the discretion of USACE to allocate. These options involve policy trade-offs. Congress has more influence and control over projects receiving EI assistance if it directly specifies the projects in appropriations acts. For example, in annual appropriations acts for FY2022 through FY2024 and for FY2026, Congress directed the majority of EI assistance funding through CPF/CDS requests. Providing EI assistance funding through USACE allocation cedes funding decisions to the Administration developing the work plan, and an Administration may prioritize projects differently than Congress. Congress applied this approach of providing broad discretion in the American Relief Act, 2025, which provided $300.0 million for EI assistance for USACE to allocate in a work plan, and directed the majority of additional funding for EI assistance to support multistate authorities.⁷⁷

Evaluating EI Assistance Activities

Another consideration for Congress may be how to evaluate the effectiveness of providing EI assistance to benefit nonfederal projects via hearings and other oversight activities.⁷⁸ To aid in evaluating EI assistance procedures, for example, Congress could require reporting information on EI assistance policies and execution of those policies. For instance, Congress could request more information on implementation of ASACW Telle's Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative, which directs USACE to utilize contractors for executing EI assistance "unless a compelling reason exists to complete the work in-house."⁷⁹

USACE budget justifications provide information on USACE studies and projects included in the budget request, but public information on USACE's EI assistance activities is limited. As USACE usually does not request EI assistance funding, budget justifications usually do not include information on these authorities. In 2025, however, USACE headquarters created a website providing an overview of EI assistance. Some USACE district webpages provide further information on USACE EI assistance authorities, including through factsheets, initiation guidelines, EAs, and press releases.⁸⁰ Also, USACE publishes model project partnership agreements that cover many EI assistance authorities.⁸¹ CRS could not identify further overall policy guidance for USACE's EI assistance.

A House Appropriations Committee report for FY2026 directs USACE to conduct outreach to public utilities in southern West Virginia about EI assistance, including providing technical assistance on project applications; however, some communities may not know about EI assistance opportunities and the process to receive assistance.⁸² Congress may consider assessing if USACE actions implementing this outreach directive are effective, and if so, whether to expand this type of outreach to include a wider geographic scope.

Congress may also consider criteria for prioritizing funding for EI assistance projects. In a 2019 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found USACE was not following any national criteria or policy in funding Section 219 projects, despite congressional guidance in explanatory statements and conference reports accompanying appropriations acts to do so.⁸³ 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. Subsequent budget requests have not included this information. As of July 2026, CRS did not identify any USACE criteria or reports pursuant to the provision. However, GAO reported that in March 2021, USACE developed a database to capture data and metrics associated with criteria for Section 219 projects, and incorporated the criteria into a program development manual for the allocation of Section 219 project funding.⁸⁴ USACE stated it uses the manual to rank and prioritize Section 219 projects for funding.⁸⁵ The information in the manual might also assist Members who submit CPF or CDS requests for EI assistance projects. Congress may direct USACE to make the manual available to help inform funding decisions for policymakers during the CPF/CDS process.

The timeliness of executing EI assistance following enactment of appropriations may be of interest to Congress. A 2025 GAO analysis of CPF/CDS items provided some timeliness information,⁸⁶ showing that USACE had obligated 30% of FY2022 CPF/CDS funding and 15% of FY2023 CPF/CDS funding for EI assistance at that time (the most recent analysis on CPF/CDS funding by GAO). Congress could consider tasking GAO to update this analysis to include recent fiscal years as well as funding outside of the CPF/CDS process (i.e., EI assistance supported through additional funding).

Appendix A. Examples of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities

Congress has authorized and amended U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (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 in the statute compilations maintained by the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.⁸⁷ Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 1992; P.L. 102-580), as amended, includes most 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 Amended⁸⁸

(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 Amended⁸⁹

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 Amended⁹⁰

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

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has included authorities in Table B-1 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. A "Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure Projects" spreadsheet that USACE provided to CRS in 2012 identified many authorities that provided a basis for inclusion in the list. Some of these authorities are related to environmental restoration activities; some of these are included in this table, while others are not. ⁹¹ 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.

Table B-1 also italicizes authorities in the proposed deauthorization list of water resources projects announced in the Federal Register on May 21, 2026. For more information about this list and the established deauthorization process, see "Deauthorization Processes."⁹²

Footnotes