ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS

Better Guidance 

Could Improve Corps’ 

Information on Water 

Resources Projects 

Undertaken by 

Nonfederal Sponsors

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, U.S. Senate

December 2016

GAO-17-97

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-97, a report to the 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee 

on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 

Senate

December 2016

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Better Guidance Could Improve Corps’ Information 

on Water Resources Projects Undertaken by 

Nonfederal Sponsors

Why GAO Did This Study

Through its Civil Works program, the 

Corps designs, constructs, and 

maintains federal water resources 

projects, such as levees for flood risk 

management. Under certain 

authorities, nonfederal sponsors, such 

as states and local governments, may 

undertake studies or construct projects 

and may be eligible for reimbursement 

or credit for the federal share of costs. 

GAO was asked to examine federal 

water resources projects undertaken 

by nonfederal sponsors. This report 

examines (1) the authorities enabling 

nonfederal sponsors to undertake 

studies or projects, (2) the extent to 

which such sponsors have undertaken 

federal projects and the information the 

Corps has about them, and (3) the 

Corps’ and sponsors’ views on lessons 

learned from projects. GAO reviewed 

federal laws and agency guidance; 

collected information about studies and 

projects led by nonfederal sponsors 

from 1986 through 2014 from all 38 

Corps districts responsible for civil 

works; and interviewed Corps officials 

in 16 districts that have overseen at 

least one such study or project, as well 

as 20 nonfederal sponsors that have 

undertaken projects.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Corps

develop guidance for accurate 

recording of transactions and other 

relevant information about projects 

undertaken by nonfederal sponsors.

The agency agreed with GAO’s 

recommendation.

What GAO Found

Authorities that allow nonfederal sponsors to undertake federal water resources

projects, including feasibility studies and construction projects, have been 

included in various federal statutes since 1968. Until June 2014, when Congress 

enacted the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, five federal 

statutory authorities allowed nonfederal sponsors to undertake studies or 

construction of federal water resources projects such as flood control projects.

The 2014 act amended and consolidated prior statutory provisions authorizing 

water resources projects.

The number of federal water resources projects nonfederal sponsors have 

undertaken and the amounts they have been reimbursed for the federal share of 

these projects cannot be reliably determined. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) does not track this information at the headquarters level and has 

delegated the responsibility for tracking and overseeing such projects to the 

districts. While Corps headquarters collects information from the districts on 

reimbursements, the information that headquarters provided GAO did not match 

the information that the districts provided to GAO. For example, the number of 

reimbursed projects and the amount of reimbursements made to nonfederal 

sponsors were inconsistent in the two data sets. Corps headquarters officials 

could not fully explain why differences existed and could not identify any Corps 

policies or procedures that provide guidance to the districts on the type of 

information to collect and maintain on projects led by nonfederal sponsors. 

Federal standards for internal control call for all transactions and other significant 

events to be clearly documented, and for accurate and timely recording of 

transactions and events. Without documented guidance for districts regarding

recordkeeping for projects led by nonfederal sponsors, the Corps does not have 

reasonable assurance that districts will consistently record information on such 

projects and that the information districts provide to headquarters on these

projects will be accurate and reliable.

Corps district officials and nonfederal sponsors GAO interviewed identified 

several lessons learned from projects undertaken by nonfederal sponsors. For 

example, officials and nonfederal sponsors frequently cited enhanced 

partnerships and communication as areas that worked well on projects led by 

nonfederal sponsors. In contrast, both Corps district officials and nonfederal 

sponsors cited various challenges in existing Corps guidance. For example, 

officials noted that Corps guidance does not clearly establish roles and 

responsibilities for these projects, and nonfederal sponsors said the Corps does 

not have clear guidance on the project implementation process. The Corps 

issued implementation guidance for feasibility studies led by nonfederal sponsors 

in February 2016 in which it clarified that it is generally not authorized to provide 

assistance to nonfederal sponsors undertaking feasibility studies, except in 

certain circumstances in which the Corps is permitted to provide limited technical 

assistance to nonfederal sponsors. The Corps has also developed draft guidance 

for construction projects led by nonfederal sponsors, which it estimates it will 

issue later in 2016. View GAO-17-97. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Letter 1

Background 5

Nonfederal Sponsors May Conduct Feasibility Studies and 

Construct Water Resources Projects under Various Statutory 

Authorities 13

The Number of Federal Water Resources Projects Undertaken by 

Nonfederal Sponsors and the Amounts Reimbursed to Them 

Cannot Be Reliably Determined 15

Corps District Officials and Nonfederal Sponsors Identified 

Several Lessons Learned Based on Their Experiences with 

Projects Led by Nonfederal Sponsors 20

Conclusions 26

Recommendations for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments 27

Appendix I Objectives, Scope and Methodology 28

Appendix II Selected Information U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts Reported on 

Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects Led by Nonfederal 

Sponsors, 1986 Through 2014 32

Appendix III Comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 36

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38

Tables

Table 1: Standard Federal and Nonfederal Cost Share 

Percentages for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water 

Resources Project Construction 11

Table 2: Statutory Authorities Allowing Nonfederal Sponsors to 

Undertake Federal Water Resources Projects, 1968 

Through 1996 14

Table 3: Select Questions from the Online Data Collection 

Instrument Used to Obtain Descriptive Information on 

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects Led by 

Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 Through 2014 29

Table 4: Selected Interview Questions and Follow-Up Probes 

Used to Obtain Corps District Officials’ and Nonfederal 

Sponsors’ Views on Lessons Learned from Feasibility 

Studies and Construction Projects Led by Nonfederal 

Sponsors, 1986 Through 2014 31

Table 5: Project Names and Locations of Feasibility Studies and 

Construction Projects Led by Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 

Through 2014, as Reported by U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers District Offices 32

Figures

Figure 1: Locations of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works 

Divisions and Districts 6

Figure 2: Major Steps in Developing a U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) Civil Works Project Prior to April 2015 8

Figure 3: Locations of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District 

Offices and Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects 

Undertaken by Nonfederal Sponsors from 1986 Through 

2014, As Reported by District Offices 34
Page iii GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Abbreviations

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

WRDA Water Resources Development Act

WRRDA 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 

2014

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 6, 2016

The Honorable David Vitter

Chairman

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the world’s largest public 

engineering, design, and construction management agency. Located 

within the Department of Defense, the Corps has both military and civilian 

responsibilities.1 Through its Civil Works Program, in general, the Corps 

plans, designs, constructs, operates, and maintains a wide range of water 

resources projects. Congress typically authorizes these projects in water 

resources development legislation for various purposes, including 

constructing levees for flood risk management, deepening waterways for 

navigational purposes, and building structures to control invasive species 

for ecosystem restoration.

The Corps typically becomes involved in water resources projects when a 

local community perceives a need or experiences a problem that is 

beyond its ability to solve, and a nonfederal sponsor contacts the Corps 

for assistance. Nonfederal sponsors can be states, tribes, counties, local 

governments or agencies, or nonprofit entities.2 Generally, water 

resources development legislation requires that the Corps and a 

nonfederal sponsor share the cost of the project, with the split of financial 

responsibilities varying by project purpose. The Corps usually manages 

these projects, which typically include a feasibility study—an assessment 

of whether a project is worth pursuing and how the problem should be 

 1

The Corps’ military program provides, among other things, engineering and construction 

services to the Army, Air Force, other U.S. government agencies, and foreign 

governments. This report focuses on the Civil Works Program.

2

Section 2003(b) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 amended the 

definition of a nonfederal interest to include federally recognized Indian tribes and 

nonprofit entities with the consent of the affected local government that have full authority 

and capability to perform the terms of their agreements and to pay damages, if necessary, 

in the event of failure to perform. We refer to nonfederal interests as nonfederal sponsors 

in this report.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

addressed—as well as construction. In managing projects, the Corps 

collaborates with the nonfederal sponsor, providing opportunities for the 

nonfederal sponsor to help define the scope of the feasibility study and 

contribute to project design to ensure that, to the extent possible, factors 

affecting sponsoring communities are addressed during the planning 

process.

Congress authorizes and appropriates funds for the Corps to conduct 

projects, but not every authorized project receives appropriations in a 

given year. The Corps includes a prioritized list of projects in the 

President’s annual budget request because existing project authorizations 

exceed the agency’s annual appropriations available for these projects. 

As we have previously reported,3 as of June 2014, the Corps reported a 

backlog in its Civil Works Program of more than 1,000 authorized water 

resources construction projects that had not received federal funding.4

According to the Congressional Research Service, to concentrate limited 

resources and move ongoing projects toward completion, Corps budget 

requests have focused on funding projects near completion and have 

limited new studies and projects.5 Moreover, as the Corps’ inventory of 

infrastructure ages and grows, an increasing share of the agency’s 

appropriations is used for operations and maintenance. As a result, in 

recent years, funding for civil works construction projects has declined. 

For example, annual appropriations for the Corps’ civil works construction 

projects, including new starts, have generally decreased from about $2.3 

billion in fiscal year 2006 to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2015.

When the Corps has been unable to conduct feasibility studies or to 

construct authorized water resources projects because of funding 

constraints and competing priorities, nonfederal sponsors have at times 

initiated the work under existing water resources legislation that allows 

nonfederal sponsors to undertake feasibility studies or construction 

projects. Under this legislation, when a nonfederal sponsor undertakes 

and completes a feasibility study, the sponsor may be eligible for credit 

toward its share of the cost of the construction of the project in the 

 3

GAO, Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps Needs to Take Steps to Identify All Projects 

and Studies Eligible for Deauthorization, GAO-14-699 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 21, 2014).

4

Corps officials said the reported backlog does not include feasibility studies because the 

agency does not track that backlog.

5

Congressional Research Service, Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource 

Authorizations, Appropriations, and Activities, R41243 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2, 2015).
Page 3 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

amount equal to the cost of the study had it been undertaken by the 

Corps. When a nonfederal sponsor undertakes a construction project or 

part of a construction project that has been authorized by Congress, it 

can request and may be eligible for credit toward its share of the larger 

project or reimbursement for the cost of the federal share of the project, 

provided that it meets the requirements and conditions established in the 

applicable water resources legislation. In general, the authorities allowing 

the Corps to reimburse nonfederal sponsors for construction projects 

provide that reimbursement is subject to the enactment of federal 

appropriations.

You asked us to examine water resources projects undertaken by 

nonfederal sponsors. This report examines (1) the authorities that enable 

nonfederal sponsors to undertake a feasibility study or construct a 

congressionally authorized water resources project, (2) the extent to 

which nonfederal sponsors have undertaken federal water resources 

projects and the information the Corps has about such projects, and (3) 

Corps officials’ and nonfederal sponsors’ views on the lessons learned 

from these projects.

To identify authorities that enable nonfederal sponsors to undertake 

feasibility studies or construction projects, we reviewed water resources 

development legislation enacted from 1968 to June 2014 and interviewed 

Corps headquarters officials. We identified five statutory provisions, as 

well as project-specific legislation from 1986 to 2014 under which 

nonfederal sponsors were authorized to undertake specific studies or 

construction projects with the assistance of Corps officials.

To determine the extent to which nonfederal sponsors have undertaken 

federal water resource projects and the information the Corps has on 

them, we developed and administered an online data collection 

instrument to all 38 Corps districts with civil works responsibilities to 

identify water resources projects that nonfederal sponsors had 

undertaken from 1986 through 2014 under one or more of the statutory 

provisions we identified.6 All 38 districts responsible for civil works 

responded to our data collection request, and we obtained information on 

each of the projects led by nonfederal sponsors (e.g., feasibility studies, 

construction of water resources projects, or separable elements of the 

 6

We chose 1986 as our starting point because the enactment of the Water Resources

Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 fundamentally changed the way the Corps planned and 

financed water resources projects.
Page 4 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

projects) that the Corps districts identified through the data collection 

instrument.7 We also compared information we collected from the Corps 

districts on reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors with information 

provided by Corps headquarters. In addition, we reviewed relevant 

agency guidance documents, such as Corps-issued engineer regulations 

and partnership agreements between the Corps and nonfederal 

sponsors, federal standards for internal control,8 and leading practices for 

collaboration.9

To obtain views on lessons learned, we conducted telephone interviews 

with Corps officials in the 16 districts that oversaw at least one feasibility 

study or construction project undertaken by a nonfederal sponsor. We 

also interviewed 20 of 28 nonfederal sponsors who agreed to participate 

in our interviews about each of the projects they undertook and their 

views on the process for conducting nonfederal sponsor-led feasibility 

studies and construction projects. We conducted a content analysis on 

selected questions related to the advantages and disadvantages of 

nonfederal sponsor-led projects and lessons learned from the projects.

In June 2014, Congress enacted the Water Resources Reform and 

Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014), which consolidated various 

authorities for nonfederal sponsors to undertake such projects, among 

other things.10 Since our work was already under way when WRRDA 

2014 became effective, and the Corps is in the process of developing 

implementing regulations, our review did not include projects authorized 

under this legislation. Appendix I provides further details on our scope 

and methodology.

 7

A separable element is a portion of a project that is physically separable from other 

portions of the project and that achieves hydrologic effects or produces physical or 

economic benefits that are separately identifiable from those produced by other portions of 

the project. For the purposes of this report, when we refer to projects undertaken by the 

nonfederal sponsors, we are also referring to the separable elements of projects in some 

of the cases.

8

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). This publication has been revised and reissued, 

effective October 1, 2015: GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: September 2014).

9

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005) 

and GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

10Pub. L. 113–121, § 1014 (2014).
Page 5 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to December 

2016, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Corps’ Civil Works Program is organized into three tiers: 

headquarters, in Washington, D.C.; eight regional divisions that were 

generally established according to watershed boundaries; and 38 districts 

nationwide (see fig. 1).

Background
Page 6 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Figure 1: Locations of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Divisions and Districts

Corps headquarters primarily develops policies and guidance to fulfill 

agency responsibilities and plans the direction of the organization. The 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, appointed by the 

President, sets the strategic direction for the agency and has principal 

responsibility for the overall supervision of functions relating to the Civil 

Works Program, including supervising the Chief of Engineers’ execution 
Page 7 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

of the program. The Chief of Engineers, a military officer, is responsible 

for the execution of the Corps’ civil works and military missions. The 

Corps’ divisions have the primary role of coordinating the districts’ civil 

works projects and are commanded by military officers. The role of the 

districts, also commanded by military officers, is to plan and implement 

the studies and projects that Corps divisions and headquarters approve.

The Corps typically becomes involved in water resources projects when a 

local community perceives a need or experiences a problem that is 

beyond its ability to solve and contacts the Corps for assistance. Figure 2 

illustrates the major steps in the typical process when the Corps leads a 

feasibility study or construction project.

Process for Feasibility 

Studies and Construction 

Projects Led by the Corps
Page 8 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Figure 2: Major Steps in Developing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil 

Works Project Prior to April 2015

a

The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) eliminated the 

reconnaissance phase, and, in April 2015, the Corps issued guidance on section 1002 of WRRDA 

2014, which implements the repeal language.
Page 9 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

If it does not have current statutory authority to study the problem, the 

Corps needs congressional authorization before proceeding. Studies are 

authorized through legislation, typically a Water Resources Development 

Act (WRDA), or in some circumstances, a resolution by an authorizing 

committee.11 In addition to congressional authorization, the Corps needs 

an appropriation to conduct the study.

Prior to WRRDA 2014, after receiving authorization and an appropriation, 

the Corps conducted studies in two phases: reconnaissance and 

feasibility. Corps district offices conducted reconnaissance studies at full 

federal expense to determine if the problem warranted federal 

participation in a feasibility study and how the problem could be 

addressed. During the reconnaissance phase, the Corps also assessed 

the level of interest and support from nonfederal entities such as state, 

tribal, county, or local governments or agencies that might become 

sponsors. If the Corps determined that further study was warranted, the 

district office sought agreement from the local sponsor to share costs for 

a feasibility study.12 WRRDA 2014 eliminated the reconnaissance phase 

to accelerate the study process and allow the Corps to proceed directly to 

the feasibility study.13 The purpose of the feasibility study is to further 

investigate the problem and make recommendations on whether a project 

is worth pursuing and how the problem should be addressed. Generally, 

the cost of the feasibility study is split equally between the Corps and the 

nonfederal sponsor.14 The district office conducts the study and 

documents the results in a feasibility study report that includes a total 

project cost estimate based on the recommended plan. The Chief of 

Engineers reviews the feasibility report and upon deciding to recommend 

the project for construction, signs the final decision document—called the 

Chief’s Report—and transmits it through the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Civil Works and the Office of Management and Budget for 

review. The Office of Management and Budget recommends to the 

President whether to support or change the Corps’ budget request, and 

 11If the Corps has previously performed an evaluation in the geographic area for a similar 

purpose, a new study can be authorized by an authorizing committee resolution.

12Cost sharing for feasibility studies is required before the Corps may initiate a feasibility 

study. 33 U.S.C. § 2215(a).

13Pub. L. No. 113-121, § 1002(a)(2)(2014).

14Inland waterways feasibility studies, however, are entirely a federal responsibility. 33 

U.S.C. § 2215(a)(2).
Page 10 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

the President’s budget request is transmitted to Congress. Congress may 

then authorize the project’s construction in a WRDA or other legislation.

The purpose of the preconstruction engineering and design phase is to 

complete any additional planning studies and all of the detailed technical 

studies and designs needed to begin construction. During this time, the 

Corps pursues congressional authorization for the project and 

construction funding through the annual budget process. Under its budget 

formulation process, the Corps prioritizes projects that it determines have 

the highest expected returns for the national economy and the 

environment, as well as those that reduce risk to human life. When the 

Corps receives appropriations, which generally provide funding directly 

for individual projects in increments over the course of several years, the 

district enters into a cost-sharing agreement with a nonfederal sponsor.15

The standard federal and nonfederal cost share percentages for 

construction projects can vary by the purpose of the project, as shown in 

table 1.

 15Cost sharing refers to shared financial responsibility for a water resources project 

between the Corps and the nonfederal sponsor.
Page 11 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Table 1: Standard Federal and Nonfederal Cost Share Percentages for U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Water Resources Project Construction

Project purpose Maximum federal 

share of 

construction 

(percent)

Nonfederal 

sponsor share of 

construction 

(percent)

Navigation

Coastal ports

Less than 20 feet harbor depth 80 20

20-50 feet harbor depth 65 35

Greater than 50 feet harbor 

depth

40 60

Inland waterways 100 0

Flood and hurricane damage reduction

Flood risk management 65 35a

Coastal storm risk management 65 35

Periodic beach renourishment 50 50

Aquatic ecosystem restoration 65 35

Source: 33 U.S.C. §§ 2211-2213 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. | GAO-17-97

Note: Cost sharing refers to shared financial responsibility for a water resources project between the 

Corps and the nonfederal sponsor. These cost shares reflect cost-sharing requirements as of August 

2016, but requirements have changed over time.

a

The minimum nonfederal share of flood risk management projects is 35 percent, but it can increase 

to as much as 50 percent, depending on the nonfederal sponsor’s land acquisition cost.

Typically, the Corps manages the construction process, contracting out 

the majority of construction work to private engineering and construction 

contractors. Throughout the construction phase, the Corps oversees the 

contractors’ work, performing routine inspections to ensure it meets the 

Corps’ design and engineering specifications. During construction, the 

Corps may request and Congress may enact scope or cost changes. 

When construction is complete, the Corps may operate and maintain the 

constructed project (e.g., navigation projects), or it may turn over 

operation and maintenance to the nonfederal sponsor (e.g., most flood 

damage reduction projects).

Alternatively, when a nonfederal sponsor undertakes a feasibility study or 

construction project, the sponsor typically manages and funds the total 

cost of the feasibility study or construction project and may later seek 

reimbursement or credit for the federal share of the work it conducts. 

Reimbursement refers to the Corps’ repayment to a nonfederal sponsor 

Process for Feasibility 

Studies and Construction 

Projects Led by 

Nonfederal Sponsors
Page 12 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

for the federal share of a construction project that the nonfederal sponsor 

incurs in undertaking such work. Credit is a noncash offset toward the 

local share of a feasibility study or construction project and is an alternate 

means for the Corps to compensate a nonfederal sponsor for the federal 

share of the costs it incurs when it undertakes such work.

In the case of feasibility studies, a nonfederal sponsor may independently 

undertake the study and submit a study report to the Secretary of the 

Army. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works then forwards 

to Congress an assessment of whether the study report and process 

complied with applicable federal laws and regulations and any 

recommendation the Assistant Secretary has about the project. If 

Congress later authorizes the project for construction, the nonfederal 

sponsor may be eligible to receive credit for the federal share of the 

feasibility study toward the nonfederal share of the construction project 

costs.16

When a nonfederal sponsor undertakes construction of an authorized 

federal water resources project, or separable element thereof, it first 

enters into a partnership agreement with the Corps.17 The agreements 

specify how the Corps and nonfederal sponsor will collaborate, generally 

stating their respective roles and responsibilities and the terms and 

conditions under which both parties will execute their responsibilities. The 

agreements also establish the requirements the nonfederal sponsor must 

meet to be eligible for credit or reimbursement for the federal share of the 

construction costs. In general, to be eligible for credit or reimbursement, 

nonfederal sponsors are required to design and construct the project in 

accordance with applicable federal and state laws, regulations, standards, 

and policies. In addition, the nonfederal sponsor is responsible for all 

public and government agency coordination and for obtaining all 

necessary federal and state permits. However, the nonfederal sponsor 

can contract with the Corps to undertake these efforts at the nonfederal 

 16In some instances, nonfederal sponsors may undertake a portion of a construction 

project as work-in-kind, for which they may receive credit toward their share of the larger 

project. 

17According to the Corps, a project partnership agreement is a legally binding agreement 

between the government and a nonfederal sponsor for construction of a water resources 

project. These agreements have had various names over time, including Local 

Cooperation Agreements, Project Cooperation Agreements, and Project Partnership 

Agreements. For purposes of this report, we refer to all such documents more generally 

as agreements.
Page 13 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

sponsor’s expense if such work does not delay the completion of other 

Corps projects. Corps headquarters and district officials said that to be 

eligible for credit or reimbursement for the federal share of the 

construction of a project, nonfederal sponsors must meet the same 

requirements that the Corps would adhere to if it led the construction 

project, such as meeting the Corps’ engineering and design standards. 

The Corps maintains an oversight role, performing inspections of the 

project as constructed and validating costs that the sponsor submits for 

reimbursement or credit. However, the Corps cannot guarantee 

reimbursement for the federal share of the costs because such 

reimbursement is subject to the enactment of appropriations, as is 

generally specified in the agreement between the Corps and nonfederal 

sponsor.

The authorities that allow nonfederal sponsors to undertake feasibility 

studies and construction projects have been included in various federal 

statutes since 1968. These authorities allow sponsors to take 

responsibility for and fund a study or project in its entirety and, upon 

completion of the project in accordance with Corps standards, request 

reimbursement for the federal portion of project costs under the relevant 

cost-sharing formula. We identified five federal statutory authorities that 

existed prior to changes enacted in WRRDA 2014 allowing nonfederal 

sponsors to undertake a feasibility study or construction of harbors or 

navigational improvements, shoreline protection projects, flood control 

projects, or generally authorized federal water resources projects (see 

table 2). The Corps confirmed that these are the relevant statutes that 

allow nonfederal sponsors to undertake federal water resources projects. 

In addition to these five broader statutory authorities, Congress may 

authorize projects led by nonfederal sponsors in separate, project-specific 

legislation. For example, Congress authorized a flood damage reduction 

project in the 1993 Defense Appropriations Act.18

 18Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-396 § 9159(b) (1992).

Nonfederal Sponsors 

May Conduct 

Feasibility Studies 

and Construct Water 

Resources Projects 

under Various 

Statutory Authorities
Page 14 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Table 2: Statutory Authorities Allowing Nonfederal Sponsors to Undertake Federal Water Resources Projects, 1968 Through 

1996

Authority Date enacted Project types 

covered

Reimbursement or credita

Section 215 of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1968, 

Pub. L. No. 90-483

8/13/1968 Water resources 

development 

projectsb

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) may reimburse, subject to 

a statutory cap amount, or provide credit for nonfederal expenditures 

after the Chief of Engineers or designee has certified that the work 

has been performed in accordance with the agreement. 

Section 203 of the 

Water Resources 

Development Act 

(WRDA) of 1986, Pub. 

L. No. 99-662

11/17/1986 Feasibility study of a 

proposed harbor or 

inland harbor project

If the project is authorized for construction, the Secretary of the Army 

shall credit toward the nonfederal share of the cost of construction the 

portion of the cost of developing the study that would have been the 

responsibility of the federal government. 

Section 204 of WRDA 

1986, Pub. L. No. 99-

662

11/17/1986 Construction of 

navigational 

improvements in 

harbors or inland 

harbors

The Secretary of the Army is authorized to reimburse an amount 

equal to the federal share of the project if the Secretary of the Army 

approves construction plans, the nonfederal sponsor agrees to pay its 

share of operation and maintenance, and the project is accepted. 

Section 206 of WRDA 

1992, Pub. L. No. 102–

580

10/31/1992 Construction of 

shoreline protection 

projects

The Corps may reimburse an amount equal to the federal share if the 

Secretary of the Army approves construction plans, enters into a 

written agreement with the nonfederal sponsor, and accepts the 

project.

Section 211 of WRDA 

1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

303 

10/12/1996 Studies, design and 

construction of flood 

control projects

The Corps may reimburse an amount equal to the federal share, or 

provide credit for the nonfederal share, if the Chief of Engineers 

recommends and the Secretary of the Army approves the construction 

plans and accepts the project. 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant statutory authorities. | GAO-17-97

a

Reimbursement refers to the Corps’ repayment of a nonfederal sponsor for the federal share of a 

feasibility study or construction project that the nonfederal sponsor incurs in undertaking such work. 

Credit toward the local share of a study or project is an alternate means for the Corps to compensate 

a nonfederal sponsor for the federal share of the costs it incurs when it undertakes such work. Under 

the terms of the agreements, funds for reimbursement or credit are subject to the enactment of 

appropriations to cover the reimbursement amount.

b

According to Corps headquarters officials, projects led by nonfederal sponsors that are authorized 

under section 215 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 are small portions of a larger Corps-led 

project, resulting most often in a work-in-kind credit for the nonfederal sponsor toward its cost share 

of the total project.

In June 2014, Congress enacted WRRDA 2014, which amended or 

replaced most of the authorities outlined in table 2 and consolidated them 

under two new provisions. Specifically, section 1014 of WRRDA 2014 

amends sections 203 and 204 of WRDA 1986 to provide authority for 

nonfederal sponsors to undertake the study and construction of the full 
Page 15 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

range of water resources projects.19 Similar to prior authorities, WRRDA 

2014 authorizes nonfederal sponsors to study, design, and construct 

water resources projects using their own funding, in accordance with 

Corps engineering and design standards. The act also authorizes 

nonfederal sponsors to receive credit or reimbursement for nonfederal 

funds expended on the federal share of the project upon determination by 

the Corps that the completed project adhered to federal law, regulations, 

and applicable standards and conditions, such as the Corps’ engineering 

standards. A senior Corps headquarters official said that a significant 

difference between WRRDA 2014 and previous water resources 

development authorization acts is that WRRDA 2014 authorizes 

nonfederal sponsors to undertake construction projects that have not yet 

been authorized by Congress and to seek reimbursement for those 

projects if they are subsequently authorized. Prior legislation provided 

that Corps approval could occur and construction begin only after a 

project was authorized by Congress.20

Corps headquarters could not provide the exact number of, or specific 

information about, projects undertaken by nonfederal sponsors because it 

has delegated the responsibility for overseeing such projects to the 

districts. In addition, the information that Corps headquarters collected 

from the districts on the number of such projects and reimbursements to 

nonfederal sponsors did not match the information that districts provided 

to us.

 19The 2014 law repeals section 206 of WRDA 1992 and section 211 of WRDA 1986 but 

provides new authority (under the amended sections 203 and 204) for activities previously 

covered by those repealed provisions.

20See Pub. L. No. 99-662, § 204(e)(1)(A).

The Number of 

Federal Water 

Resources Projects 

Undertaken by 

Nonfederal Sponsors 

and the Amounts 

Reimbursed to Them 

Cannot Be Reliably 

Determined
Page 16 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Corps headquarters officials told us that they could not provide an exact 

number of, or specific information about projects undertaken by 

nonfederal sponsors, such as the number of each type of project 

(feasibility study or construction), completion status, and project costs, 

because districts are responsible for overseeing these projects. Corps 

headquarters officials also said that the Corps does not have a 

comprehensive source of information about these projects at the 

headquarters level, but they estimated that nonfederal sponsors have 

undertaken “less than a handful” of feasibility studies or construction 

projects. Consequently, to identify the extent to which nonfederal 

sponsors have undertaken federal water resources projects, we 

requested information directly from all 38 district offices responsible for 

civil works. Corps district offices maintain a variety of information on such 

projects, which they provided in response to our request. The information 

they provided offers examples of the range of federal water resources 

projects undertaken by nonfederal sponsors. For example, Corps districts 

reported that from 1986 through 2014, 28 nonfederal sponsors undertook 

32 water resources projects: 11 feasibility studies and 21 construction 

projects. Sixteen of the 38 Corps districts responsible for civil works 

projects oversaw these projects, which varied in geographic location and 

project type. According to the data Corps districts provided in response to 

our request, a majority (21) of the 32 water resources projects undertaken 

by nonfederal sponsors were located in California and the states along 

the Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Other 

water resources projects were scattered across the United States. For 

instance, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, and Virginia each had one project led by a nonfederal sponsor, 

and Alaska had two projects.

In addition to geographic variation, nonfederal sponsors undertook 

projects for different project purposes and at different phases of the 

project, based on responses from Corps district offices. In total, 

nonfederal sponsors undertook 11 feasibility studies: 8 for navigation and 

3 for flood damage reduction. They also undertook 21 construction 

projects: 4 for navigation, 16 for flood damage reduction, and 1 for 

ecosystem restoration. As of September 2014, the feasibility studies and 

construction projects nonfederal sponsors had undertaken were at 

various stages of completion, according to information provided by Corps 

district offices. Specifically, nonfederal sponsors had completed more 

construction projects than feasibility studies—14 of 21 construction 

projects and 3 of 11 feasibility studies. The Corps district offices reported 

that the total estimated costs of feasibility studies and construction 

projects for each project undertaken by nonfederal sponsors ranged from 

Responsibility for 

Overseeing Projects 

Undertaken by Nonfederal 

Sponsors Has Been 

Delegated to the Districts
Page 17 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

approximately $500,000 to just over $600 million and, overall, totaled 

approximately $4 billion. (See app. II for detailed information provided by 

the Corps districts.)

As part of their response to our request, Corps districts provided 

information about reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors for the federal 

share of projects they undertook. In addition, Corps headquarters officials 

provided us with information they collected from the districts about 

reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors who undertook projects. The 

headquarters officials told us that approximately twice a year Corps 

headquarters collects information from the districts on planned and actual 

reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors to help ensure that the agency 

does not exceed annual statutory reimbursement limits.21 However, these 

officials said they do not have a process for reviewing the information 

they receive from districts to ensure its accuracy and reliability.

We compared the reimbursement data that headquarters collected from 

the districts with the reimbursement data the districts provided to us and 

found the following areas of inconsistency:

• Information on the total number of reimbursed projects was 

inconsistent. According to information provided by Corps districts in 

response to our data request, the Corps reimbursed nonfederal 

sponsors for all or part of the federal share of 13 construction projects 

nonfederal sponsors undertook from 1986 through 2014. However, 

according to Corps headquarters data, the Corps reimbursed 

nonfederal sponsors for the federal share of 20 projects. When we 

compared the list of 13 projects we compiled from information 

provided by the districts with the list of 20 projects provided by Corps 

headquarters, we found only 5 projects led by nonfederal sponsors for 

which the Corps issued reimbursements that were common to both 

lists.

• Information on the total amount of reimbursements was 

inconsistent. Corps headquarters data on the total reimbursement 

amount were also inconsistent with the total reimbursement amount 

provided to us by the districts. According to information provided by 

Corps districts in response to our data request, the Corps reimbursed 

 21Reimbursements and credits are limited to $100 million per fiscal year. Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-103, § 102 (2005) (codified 

at 33 U.S.C. § 2221). 

Information about 

Reimbursements to 

Nonfederal Sponsors from 

Corps Districts and Corps 

Headquarters Differed
Page 18 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

nonfederal sponsors approximately $266 million toward the federal 

share of construction projects undertaken by nonfederal sponsors 

from 1986 through 2014. However, according to Corps headquarters 

data, the Corps reimbursed nonfederal sponsors a total of just under 

$207 million for projects undertaken during the same period.

• Reimbursed amounts for specific projects did not always match.

Of the five projects led by nonfederal sponsors that were common to 

both lists, the reimbursement amounts did not match for two of them. 

In one case, the district office reported a reimbursement of $5 million, 

and Corps headquarters reported a reimbursement of $15.6 million. 

For the second case, the district office reported a reimbursement of 

$142.8 million, and Corps headquarters reported a reimbursement of 

$25.7 million.

To understand these differences, we asked Corps headquarters to 

reconcile the list of projects and reimbursement amounts provided to us 

by the districts with the data they collected from the districts. Corps 

headquarters officials confirmed that the 13 projects the districts provided 

to us received reimbursement. Corps headquarters officials also identified 

an additional 13 projects led by nonfederal sponsors that received 

reimbursements but were not provided to us by the districts—increasing 

the total amount of reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors to just under 

$400 million.

Corps headquarters officials could not fully explain why differences 

existed between the number of projects and reimbursement amounts 

provided to us by the districts and the information they collected from the 

districts for the same time period. Initially, Corps headquarters officials 

said the differences may have resulted because the districts provided 

information to us at a different time than when they provided information 

to headquarters. However, because our data requests to both the districts 

and headquarters were for the same data (projects undertaken by 

nonfederal sponsors under certain authorities) covering the same time 

frame (1986 through 2014), the projects and reimbursement amounts 

should have matched. Subsequently, Corps headquarters officials said 

that a possible explanation for the differences in the data the districts 

provided to us and the data Corps headquarters collected from the 

districts pertained to when headquarters began collecting the information. 

Specifically, Corps headquarters officials said that they began collecting 

annual reimbursement data from district offices in 2006, when Congress 
Page 19 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

enacted annual reimbursement limits.22 Corps headquarters officials said 

that, as a result, reimbursement information for projects led by nonfederal 

sponsors that had agreements signed before 2006 may be less reliable 

than the reimbursement information for projects with agreements signed 

after 2006. In addition, headquarters officials said that districts did not 

report projects authorized under a particular provision (section 206 of 

WRDA 1992) as we requested but included them when reporting 

reimbursement data to Corps headquarters.23

Corps headquarters officials stated they were not aware of Corps policies 

or procedures that provide guidance to the districts on the type of 

information to collect and maintain on projects led by nonfederal 

sponsors, in general, including what information to record; how, when, 

and where to record it; and how long to maintain it. Federal standards for 

internal control call for internal controls and all transactions and other 

significant events to be clearly documented in management directives, 

administrative policies, or operating manuals and for accurate and timely 

recording of transactions and events.24 Without developing documented 

guidance for districts to have procedures for accurate recordkeeping for 

transactions and other relevant information related to projects led by 

nonfederal sponsors, the Corps does not have reasonable assurance that 

districts will consistently record information on such projects and that the 

information districts provide to headquarters on such projects will be 

accurate and reliable.

 22Pub. L. No. 109-103, § 102 (2005) (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 2221).

23Specifically, one district reported five projects authorized under Section 206 of WRDA 

1992 to headquarters but did not report these projects in our data collection instrument.

24GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 20 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Corps district officials and nonfederal sponsors we interviewed identified 

several lessons learned from feasibility studies and construction projects 

undertaken by nonfederal sponsors. These officials provided their views 

on what worked well on projects led by nonfederal sponsors and the 

advantages and disadvantages of nonfederal sponsors undertaking such 

projects, as well as challenges and opportunities for improvement related 

to these projects. (See table 4 in app. I for the interview questions we 

asked Corps districts and nonfederal sponsors to obtain this information.)

In discussing what worked well on projects led by nonfederal sponsors, 

Corps district officials and nonfederal sponsors we interviewed identified 

various factors. Corps district officials most frequently cited partnering 

with experienced nonfederal sponsors, while nonfederal sponsors most 

frequently cited regularly communicating with the Corps. Specifically, 

Corps officials from 6 of the 16 districts we interviewed said that 

nonfederal sponsors’ prior experience partnering with the Corps on 

projects contributed to their success in conducting feasibility studies or 

construction projects in a timely manner. For example, Corps officials in 

one district said they have long been working with a particular nonfederal 

sponsor who was very familiar with the Corps’ processes, which 

contributed to the nonfederal sponsor’s ability to build a large, extensive 

flood damage reduction project in just 3 years. Corps officials from 

another district said that the key contact for a nonfederal sponsor that is 

conducting three separate flood control projects has a good 

understanding and knowledge of the Corps’ processes and, as a result, is 

often called upon to assist other nonfederal sponsors. Similarly, three 

nonfederal sponsors said that learning the Corps’ processes and 

procedures has helped their organizations grow and strengthen their 

relationship with the Corps and potentially benefit future collaboration.

While Corps district officials identified partnering with experienced 

nonfederal sponsors as a leading factor, nonfederal sponsors we 

interviewed most commonly (8 of 20) cited regular communication with 

the Corps as a factor that led to successful partnerships. According to 

these nonfederal sponsors, regular communication with the Corps—

ranging from several times a week to quarterly—led to successful project 

implementation, including helping to ensure everyone was “rowing the 

boat in the same direction,” meeting Corps standards, and adhering to 

Corps District Officials 

and Nonfederal 

Sponsors Identified 

Several Lessons 

Learned Based on 

Their Experiences 

with Projects Led by 

Nonfederal Sponsors

Corps District Officials and 

Nonfederal Sponsors 

Identified Partnerships and 

Communication As Areas 

That Worked Well on 

Projects Led by 

Nonfederal Sponsors
Page 21 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

project timelines. Another nonfederal sponsor said that in addition to 

holding quarterly meetings with the Corps, Corps district officials also 

attend the sponsor’s board meetings, which has been helpful to the 

partnership because it “keeps everyone on the same page.” These 

nonfederal sponsor views were also shared by officials from eight Corps 

districts we interviewed, who noted that early and frequent 

communication contributed to successful projects.

Both Corps district officials and nonfederal sponsors we interviewed most 

commonly identified similar advantages of nonfederal sponsors 

undertaking feasibility studies or construction projects: that consistent 

nonfederal sponsor funding led to expedited project implementation and 

increased sponsor flexibility to address local priorities. Specifically, 

officials from most of the Corps districts with projects led by nonfederal 

sponsors (13 of 16) noted that consistently available funding from 

nonfederal sponsors was a key advantage of nonfederal sponsors 

undertaking federal water resources projects. One Corps district official 

characterized the authority for nonfederal sponsors to implement projects 

as “a very powerful tool to get projects done because the federal budget 

continues to be tight.” According to another district official, a nonfederal 

sponsor’s funding helped mitigate a delay completing a project for which 

the Corps expected an appropriation in fiscal year 2003 but did not 

receive until fiscal year 2007. In another district, the nonfederal sponsor’s 

funding for and implementation of a construction project enabled the 

sponsor and the Corps to complete a flood damage reduction project to 

construct a reservoir in accordance with a court-ordered deadline.25

Similarly, most nonfederal sponsors we interviewed (14 of 20) indicated 

that, in general, providing consistent funding has led to less costly or 

faster project implementation than when the Corps leads feasibility 

studies or construction projects. For example, a nonfederal sponsor 

estimated that sponsors can implement design and construction phases 

that are 25 to 30 percent less costly than Corps-led design and 

construction phases. Another nonfederal sponsor said that it completed 

the remaining 6 miles of an 8-mile channel improvement project in the 

time it took the Corps to complete the first 2 miles, at a cost of 

approximately $25 million less than it would have cost if the Corps had 

 25A consent decree specified the deadline by which the nonfederal sponsor had to 

complete the construction of a reservoir that was authorized by Congress as a Corps flood 

control project in WRDA 1988. Pub. L. No. 100-676 (1988). 

Corps District Officials and 

Nonfederal Sponsors 

Identified Several 

Advantages of Projects 

Led by Nonfederal 

Sponsors
Page 22 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

continued to build the project. In addition to cost savings, another 

nonfederal sponsor said that it chose to lead a harbor deepening 

feasibility study and construction project for its port because it thought it 

could complete the work faster than if the Corps led the project. One 

nonfederal sponsor explained that expediting project completion is 

important because, in the case of flood control projects, a completed 

project can help save lives and reduce property damage. For navigation 

projects, expedited project completion may result in economic benefits, 

such as increased commerce and tourism from deeper-draft ships having 

the ability to enter ports that have been deepened, according to one 

nonfederal sponsor.26 In 2013, we reported that, among other factors, 

less than optimal federal funding contributes to cost increases on Corpsled projects, which result from the need to break work into smaller 

segments and modify contracts to extend completion schedules.27

Consistent with those findings and the views of nonfederal sponsors, 

officials from 15 of the 16 Corps districts we interviewed discussed the 

advantages of nonfederal sponsors’ ability to act sooner and expedite 

project timelines, such as that the nonfederal sponsors’ more consistent 

funding streams may help mitigate project delays and associated cost 

escalations and enable communities to realize the benefits of projects 

sooner.

Corps district officials and nonfederal sponsors identified nonfederal 

sponsors not receiving reimbursement for the federal share of water 

resources projects as a primary disadvantage of undertaking such 

projects. Specifically, Corps officials in 6 of the 16 districts we interviewed 

noted that construction projects may be authorized in legislation but may 

not receive appropriated funds, which may result in nonfederal sponsors 

not getting reimbursed for projects they undertook. Ten of the 20 

nonfederal sponsors we interviewed cited the risk of not being 

reimbursed, especially given constrained federal budgets and the Corps’

funding priorities, as a primary disadvantage of and potential deterrent to 

 26The nonfederal sponsor estimated that the cruise ship industry is growing at a rate of 

about 6 percent per year. 

27GAO, Army Corps of Engineers: Cost Increases in Flood Control Projects and Improving 

Communication with Nonfederal Sponsors, GAO-14-35 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 

2013).

Corps District Officials and 

Nonfederal Sponsors 

Identified Concerns about 

Reimbursement as the 

Main Disadvantage of 

Projects Led by 

Nonfederal Sponsors
Page 23 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

undertaking projects.28 Nonfederal sponsors said they understood that 

reimbursement from the Corps is subject to appropriated funds. However, 

one nonfederal sponsor said that others have been deterred from 

undertaking projects because of reimbursement concerns. That sponsor 

also said that it could be difficult in the longer term to maintain a 

collaborative partnership with the Corps if the likelihood of reimbursement 

remains low.

Relatedly, one nonfederal sponsor said that in addition to providing full 

financial support for the project it undertook, it also spent time and 

resources—estimated at nearly $600,000—to obtain its reimbursement 

from the Corps. In three other cases, nonfederal sponsors said the Corps 

did not conduct its final accounting and reimbursement in a timely 

manner, placing additional burdens on nonfederal sponsors. For example, 

in two cases, the Corps is conducting in 2016 the financial closeout for 

projects that the nonfederal sponsors completed in 2006. One of these 

nonfederal sponsors had to incur additional public debt to maintain the 

Corps’ escrow requirements while the Corps completed its final 

accounting process.29 In another case, a nonfederal sponsor said it took 

the Corps 6 years to reimburse them and 11 years to close out the project 

after the nonfederal sponsor completed it. Corps headquarters officials 

agreed that taking 10 years to perform the financial closeout for these 

projects was a long time. However, the officials said that outstanding 

reimbursement claims, contract modifications, and delays in validating 

documentation to support nonfederal sponsor credits were some of the 

reasons for the protracted time frame.

 28Under its budget formulation process, the Corps uses performance metrics to evaluate 

projects’ estimated future outcomes and gives priority to those with the highest expected 

returns for the national economy and the environment, as well as those that reduce risk to 

human life.

29U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Guidance Notebook, ER 1105-2-100 

(Washington, D.C.: April 2000). According to the Planning Guidance Notebook, nonfederal 

sponsors may provide their share of project or study costs to the Corps in one of the 

following ways: a check, a deposit in an escrow or similar account with interest accruing to 

the sponsor, an irrevocable letter of credit, or an electronic funds transfer.
Page 24 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Corps officials and nonfederal sponsors we interviewed identified several 

challenges, as well as opportunities for improvement related to guidance 

and information sharing. Specifically, both cited challenges with the 

agency’s guidance for nonfederal sponsors undertaking feasibility studies 

or construction projects related to the clarity of roles and responsibilities, 

as well as the project implementation process and necessary 

documentation.

Corps officials from three districts we interviewed said that it was 

challenging not to have guidance clearly defining each party’s roles and 

responsibilities. Specifically, a district official said that in one case the 

district worked with an experienced nonfederal sponsor that paid the 

Corps $100,000 for oversight to help ensure that its project would be 

eligible for reimbursement. However, the nonfederal sponsor also hired its 

own contractors to manage quality control and assurance. The Corps 

district official and nonfederal sponsor said this created some tension 

between the Corps and nonfederal sponsor regarding what constituted a 

reasonable level of oversight for reimbursable projects. The Corps district 

official indicated that guidance clarifying roles and responsibilities and 

level of oversight may help avoid duplication of efforts and cost. Another 

district official stated that guidance on roles and responsibilities, as well 

as the range of work products expected—such as cost estimates—may 

help ensure a common understanding of expectations from the onset of a 

study. The official said that the district worked independently with the 

nonfederal sponsor to provide supplemental direction—specifying the 

type of reviews required and work products expected—to more clearly 

communicate the expectations involved in each step in the Corps’ review 

process. In another district, the official said that the nonfederal sponsor 

became frustrated with delays in the Corps’ review process and a lack of 

clarity regarding who within the Corps was responsible for communicating 

decisions to the nonfederal sponsor. According to officials from that 

district, the result was that the nonfederal sponsor bypassed them and 

communicated directly with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works for action and information on its project.

In addition, both Corps district officials and nonfederal sponsors we 

interviewed experienced challenges with the Corps’ project 

implementation process. Corps district officials from 7 of the 16 districts 

we interviewed said that it can be challenging to work with nonfederal 

sponsors undertaking water resources projects who have limited 

experience partnering with the Corps since they tend to underestimate 

what it takes to implement projects. One Corps district official said it can 

be “very painful” and take a lot of effort to help less experienced sponsors 

Corps District Officials and 

Nonfederal Sponsors 

Identified Challenges and 

Opportunities for 

Improvement
Page 25 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

understand the complexities of undertaking water resources projects 

because the detailed information they need is not available in guidance 

documents. In addition, officials from another district said that it is 

challenging to convey to nonfederal sponsors the Corps’ standards and 

criteria for reimbursement eligibility.

Nonfederal sponsors also shared similar views on challenges related to 

the Corps’ project implementation process. Eight of the 20 nonfederal 

sponsors we interviewed said the Corps does not have clear guidance on 

the project implementation process, which in some cases hindered the 

nonfederal sponsors’ ability to efficiently implement projects. As one 

nonfederal sponsor stated, “the Corps has no clear-cut guidance for 

nonfederal sponsors on how to navigate the process.” The sponsor also 

said that often projects were hampered by the Corps’ identification of 

requirements after the fact, or as a result of policy changes that occurred 

during the process, which affected both project time frames and cost. In 

addition, nonfederal sponsors said that the multiple, lengthy reviews 

within the Corps—at the district, division, and headquarters levels—

contributed to confusion and delays and added costs during project 

implementation. For example, one nonfederal sponsor said it took nearly 

a year and a half, after submitting a letter indicating its interest in 

undertaking a project, to sign an agreement with the Corps enabling the 

sponsor to initiate the project. Two other sponsors noted that the process 

of making changes to a project’s design was cumbersome because of the 

number and levels of review required before reaching the Chief of 

Engineers in Corps headquarters.

Officials from more than half of the Corps districts we interviewed (10 of 

16) said they do not rely on the agency’s guidance when collaborating 

with nonfederal sponsors conducting feasibility studies and construction 

projects. Instead, these officials indicated that they provide verbal 

direction to nonfederal sponsors as needed throughout the feasibility 

study or construction project for various reasons, including that the 

guidance is outdated, does not clearly establish the roles and 

responsibilities related to projects led by nonfederal sponsors, and does 

not provide the level of specificity that nonfederal sponsors need. For 

example, when we examined the guidance, we found that the Corps’

primary guidance—the Planning Guidance Notebook—has not been 

updated to reflect policy and process changes that the Corps has made 

since its publication in 2000, such as information related to the Corps’
Page 26 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

planning process for feasibility studies.30 In addition, the guidance does 

not delineate the specific roles and responsibilities of the Corps or 

nonfederal sponsors for projects led by nonfederal sponsors.

In February 2016, the Corps issued implementation guidance for 

feasibility studies led by nonfederal sponsors under WRRDA 2014.31 In 

this guidance, the Corps clarified that it is generally not authorized to 

provide assistance to nonfederal sponsors undertaking feasibility studies, 

except in certain circumstances in which the Corps is permitted to provide 

limited technical assistance under the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. 

In addition, the Corps has developed draft guidance for construction 

projects led by nonfederal sponsors, which a Corps headquarters official 

said is being reviewed and is estimated to be issued in 2016.

Nonfederal sponsors have played an important role in undertaking federal 

water resources projects when the Corps has been unable to do so 

because of funding constraints and competing priorities. However, the 

number of federal water resources projects undertaken by nonfederal 

sponsors and the amounts reimbursed to them cannot be reliably 

determined because the Corps does not have guidance for districts—

which are responsible for overseeing such projects—on how to collect, 

record, and maintain accurate information about these projects. Without 

documented guidance for districts that result in consistent procedures for 

accurate recordkeeping for transactions and other relevant information 

related to projects led by nonfederal sponsors, the Corps does not have 

reasonable assurance that districts will consistently record information on 

such projects and that the information provided to headquarters on such 

projects will be accurate and reliable.

 30In 2012, the Corps revised its approach to planning studies, emphasizing risk-based 

decision making and early vertical team engagement. As part of the revised approach, the 

Corps requires that, in general, studies be completed in 3 years or less, cost no more than 

$3 million and require three levels of vertical coordination. The Corps has created multiple 

resources to assist in conducting this planning approach, including a more streamlined 

project management plan, but these are not referenced in the Planning Guidance 

Notebook. Other guidance documents, such as engineer regulations, that Corps 

headquarters officials referred us to were issued in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

31U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Studies of Water Resources Development Projects by 

Nonfederal Interests, ER 1165-2-209, February 2016.

Conclusions
Page 27 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

To ensure that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has accurate 

information about federal water resources feasibility studies and 

construction projects led by nonfederal sponsors, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief 

of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to establish documented guidance for accurate recording of 

transactions and other relevant information related to these projects.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Department of Defense. In its written comments, reprinted in appendix III, 

the department concurred with our recommendation and stated that the 

Corps will establish documented guidance for accurate recording of 

transactions and other relevant information related to federal water 

resources studies and projects led by nonfederal sponsors within 18 

months and distribute to the districts.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

This report examines (1) the authorities that enable nonfederal sponsors 

to undertake a feasibility study or construct an authorized water resources 

project, (2) the extent to which nonfederal sponsors have undertaken 

federal water resources projects and the information the Corps has about 

them, and (3) Corps officials’ and nonfederal sponsors’ views on the 

lessons learned from these projects.

To identify authorities that enable nonfederal sponsors to undertake 

feasibility studies or construction projects, we reviewed water resources 

development legislation enacted from 1968 to June 2014 and identified 

five statutory provisions. In addition, we identified project-specific 

legislation that authorized nonfederal sponsors to undertake specific 

water resources projects. We shared our list with Corps headquarters 

officials to ensure that we had identified all relevant statutes.

To determine the extent to which nonfederal sponsors have conducted 

federal water resources projects and the information the Corps has on 

them, we developed an online data collection instrument. We discussed 

the types of information available and terminology with Corps 

headquarters, division, and district officials. We used water resources 

development legislation from 1986 as the starting point for our data 

request because this legislation fundamentally changed the way the 

Corps planned and financed federal water resources projects. We 

pretested the data collection instrument with one district and made 

adjustments to the instrument on the basis of this pretest. We 

administered the data collection instrument to all 38 Corps districts 

responsible for civil works projects. Using this instrument, we asked each 

district to identify feasibility studies or construction projects from the 

enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 that 

nonfederal sponsors undertook in their districts under one or more of the 

statutory provisions we identified, or under a project-specific 

authorization. The data collection period was approximately May to 

September 2014. We achieved a 100-percent response rate. Using the 

data obtained with the instrument, we totaled the number of projects led 

by nonfederal sponsors that were reported by districts. We also produced 

descriptive information about these projects, including a summary of 

project locations, project purposes, project phases, completion status, 

and total estimated project costs using the answers to the following 

questions from the online data collection instrument shown in table 3.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Table 3: Selected Questions from the Online Data Collection Instrument Used to Obtain Descriptive Information on Feasibility 

Studies and Construction Projects Led by Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 Through 2014

Questions Response options

Enter the location of the project or the specific separable element. City, state

Select the entry that best describes the project’s primary purpose. Navigation, flood damage reduction, hurricane and 

storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, or 

other

Indicate the primary phase of the project or separable element undertaken by 

the nonfederal sponsor.

Study only, construction (includes study and 

design), construction only

Indicate the project or separable element’s current status. Complete, ongoing

Enter the percentage of the project that has been completed to date. (Enter 

percentage and indicate whether the entry is actual or estimated. Enter 100

percent if the project has been completed.)

Percent complete (100 percent if the project has 

been completed); note ‘actual’ or ‘estimated’

Enter the estimated total federal cost of this project. Dollar amount in millions

Enter the estimated total nonfederal cost of this project. Dollar amount in millions

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-97

We clarified and confirmed data we obtained through the data collection 

instrument through follow-up interviews with Corps district officials. We 

also compared information we collected from the Corps districts on 

reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors with information provided by 

Corps headquarters on reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors. Through 

this process, we identified a number of discrepancies between the 

reimbursement information on projects led by nonfederal sponsors 

reported to us by Corps districts and the information provided by Corps 

headquarters. We interviewed Corps headquarters officials to understand 

the potential reasons for the discrepancies and asked them to reconcile 

the differences. They added 13 projects to the list we collected directly 

from the districts and modified some of the reimbursement amounts, but 

they did not provide satisfactory explanations for all of the changes. 

Therefore, the reimbursement data are reliable for reporting an estimated 

aggregate reimbursement amount to give a sense of magnitude, but they 

may not be accurate at the individual project level, as discussed in the 

report. We also reviewed relevant agency guidance documents, such as 

Corps-issued engineer regulations and policy documents that provide 

implementation guidance, as well as partnership agreements between the 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Corps and nonfederal sponsors, federal standards for internal control,1

and leading practices for collaboration.2

To obtain views on lessons learned from projects led by nonfederal 

sponsors, we conducted semistructured telephone interviews with Corps 

officials from 16 districts that reported overseeing at least one feasibility 

study or construction project undertaken by a nonfederal sponsor. We 

conducted similar semistructured telephone interviews with several of the 

nonfederal sponsors that undertook feasibility studies or construction 

projects to get their perspectives on the lessons learned from these 

projects. Specifically, we interviewed 20 of the 28 sponsors undertaking 

32 projects. The remaining nonfederal sponsors either did not respond to 

our request for an interview or did not have a representative with direct 

knowledge of the project with whom we could speak. We analyzed the 

information from the interviews we conducted with district officials and 

nonfederal sponsors qualitatively, including conducting a content analysis 

on selected questions related to the advantages and disadvantages of 

projects led by nonfederal sponsors and lessons learned from these 

projects. Table 4 shows the questions we asked the Corps district officials 

and nonfederal sponsors to obtain their views on lessons learned.

 1

GAO-14-704G.

2

GAO-06-15 and GAO-12-1022.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Table 4: Selected Interview Questions and Follow-Up Probes Used to Obtain Corps 

District Officials’ and Nonfederal Sponsors’ Views on Lessons Learned from 

Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects Led by Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 

Through 2014

Selected questions and follow-up probes 

used in interviews with Corps district 

officials

Selected questions and follow-up 

probes used in interviews with 

nonfederal sponsors

Overall, what lessons were learned from 

these past experience(s), or what would you 

do differently when nonfederal sponsors take 

responsibility for project implementation?

Overall, what lessons did you learn from 

your experience(s) taking on the 

responsibility of implementing your water 

resources project?

a. What worked well? a. What worked well?

b. What could be improved with the 

process of allowing nonfederal 

sponsors to implement projects?

b. What could be improved?

c. How could working relationships with 

the nonfederal sponsors be enhanced?

c. How, if at all, could the Corps 

enhance its working relationship 

with nonfederal sponsors?

d. Did the agreement between the 

Corps and the nonfederal sponsor 

work well?

e. Does the Corps have adequate 

guidance for this activity?

Based on your experience to date, what are 

the advantages and disadvantages of a 

nonfederal sponsor taking responsibility for 

project implementation?

Based on your experience to date, 

what are the advantages and 

disadvantages of a nonfederal 

sponsor taking responsibility for 

project implementation?

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-97

Note: We asked follow-up probes as needed of Corps district officials and nonfederal sponsors to 

assist interviewees in elaborating on their responses.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to December

2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Selected Information U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Districts Reported on 

Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects 

Led by Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 Through 

2014

Page 32 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

In response to our data collection request, Corps districts provided a 

variety of information on federal water resources projects undertaken by 

nonfederal sponsors—specifically, feasibility studies and construction 

projects. Table 5 lists the project names, responsible districts, and project 

locations of federal water resources projects undertaken by nonfederal 

sponsors, 1986 through 2014, as reported by Corps district offices.

Table 5: Project Names and Locations of Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects Led by Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 

Through 2014, as Reported by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Offices

Corps district Project name Project city Project state

Alaska St. George Harbor St. George Alaska

Alaska St. Paul Harbor St. Paul Island Alaska

Chicago Thornton Reservoir Thornton Illinois

Ft. Worth San Antonio Channel Improvement, Mission Reach San Antonio Texas

Galveston Bray Bayou Houston Texas

Galveston Hunting Bayou Houston Texas

Galveston White Oak Bayou Houston Texas

Jacksonville Canaveral Harbor Canaveral Florida

Jacksonville Miami Harbor Miami Florida

Jacksonville Buck Island Dredged Material Disposal Facility Jacksonville Florida

Los Angeles Tropicana and Flamingo Washes Las Vegas Nevada

Los Angeles Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening San Pedro California

Mobile Bayou Casotte Harbor Channel Improvement Pascagoula Mississippi

New Orleans Houma Navigation Canal Deepening Houma (Terrebonne 

Parish)

Louisiana

New Orleans Baptiste Collette Deepening Venice (Plaquemines 

Parish)

Louisiana

New Orleans Amite River and Tributaries, Bayou Manchac East Baton Rouge 

(Ascension Parish)

Louisiana

Omaha Antelope Creek Lincoln Nebraska

Portland Coos Bay Coos Bay Oregon

Sacramento Sacramento River Bank Protection Project Sacramento California

Sacramento American River Watershed Natomas California

Sacramento The Upper Sacramento River Levee Restoration Sacramento California

Sacramento Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project Napa California

Sacramento Coyote and Berryessa Creeks Milipitas California

Sacramento Guadalupe River Flood Control Project San Jose California

Sacramento Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Riverbed Gradient Facility Hamilton City California

Sacramento Stockton Metropolitan Flood Control Reimbursement Stockton California

Appendix II: Selected Information U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Districts Reported on Feasibility 

Studies and Construction Projects Led by 

Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 Through 2014
Appendix II: Selected Information U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Districts Reported on 

Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects 

Led by Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 Through 

2014

Page 33 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Corps district Project name Project city Project state

San Francisco Oakland Harbor Oakland California

Savannah Savannah Harbor Expansion Project Savannah Georgia

Tulsa Arkansas City Arkansas City Kansas

Tulsa Mingo Creek Local Flood Protection Project Tulsa Oklahoma

Vicksburg Pearl River Watershed Jackson Mississippi

Wilmington Roanoke River Upper Basin Roanoke Virginia

Source: Information provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers district offices. | GAO-17-97

Corps districts reported that from 1986 through 2014, 28 nonfederal 

sponsors undertook 32 water resources projects: 11 feasibility studies 

and 21 construction projects. Sixteen of the 38 Corps districts responsible 

for civil works projects oversaw these projects, which varied in geographic 

location and project type. According to the data Corps districts provided in 

response to our request, a majority (21) of the 32 water resources 

projects undertaken by nonfederal sponsors were located in California 

and the states along the Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Texas. Other water resources projects were scattered across the 

United States. For example, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, and Virginia each had one project led by a nonfederal 

sponsor, and Alaska had two projects (see fig. 3).
Appendix II: Selected Information U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Districts Reported on 

Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects 

Led by Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 Through 

2014

Page 34 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Figure 3: Locations of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Offices and Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects 

Undertaken by Nonfederal Sponsors from 1986 Through 2014, As Reported by District Offices

In addition to geographic variation, nonfederal sponsors undertook 

projects for different project purposes and for different phases of the 

project, based on responses from Corps district offices. In total, 

nonfederal sponsors undertook 11 feasibility studies: 8 for navigation and 

3 for flood damage reduction. They also undertook 21 construction 

projects: 4 for navigation, 16 for flood damage reduction, and 1 for 

ecosystem restoration. As of September 2014, the feasibility studies and 

construction projects nonfederal sponsors had undertaken were at 

various stages of completion, according to information provided by Corps 

district offices. Specifically, nonfederal sponsors had completed more 

construction projects than feasibility studies—14 of 21 construction 

projects and 3 of 11 feasibility studies. The Corps district offices reported 

that the total estimated costs of feasibility studies and construction 
Appendix II: Selected Information U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Districts Reported on 

Feasibility Studies and Construction Projects 

Led by Nonfederal Sponsors, 1986 Through 

2014

Page 35 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

projects for each project undertaken by nonfederal sponsors ranged from 

approximately $500,000 to just over $600 million, and overall, totaled 

approximately $4 billion. (See table 3 in app. I for the data collection 

instrument questions we asked Corps districts to obtain this information.)
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers

Page 36 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers

Page 37 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 38 GAO-17-97 Army Corps of Engineers

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Vondalee R. Hunt (Assistant 

Director), Richard Burkard, Joanna Chan, John Delicath, Juli Digate, 

Mitchell Karpman, Stuart Kaufman, Jamie Meuwissen, John Mingus, Carl 

Ramirez, Anne Rhodes-Kline, and John Scott made key contributions to 

this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(361545)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.