Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects

March 7, 2024 R47946

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 7, 2024
(USACE) Projects
Nicole T. Carter
Civil responsibilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) include undertaking federal
Specialist in Natural
water resource development projects and assisting nonfederal environmental infrastructure (EI,
Resources Policy
typically municipal water and wastewater) projects, among others. This report discusses the

processes for USACE projects and assistance.
Anna E. Normand
Authorization and Appropriations. Congress often considers new USACE authorization
Specialist in Natural
legislation biennially and discretionary USACE appropriations annually. The authorization bill is
Resources Policy
typically titled a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). After a study, project, project

modification, or EI assistance authorization is included in an enacted WRDA, in most cases,
USACE action on the authorization requires federal funding. Congress typically funds a subset of

the authorized USACE activities through annual Energy and Water Development appropriations
bills.
Federal Water Resource Projects. USACE develops federal water resource projects principally to (1) improve navigable
channels, (2) reduce flood risks along rivers and coasts, and (3) restore aquatic ecosystems. These federal projects also may
have other project benefits; for example, some multipurpose projects that may serve hydropower, water supply storage, and
recreation purposes, among others.
The standard process for a USACE project consists of four phases: study, design, construction, and operations, as shown in
the figure. This process requires two separate
Standard Process for
congressional authorizations—one for studying
USACE Federal Water Resource Projects
feasibility and a subsequent one for undertaking the
project (e.g., construction)—as well as appropriations
for each phase. An exception to the required two-
authorization process is smaller projects (i.e.,
typically projects with a federal cost less than $10
million) that can be performed under USACE’s
continuing authorities programs; these projects also
largely follow the process described in this report.
For most activities, Congress requires a nonfederal
sponsor to share some portion of study and
construction costs and to provide the necessary real
estate interests for the project (e.g., lands, rights-of-
way). The standard study and construction cost-share
requirements vary by project type.
Assistance for Nonfederal Environmental
Infrastructure. Congress, typically in WRDAs,
authorizes USACE to assist with the design and
construction of certain publicly owned and operated
water-related infrastructure (i.e., EI assistance).
WRDAs contain EI assistance authorizations mostly
related to water distribution works, stormwater
management, surface water protection, and

environmental restoration in specified municipalities,
Source: Congressional Research Service.
counties, and states. Following authorization,
appropriations for EI assistance are required before USACE can proceed, generally at a 75% federal cost share. USACE
provides assistance typically by contracting for design and/or construction work of the nonfederal project.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 29 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 25

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 5

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Introduction
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is an agency within the Department of Defense
with both military and civil works responsibilities. As part of USACE’s civil works
responsibilities, the agency undertakes federal water resource projects that are authorized and
funded by Congress. Figure 1 illustrates the primary purposes of most federal water resource
projects performed by USACE—navigation, flood risk management, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. These projects also may have other project benefits; for example, some multipurpose
projects that may serve hydropower, water supply storage, and recreation purposes, among others.
Since 1992, Congress also has authorized USACE to provide assistance to nonfederal, public
environmental infrastructure (EI) projects, consisting primarily of design and construction of
municipal water and wastewater infrastructure; this assistance is not shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Primary Purpose of USACE Federal Water Resource Projects
(USACE projects can have multiple other project purposes in addition to the primary purposes)

Source: Congressional Research Service.
Notes: USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASACW) provides civilian oversight of
USACE. A military Chief of Engineers commands USACE’s civil and military operations. The
agency’s responsibilities are organized into regional divisions, which are further divided into
Congressional Research Service

1

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

local districts.1 The districts and divisions perform both military and civil works activities and are
led by Army officers.2
Congress typically legislates on authorization of most USACE federal water resource projects and
USACE assistance for nonfederal EI through Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs).3
Congress often considers a WRDA biennially. Appropriations are typically provided through
annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts and are at times provided through
supplemental appropriations acts.
This report summarizes the processes for both USACE federal water resource projects and
USACE assistance for nonfederal EI.4 After a primer on the range of USACE activities and their
characteristics, this report discusses the process for USACE to
• undertake federal water resource projects that require project-specific
congressional authorizations;
• undertake small federal water resource projects under continuing authorities
programs (CAPs), typically with federal project costs less than $10 million; and
• assist with nonfederal EI.
Primer on USACE Activities
USACE’s water resource activities have evolved with the changing needs of the nation. In the 19th
century, Congress first authorized USACE to undertake federal projects to improve navigation
channels, thereby facilitating the movement of goods between states and for import and export. In
the mid-20th century, Congress began charging the agency to undertake congressionally
authorized projects to reduce the damages from riverine floods and coastal storms. Since the
1990s, Congress has authorized USACE to undertake federal projects to restore aquatic
ecosystems. Local stakeholders and Members of Congress often are particularly interested in
USACE pursuing a federal water resource project, because these projects can have significant
local and regional economic benefits and environmental effects. The agency typically works with
nonfederal project sponsors in the development of these federal water resource projects. The
nonfederal demand for USACE projects and congressional authorization of these projects often
exceed available federal appropriations for USACE to complete construction on all authorized
projects. In addition to studying and constructing projects, USACE operates more than 700
federally owned dams and improves and maintains more than 900 coastal, Great Lakes, and
inland harbors, as well as 12,000 miles of inland waterways.5
Since 1992, Congress has authorized and funded USACE to assist with the design and
construction of certain publicly owned and operated water-related infrastructure (i.e., EI

1 A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) division map and district links are available at USACE, “U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE): Where We Are,” https://www.usace.army.mil/Locations.aspx.
2 Across both its military and civil works programs, USACE consists of around 36,000 civilian employees (with
roughly 11,000 employees supporting the military program and the remainder in the civil works program) and almost
800 uniformed military personnel (roughly 300 related to civil works). An officer typically is in a specific district or
division leadership position for two to three years; a Chief of Engineers often serves for roughly four years.
3 Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs) are distinguished from each other by referencing the year of
enactment; that is, WRDA 1986 refers to the act passed in 1986 (P.L. 99-662).
4 The discussion of environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance herein is brief; more details are available in CRS
Report R47162, Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance, by Anna E.
Normand.
5 USACE, Information Paper: Civil Works Statistics, March 20, 2013.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 link to page 8 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

assistance). EI assistance is mostly related to projects for water supply and distribution,
stormwater management, surface water protection, and environmental restoration, among other
purposes. These projects typically are authorized for specified municipalities, counties, or states.
Local interests and Members of Congress often pursue cost-shared USACE EI assistance as an
alternative to applying for assistance from other federal programs.
The USACE civil works mission also encompasses the agency’s regulatory activities pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
(33 U.S.C. §403),6 as well as the agency’s administration of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program (FUSRAP). Through FUSRAP, USACE remediates radiological contamination
at nonfederal sites that were used during the early years of the U.S. nuclear weapons program.7
Neither FUSRAP nor USACE regulatory activities are addressed in this report. USACE also has
authorities to provide technical assistance; these authorities are largely beyond the scope of this
report. This report focuses on the processes for USACE federal water resource projects and
USACE assistance for nonfederal EI.
Characteristics of USACE Federal Water Resource Projects and
USACE Assistance for Nonfederal Environmental Infrastructure
USACE implements federal water resource projects for navigation, flood risk management,
aquatic ecosystem restoration and for other purposes associated with these projects (e.g.,
recreation, water supply storage, hydropower). These various federal projects, regardless of
which purpose they serve, often follow fairly similar processes for their development and
authorization. In contrast, USACE’s EI assistance is for work on nonfederal projects; as a result,
much of the process for EI assistance is distinct from the process for USACE federal water
resource projects. Figure 2 depicts some basic differences in the authorization processes for
federal projects and assistance with nonfederal EI projects. USACE implements federal water
resource projects pursuant to either project-specific congressional authorizations or without
additional congressional authorization for smaller projects (i.e., often less than $10 million of
federal costs) under preexisting CAP authorities. For assistance with nonfederal EI projects,
Congress must authorize USACE to perform the assistance; that is, Congress authorizes not the
nonfederal projects themselves but the assistance for certain nonfederal projects that qualify
under the authority. EI assistance authorizations specify the types of projects that may receive
assistance and the eligible geographic location of projects. Table 1 provides information on
various characteristics for federal water resource projects, small federal water resource projects
under CAPs, and EI assistance.

6 Section 404 permits are related to the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and
Section 10 permits are related to the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters. USACE also administers Section 103
of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. §1413) related to the issue of
permits for the transportation of dredged material for dumping in ocean waters.
7 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)
program in 1974, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The program addresses radiological and chemical
contamination at some of the smaller sites associated with the legacy production of nuclear weapons and nuclear
energy research for civilian purposes; 10 U.S.C. §2701 note sets out USACE’s authorities related to FUSRAP. For each
FUSRAP site, USACE investigates the extent of environmental contamination, identifies a response, performs the
cleanup work, and disposes of waste. After cleanup work is completed at each site, USACE transfers responsibility for
long-term monitoring to DOE.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 23

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Figure 2. Congressional Authorization for USACE Federal Projects and
USACE Assistance for Nonfederal Environmental Infrastructure

Source: Congressional Research Service.
Note: USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Table 1. Characteristics of USACE Federal Water Resource Projects and
Assistance for Nonfederal Environmental Infrastructure
(typical characteristics are shown; exceptions may apply for some nonfederal sponsors)
Federal Water
Small Projects Under
Assistance for
Characteristic
Resource Project
CAPs
Nonfederal EI
Minimum authorization
Study authorization and
None for projects within
Authorization for design
action by Congress
project authorization for
a CAP; most CAPs have
and/or construction
a federal project
limits for annual program
assistance for a
appropriations and federal nonfederal EI project or
costs per project
EI program
(see Table 6)
Primary project purposes
Nav
Specified in authorization;
Municipal water, sewer,
FRM
typically related to Nav,
and resource protection
FRM, or AER
and development; other
AER
purposes as specified in
authorization
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 23 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Federal Water
Small Projects Under
Assistance for
Characteristic
Resource Project
CAPs
Nonfederal EI
Federal and nonfederal
Federal project with NFS
Federal project with NFS
Nonfederal project
role in project
(no NFS for inland and
receiving federal
intracoastal Nav)
assistance (e.g., USACE
contracts for work on
nonfederal project)
Nonfederal study cost
After first federal
After first federal
—
sharing
$100,000, feasibility study
$100,000, feasibility study
shared 50%
shared 50% under most
CAPs, except for §204
and §111 CAPs
Nonfederal design cost
PED same as construction PED same as construction 25%
sharing
cost sharing
cost sharing
Nonfederal construction
Varies by project type
Varies by CAP
25%
cost sharing
(see Table 4 and Table
(see Table 6)
5)
Responsibility for
Nav: USACE
Nonfederal under most
Nonfederal
operation, maintenance,
FRM: Nonfederal
CAPs, except for §107
repair, replacement, and
AER: Nonfederal
CAP
rehabilitation
Nonfederal sponsor
Public body (including
Typically legally
Typically public entity,
eligibility
Indian tribe and tribal
constituted public body;
although some eligibility
(42 U.S.C. §1962d-5b(b);
organization); nonprofit
some eligibility variation
varies based on authority
33 U.S.C. §2241)
entity with local
across CAPs regarding

government consent
other entities
and interstate agency
created by compact for
navigation projects
USACE Construction
Nav: $4.374 bil ion
CAPs: $72 mil ion
EI Assistance: $149
account appropriations in
FRM: $1.726 bil ion
mil ion
FY2023
AER: $893 mil ion
Source: Congressional Research Service. Appropriations amounts are derived from the FY2023 work plans.
Notes: AER = aquatic ecosystem restoration; CAP = continuing authorities program; EI = environmental
infrastructure; FRM = flood risk management; Nav = navigation; NFS = nonfederal sponsor; PED =
preconstruction engineering and design; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Process for Federal Water Resource Projects
For USACE federal water resource projects, congressional authorization and appropriations
processes are critical actions in a multistep process to deliver a USACE project for navigation,
flood risk management, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. This section describes the standard
delivery process for USACE federal water resource projects.
Nonfederal project sponsors typically share in study, design, and construction costs of USACE
federal projects. The division of these costs and other responsibilities is set out in agreements
signed by USACE and the nonfederal sponsors—feasibility cost-share agreements, design
agreements, and project partnership agreements (PPAs), respectively. Among the other nonfederal
responsibilities for many USACE projects are (1) the provision of land and other real estate
interests for most projects and (2) operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement
(OMRR&R). Nonfederal project sponsors generally are state, tribal, or territorial organizations;
political subparts of a state or group of states (e.g., local governments); or quasi-public
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

organizations chartered under state law (e.g., port authorities).8 Congress has authorized that
some USACE activities can have nonprofit organizations with local government consent as
nonfederal sponsors and that an interstate agency created by compact can serve as a nonfederal
sponsor for a navigation project.9 The sponsor must have the legal and financial capability to
fulfill the requirements of cost sharing and local cooperation.
The standard USACE project delivery consists of USACE leading the study, design, and
construction of congressionally authorized federal water resource projects, as shown in Figure 3.
The process shown in Figure 3 is not automatic. Appropriations are required in order to initiate
and complete studies, preconstruction engineering and design (PED), and construction; that is,
both authorization and appropriations are needed for USACE to proceed. Appropriations are
typically provided through annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations acts; at times,
they are provided through supplemental appropriations acts. For USACE federal water resource
projects, the report accompanying annual appropriations typically identifies with a line item the
specific studies and projects to be funded for construction and operations. Congress also may
provide additional funding that the Administration can apply to specific congressionally
authorized studies and projects pursuant to the accompanying congressional direction. The
Administration typically allocates this funding in work plans that are subsequently reported on to
Congress.
During the operations phase, there may be interest in modifying the USACE project.
Modification may take the form of restarting the process shown in Figure 3 (although a new
study authority may not be required), or it may entail a nonfederal entity pursuing a nonfederal
project that alters the existing federal water resource project.
The remainder of this section describes in more detail the four phases shown in Figure 3. The
section then describes how, after construction, USACE can study whether to modify an existing
project, or an entity other than USACE can ask permission to modify a USACE project. The
section also briefly addresses deauthorization of studies and projects.

8 42 U.S.C. §1962d-5b(b).
9 Ibid.; 33 U.S.C. §2241.
Congressional Research Service

6

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Figure 3. Typical Process for USACE Federal Water Resource Projects
(process for projects that require project-specific congressional authorization)

Source: Congressional Research Service.
Notes: USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; WRDA = Water Resources Development Act.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 13 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Study Phase
The study phase consists of various planning activities to develop enough information to decide
whether to recommend to Congress project implementation. This phase includes the development
of alternative plans, initial design and cost estimating, economic analysis,10 environmental
analyses, and real estate evaluations, among other activities. Table 2 provides an overview of the
study phase.
To proceed with a study, USACE must have an authorization for the study. Congress generally
authorizes USACE studies in WRDAs. (See the text box titled “How Studies Are Considered for
Inclusion in a WRDA” for information on the process for identifying studies to be included in a
WRDA.) The congressional authorizing committees—the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee—also may
use a committee resolution to direct USACE to reexamine or restudy a geographic area
previously studied by USACE for a similar purpose (33 U.S.C. §542). USACE may initiate
studies that review the operations of completed USACE projects without obtaining additional
congressional authorization under its general reexamination authority (33 U.S.C. §549a).
How Studies Are Considered for Inclusion in a
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
To develop WRDAs, including identifying studies to include in a WRDA, the authorizing committees for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) typically hold hearings to receive testimony from stakeholders, review reports
transmitted by the Administration, and solicit input from Members of Congress. Also, in Section 7001 of the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121), Congress established a
process that may assist congressional authorizing committees in identifying USACE studies for congressional
authorization. In Section 7001, as amended, Congress requires the Administration to transmit an annual report to
the authorizing committees on publicly submitted USACE study proposals that require congressional
authorization. Inclusion of a proposal in a Section 7001 report provides neither congressional authorization nor
appropriation; rather, inclusion facilitates congressional consideration of the proposal’s authorization. For more on
the Section 7001 process, see CRS Insight IN11118, Army Corps of Engineers: Section 7001 Report on Future Studies
and Projects, by Anna E. Normand. For information on how Congress develops a WRDA, see CRS Insight
IN11810, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works: Primer and Resources, by Anna E. Normand and Nicole T. Carter.
The study process consists of the following steps:
• Scoping, in which USACE specifies the water resource problems and
opportunities and formulates alternative plans to address the problems
• Evaluation and analysis of alternatives, in which USACE evaluates and compares
the effects of various plans and chooses a tentatively selected plan
• Assessment of the feasibility of the tentatively selected plan
• Review and finalization of the feasibility report, which includes review by the
USACE division, state and federal agencies, and USACE headquarters and
ASACW
Once the final feasibility report is available and if it is favorable, the Chief of Engineers signs a
recommendation on the project, known as the Chief’s report. USACE submits the completed
Chief’s reports to the congressional authorizing committees (33 U.S.C. §2282a). The Chief of
Engineers also transmits the reports to the ASACW and the Office of Management and Budget

10 For flood risk reduction, Congress established federal policy for evaluating USACE projects in the Flood Control Act
of 1936 (49 Stat. 1570) by stating that a project should be undertaken “if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue
are in excess of the estimated costs” and if a project is needed to improve the lives and security of the people.
Congressional Research Service

8

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

(OMB) for Administration review.11 Since the mid-1990s, Congress has authorized many projects
based on Chief’s reports prior to completion of project review by the ASACW and OMB.
As part of its consideration of alternatives, USACE evaluates whether a plan is technically
feasible, economically justified, and environmentally acceptable. For flood risk reduction projects
and navigation projects, USACE performs a benefit-cost analysis to compare the economic
benefits of project alternatives to the investment costs of those alternatives. For ecosystem
restoration projects, USACE performs a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate for each project
alternative its associated costs and anticipated environmental benefits.
The USACE feasibility study process often occurs concurrently with the agency’s efforts to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.).
NEPA requires federal agencies to fully consider a federal action’s significant impacts on the
quality of the human environment—and to inform the public of those impacts—before making a
final decision. Often USACE integrates into a single document a project’s feasibility report and
its NEPA documents.
There is no current, definitive, comprehensive, publicly available list of all authorized USACE
water resource studies and projects. The status of existing authorizations for a given project or
geographic area can be determined by reviewing enacted legislation, deauthorization actions (e.g.,
construction project deauthorization lists published in the Federal Register), and other relevant
documents.
Although a USACE federal water resource project generally must have navigation, flood risk
management, or aquatic ecosystem restoration as a primary project purpose, many USACE
projects are multipurpose. Other purposes can include recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement,
hydropower, agricultural water supply storage, and municipal and industrial water supply storage.
Table 2. Overview of USACE Feasibility Study Phase for
Federal Water Resource Development Projects
Component
Description of Typical Applicability to USACE Federal Projects
Purpose
Inform federal decisions on whether there is a federal interest in authorizing a USACE
construction project. The objective of the feasibility study is to formulate and recommend
solutions to the identified water resource problem.
Authorities
Congress generally authorizes USACE studies in WRDAs. Authorizing committees also may
use a committee resolution to restudy a geographic area previously studied by USACE for a
similar purpose (33 U.S.C. §542). Some studies that review the operations of completed
USACE projects may proceed under a reexamination authority (33 U.S.C. §549a).
Agreement
An entity wil ing to act as the nonfederal sponsor has to be identified and must sign a
feasibility cost-share agreement with USACE in order to proceed with the feasibility study.

11 The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) review stems from Executive Order 12322, “Water Resources
Projects,” 46 Federal Register 46561, September 21, 1981, as amended by Executive Order 12608, “Elimination of
Unnecessary Executive Orders and Technical Amendments to Others,” 52 Federal Register 34617, September 14,
1987. According to the amended order, before submission to Congress—or to any committee or member thereof—for
approval, appropriations, or legislative action, any report, proposal, or plan relating to a federal or federally assisted
water project or program, such report, proposal, or plan shall be submitted to the Director of OMB and reviewed. OMB
shall advise the agency of the project’s relationship to the policy and programs of the President, as well as of water
resource project study guidance and other laws, regulations, and requirements related to planning.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Component
Description of Typical Applicability to USACE Federal Projects
Cost Share
After the first $100,000, which is federally funded, feasibility studies typically are cost shared
50% federal and 50% nonfederal, with some exceptions. Feasibility studies for inland and
intracoastal waterway projects are performed at 100% federal cost. Congress requires that
most feasibility studies be completed within three years of initiation and have a maximum
federal cost of $3 mil ion, unless an exception is provided.
Cost-Share
For territories, Indian tribes or tribal organizations, and certain Indigenous-related
Exceptionsa
organizations, the first $648,000 in costs associated with USACE water resource activities
are 100% federal (33 U.S.C. §2310). The waiver amount is annually adjusted to account for
inflation; $648,000 reflects adjustment for FY2024.
Conduct of Study
USACE typically performs the study. Alternatively, under certain authorities, nonfederal
entities may assume study responsibility and may seek application of credit for the study
costs toward the construction cost share.
Recommendation
Once the final feasibility report is available and if it is favorable, the Chief of Engineers signs a
to Congress
recommendation on the selected plan for the project, known as the Chief’s report. USACE
submits completed Chief’s reports to the congressional authorizing committees.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Notes: USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; WRDA = Water Resources Development Act.
a. Section 118(b) of WRDA 2020 (Division AA of P.L. 116-260) directs the Secretary of the Army to establish
a pilot program for feasibility studies for flood risk management and hurricane and storm damage risk
reduction projects for economically disadvantaged communities at 100% federal cost. The Secretary is to
annually publish in the Federal Register a notice for requests for nonfederal proposals for the pilot program,
provide technical assistance with proposal formulation, and review and select 10 feasibility studies annually
to be carried out by USACE. As of early 2024, USACE was continuing to develop the guidance documents
required for implementing the program.
In addition, and separate from the above discussion of the study phase of a USACE federal water
resource project, USACE has some technical assistance authorities. These authorities allow the
agency to conduct other types of studies and provide technical assistance to nonfederal entities on
water resource topics (see text box titled “USACE Technical Assistance, Including Studies and
Information”). The information and studies produced pursuant to these authorities generally are
not intended to justify a USACE federal water resource project; that is, they generally do not lead
to a USACE federal water resource project. These studies and authorities are not discussed
further in this report.
USACE Technical Assistance, Including Studies and Information
Separate from the traditional study phase for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) federal water resource
projects, USACE also may provide technical assistance to nonfederal entities. Some USACE technical assistance
authorities are for the provision of information, and others are for the performance of studies. These studies do
not typically lead to recommendations for USACE projects; that is, they are not feasibility studies. Below are a few
examples of USACE authorities to perform federally funded or cost-shared technical assistance, including some
studies such as watershed assessments.
•
Watershed studies refers to the set of authorities for USACE to conduct comprehensive, strategic
evaluations and analyses of watershed issues resulting in recommendations to inform future investment
decisions by decisionmakers (e.g., local governments, state agencies). A USACE watershed study may
produce a watershed management plan, watershed assessment, river basin assessment, comprehensive
plan, or watershed study. USACE policy guidance most often cites 33 U.S.C. §2267a as the authority for
these studies.
•
Through the Floodplain Management Services Program (FPMS; 33 U.S.C. §709a), USACE provides
information on flood hazards to local interests, state agencies, and other federal agencies to guide
development decisions for U.S. floodplains. FPMS provides a range of information, technical services, and
planning guidance and assistance to support floodplain management. USACE also cites 33 U.S.C. §709a as
its authority to participate in state-led interagency teams (known as Silver Jackets teams), which assist
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 link to page 16 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

state agencies and local communities in accessing flood risk reduction information and resources,
improving public communication of flood risk, and implementing state and local initiatives.
•
Through the Planning Assistance to States authority (42 U.S.C. §1962d–16), USACE uses its technical
expertise in management of water and related land resources to help states and tribes solve water
resource problems. USACE cooperates with nonfederal public sponsors upon request in the preparation
of plans for the development, use, and conservation of water and related land resources.
•
Under the USACE emergency response authority (33 U.S.C. §701n), USACE may provide technical
assistance of a temporary nature to save lives and protect improved properties (e.g., public
facilities/services and residential/commercial developments) during or fol owing floods and at times for
other natural disasters; the technical assistance is for supplementing state and local efforts.
Design Phase
USACE preconstruction engineering and design consists of finalizing a project’s design,
preparing construction plans and specifications, and drafting construction contracts. PED may
begin on a project before the project has obtained congressional authorization for construction.12
PED begins once federal funds are provided to the PED activity and a design agreement is
executed between USACE and the nonfederal sponsor. Once funded, the average duration of PED
is two years, but the duration varies widely depending on the project’s size and complexity. PED
costs are shared between the federal and nonfederal sponsor in the same proportion as the cost-
share arrangement for the construction phase (see “Construction Phase” discussion below for
information on the construction cost-share requirements). During PED, USACE districts prepare
a design documentation report, which records the post-feasibility phase final design. The report is
the technical basis for the plans and specifications.
Construction Phase
After Congress authorizes a project (typically in a WRDA), federal funds for construction are
needed for USACE to proceed with these activities. USACE and the nonfederal sponsor enter
into a project partnership agreement for construction of a water resource project. The PPA
describes the project and the responsibilities of the government and the nonfederal sponsor in the
cost sharing and execution of project construction. Once federal construction funds are available,
USACE typically functions as the project manager; that is, USACE staff usually are responsible
for leading on construction. Table 3 provides an overview of the USACE construction phase.

12 In general, subject to appropriation, preconstruction engineering and design begins after the Chief’s report has been
transmitted to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASACW; 33 U.S.C. §2287). Some USACE
guidance indicates design may be initiated after the Division Engineer’s transmittal of the feasibility report to USACE
headquarters.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 18 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Table 3. Overview of USACE Construction Phase for
Federal Water Resource Development Projects
Component
Description of Typical Applicability to USACE Federal Projects
Purpose
Construction of congressionally authorized federal water resource projects
Authorities
Congressional project authorization typically included in a Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA)
Agreement
Nonfederal sponsor signs a project partnership agreement with USACE in order to proceed
with construction. The agreement sets out the parties’ responsibilities during the construction
phase, such as nonfederal cost sharing and nonfederal responsibility for providing land,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal (LERRDs).
Cost Share
Typically specified in the documents identified as part of the project’s WRDA authorization.
Generally, cost sharing fol ows requirements set out in statute as shown in Table 4 and
Table 5. Deviations can be recommended as part of the decision document transmission to
Congress; Congress must authorize cost-share deviations. A nonfederal sponsor typically pays
USACE its cost share as funds are needed (i.e., as construction proceeds). When payments are
deferred, interest is chargeda. Some of the nonfederal cost share typically can be met with
credit for LERRDs or in-kind work.
Conduct of
Typically managed by USACE using contracts with the private sector to complete the physical
Construction
work. Alternatively, under certain authorities, nonfederal entities may assume construction
responsibility and may seek reimbursement or credit from USACE for the federal share.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
Notes: LERRD = land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposals; PPA = project partnership
agreement; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; WRDA = Water Resources and Development Act.
a. USACE annually publishes a memorandum on deferred payment interest rates and payment calculations. For
example, the rates for deferrals in FY2024 are described in USACE, Federal Interest Rates for Corps of
Engineers Projects for Fiscal Year 2024, Economic Guidance Memorandum, 24-01, October 26, 2023. The
FY2024 memorandum describes how in practice budget constraints may limit USACE participation in
projects with deferred payments.
Although project management is generally performed by USACE personnel, physical
construction is contracted out to private engineering and construction contractors. There are
authorities for nonfederal entities to lead on construction of authorized projects (e.g., 33 U.S.C.
§2232); however, nonfederal leadership of a project’s construction is much less common than
USACE leadership.
Table 4 provides the standard construction and operations phase cost-share requirements for the
primary project purposes of navigation, flood risk management, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration. The table also identifies whether USACE or the nonfederal sponsor is the responsible
entity for the operations phase. Table 5 provides the standard construction and operations phase
cost-share requirements for other purposes at USACE multipurpose projects; that is, the purposes
shown in Table 5 generally are added to a project that has at least one of the three primary
purposes of navigation, flood risk management, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. Deviation
from the standard cost-sharing arrangements for individual projects often requires specific
authorization by Congress.13
In addition to USACE accepting the nonfederal cost share as required by statute and a project’s
authorization, USACE has authorities to accept funds from nonfederal sponsors to expedite the

13 Congress established that cost shares shall be subject to a nonfederal sponsor’s ability to pay (33 U.S.C.
§2213(m)(2)); however, this authority is rarely employed. The regulation related to this provision (33 C.F.R. Part 241)
does not reflect various statutory amendments. USACE has indicated plans for a rulemaking to amend the regulations.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

delivery of federal water resource projects. These may be advanced funds, accelerated funds, or
contributed funds.14
• Advanced funds are nonfederal funds provided as an advance of the federal
share for construction of an authorized water resource project, with eligibility for
potential repayment subject to the availability of federal appropriations.15
• Accelerated funds are nonfederal funds provided in excess of the nonfederal
proportional share of costs based on federal funds provided for that year but are
within the ultimate required nonfederal cash contribution for the project’s phase,
thereby allowing work to continue pending the provision of additional federal
funds. Credit for accelerated funds is provided if additional federal funding is
provided for that project phase.
• Contributed funds are nonfederal funds that are provided and that are above the
statutorily required nonfederal cost share, with no credit or repayment authorized
for such funds.16
Table 4. Standard Cost Share and Responsible Entity by Project Purpose for USACE
Project Construction and Operations Phases
Nonfederal
Responsible
Nonfederal
Share of
Entity for
Share of
Construction
Operations
Operations
Project Purpose
Phasea
Phase
Phase
Navigation

Coastal Navigation Channels and Coastal

and Inland Harbors

Improvements less than 20 ft. deep
10%, plus 10% over
USACE
0% nonfederal;
a period not to
100% from HMTFb
exceed 30 years

Improvements between 20 ft. and
25%, plus 10% over
USACE
0% nonfederal;
50 ft. deep
a period not to
100% from HMTFb
exceed 30 years

Improvements greater than 50 ft.
50%, plus 10% over
USACE
50% nonfederal;
deep
a period not to
50% from HMTFb
exceed 30 years
Inland and Intracoastal Waterways
No nonfederal
USACE
0%
sponsor;
35% from Inland

14 Advanced, accelerated, and contributed funds must be voluntarily offered and provided.
15 Advanced funds are in addition to funds provided to meet any required nonfederal cost share. USACE guidance
indicates that an offer to provide advanced funds must include a nonfederal commitment to provide all funds to
complete either project construction or a separable element of the project (USACE, Acceptance of Contributed Funds,
Advanced Funds, and Accelerated, Director’s Policy Memorandum FY2020, CECW-P [2020-01], December 2019,
https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/MemosandLetters/DPM_AcceptanceofFunds_19Dec2019.pdf).
Advanced funds may be provided by Indian tribes or a state or political subdivision thereof, inclusive of several states,
the District of Columbia, the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
16 Contributed funds can be applied to study, design, or construction or to operation and maintenance of federal water
resource projects. Contributed funds may be accepted from a nonfederal interest, as defined in Section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. §1962d-5b(b)). USACE acceptance of contributed funds is to be
expended in connection with funds appropriated by the United States. To meet this requirement, in general, there are
two main points at which appropriated funds must have been provided: study initiation and project construction
initiation.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Nonfederal
Responsible
Nonfederal
Share of
Entity for
Share of
Construction
Operations
Operations
Project Purpose
Phasea
Phase
Phase
Waterways Trust
Fundc
Flood Risk Management

Riverine Structural Flood Control
35%-50%d
Nonfederal
100%
Nonstructural and Natural or Nature-
35%

Based Features
Coastal Hurricane and Storm Damage
35%
Nonfederal
100%
Reduction

(Except Periodic Beach Renourishment)e
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
35%
Nonfederal
100%,
Source: Congressional Research Service, using 33 U.S.C. §§2211-2213, unless otherwise specified below.
Notes: HMTF = Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
a. Nonfederal share may be met through provision of land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and
disposals, unless otherwise noted.
b. The majority of federal support for harbor maintenance is derived from the HMTF, which receives
col ections from a harbor maintenance tax principally applied to commercial cargo imports at federally
maintained ports. For maintaining improvements up to 50 feet in depth, the maximum federal share is 100%;
for maintaining improvements over 50 feet deep, the costs are split 50% federal and 50% nonfederal.
c. Monies from the trust fund, which is funded by a fuel tax on vessels engaged in commercial transport on
designated waterways, are used for 35% of all new or ongoing construction projects after October 1, 2022.
d. 33 U.S.C. §2213 identifies 65% federal as the maximum share and 50% as the maximum nonfederal share;
5% of the nonfederal share must be paid during construction.
e. Congressionally authorized beach nourishment components of coastal storm damage reduction projects
consist of periodic placement of sand on beaches and dunes. Most nourishment activities remain in the
construction phase for 50 years, with the possibility for extension (42 U.S.C. §1962d-5f). The nonfederal
share for new periodic beach nourishment projects generally is 50% nonfederal for shores open to the
public, 100% for private shores with access limited to private interests, and 0% for federally owned shores
(33 U.S.C. §2213).
Table 5. Standard Cost Shares for Other Project Purposes of USACE Multipurpose
Projects for USACE Project Construction and Operations Phases
Nonfederal Share of
Nonfederal Share of
Project Purpose
Construction Phase
Operations Phase
Hydroelectric Power
100%a
100%,
Municipal and Industrial Water
100%
100%
Supply Storage
Agricultural Water Supply Storage
35%
100%
(typically irrigation water storage)b
Recreation at USACE Facilities
50%
100%
Aquatic Plant Control
Not Applicable
50%
Source: Congressional Research Service, using 33 U.S.C. §2213, unless otherwise specified below.
Note: USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
a. Construction costs initially are federally funded; they are 100% repaid by fees col ected from power
customers.
b. Unlike other USACE project components, 100% of nonfederal agricultural water supply construction costs
are initially federally funded if the USACE project is in the 17 western states where reclamation law applies.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 11 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Repayment of these costs by nonfederal water users over extended terms is subject to conditions under
the federal reclamation laws.
Changes During Construction
Figure 3 shows a project moving from construction to operations without additional reports
required. For many projects, issues may arise during the construction phase that result in USACE
developing a post-authorization change report (PACR). That is, a project may undergo some
changes after authorization, such as cost increases or the addition of a project purpose (e.g.,
recreation). These changes may have to be evaluated and documented in a PACR. There are
various types of PACRs that end in different types of decisions, and approval authority varies
based on what has changed, what needs to be analyzed, and whether new congressional
authorization is required. If additional congressional authorization is necessary for the changes
captured in a PACR, Congress typically authorizes these modifications in a WRDA. For less
significant modifications, additional authorization often is not necessary. Section 902 of WRDA
1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. §2280), generally allows for increases in total project costs of up to
20% (after accounting for inflation of construction costs) without additional congressional
authorization. Increases in project authorization of appropriations exceeding the amount allowed
under Section 902 require congressional authorization; for these projects, USACE does not
pursue additional contracts for the project until Congress has adjusted the authorization of
appropriations.
USACE and the nonfederal sponsor enter into a feasibility cost-share agreement to produce these
reports. USACE may undertake three types of PACRs during the construction phase: general
reevaluation reports (GRRs), limited reevaluation reports (LRRs), and engineering documentation
reports (EDRs).
• General Reevaluation Report. A GRR is a reanalysis of a previously completed
study, using current planning criteria and policies, which is required due to
changed conditions and/or assumptions. The results may affirm the previous
plan, reformulate and modify the previous plan, or find that no plan is currently
justified. If reauthorization is necessary, the document will be processed in the
same manner as a feasibility report and will conclude with a Chief’s report as the
design document.
• Limited Reevaluation Report. An LRR evaluates a specific portion of a project
plan under current policies, criteria, and guidelines and may be limited to
economics, environmental effects, or—in rare cases—project formulation. An
LRR often ends with a Director’s memorandum or Director’s report. LRRs
documenting the justification for an increase in the project’s authorization of
appropriations (due to the project costs exceeding the amount allowed under
Section 902 of WRDA 1986, as amended) require congressional authorization.
• Engineering Documentation Report. An EDR documents other information
when project reformulation is not required and the changes are technical in nature
or the reformulation changes are minor.
Operations Phase
Post-construction operations and upkeep responsibilities depend on the type of project. When
construction is complete, USACE may own and operate the constructed project (e.g., navigation
projects) or operations responsibilities may transfer to the nonfederal sponsor (e.g., most flood
damage reduction projects and aquatic ecosystem restoration projects). The responsible entity and
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 17 link to page 18 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

the cost-share responsibilities during the operations phase vary by project purpose, as shown in
Table 4 and Table 5.
USACE generally uses the term operation and maintenance for the operations phase of federally
operated projects and the term operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation
(OMRR&R) for the operations phase of nonfederally operated projects. OMRR&R consists of the
suite of activities necessary to maintain the project in sound operating condition. For nonfederally
operated projects, USACE prepares an OMRR&R manual for the nonfederal sponsor. During the
operations phase, the nonfederal sponsor completes operations reports on a regular basis (e.g.,
semiannual reports), and USACE periodically inspects the project to assess and evaluate the
project’s performance and safety during its operating life. For nonfederal flood risk management
projects, USACE operates a rehabilitation program to support with federal funding the repair of
certain damaged flood control and storm damage reduction facilities, as discussed in the next
section.
USACE Rehabilitation Program for Flood Control and Storm Damage
Protection Projects
USACE operates a repair program—the P.L. 84-99 Rehabilitation Program—for nonfederal flood
control works, including federal water resource projects for which the nonfederal sponsor has
assumed OMRR&R. Through the program, USACE can fund the repair of damage by “other than
ordinary” water, wind, or wave action to (1) certain nonfederal flood control works (e.g., levees,
dams) and (2) federally constructed hurricane and shore protection projects. To be eligible for this
assistance, the damaged project must be eligible for and active in the rehabilitation program and
the project must have been in an acceptable condition, as inspected and assessed by USACE, at
the time of damage. USACE regularly inspects the 1,600 nonfederal levee systems (consisting of
13,000 miles of levees) that participate in the program. The damage rehabilitation program does
not fund repairs associated with regular OMRR&R.
Modification to Completed Projects
During a USACE project’s operations phase, nonfederal sponsors and other stakeholders may be
interested in modifications to the existing project. Often, there is interest in having USACE
modify an existing project (e.g., by deepening a federal navigation channel). In some
circumstances, a nonfederal entity is interested in undertaking its own modification.
USACE Modification to Completed Projects
USACE can review the operations of completed USACE projects under a reexamination authority
(33 U.S.C. §549a), established by Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611).
These reviews are often referred to as Section 216 studies. The reexamination authority allows for
review of the operation of USACE-constructed projects for navigation, flood control, water
supply, and related purposes when advisable due to significantly changed physical or economic
conditions. These USACE studies result in a report to Congress with recommendations on the
advisability of modifying the structures or their operation and for improving the quality of the
environment in the overall public interest. Congress would need to authorize the changes for
USACE to proceed.
Congressional Research Service

16

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Non-USACE Modification to Completed Projects
If a nonfederal entity is interested in altering a USACE civil works project after construction, the
entity generally must obtain permission from USACE. USACE’s authority to allow alterations to
its projects derives from Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, also known as Section
408 (based on its codification at 33 U.S.C. §408). This provision states that the Secretary of the
Army may “grant permission for the alteration or permanent occupation or use of any of the
aforementioned public works when in the judgment of the Secretary such occupation or use will
not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of such work.”17 Pursuant
to the regulations, USACE conducts a technical review of the proposed alteration’s effects on the
USACE project. Section 408 permissions may be required not only for projects operated and
maintained by USACE but also for federally authorized projects that are operated by nonfederal
project sponsors (e.g., many USACE-constructed, locally maintained levees).18 At the end of the
Section 408 process, USACE chooses to approve or deny permission for the alteration. USACE
may attach conditions to its Section 408 permission.
Deauthorization and Divestiture
At times, Congress deauthorizes specific USACE projects or project elements. USACE may
conduct a Section 216 study to determine whether to recommend deauthorizing a completed
USACE project that no longer serves its congressionally authorized project purposes. If Congress
deauthorizes the project, USACE will proceed with a divestiture process.19 For example, a few
inland waterway locks and dams that no longer support commercial navigation have been
deauthorized and divested to nonfederal interests.
Congress also has used WRDAs to deauthorize unconstructed projects and project elements and
to deauthorize studies. In previous WRDAs, Congress established various processes to
deauthorize existing study and project authorities meeting certain criteria. Some of these
deauthorization processes have since been repealed. For example, previously enacted study
deauthorizations were repealed by WRDA 2020 (Division AA of P.L. 116-260). Current statutes
for deauthorization processes consist of the following:
• Pursuant to statute (33 U.S.C. §579d-2 paragraphs (b)-(e)), the ASACW is to
submit a preliminary list of authorized but unconstructed projects or separable
elements of projects for deauthorization that meet congressionally specified
criteria (e.g., authorization prior to November 8, 2007 [i.e., before WRDA 2007,
P.L. 110-114]), solicit public comment on the list, prepare a final deauthorization
list, submit the list to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and publish the list in the
Federal Register. WRDA 2022 (Division H, Title LXXXI, of P.L. 117-263)
repealed a separate part of this authority that had provided for an automatic

17 On September 30, 2018, Engineer Circular (EC) 1165-2-220, Policy and Procedural Guidance for Processing
Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 USC 408, replaced the 2015 EC
1165-2-216.
18 EC 1165-2-220 provides that the regulation applies principally to alterations proposed within the real property
identified and acquired for the USACE project, with potential exceptions.
19 There currently is no formal process for a nonfederal entity to submit a proposal for congressional deauthorization of
a project. Some nonfederal project sponsors have proposed deauthorizations through the annual report process
established by Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 (P.L. 113-121). The Administration has stated in its Section 7001 annual
reports to Congress that the submitted deauthorization proposals do not qualify pursuant to the congressional direction
in Section 7001(c)(1)(A) of WRRDA 2014 (33 U.S.C. §2282d(c)(1)(A)).
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 23 link to page 23 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

deauthorization of projects after a two-year period for congressional review of
the final list. No other step following the transmittal of the list and publication in
the Federal Register is specified in the current amended authority.20
• Pursuant to statute enacted in 2020 (33 U.S.C. §579d-2(f)), projects or separable
elements of “antiquated” projects were automatically deauthorized if they met the
following criteria: they were authorized for construction prior to November 17,
1986, and either construction had not begun by December 27, 2020, or funds had
not been obligated for construction in the 10 years prior to December 27, 2020.
As of early 2024, a list of the projects deauthorized by the provision had not been
made publicly available.
Process for Continuing Authorities Program Projects
and Other Small Projects
Continuing Authorities Programs
USACE can plan, design, and implement certain types of water resource projects without project-
specific congressional authorization under CAPs established by Congress. Under CAPs, USACE
has authority to plan and implement projects of limited size, cost, scope, and complexity. For
most CAP authorities, Congress has limited the project’s federal cost and scope, as shown in
Table 6.21 Once funded, CAP projects generally take two to three years for the study phase, and
the construction phase often takes two to five years. CAPs typically are referred to by the section
number in the bill in which the CAP was first authorized.
CAP projects move through phases: study (feasibility), design and construction, and operations.
During the study phase, USACE identifies alternative project plans and develops initial cost
estimations, environmental impact analyses, and a real estate evaluation, among other actions to
formulate a project. The study phase typically consists of developing a feasibility report as the
decision document, in which USACE identifies the preferred project alternative. For CAP
projects, USACE can proceed directly to design and construction after the study phase without
obtaining specific congressional project authorization. The design and construction phase
includes the final project design and specifications, nonfederal real estate acquisition, project
contracting, and physical construction.
The study phase is initially federally funded up to $100,000, and then the study cost sharing for
most CAPs is 50% nonfederal after executing a feasibility cost-share agreement (see Table 6),
with two exceptions. Studies under the Section 204 CAP (i.e., regional sediment management to
reduce storm damage) are 0% nonfederal. For studies under Section 111 (prevention/mitigation of
shore damage by federal navigation projects), after the first $100,000 in costs, which are federally
funded, costs are shared the same as construction of the navigation project causing the damage.

20 In WRDA 2020, Congress repealed the ASACW’s existing deauthorization process authorities and enacted new
deauthorization provisions, including a one-time deauthorization authority (33 U.S.C. §579d–2). In WRDA 2022
(Division H, Title LXXXI, of P.L. 117-263), Congress amended WRDA 2020 in various ways. Whereas the WRDA
2020 process would have concluded with automatic deauthorization of projects after a two-year period for
congressional review of a deauthorization project list transmitted by the ASACW to Congress, the WRDA 2022
amendments conclude the deauthorization authority with the ASACW’s submission of the deauthorization list to
Congress for review of the list (i.e., no automatic deauthorization).
21 USACE, Continuing Authorities Program, Engineer Pamphlet 1105-2-58, March 1, 2019,
https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/EP_1105-2-58.pdf?ver=2019-04-30-105428-920.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 17 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

The design and construction phase consists of actions to implement the project, such as design,
preparation of contract plans and specifications, permitting, real estate acquisition, contracting,
and construction. Near the beginning of the design and construction phase, USACE and the
nonfederal sponsor sign a project partnership agreement. Costs for the construction phase are
shared as specified in the authorizing legislation for the CAP, as shown in Table 6. Under CAPs,
the operations phase is a nonfederal responsibility, except for general navigation feature
improvements under the Section 107 CAP.
Although USACE does not need any additional authorization to perform projects under CAPs,
Congress in some WRDA bills has included references to specific CAP projects, such as noting
that the Secretary shall expedite completion of certain CAP projects.
CAPs are often funded as a program (which leaves USACE with the discretion of which CAP
projects to fund); at times, Congress has directed funding to specific CAP projects. As part of the
annual Energy and Water Development appropriations process, CAP authorities typically are
funded through inclusion of a line item for each CAP in the USACE Construction account in the
report accompanying the legislation. At times, some CAPs have been funded through
supplemental appropriations (e.g., flood-related CAPs funded in flood-related or disaster-related
supplemental appropriations acts).
Table 6. Selected USACE Continuing Authorities Programs for Small Projects
Common
Nonfederal
Per Project
Annual Federal
Name of CAP
Eligible Activities and
Construction
Federal Limit
Program Limita
Authority
U.S. Code Citation
Cost Share
(in mil ions)
(in mil ions)
§14
Streambank and shoreline
35%-50%b
$5.0
$25.5
erosion of public works and
nonprofit services
33 U.S.C. §701r
§103
Beach erosion/hurricane
35%
$10.0
$38.0
storm damage reduction
33 U.S.C. §426g
§107
Navigation improvements
Varies
$10.0
$63.0
33 U.S.C. §577
(see Table 4); 50%
for recreational
navigation
§111
Prevention/mitigation of
Same as the project
$12.5
Not Applicable
shore damage by federal
causing the damage
navigation projects
33 U.S.C. §426i
§204
Regional sediment
35% for costs
$10.0 (per
$63.0
management as part of
beyond the base
construction)
construction to reduce
disposal plan costs
$10.0 (per
storm damage, protect
(which is 100%
beneficial
aquatic ecosystems, and
federal cost of the
use/placement
improve environmental
least costly typical
under §204(d)
conditions (§204) and
disposal)
multiple
beneficial use of dredged

placements
material from federal water
allowed)
resource project (§204(d))
33 U.S.C. §2326
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 24 link to page 24 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

Common
Nonfederal
Per Project
Annual Federal
Name of CAP
Eligible Activities and
Construction
Federal Limit
Program Limita
Authority
U.S. Code Citation
Cost Share
(in mil ions)
(in mil ions)
§205
Flood damage reduction
35%-50% for
$10.0
$69.3
(including ice jam
structural,b
prevention)
35% for
33 U.S.C. §701s
nonstructural
§206
Aquatic ecosystem
35%
$10.0
$63.0
restoration
33 U.S.C. §2330
§208
Snagging and clearing for
35%
$0.50 for any
$8.0
flood damage reduction
tributary in a
33 U.S.C. §701g
fiscal year
§1135
Project modifications for
25%
$10.0
$50.5
improvement of the
environment
33 U.S.C. §2309a
Source: Congressional Research Service, using statutes and USACE, Continuing Authorities Program, Engineer
Pamphlet 1105-2-58, March 1, 2019, https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/EP_1105-2-58.pdf?ver=
2019-04-30-105428-920.
Notes: CAP = continuing authorities program; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CAPs that have not
been funded in the most recent five fiscal years are not shown.
a. Division AA of P.L. 116-260 increased annual CAP funding authorization limits for FY2021 through FY2024
by $500,000 for each CAP compared with FY2020 levels; FY2024 levels are shown here.
b. 33 U.S.C. §2213 identifies 65% as the maximum federal share and 50% as the maximum nonfederal share;
5% of the nonfederal share must be paid during construction.
Other Small Project Authorities
Apart from the regularly funded CAPs previously discussed, Congress has established other
authorities that share many CAP characteristics or are authorized in conjunction with CAPs.
Below are a few authorities allowing USACE to perform work without project-specific study or
project authorization if federal project costs are below a specified amount; the list of programs
below is not comprehensive. Although some of these authorities have received funding (e.g.,
Tribal Partnership Program), others have not been funded. A number of these authorities reference
economically disadvantaged communities; USACE has developed implementation guidance that
defines this term and related criteria,22 and this guidance applies unless more specific direction is
provided in law.
• Tribal Partnership Program. Under this authority, USACE can perform
feasibility studies and construct water resource development projects (with a
federal cost up to $26 million before congressional authorization is required) that

22 USACE, Implementation Guidance for Section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, Definition of
Economically Disadvantaged Community, March 14. 2023, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/
p16021coll5/id/36002. According to the guidance, an economically disadvantaged community is defined as meeting
one or more of the following criteria: low per capita income (i.e., the area has a per capita income of 80% or less of the
national average); unemployment rate above national average (i.e., the area has an unemployment rate that is, for the
most recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least 1% greater than the national average unemployment
rate); Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1151, or in the proximity of an Alaska Native village; U.S. territories; or
communities identified as disadvantaged by the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 17 link to page 17 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

benefit Indian tribes primarily within Indian country or in proximity to Alaska
Native villages (33 U.S.C. §2269). USACE also can perform other types of
studies, such as watershed studies and non-feasibility studies, for various
purposes. Although the tribal cost sharing varies by activity (e.g., 50% for
studies, 25% for water and river basin assessment, 0% for technical assistance,
and consistent with Table 4 and Table 5 for construction and operations), all
program activities are subject to tribal ability-to-pay considerations that may
reduce or eliminate the tribal cost sharing.23
• Pilot Program for Small Projects for Economically Disadvantaged
Communities. Section 165(a) of WRDA 2020 (33 U.S.C. §2201 note) authorized
a 10-year pilot program for USACE to carry out projects at 100% federal cost
under various CAPs for up to 20 economically disadvantaged communities. The
included CAPs are Sections 14, 103, 204, 205, 206, 208, and 1135. A June 2023
notice requested pilot project proposals; submissions were due by October
2023.24
• Small Projects for Shoreline and Riverine Protection and Restoration.
Section 8103 of WRDA 2022 amended 33 U.S.C. §2332 to authorize USACE to
perform shoreline and riverine protection and restoration projects without
project-specific congressional authorization for projects with federal costs of $15
million or less. Nonfederal cost sharing is 50% after the first $200,000.
Nonfederal design and construction cost sharing is consistent with Table 4,
except nonfederal costs for design and construction are 10% for projects
benefitting economically disadvantaged communities for ecosystem restoration,
nonstructural measures, natural or nature-based features, or structural flood and
storm damage reduction projects.
• Permanent Measures to Reduce Emergency Flood Fighting Needs for
Communities Subject to Repetitive Flooding. Section 119 of WRDA 2020
authorized USACE to study and perform flood and coastal storm risk
management projects for communities that have been subject to two or more
flooding events in any 10-year period and that have received USACE emergency
flood-fighting assistance. The authority requires that the project have a benefit-
to-cost ratio greater than 1.0 (and allows for affected communities to pay, or
provide contributions equal to, an amount sufficient to reduce the remaining
project costs enough to meet the benefit-to-cost requirement). USACE can study,
design, and perform the projects without project-specific congressional
authorization for projects with federal costs of $17.5 million or less. Nonfederal
cost sharing is 50% after the first $100,000. Nonfederal design and construction
cost sharing is consistent with Table 4. When planning the project, to the
maximum extent practicable, USACE is to incorporate natural features or nature-
based features, or a combination of such features and nonstructural features, that

23 For more on determining the cost sharing for this program, see USACE, Economic Guidance Memorandum 24-04,
Tribal Partnership Program Reduced Cost Share Eligibility Criteria (Ability to Pay), Economic Guidance
Memorandum 24-04, January 29, 2024, https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/library/EGMs/EGM_24-04-2.pdf. The
program is authorized through FY2033.
24 USACE, “Request for Project Proposals Pursuant to Section 165 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020,
Pilot Program for Continuing Authority Projects in Small or Disadvantaged Communities,” 88 Federal Register 40229,
June 21, 2023, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/06/21/2023-13144/request-for-project-proposals-
pursuant-to-section-165-of-the-water-resources-development-act-of-2020.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 18 Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

avoid or reduce at least 50% of flood or storm damage in one or more of the
alternatives included in the final alternatives evaluated.
• Program for Small Water Storage Projects. Under Section 155 of WRDA 2020
(33 U.S.C. §2347c), USACE may study and construct new—or enlarge
existing—small water storage projects for the purpose of flood risk management,
ecological benefit, water management, water conservation, or water supply
(including agricultural or municipal and industrial water supply). Implementation
guidance for the Section 155 program indicates that the policy of USACE not
conducting single-purpose water supply studies is superseded for purposes of this
program.25 The water storage capacity of a project under the program is to be not
less than 2,000 acre-feet and not more than 30,000 acre-feet.26 The program is
authorized to be appropriated $130 million annually through FY2030. The per
project federal cost limit is $65 million. The nonfederal cost share for studies is
50% after the first $100,000, and the cost sharing for design and construction is
consistent with Table 5.
Process for Assistance for Nonfederal
Environmental Infrastructure
Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for USACE EI assistance for the design and
construction of certain nonfederal infrastructure in specified municipalities, counties, and states.
These authorizations typically appear in a WRDA.
The authorized assistance supports different nonfederal projects at publicly owned and operated
facilities. These nonfederal projects often may include construction of water distribution works,
stormwater management, surface water protection, and environmental restoration, among other
activities. CRS estimates there are over 400 EI assistance authorities with cumulative
authorizations of appropriations totaling over $12 billion.27
USACE evaluates a proposed EI activity’s eligibility for assistance by identifying whether an EI
assistance authorization exists for the nonfederal project’s geographic area and whether the
proposed work is an eligible type of assistance provided for in the specific EI authorization. The
EI authorization’s specifics determine the nature of USACE’s involvement and the nonfederal
cost share. USACE is typically authorized to perform design or design and construction work
with USACE funds. For certain programmatic authorities, USACE 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 the constructed facility—is responsible for operation and
maintenance. 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, including NEPA, apply to EI assistance. USACE and the nonfederal sponsors sign either a
design cost-share agreement or a design and construction cost-share agreement before EI
assistance may be initiated.

25 USACE, Implementation Guidance for Section 155 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, Small Water
Storage Projects, April 22, 2022, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll5/id/35987.
26 An acre-foot is a unit of volume equivalent to approximately 43,560 cubic feet.
27 CRS analysis of enacted legislation likely to include EI assistance authorities.
Congressional Research Service

22

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

For more information on USACE EI assistance, including a list of authorities and appropriations
information, see CRS Report R47162, Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental
Infrastructure (EI) Assistance, by Anna E. Normand.
Concluding Considerations
Congress regularly considers during its WRDA deliberations various topics related to the
processes for USACE federal water resource projects and USACE assistance with nonfederal EI.
Some examples of process-related topics include nonfederal responsibilities, USACE’s role in
water supply and conservation, and the future of USACE EI assistance.
Nonfederal Responsibilities. Nonfederal sponsors are often interested in altering their
responsibilities associated with USACE federal water resource projects. Among the changes that
some stakeholders support are reducing the nonfederal cost share for specific projects or certain
types of projects (e.g., projects that benefit economically disadvantaged communities). Some
stakeholders view the current nonfederal cost-share requirements as prohibitive or burdensome.
Other stakeholders support nonfederal beneficiaries continuing to contribute to the costs of
USACE projects, as set out in current statute. Given limited federal appropriations, a lowering of
nonfederal cost sharing may reduce the number of studies and projects that USACE can perform
with available federal appropriations.
Flood Risk Management. As described in this report, Congress primarily directs USACE’s flood
risk management through geographically specific study and project authorizations. The current
process for USACE flood risk management projects at times raises questions regarding how
effectively, efficiently, and equitably the agency’s planned and funded projects are reducing the
nation’s flood risk. For example, in a 2024 report on community relocation away from
environmentally high-risk areas, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
stated, “the requirement that USACE seek congressional authorization to address flood risk in a
specific locality, with no organic statute governing overall authority of USACE to determine its
own agenda, has resulted in piecemeal and inequitable distribution of flood risk management
projects.”28 Others also have questioned whether the USACE project process favors certain types
of approaches to reducing flood risk, such as structural approaches rather than nonstructural or
nature-based approaches.
Water Supply and Conservation. Congress in Section 221 of WRDA 2020 directed the
ASACW to report on the benefits and consequence of including water supply and water
conservation as a primary USACE mission. This interest may continue as the demands on
existing water supplies increase and as changes in the availability and reliability of water supplies
shift. The addition of water supply and water conservation as a mission would alter USACE
processes by adding a fourth primary purpose for which USACE could study, construct, and
operate a project.
EI Assistance. Congress since 1992 has continued to expand the suite of locations where USACE
can provide EI assistance; for example, WRDA 2022 included over 400 EI assistance
authorizations. The increased authorizations have resulted in expanded eligibility for many more
nonfederal projects. Nonetheless, EI assistance is not available nationwide and is limited to
authorized geographic areas. In addition, the authorization amounts of EI assistance vary widely,

28 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Community-Driven Relocation: Recommendations for
the U.S. Gulf Coast Region and Beyond (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2024), p. 222.
Congressional Research Service

23

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

from a few thousand dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars. Although some of the larger EI
authorities rival the size of individual USACE federal water resource project authorizations, the
Congressional Research Service

24

Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

process for EI assistance remains distinct from the process for federal water resource projects;
this distinction is due in part to the nonfederal nature of this infrastructure.
Congress may consider whether to add, amend, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities. It also
may consider altering the scope of EI authorities (e.g., geographic area, authorization of
appropriations, activities). Further, Congress may consider whether to define prioritization for EI
assistance (e.g., for economically disadvantaged communities) or whether to establish a more
formal program (e.g., a competitive program or a program with national eligibility).

Author Information

Nicole T. Carter
Anna E. Normand
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47946 · VERSION 1 · NEW
25

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 7, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Energy Policy

Environmental Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON