Army Corps of Engineers: Civil Works Reform Issues for the 107th Congress

Army Corps of Engineers: Civil Works Reform Issues for the 107th Congress

Order Code RL30928
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Army Corps of Engineers:
Civil Works Reform Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated April 11, 2003
Nicole T. Carter
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Army Corps of Engineers:
Civil Works Reform Issues in the 107th Congress
Summary
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is a federal agency within the
Department of Defense that has both civil works and military programs. The Corps’
civil works activities are the subject of this report. Its civil works mission includes
primarily water resources planning, construction, and operation. Congress generally
directs Corps activities through biennial authorization and annual appropriation bills.
The Corps attracts much congressional attention because its projects can provide
significant economic stimulation in addition to their basic development purposes.
A budget deficit, a backlog of Corps construction and maintenance activities,
and concerns about the project development process prompted some Members during
the 107th Congress to question aspects of the civil works program. Specifically,
should the agency’s administration of its civil works mission be altered to reflect
changing fiscal and environmental priorities and to improve the project development
process, and, if so, how? A bipartisan House Army Corps Reform Caucus was
formed. Committees heard testimony supporting and opposing Corps reform. While
Members in both Houses proposed bills to change Corps processes, other Members
and interest groups satisfied with existing practices opposed these measures. No bills
altering Corps procedures passed in the 107th Congress.
The intent of the Bush Administration’s proposal for the FY2003 Corps civil
works budget was to improve the Corps’ fiscal performance by reducing the backlog
of construction activities and supporting operation and maintenance of existing
infrastructure. The Administration proposed reducing the backlog primarily by
starting no new projects and concentrating resources on priority projects, i.e., those
with evident national benefits for navigation, flood control, and environmental
restoration. The Administration’s focus on priority projects addressed a concern
about so called “mission creep.” Over the Corps’ 200-year history, its civil works
mission has expanded from maintaining navigable channels and flood control
projects to include environmental restoration and non-traditional projects, such as
municipal water and wastewater projects. This expanding mission, the growing
backlog, and limited federal funding for water resources projects has some Members
and advocacy groups worried that the Corps’ efforts are spread too thin.
Proposed bills in the 107th Congress attempted to not only improve fiscal
management but also modify the project development process and reduce
environmental impacts. Many of the bills included provisions for greater public
access to project information, increased public participation and independent review,
stricter benefit-cost criteria, stronger environmental mitigation requirements, and
deauthorization of projects. Environmental and taxpayer groups generally supported
these bills while agriculture and navigation industries generally opposed them. This
report summarizes the debate on Corps reform in the 107th Congress and is unlikely
to be updated.

Contents
A Primer on the Civil Works Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Mission and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Corps Funding and Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Interest and Action on Changing Processes and Procedures at the Corps . . . . . . . 4
Related Legislative Activity in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Corps Management and Operations Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Project Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Economic Justification and Analysis of Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Administration Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Independent Review and Local Advisory Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Environmental Impacts of Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Mission Focus and Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Army Corps of Engineers: Civil Works
Reform Issues in the 107th Congress
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is a federal agency within the
Department of Defense that has both civil works and military programs. The Corps
civil works program is the subject of this report. Its civil works mission includes
primarily water resource facility planning, construction, and operation. Congress
generally directs Corps activities through biennial authorization and annual
appropriation bills.
The federal budget deficit, a backlog of Corps construction and maintenance and
concerns about the project development process prompted some Members of the
107th Congress to question various aspects of the civil works program. Specifically,
should the Corps’ administration of civil works be altered to better reflect current
fiscal and environmental priorities and to restore public confidence in the agency’s
project development process, and, if so, how? Interest groups that support reform
propose many changes including in the following areas: project development process,
economic justification and analysis of projects, independent review and local
advisory groups, oversight by the Administration, environmental impact mitigation,
and mission of the agency. Groups representing direct beneficiaries of Corps
projects, such as agriculture and navigation industries, however, generally support
retaining existing practices.
Hearings with testimony related to Corps reform and a House Army Corps
Reform Caucus indicate the concern of some Members. Bills in both Houses — H.R.
1310, H.R. 2353, S. 646, S. 1987 and S. 2963 — would have changed how the Corps
managed civil works. Although no legislation altering Corps procedures was enacted
by the107th Congress, reform issues received considerable media, interest group, and
congressional attention. Reform supporters have indicated their continued interest
in legislative action to change Corps processes.
A Primer on the Civil Works Program1
Organization
The Corps is a unique federal agency being a military organization with a
largely civilian workforce. Of the 25,000 civil works positions in 2002, only 250
were military personnel. The civil works program is headed by a civilian Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. A military Chief of Engineers oversees the
1 More information on the civil works program is available in CRS Report RS20866, The
Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers: A Primer.

CRS-2
Corps’ civil and military operations and reports on civil works matters to the
Assistant Secretary. Eight divisions coordinate 38 district offices in the United States
and field offices worldwide. Water resource projects are largely planned at the
district level and approved at the division and headquarters levels.
Mission and Responsibilities
Over the Corps’ 200-year history, its civil works program has evolved into a
conglomeration of responsibilities with sometimes conflicting objectives. The
agency’s oldest responsibilities are navigation and flood control. Many of the
navigation and flood control projects are multi-purpose — i.e. they also supply water
for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses; recreation; and hydropower. In the
last decade, ecosystem restoration has also become a significant part of the agency’s
civil works activities. In addition to these primary responsibilities, the Corps is
increasingly involved in a variety of other activities, such as disaster relief and
recovery and remediation of formerly used nuclear sites (Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP). The Corps played a significant role in the
emergency response efforts following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It
assisted the New York Fire Department with interim communications equipment,
evaluated the safety of damaged buildings, provided emergency power to the
financial district, and removed debris.
Navigation projects include river deepening, channel widening, jetty
construction, lock expansion, dam operations, and dredged material disposal. Flood
control projects encompass federal dam (and related hydropower) construction and
operation, levee construction, river channelization, large-scale pumping systems, and
coastal protection. More recent environmental restoration activities involve wetlands
and marshlands restoration and environmental mitigation activities. The agency’s
regulatory responsibility for navigable waters extends to issuing permits for private
actions that might affect wetlands and other waters of the United States.2
The Corps attracts congressional attention because of the breadth and impact of
its activities and Congress’ role in directing the agency. Construction and operation
of Corps projects often provide economic stimulation for nearby localities as well as
regional and national benefits. Corps flood control projects are built to protect
millions of homes, farms, and businesses. Coastal ports, barge channels, and
hydroelectric dams can significantly benefit local and regional economies. The range
of the Corps’ activities often involves the agency in contentious environmental
issues, such as dam removal on the Snake River, water management on the Missouri
River, and restoration of the Florida Everglades. Because of the generally strong
2Sections 10 and 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 407) require that a
permit be obtained from the Corps for alteration or obstruction of and refuse discharge in
navigable waters of the United States. The Corps also has regulatory responsibilities under
other laws, notably §404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Since the mid-1970s,
court decisions have significantly broadened the interpretation of navigable waters.
Subsequent judicial and administrative actions have altered considerably the jurisdictional
reach of the agency’s regulatory program from the Corps’ earlier interpretation.

CRS-3
congressional support of Corps’ projects, Congress typically appropriates more for
civil works than was requested by the Administration.
Corps Funding and Backlog
The civil works budget consists primarily of funding for specific projects and
studies in three stages: investigation and planning, construction, and operation and
maintenance.3 Fiscal priorities and public attitudes in recent decades have produced
a decline in federal funding for water resources development projects generally and
prompted legislation in 1986 that requires greater local financial participation in
projects.4 Over the past 30 years, the civil works budget declined in real dollar
amounts. From the mid-1960s to the late 1990s, the annual funding for the general
construction account alone fell from an average of $4 billion to $1.4 billion (in 1999
dollars).5 For FY2002 through FY2003, the construction budget and total agency
appropriations averaged $1.7 billion and $4.6 billion, respectively.
In recent decades federal funding for water resources projects was becoming
increasingly limited, the scope of the Corps’ responsibilities was growing. During
the 1990s, Congress continued biennial authorizations of navigation and flood
control projects through the Water Resources Development Acts (WRDA) and began
authorizing more environmental activities and non-traditional projects. Over the
longer term, more projects have received authorization than appropriations, resulting
in a backlog of construction activities. The backlog consists of over 500 “active”
authorized projects with an estimated federal cost of approximately $44 billion.6
The backlog resulted in the Corps having to spread appropriation across a larger
number of projects. The consequence has been smaller appropriations for individual
projects, which typically extend construction schedules, thus increasing costs and
delaying benefits.
3More information on Corps funding is available in CRS Report RL31307, Appropriations
for FY 2003: Energy and Water Development.
4Previously, most studies and projects were funded entirely by the federal
government. The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1986 (P.L. 99-662)
increased local cost-share requirements.
5Information provided by the Corps to Senator Voinovich at his request; available in Senator
George V. Voinovich, “Statement,” Corps of Engineers Mission and Backlog of Projects,
Hearing before Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, May 16, 2000. The hearing is hereafter referred to as the Corps Mission and
Backlog hearing.
6Active projects are those that have been recently funded, evaluated by the Corps as
economically justified, and are supported by a local sponsor; an additional 800 authorized
projects are considered inactive. Beginning with the FY2004 budget request, the
Administration began referring to a $21 billion construction backlog (General Robert
Flowers, Chief of Engineers, U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, “Statement,”Oversight of the
Corps of Engineers’ FY2001 Budget, Hearing before House Transportation and
Infrastructure subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, February 27, 2003.)
This represents the funding needed to complete the construction projects included in the
FY2004 budget request. The larger $44 billion figure is the funding needed to complete the
backlog of all active projects.

CRS-4
In addition to the construction backlog, the Corps in FY2002 had a $702 million
backlog for deferred critical maintenance for existing structures at prevailing
authorization and appropriation levels. The Corps and some Members expressed
concern that without proper maintenance the ability of existing water resources
infrastructure to serve the population and the economy will decline. During the
1990s, maintenance appropriations remained relatively constant even though the
Corps had more built projects to maintain and the maintenance cost of the aging
infrastructure was increasing.
As previously noted, funding for civil works has often been a contentious issue
between the Administration and Congress. Final appropriations typically provide
more funding than the Administration’s request regardless of which political party
controls the White House and Congress. The Corps generally maintains strong
congressional support because of the direct water resource benefits and indirect
economic and political benefits of its projects. Given the construction and
maintenance backlogs and limited federal budget resources, Congress and the
Administration often make difficult choices among competing priorities as they
prepare annual Corps appropriations.
The Corps civil works budget for FY2003 was once again contentious. The
Administration’s budget request for the program in FY2003 (excluding full funding
for federal retiree costs) was 7% less than the FY2002 appropriation, excluding
emergency appropriations. The Administration’s request received considerable
media attention in the wake of the resignation in March 2002 of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (who sets policy for the Corps’ civil
activities). The resignation, or dismissal by some accounts, was reportedly over a rift
with the White House on the FY2003 budget proposal. Both the Senate and House
reports expressed the Appropriations Committees displeasure with the
Administration’s low budget request (H.R. 5431, H.Rept. 107-681; S.2784, S.Rept.
107-220). The Bush Administration’s budget document not only proposed a
reduction in the civil works budget but also identified “mission creep” as diverting
the Corps from its main missions, slowing down completion of priority construction
projects, and postponing the benefits of completing projects. The Administration
specifically mentioned as a problem the increasing number of congressional
authorizations and appropriations for Corps projects that could be carried out by
other agencies or local governments, such as municipal “environmental
infrastructure” water projects.
Interest and Action on Changing Processes
and Procedures at the Corps
Much of the congressional interest in improving the Corps’ civil works program
during the 107th Congress was founded not only on budgetary concerns but also on
perceived deficiencies in the project development process. In 2000, allegations of
improper manipulation of an economic study and news articles on an initiative to

CRS-5
“grow” the Corps raised concerns about the integrity of the planning process.7 In
February 2000, an economist at the Corps approached the Office of Special Counsel,
an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that protects
government whistleblowers. He contended that Corps officials manipulated a
benefit-cost analysis to support expensive lock improvements on the Upper
Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway. In late February 2000, the Special Counsel
released a finding that there was a substantial likelihood of violations and that the
case warranted further investigation.8 The allegations were more thoroughly
investigated at the request of the Department of Defense by both the Army Inspector
General and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
In December 2000, the Department of Defense released the Army Inspector
General’s report examining the allegations of wrongdoing. The Inspector General
found an institutional bias toward large construction projects. A letter transmitting
the findings to the President stated that the investigation revealed “serious
misconduct and improprieties in connection with the feasibility study” and suggested
“the existence of institutional biases that led to misconduct . . . and that may affect
Corps decision making in other projects.”9 The institutional bias for large-scale
projects was found to create “an atmosphere where objectivity in its analysis was
placed in jeopardy.”10 The report identified an initiative to “grow” the civil works
program as contributing to the bias; however, it found no blatant fraud or abuse.
In late February 2001, the National Resource Council, an arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, released its report on the planning of the Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway project.11 The investigation found flaws in both the
application of theoretical models and the data used for estimating navigation. The
investigation noted, on the positive side, that the model represented an advance over
previous models. The report stated:
This system model represents a major advance over previous economic models
used by the Corps to forecast barge traffic....[However,] many of the assumptions
7Among the news media covering the Corps, articles in The Washington Post have received
significant attention; these can be viewed at the following website:
[http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/aroundthenation/corpsofengineers].
8U.S. Office of Special Counsel, “Special Counsel Finds that Whistleblower Allegations
Demonstrate Substantial Likelihood that Army Corps of Engineers Engaged in Violations
of Law, Rule or Regulation, and/or Gross Waste of Funds; Requests Investigation by
Secretary of Defense,” Press Release, February 28, 2000.
9U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Letter to The President, December 6, 2000. The text of the
Inspector General’s report is available at: [http://www.osc.gov/reading.htm]. The full report
is cited as follows: U.S. Dept. of the Army, U.S. Army Inspector General Agency Report of
Investigation (Case 00-019), (Washington, DC: December 2000). This report is hereafter
referred to as Army Inspector General report, 2000.
10Ibid.
11National Academy of Sciences, Inland Navigation System Planning: The Upper
Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
Hereafter referred to as NAS Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway report, 2001. The
report is available at: [http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10072.html].

CRS-6
and data used as input to these models are flawed.... As a result of flawed
assumptions and data, the current (September 2000) results of the spatial
equilibrium model and the ESSENCE model should not be used in the feasibility
study. The problem lies not in the theoretical motivation behind these models,
but in their implementation and data used as input.12
Supporters and opponents of changes to the Corps interpret differently the meaning
of the NAS report. Those advocating reform argue that the report illustrated
problems in the project development process, while those opposing change claim that
the report justified the Corps officers’ adjustments.
Concern over possible manipulation of study results to obtain a favorable
recommendation to proceed grew as the media publicized a strategic vision for the
agency that had been promoted by the former Chief of Engineers General Joe Ballard
in 1999 called the “Program Growth Initiative.” The initiative emphasized the
agency’s role in identifying water resources needs in the Nation. The initiative set
expansion targets for the civil works program that would result in a 20% increase
before inflation in the current civil works budget by 2005. The The Washington Post
in articles in February 2000 and a more extensive series in September 2000 brought
the initiative to the public’s attention. The articles criticized the initiative for placing
as the top priority expansion of the civil works program, regardless of need for the
project.13 Former Chief of Engineers General Joe N. Ballard defended the Corps’
civil works program:
[W]e are seeking to identify unmet National water resource needs that fall within
the Corps’ mission areas. These needs are based on published and documented
information. Our role is to apply a structured, reasoned approach to identifying
and quantifying the Nation’s water resource needs.14
Environmental and taxpayer groups use the various studies and reports
reviewing the Corps activities and procedures in their pursuit for reform of Corps
management, operations, and policies. Environmentalists continue their decades-old
argument that the environmental damages of some large-scale navigation and flood
control projects outweigh their benefits and that environmental impacts are not
properly measured, valued, and mitigated. Taxpayer groups argue that the benefits
of federal investment in many projects are dubious and that project decisions are not
based on sound economic analysis, but on politics.15
12Ibid, pp.3.
13 “Generals Push Huge Growth for Engineers,” The Washington Post, February 24, 2000.
The initiative allegedly was undertaken without the knowledge of the Assistant Army
Secretary of the Army.
14General Joe Ballard, Chief of Engineers, U.S, Army Corps of Engineers,
“Statement,”Oversight of the Corps of Engineers’ FY2001 Budget, Hearing before Senate
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
February 24, 2000. Hereafter referred to a Corps FY2001 Budget Oversight hearing,
February 24, 2000.
15Examples of these views are available in a widely-distributed report titled Troubled
(continued...)

CRS-7
Many groups and communities benefitting from Corps activities, such as the
barge industry, port authorities, and some farmers, support existing practices. They
laud the agency’s contributions to their communities and the national economy and
argue for continued participation in inland waterways, shore protection, and flood
protection.16 They contend that the Corps’ critics unfairly cite a few complex, high-
profile atypical cases as evidence of fundamental problems.
Related Legislative Activity in the 107th Congress
The 107th Congress held several hearings related to the Corps. Three of these
gave particular attention to Corps reform issues. The Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works has jurisdiction over the authorization of Corps
projects. Its Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which is
responsible for WRDA, held a hearing in March 2001 on reforms of the Corps’
feasibility studies. The Subcommittee also addressed many Corps reform topics in
a June 2002 hearing on the proposed WRDA 2002 bill (H.R. 5428). General Robert
Flowers, the current Chief of Engineers, testified to the soundness of the existing
process and responded to concerns about the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway economic study. In February 2001, General Flowers also testified at a
hearing on the Inspector General’s report held by the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Conflict among Members over
the issue of Corps reform reportedly played a critical role in the decision not to vote
on a WRDA in 2002.
Members of the 107th Congress introduced five bills to alter the Corps processes
and procedures — H.R. 1310, H.R. 2353, S. 646, S. 1987, and S. 2963—and one bill
to create a commission to assess the agency’s performance. None of these bills were
enacted.
Two related bills, H.R. 1310 introduced by Congressman Ron Kind and S. 646
introduced by Senator Russell Feingold, proposed establishing economic
development and environmental protection and restoration as co-equal goals for the
Corps. The bills included procedures for establishing stakeholder advisory
committees and independent review of projects as well as requirements for public
15(...continued)
Waters: Congress, the Corps of Engineers, and Wasteful Water Projects, which can be
found at [http://www.nwf.org/greeningcorps/report.html]. The report, which was co-
authored by the Taxpayers for Common Sense and National Wildlife Federation and
published in March 2000, made specific recommendations for Corps reform and identified
the 25 “Most Wasteful Corps of Engineers Projects.” This report is hereafter referred to as
Trouble Waters, 2000.
16J. Ron Brinson (President New Orleans Port Authority), Tony B. MacDonald, (Executive
Director of the Costal States Organization), and George Grugett (Executive Vice President
of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association) provided testimony supporting the
Corps’ continued participation in inland waterways, shore protection, and flood protection
at the Corps Mission and Backlog hearing on May 16, 2000. At the same hearing, William
Parrish (Vice Chairman Association of State Floodplain Managers) supported the Corps’
role in flood control and encouraged both greater participation in projects by local entities
and floodplain management strategies using non-structural solutions.

CRS-8
access to project analyses. The bills would have refined the Corps economic
evaluation procedures related to environmental impacts and established stricter
mitigation and tracking requirements. There were twenty four cosponsors for H.R.
1310. The last action taken was the referral of the bill to the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. There were
no cosponsors for S.646. The last action taken on S.646 was a hearing by the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 18, 2002; the same hearing
also addressed S.1987 (see below).
H.R. 2353, introduced by Congressman Thomas Tancredo, would have required
the Corps to produce a community relations improvement plan, to establish
mechanisms for public hearings and independent review of projects, to provide
public access to project analyses, and to create a deauthorizing procedure. The bill
included new economic evaluation criteria and project management techniques,
increased local cost-sharing responsibility, and evaluations of the regional impacts
of port and harbor projects. There were seven cosponsors. The last action on the bill
was its referral to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment .
In March 2002, Senator Bob Smith introduced S. 1987 which proposed to
modernize and improve the Corps. The bill included provisions for reviewing and
reporting on the construction backlog and deauthorizing projects, independent peer
review, and decreased federal financial participation for projects with primarily local
benefits. The bill also proposed that projects meet a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 or
greater (compared to 1.0 currently) and that project analysis and justification
information be publicly available. There were four cosponsors. The last action taken
on the bill was a hearing held on June 18, 2002, by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Senator Tim Johnson introduced S. 2963 which contained provisions for
independent review of controversial projects, refinements to legislation guiding the
Corps’ mitigation procedures, and establishment of environmental protection and
restoration and economic development as co-equal goals. The bill also called for the
Secretary of the Army in cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences to
revise the Corps’ guidelines for water resources projects. The bill also proposed
changes to the use of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund that would have allowed
these funds to be used for operation and maintenance as well as construction of
inland waterways. There were no cosponsors for this bill. The last action was the
referral of the bill to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Senator Tom Daschle introduced S. 3036 to establish a Corps of Engineers
River Stewardship Independent Investigation and Review Commission. The
Commission would have completed within two years a report on the Corps’
management of the Nation’s rivers. The report would have addressed a broad range
of issues related to the Corps current practices including: compliance with
environmental and cultural resource laws; quality of the agency’s analyses; the
Corps’ coordination with federal and state agencies and Indian tribes; and the extent
to which the Corps’ river management studies balanced competing river uses. The
Commission would have also studied the several normative questions: whether Corps
river management studies should be subject to independent review; whether river

CRS-9
planning laws should be amended; and whether the river management functions of
the Corps should be transferred from the Department of the Army to a civilian federal
agency. There was one cosponsor. The last action was its referral to the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Corps reform bills had also been introduced during the 106th Congress —H.R.
4879, H.R. 5459, and S. 2309. The 106th Congress did not act on these bills. The
106th Congress did enact some provisions related to Corps reform in Title II of the
2000 WRDA. These provisions were essentially scaled-down versions of reforms
proposed in H.R. 4879. Section 222 of the 2000 WRDA required procedures to
enhance public participation in the development of feasibility studies, and to include,
if appropriate, a stakeholder advisory group. Section 223 required the Corps to
monitor the economic and environmental results of up to five projects for at least 12
years. Section 216 directed the NAS to study “state of the art” project analysis
methods and to compare them to the methods employed by the Corps and the
practicality and efficacy of “independent peer review of feasibility reports.” The
Academy’s National Research Council published its report Review Procedures for
Water Resources Planning in July 2002.17 The report identified a need for increased
independence from the Corps of the reviewers and the review process. Section 224
called for a study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) on the effectiveness of
concurrent mitigation for fish and wildlife impacts. In the May 2002 GAO report
titled US Army Corps of Engineers: Scientific Panel’s Assessment of Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation Guidance (GAO-02-574), most of the expert panelists rated the
overall quality of the Corps’ mitigation program as moderate or good while also
making numerous suggestions for improvement.
In recent years both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have
expressed concerns and comments on the Corps’ project development process and
criticisms raised against the Corps. In 2000, the House Appropriations Committee
noted in H.Rept.106-693 concerns about the Corps’ project review process and
indicated its desire for a more streamlined project development process.18 The
Committee also commented on the accusations concerning Corps officials improperly
trying to expand the civil works program; the Committee report stated that while
pressure on planners and engineers to “inappropriately justify projects is
unacceptable, the Committee believes that it is the proper role of the Chief of
Engineers to advise the Administration, the Congress, and the Nation of the level of
investment in water resources infrastructure that he believes is needed to support the
17National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Review Procedures for Water
Resources Project Planning (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002). This study
is independent of the NAS Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway report.
18A 1999 National Research Council report found only limited opportunities for streamlining
the planning process. The Council recommended several changes to help shorten the process
but found “[b]eyond these recommendations, however, further reductions may be neither
reasonable nor desirable.” National Research Council (NRC), New Directions in Water
Resources: Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1999). Hereafter referred to as NRC New Directions in Water Resources,
1999.

CRS-10
economy and improve quality of life for our citizens.”19 In 2001, the Committee
report addressed the criticism of the Corps manipulating studies on the Upper
Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway (H.Rept.107-112). The Committee stated that
the Corps officers charged with manipulating the data were justified in their actions.
The Committee found that the National Academy of Sciences “has found that the
Corps’ officers who questioned the preliminary results of the study were justified in
doing so since those preliminary results were based on a seriously flawed model.”
The Committee disregarded the criticism that the Corps was secretly trying to expand
its program by citing the backlog of authorized projects.
In 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee in Senate Report 106-395 noted
its dissatisfaction with management reforms proposed by the Clinton Administration.
Although the Committee did not include language prohibiting Corps reform, it put
the Administration on notice that it would continue to “assess the need for such
language as the process moves forward.” The Senate Committee also expressed
concern about the Corps’ expansion into non-traditional areas and involvement in
projects for which the private sector has demonstrated capability and capacity. In its
2001 report (S.Rept. 107-39), the Committee noted its satisfaction with the Corps’
response to the issues raised by the whistleblower allegations and made no mention
of reforms. The Committee did express a general concern over the growing
construction and maintenance backlogs.
Corps Management and Operations Issues
Congress in recent decades has not significantly changed the Corps’
organization, management, and project development process. It has made changes
to specific procedures and requirements, such as changes in 1986 to the cost-share
requirements for projects. Opinions varied widely among Members of the 107th
Congress on the need, nature, and scope of changes in Corps processes and
procedures.
There existed a similar diversity of opinions among interest groups. Advocacy
groups and individuals supporting changes to the Corps approach the issue from
many perspectives. They represent the spectrum of environmental groups, as well
as groups interested in maximizing public benefits of federal investments and
minimizing federal expenditures and responsibilities. Similarly, those generally
satisfied with the Corps’ current policies and procedures are not a homogenous
group. Some reform opponents represent industries that directly benefit from federal
investment in Corps projects. Others are from communities interested in benefits
from projects in new mission areas.
The principal reform issues raised during the 107th Congress include: project
development process; economic justification and analysis of projects; independent
review and local advisory groups; oversight by the Administration; environmental
impacts of projects; and mission focus and expansion. Although no reform
19U.S. House, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2001, (H.R. 4733) Rept.
106-693, June 23, 2000.

CRS-11
legislation was enacted during the 107th Congress, reform supporters may seek future
legislative action.
While reform supporters present many specific recommendations for reform that
are discussed herein, those content with existing Corps processes raise general
opposition to Corps reform. Consequently, it is important to emphasize that those
opposed to reform in most cases do not argue against specific recommendations but
the fundamental need for reform. They argue that the current processes are sufficient
and that changes will only increase expense and lengthen project development. They
apply these arguments to all of the recommendations proposed by those seeking
change. This report presents the recommended reforms and the arguments made for
and against these specific reforms.
Project Development Process
The Corps currently follows a two-phase planning process intended to provide
decision makers with sufficient information to determine if a project warrants federal
investment.20 Project development is directed by Principles and Guidelines for
Water and Related Resources Implementation Studies (P&G), prepared by the Water
Resources Council (WRC) in 1983 to guide development of federal water
resources.21 The P&G do not differentiate between benefits to individual or local
interests and to society at large. The Corps also has internal planning guidance —
the “Planning Guidance Notebook” updated (and given its current name) in April
2000. In the National Research Council’s 1999 New Directions in Water Resources
report and NAS’s 2001 Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway report, it was
recommended that the P&G be reviewed and modified to incorporate contemporary
analytical techniques and changes in public values and federal agency programs.22
Proponents and opponents of reform differ on their view of whether the process and
its related guidance need to be changed.
Corps’ projects generally originate with a request for assistance from a local
community (e.g., citizens, businesses, or congressional delegation) or from a local
government entity with a water resource need that is beyond its capability to
alleviate. Contingent upon a finding of sufficiency, or satisfaction that the project
ought to move forward, the Corps’ district office typically requests congressional
study authorization and funding to undertake a reconnaissance study. A
reconnaissance study typically takes 12 to 18 months, and its cost is limited to
$100,000. This study is used to better understand the nature of the water resource
problem; determine the likelihood of developing project that the Corps can eventually
20More information on the planning process is available in Planning Guidance Notebook
(Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100) available at: [http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/].
21WRC was established pursuant to the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act (P.L. 89-80; 42
U.S.C. 1962-b2). WRC is currently dormant due to a lack of funding. Given the WRC’s
status, the procedures for modifying P&G are not clear. Three other federal agencies—the
Bureau of Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority—also use the P&G.
22NRC New Direction in Water Resources report, 1999, at 4-5; NAS Upper Mississippi
River-Illinois Waterway report, 2001,at 5 and 28.

CRS-12
implement; and make a preliminary evaluation of federal interest, economic benefits
and costs, and environmental impacts and potential mitigation.23 Based on the
findings of a reconnaissance study, Corps headquarters decides whether to proceed
to a feasibility study. According to testimony by Corps officials, of every 100
reconnaissance studies, only 16 result in actual construction.24 Technical assistance
and some small projects can be conducted without specific congressional
authorization under the Continuing Authorities Program.
During the first months of a the next phase in project development — feasibility
planning, the Corps’ local district office formulates alternative plans, investigates
engineering feasibility, assesses environmental impacts pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321) and other
regulations, and conducts benefit-cost analyses according to the P&G and Corps
guidelines. Generally the district produces an environmental impact statement (EIS)
for a project during this feasibility phase; however, projects conducted under
continuing authorities may undergo a more limited environmental assessment. The
district office distributes a project’s draft feasibility report and environmental
documents for review by its division, Corps headquarters, the Assistant Secretary,
affected federal agencies, Governors of affected states, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and the general public.25 The feasibility phase ends when the
Chief of Engineers signs a final recommendation. The Corps then begins
preconstruction engineering and design, a one to two year process conducted while
pursuing congressional authorization and appropriations for construction.
Congress typically authorizes Corps projects as part of a biennial consideration
of a WRDA. Congress might authorize construction of a project on the basis of a
Chief of Engineers report, or it might wait for review by the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works and OMB. In the last decade congressional authorization of projects
before a complete Chief’s report is available but contingent on its favorable
completion within a year has become more common.26 Most projects authorized
during the late 1990s and early 2000s had not undergone OMB review prior to
receiving congressional authorization.
23This description of the reconnaissance study is from Chapter VII of the Corps’ 1996
Project Partnership Kit available at: [http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/ppkit.pdf].
24General Robert B. Flowers, “Oral Statement,” Reforms to Address the Corps of Engineers
Feasibility Studies, Hearing before Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee
on Transportation and Infrastructure on March 15, 2001. The hearing is hereafter referred
to as Reform of Feasibility Studies hearing, March 15, 2001. The testimony is available at:
[http://www.senate.gov/~epw/stm1_107.htm#03-15-01].
25 According to the NAS “All feasibility reports and significant decision documents are now
reviewed by a Central Review Center” (NAS, Review Procedures for Water Resources
Planning (Washington DC: National Academy Press)). The report describes a streamlined
version of the technical and policy reviews that are supposed to occur, as well as a brief
history of changes in the review process.
26The final Chief’s report was not completed for 28 of the 30 projects authorized in WRDA
2000 (P.L.106-541), 15 of the 45 projects authorized in WRDA 1999 (P.L.106-53), and 13
of the 31 projects authorized in WRDA 1996 (P.L. 104-303).

CRS-13
Following authorization for construction, the federal cost-share may be provided
in the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.27 Construction is
managed by the Corps’ district but typically is performed by private contractors.
Most projects are operated and maintained by local sponsors.
Advocates of reform argue that the Corps’ project development process needs
to better reflect the national interest and current values, such as giving a higher
priority to environmental objectives and projects with national benefits. The
construction and maintenance backlogs motivate interest in refining criteria to
prioritize activities based on the greatest national benefit. Others contend that reform
is not needed; they argue that the Corps’ current project development practices are
among the most advanced used by the federal government and produce sound
projects with national benefits. Some also argue that federal funding is adequately
directed to priority projects through the congressional appropriations process.
Critics of the Corps’ current practices argue that the heart of the problem with
the agency’s project development process is a fundamental conflict of interest: the
Corps evaluates proposed projects and builds the ones it deems worthwhile. These
critics assert that the Corps lacks objectivity because if an analysis concludes that
economic costs of a project outweigh benefits, or that the ecological damage is too
extreme, the agency loses a potential construction job. Critics believe that the Corps’
dual responsibility for project evaluation and project construction produces incentives
for the agency to bias studies toward recommendations to proceed. The December
2000 Inspector General’s report partially attributed the institutional bias toward large
construction projects to district staff funding. The report explained: “The Districts
were dependent upon project funds to maintain their staffs. The continued vitality
of the Districts was thus dependent on producing study results that favored
construction projects.”28 Critics claim that these incentives were heightened by
pressures to expand the civil works program. Retired Chief of Engineers Ballard
fiercely defended the integrity of the agency’s staff and studies, saying that the Corps’
system filters out questionable projects and leads to unbiased recommendations in
the public interest.29 This sentiment was reiterated by General Flowers at hearings
during the 107th Congress.
Reform supporters set forth a variety of proposals for changing the project
development process to focus the Corps’ efforts and funding. Some groups
concerned about federal spending propose requiring Corps feasibility studies to
demonstrate that projects are primarily in the national interest, prioritizing projects
on the basis of their benefit-cost ratio and other criteria, and designing projects to
maximize net national benefits per dollar invested. They are also concerned that the
benefits of some current projects are concentrated among a limited number of
agribusinesses, farmers, ports, barge firms, shipping firms, and developers. Critics
of the Corps argue that local interests dominate the project development process
27More information on the federal budget process is available in Chapter VII of the 1996
Project Partnership Kit, available at: [http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/ppkit.pdf].
28Army Inspector General report, 2000.
29General Joe Ballard testimony at Corps FY2001 Budget Oversight hearing, February 24,
2000.

CRS-14
because cost-sharing requirements financially tie the districts to local interests.
Reform supporters contend that this tie results in the districts not demonstrating
sufficient concern for the national interest; they see this as particularly problematic
under the current process that incorporates only limited review from the division,
headquarters, and senior Administration officials.
Some local project sponsors argue that local interests must be involved in
project development since they are contributing local financial resources to Corps
projects. Supporters of current practices argue that the projects are in the national
interest if they comply with the P&G.30 In testimony in 2001, General Flowers
stated:
An unintended effect of cost-sharing has been the focus of studies, as cost
sharing partners are reluctant to finance studies that are broader than their
immediate concern. As a result, our planners are often caught between the forces
seeking comprehensive planning at one end of the spectrum and those who voice
concerns for addressing needs on an expedited basis and early screening of
alternatives that have little chance of being implemented.31
Economic Justification and Analysis of Projects
A benefit-cost analysis is conducted as part of the feasibility phase. It is intended
to provide a measure by which to compare a project’s benefits to the investment
required and cost borne by society. The Corps began using benefit-cost analyses in
the 1930s and has continued to refine its procedures in applying this decision-making
tool. Nonetheless, the Corps’ application of benefit-cost analysis continues to draw
criticism. Although criticisms that the Corps undervalues environmental benefits and
damages are still raised, recent critics of the agency’s economic studies have focused
on the economic models applied and the data supporting the analysis.32 Some Corps
observers have voiced concern about the validity of assumptions and projections and
the improper participation by powerful project beneficiaries.33 Another of their
concerns is that analysis techniques in the P&G neither address a perceived
institutional bias at the Corps toward large projects nor account for federal fiscal
constraints.
30The P&G states that “The Federal objective of water and related land resources project
planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with projecting the
Nation’s environment.” (1983, p. iv) available at:
[http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/p&g.pdf].
31General Robert B. Flowers testimony at Reform of Feasibility Studies hearing, March 15,
2001.
32The NAS Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway report provides an analysis and
critique of an economic analysis for one project.
33The 2000 Army Inspector General report found that “the barge industry was viewed as a
partner during the study [of the lock expansion]. This view led Corps leadership to involve
the industry to a far greater extent than other interest groups...[A Corps official] permitted
the barge industry to become improperly involved in the economic analysis” (pp. 7 and 13).

CRS-15
Taxpayer groups argue that the Corps needs to be redirected toward more
fiscally-responsible management of the nation’s water resources; they propose
eliminating spending on projects and maintenance activities that do not provide
sufficient national benefits.34 Reform opponents argue that current benefit-cost
analysis techniques adequately gauge if federal investment is warranted and that
accounting for federal fiscal constraints is a budgetary issue unrelated to an
individual project analysis.
Some fiscal conservatives have called for a national review of inland navigation
waterways, decommissioning of waterways with insufficient traffic to support their
operation and maintenance, and reduced federal responsibility for operation and
maintenance of waterways. They also support shifting to local communities more
maintenance costs for beach replenishment projects because of their localized
benefits. Some taxpayer groups propose terminating congressional waivers and other
practices that reduce local financial contributions; they contend that reduced cost-
sharing increases demand for projects and encourages over-built projects. Reformers
also argue for increasing local cost-sharing for some activities, most notably flood
control projects and port deepening.
Project beneficiaries contend that further cost-sharing increases would be unfair
because only wealthier communities could afford projects. They argue that the
Corps’ continued participation in construction and maintenance of waterways, flood
control, and shore protection projects is in the national interest because of their
transportation and flood protection benefits.35 According to Corps officials in 2001,
since 1959, the agency’s projects had prevented nearly $500 billion dollars in flood
damages, returning $6 for every $1 invested.36 Others argue that the country’s
waterway and navigation system require modernization and improvement for ports
and shippers to remain competitive internationally.37 Some supporters of current
Corps’ practices respond to the whistleblower allegations of improper study
manipulation by arguing that Corps officials were fixing a flawed economic study,
not manipulating results.
Administration Review
Before the 1990s, the Assistant Secretary and OMB typically reviewed projects
for technical and policy compliance prior to seeking congressional construction
34Examples of this perspective can be seen in the Trouble Waters, 2000 and the recent report
titled Green Scissors 2001: Cutting Wasteful and Environmentally Harmful Spending by
Green Scissors (a coalition of taxpayer, consumer, and environmental organizations)
available at: [http://www.greenscissors.org/publications/gs2001report.htm].
35Corps Mission and Backlog hearing on May 16, 2000.
36General Robert B. Flowers testimony at Reform of Feasibility Studies hearing, March 15,
2001.
37For more on this perspective, see testimony provided at a hearing of the House Mississippi
River Caucus on the Upper Mississippi Navigation Study held March 15, 2001. The
testimony is available at:
[http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/uppermissreport.htm].

CRS-16
authorization. Although the P&G do not differentiate between individual or local
interests and national benefits during the evaluation and development of a project,
OMB is required under Executive Order 12322 to consider whether a project serves
a federal interest as defined by the President’s priorities. Like the internal division
and headquarters reviews, these senior-level Administration reviews appear to have
evolved from a technical and policy review to a more general “policy compliance
review” in an attempt to cut administrative costs and streamline project development.
Moreover, since the mid-1990s, Congress has authorized numerous projects prior to
a full review by the Assistant Secretary of Civil Works and OMB.
Environmental and some taxpayer groups want increased oversight by the
Assistant Secretary and OMB to protect the national interest and balance what they
see as a strong influence by Members of Congress who seek projects in their districts.
Opponents of reform contend that current review protects the national interest, so
additional civilian control is unnecessary.
According to some observers, attempts by the Clinton Administration to expand
existing civilian oversight of the Corps in March 2000, after the whistleblower’s
allegations became public, contributed to a breakdown in an already poor relationship
between then-Chief of Engineers Ballard and then-Assistant Secretary Westphal.
Staff of three Senate committees — Environment and Public Works, Armed
Services, and Appropriations — jointly conducted an investigation that found no
need for significant management reform, but revealed a systemic communication and
management breakdown between the Chief of Engineers Office and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary.38 The relationship between the Assistant Secretary and the Chief
of Engineers was clarified through a joint memorandum in November 2000 signed
by newly-appointed General Flowers and Assistant Secretary Westphal.39 Many
critics of the Corps are not satisfied. They argue that the memorandum does not
address the two causes of the limited input and oversight by senior Administration
officials: (1) the Corps civil works program’s placement in the Department of the
Army and (2) the congressional desire to fund specific projects.
Taxpayer groups and environmentalists posit that the limited review contributes
to both unreliable feasibility studies and projects that are not economically justified
and/or in the national interest. They call for a full review of projects by the Office
of the Assistant Secretary and OMB before authorization. The Clinton
Administration stated that projects authorized on the basis of only a Chief of
Engineers report (or contingent on a Chief’s report), rather than following a review
by the Administration, received insufficient review from a national perspective.40
38Senator Bob Smith, “Opening Statement,” Nomination of Maj. Gen. Robert B. Flowers,
Hearing before Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, September 14, 2000.
The investigation report was not published.
39“Memorandum for the Secretary of the Army: Civil Works Management and
Communications Clarifications” signed by Assistant Secretary Joseph Westphal and Chief
of Engineers Robert Flowers on November 28, 2000.
40 Executive Office of the President (Clinton), Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2796-
Water Resources Development Act of 2000, September 20, 2000.

CRS-17
Recent WRDAs have authorized projects in the feasibility phase by making their
authorizations contingent on a Chief of Engineers report being available by
December 31 of the year the WRDA is enacted. Reform advocates are particularly
critical of this authorization procedure. They contend that contingent authorization
rushes projects through critical stages of the development process (e.g.,
environmental impact assessment) and that congressional decisions are made without
basic project information.
Opponents of greater civilian oversight argue that the existing project
development procedures and the authorization and appropriation process provide
sufficient protection of the national interest. They note that the Administration’s
reviews are used to inform appropriations decisions, even if they are not available for
authorization decisions. Others argue that the Administration’s input is not necessary
because it is the prerogative of Congress to authorize projects for a variety of
purposes and at variable costs and that Administration reviews can be manipulated
to delay projects that conflict with the President’s priorities.
Independent Review and Local Advisory Groups
In the 1990s, the Corps reduced its internal review of projects. Headquarter and
division-level technical review were devolved to the districts to cut administrative
costs and to streamline planning. Policy review by the division, headquarters, and
Assistant Secretary were consolidated into a single policy compliance review in
Washington, DC.41 The 106th Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (WRDA, P.L. 106-541, §216) directed the Corps to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences to study the feasibility of establishing an independent review
panel for Corps studies. Its July 2002 report recommended that large-scale Corps
projects be independently reviewed by experts outside the agency. In response to the
criticism, the Corps initiated during FY2002 an additional internal staff review of
project justifications by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works.
Environmentalists and some fiscal conservatives contend that an external review
of projects is necessary. They claim that it would not only counter deficiencies in the
existing internal review and biases in the project development process, but also
improve national-level oversight. They are also calling for the establishment of local
advisory groups for projects as mechanisms for reaching consensus on project
objectives and design, and opening up the decision-making process to the public.42
In their view, an institutional-cultural bias for large construction projects affects the
objectivity of Corps reports and discourages internal criticism. They argue that
external expert review and local advocacy groups are needed to provide additional
input, including input by stakeholders opposed to a project.
41More information on the evolution of the Corps’ review procedures is available at:
[http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/reviewprocedures.htm] and
[http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/rp_faq.htm].
42Destruction by Design: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Continuing Assault on
America’s Environment, a December 1999 report by the Gulf Restoration Network, includes
numerous recommendations for improving public participation at the Corps and is available
at:[http://www.gulfrestorationnetwork.org/wetlands/Destruction%20by%20Design.htm]).

CRS-18
Those opposed to increasing external input and review argue that the existing
project development process incorporates sufficient review and opportunities for
public input; they believe that more review will only delay projects and increase
costs. In particular, they argue that the various internal reviews eliminate the need
for what they see as a redundant external review. They also argue that the analyses
undertaken during project development inevitably require professional judgment calls
and that Corps staff perform their duties as responsible professionals.
Environmental Impacts of Projects
The Corps evaluates the environmental impact of projects under NEPA and
other environmental laws. During this evaluation process, if the Corps determines
that actions are needed to mitigate project impacts, mitigation plans are developed
as part of the feasibility analysis. The Chief’s Environmental Advisory Board, which
was created in 1970 to provide advice on developing policy and procedural
recommendations for engineering and economic development in an environmentally
sustainable manner, had not been active in the last decade. While testifying in March
2001, General Flowers announced the reactivation of the Board in April 2001, which
now meets twice annually.43
A fundamental criticism of the Corps is that the environmental damages of some
navigation and flood control projects supported by the agency outweigh their national
benefits. Some Corps critics allege that the Corps is not complying with
environmental regulations and that the districts are too autonomous, resulting in
varied implementation of national policy. Environmentalists argue that the Corps has
not been held to the same mitigation standards as other developers, particularly in
regards to wetlands. Proposed reforms include full wetlands mitigation for
environmental impacts of projects by replacing habitat destroyed acre-for-acre and
simultaneous appropriations for mitigation and construction. Other proposals have
the Environmental Advisory Board of the Corps evaluating projects during the
reconnaissance phase to determine if environmental impacts can be successfully
mitigated. Opponents of such changes argue that the existing planning process and
regulations provide sufficient environmental protection and further requirements
would only cause delay and increase costs.
Mission Focus and Expansion
In recent years, Congress has through authorizations and appropriations assigned
to the Corps new responsibilities outside of its traditional mission. This has raised
concerns that the agency is spread too thin and losing focus on its core competencies.
Most notable has been the dramatic growth in the number and size of ecosystem
restoration projects, such as the Corps’ activities in the Florida Everglades. Other
non-traditional responsibilities that Congress has given to the Corps include: beach
nourishment, brownfield revitalization, nuclear waste cleanup, and a limited number
of wastewater treatment and water supply projects.
43General Robert B. Flowers testimony at Reform of Feasibility Studies hearing, March 15,
2001.

CRS-19
The 107th Congress and the Bush Administration differed on how to define the
core mission of the Corps. In H.Rept. 107-112, the House Committee on
Appropriations stated: “The Committee fully supports the environmental restoration
efforts being undertaken by the Corps, but urges it to maintain a balance in its work
and not lose sight of its traditional missions of navigation and flood control.” The
Administration’s FY2003 budget request for the Corps stated the agency’s main
missions as projects that: “1) aid commercial navigation; 2) protect citizens and their
property from flood and storm damages; and 3) protect, restore and manage
environmental resources.” The Administration also expressed its perspective that
Congress’ directing the Corps to work on non-traditional projects (excluding
environmental restoration) results in inefficiencies and slows the completion of
priority projects.
Fiscal conservatives and taxpayer groups argue that the Corps’ mission should
be limited so that federal appropriations are focused on priorities with national
benefits and on needs that are not addressed effectively by the private sector and
other agencies (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on brownfield
revitalization44 and wastewater treatment). Taxpayer groups, groups working to
contain urban sprawl, and some Members are uncomfortable about authorizations
and limited appropriations for the Corps to disburse grants for community wastewater
treatment and water supply. Prior to 1992, the Corps’ involvement in municipal
water infrastructure was limited to water supply from its reservoirs, paid for by local
project sponsors. Financing community water and sewer systems has traditionally
been the responsibility of local government, with the federal government providing
some directed grants and low-interest loans.45
On the topic of mission expansion, some Corps observers who generally oppose
reform share an interest with reform supporters in limiting the agency’s mission.
Both groups argue that new responsibilities dilute efforts and funding. The two
groups differ on how to limit the Corps’ mission. Environmentalists generally
support ecosystem restoration work, but discourage further expansion of the agency’s
mission. Local sponsors of navigation and flood control projects, who generally
oppose reform, fear that the Corps’ growing involvement in environmental
restoration and other new responsibilities detracts from the traditional missions. This
concern became particularly acute following the authorization of $0.7 billion in
federal funding for the first phase of the $7.8 billion Comprehensive Everglades
44Both the Clinton Administration’s legislative program and S.2335 (State and Local
Brownfield Revitalization Act) in the 106th Congress proposed a $100 million authorization
for Corps remediation at publicly-owned brownfield sites affecting waterways. The Senate
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure hearing
on May 23, 2000 included much testimony supporting Corps involvement in brownfield
revitalization. Among the reasons cited were consistency with the Corps’ existing mission,
a c t i vi t i e s , a n d c o m p e t e n c i e s . T h e t e s t i mo n y i s a va i l a b l e a t :
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_senate_hearings&doci
d=f:68423.wais].
45For more on the federal financing of water projects and programs, see CRS Report
RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.

CRS-20
Restoration Plan in WRDA 2000.46 The numerous other large restoration projects
under development, including projects for the Columbia River, Missouri River,
coastal Louisiana and Great Lakes also contribute to this concern. Beneficiaries of
projects in new mission areas argue against any restrictions on the Corps’ mission.
They contend that the Corps is uniquely able to work in a number of areas that may
be outside its traditional mission but in national interest.
Conclusion
Since the 1970s, reform of the Corps and its civil works program has been
attempted many times, with few changes enacted. Interest during the 107th Congress
in improving the agency’s policies and procedures surfaced in response to budgetary
concerns, allegations that Corps officials manipulated studies, and a backlog of
construction and maintenance activities. The basic reform issues raised were: what
to include in the civil works mission; how to maximize the effectiveness of federal
appropriations; and whether project approval, review, and environmental mitigation
policies needed changing.
Beginning in the late 1990s, some fiscal conservatives joined environmental
groups and other reform advocates in arguing that many Corps projects generate
significant environmental damage with little national economic benefit. To improve
the situation, they support increasing the input from the Administration, independent
experts, and project stakeholders. They argue that this input would offset a perceived
bias at the Corps toward large construction budgets. Environmental groups support
the Corps recent involvement in ecosystem restoration projects and argue for greater
attention to and mitigation of environmental impacts of Corps projects. Groups
benefitting from navigation and flood control projects favor limiting the agency’s
activities to the two traditional mission (navigation and flood control). They are
generally content with existing project development processes. In contrast, groups
benefitting from projects in new mission areas support the Corps’ expansion and vary
on their stances on other reform issues. All these interest groups pressed the 107th
Congress to decide on the nature of the civil works program and how best to direct
the Corps’ activities given fiscal constraints.
The Bush Administration pushed the issue of improving the Corps’ performance
through its proposals for focusing fiscal resources on priority projects with national
benefits. The FY2003 budget request reduced funds for studying new Corps projects
and targeted funds for completing ongoing priority projects. The request emphasized
projects and programs in commercial navigation, flood damage reduction, and
environmental restoration and enhancement.
Members of the 107th Congress responded to interest in civil works reform by
introducing five bills that proposed changes related to fiscal efficiency,
environmental impacts, and project development procedures. Many of the bills
included provisions for improved public access to project information and analyses,
46For more information on Everglades restoration, see CRS Report RS20702, South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

CRS-21
increased public participation and independent review, stricter benefit-cost criteria,
stronger environmental mitigation requirements, and more deauthorizations of
projects. As is often the case, the 107th Congress was confronted with making
difficult choices among competing priorities while making annual appropriations and
considering WRDA authorizations and Corps reform bills. Similar to the conclusion
of many past efforts to change the Corps, the 107th Congress enacted no Corps reform
legislation; nor did it enact a WRDA in 2002. This lack of legislation underplays the
supporting and opposing attention that Corps reform received during the 107th
Congress.