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

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 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 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 112^th-116^th 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 117^th and 118^th 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.

FY2020 and 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 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 117^th and 118^th 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 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.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

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

Footnotes