The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

A History

Headquarters

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Office of History

Alexandria, Virginia

2008
This is the Official U.S. Government edition of this publication and is herein identified to certify its authenticity.

Use of ISBN 978-0-16-079585-5 is for U.S. Government Printing Office Official Editions only. The Superintendent

of Documents of the U.S. Government Printing Office requests that any reprinted edition clearly be labeled as a

copy of the authentic work with a new ISBN.

It is prohibited to use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seal, as it appears on the cover, on any republication of

this material without the express, written permission of the Office of History, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. Any person using official seals and logos in a manner inconsistent with the Federal Regulations Act

is subject to penalty.
This illustrated history of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides an overview of many of the missions

that engineers have performed in support of the U.S. Army and the Nation since the early days of the

American Revolution. A permanent institution since 1802, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has effectively and proudly responded to changing defense requirements and has played an integral part in the development

of the Nation. 

Engineers have served in combat in all of our Nation’s wars. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Corps built

coastal fortifications, surveyed roads and canals, eliminated navigational hazards, explored and mapped the Western

frontier, and constructed buildings and monuments in the Nation’s capital. 

In the twentieth century, the Corps became the lead federal flood control agency. Assigned the military construction mission in 1941, the Corps constructed facilities at home and abroad to support the U.S. Army and the

U.S. Air Force. During the Cold War, Army engineers managed construction programs for America’s allies, including

a massive effort in Saudi Arabia. 

When the Cold War ended, the Corps was poised to support the Army and the Nation as we adapted to the new

era. But the events of September 11, 2001, changed the diplomatic and military climate dramatically. After supporting recovery efforts at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Army engineers played an important role in

the rapidly evolving Global War on Terrorism. Following combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Corps of

Engineers established new overseas districts and a division in those countries to help rebuild their shattered infrastructures and foster a new era of peace and democracy in the region. The results of that effort will shape the

Nation’s future in the twenty-first century.

Today, building on its rich heritage, the Corps is changing to meet the challenges of the future. The U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers is a broad-ranging engineer force of highly qualified civilians and Soldiers, working with our

partners to deliver innovative and effective solutions to the Nation’s engineering challenges. We are a valuesbased organization, focused on our mission and those we serve, dedicated to public service, and a vital part of the

U.S. Army.

Our mission areas include planning, designing, building, and operating water resources and other civil works

projects; designing and managing the construction of military facilities; providing immediate and long-term support

to the public during natural disasters and national emergencies; and offering design and construction management

capabilities for other Defense Department and Federal agencies and for foreign countries.

I hope that readers of this history will gain an appreciation of the military, political, economic, and technological

factors that shaped the modern U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We in the Corps, both Soldiers and civilians, are

proud of our many past contributions and look forward with confidence to continued service as a relevant, ready,

responsive, and reliable organization, proudly serving the armed forces and the Nation.

R. L. VAN ANTWERP

Lieutenant General, US Army

Chief of Engineers

Foreword

iii
iv

Acknowledgments

This publication is a revised and expanded version of The History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Alexandria, VA: Office of History, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998), EP 870-1-45. William C.

Baldwin was project manager of this publication. Over the years numerous present and former Army engineer

historians have contributed to the text. The historians who worked on this publication were Paul K. Walker, chief 

of the Office of History; William C. Baldwin; John Lonnquest; Matthew Pearcy; Michael Brodhead; Eric Reinert;

James Garber; Martin Reuss; and Kent Sieg. Larry Roberts, Charles Camillo, Charles Parrish, Joan Kibler, and the

USACE Command Sergeant Major, Robert Winzenried, also provided helpful information. Jean R. Diaz, the Office of

History’s editor, edited the text and managed the images. Janet R.M. Fitzgerald, BFA, Visual Information Specialist,

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, designed the cover. Douglas J. Wilson assisted in the proofing, and

our administrative officer, Anna Punchak, assisted with financial and other matters. EEI Communications, Inc.,

under the team leadership of Jayne Sutton, designed and prepared the book for printing.

The illustrations for this book came from the Research Collections of the Office of History unless another

source is noted below the caption.
v

Contents

Introduction

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

Historical Time Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi

1. The Making of the Corps 

The Revolutionary War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Artillerists and Engineers, 1783–1802 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Engineers in the War of 1812 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

The Corps and the Military Academy at West Point, 1802–1866 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

The Topographical Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

2. Contributing to National Development

The National Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Lighthouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Origins of Civil Works Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Waterway Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Flood Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Hydropower Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

The Environmental Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Work in the District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

3. Strategic Role in War and Peace

Coast Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Combat Operations, 1846–1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

The Panama Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

U.S. Army Engineers in World War I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

Combat Engineers in World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

The Manhattan Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

Army Engineers in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155

U.S. Army Engineers in the Vietnam Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

The Corps and the Space Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

Combat and Reconstruction: From the Gulf War to the Global War on Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181

4. A Vital Part of the Army

Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191

Work for Other Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241

Emergency Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263

Appendices

Insignia of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277

Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317
vi

Historical Time Line 1775–2005 

Col. William Prescott

at the Battle of

Bunker Hill, painting

by Frederick C. Yohn 

The Continental 

Insurance Company

Plan of attack for

Yorktown, drawn by

Jean Baptiste de

Gouvion, October

29, 1781

National Archives

View of West Point,

c. 1834

Library of Congress

1775 

Congress established the

Continental Army with provision for

a Chief Engineer (June 16).

Richard Gridley named first Chief

Engineer and oversaw fortification

at the Battle of Bunker Hill.

1779

Engineer officers and companies

of sappers and miners formed into

a Corps of Engineers.

1781 

French and American engineer

officers and sappers and miners

played key role in successful siege

of Yorktown.

1783

Corps of Engineers mustered out

of service along with most of the

Continental Army.

1794

Unified Corps of Artillerists and

Engineers established.

1802 

Permanent reestablishment of a

separate Corps of Engineers and

founding of U.S. Military Academy

at West Point under Corps

supervision.

1812–1815 

War of 1812: Coastal harbors

heavily fortified by engineers

deterred British attacks. Engineer

officers first assumed command.

Plan of Fort McHenry

National Archives

1775–1815
1819–1838

vii

John C. Calhoun

U.S. Army Collection

Capt. Henry M.

Shreve’s snagboat

Heliopolis

Nineteenth century

survey party in the

Sierra Nevada,

painting by J.J. Young

National Archives

1819

Secretary of War John C.

Calhoun’s report on importance of

waterways for national defense

and commerce identified role for

Army engineers.

1819

Stephen H. Long’s expedition 

of the Missouri River basin

pioneered Army engineer

involvement in western

exploration.

1824

An act to improve the navigation

of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers

initiated permanent civil works

construction mission.

1824

General Survey Act authorized use

of Army engineers to survey road

and canal routes.

1825

Corps assumed responsibility for

construction and repair of

Cumberland Road.

1829

Corps launched first steampowered snagboat, Heliopolis,

on the Mississippi River.

1838

Creation of separate Corps of

Topographical Engineers under

Col. John J. Abert.

View of the “insulated

tablelands” or buttes

during Maj. Stephen

Long’s expedition to

the Rocky Mountains,

1820

Library of Congress
viii

1841–1857

Battle of Monterey,

September 23, 1846

John C. Frémont’s ascent

of Snow Peak depicted

on a 5-cent stamp

Smithsonian Institution

Gouverneur K. Warren

as a Major General

Cabin John Bridge,

shown here in 1863,

built to carry water

from the Potomac

River over Cabin

John Creek to the

Washington water

supply system

1841 

John C. Frémont began a series of

western expeditions that ranged to

the Rockies and beyond, providing

vital information on lands, peoples,

and resources of the West.

1846

Creation of first company of

regular U.S. Army engineer troops.

1846–1848 

Mexican War: Engineer regulars

erected fortifications and joined 

in assaults while engineer 

officers performed key

reconnaissance missions.

1853 

Lt. Montgomery C. Meigs began

work on a water supply system,

the Washington Aqueduct, which

still supplies water for the Nation’s

capital and is still operated by the

Corps of Engineers.

1853–1858

Pacific Railroad surveys involved

Topographical Engineers in

exploration and documentation of 

the West.

1857 

Lt. Gouverneur K. Warren

completed his map of the northern

plains, the most detailed and

accurate to date.
ix

1861–1863

Company A,

Battalion of

U.S. Engineers,

1865

Henry L. Abbot as

a general officer

Seal of the unified

Corps of Engineers

1861

Humphreys-Abbot Report Upon

the Physics and Hydraulics of the

Mississippi River won the respect

of engineers around the world and

decidedly influenced the

development of river engineering

in America.

1861–1865

Civil War: A battalion of regular

U.S. Army engineer troops, with

various volunteer engineer and

pioneer units, cleared obstacles,

constructed roads and bridges,

laid down ponton bridges, and

erected field fortifications. Several

engineer officers commanded

combined troops, while others

conducted reconnaissance and

directed siege operations.

1863

New Capitol dome completed

under supervision of engineer

officer Montgomery C. Meigs. 

1863

U.S. Army engineers constructed

2,200-foot ponton bridge over 

the James River, one of the

longest ponton bridges in the

history of warfare.

1863

Corps of Engineers and Corps of

Topographical Engineers reunified.

Capitol dome under

construction, 1861
x

1866–1883

Captain Ludlow’s map of

reconnaissance from Carroll,

Mont., to the site of

Yellowstone National Park

Officers mess,

Willets Point,

N.Y.

U.S. steamer Montana

at St. Paul, Minn.

1866 

Engineer School of Application

founded at Willets Point, N.Y. 

Chief of Engineers’ role as

Inspector of West Point ended 

as superintendency of the

Academy opened to all branches

of the U.S. Army.

1867 

Control of District of Columbia

public parks and monuments

given to the Office of Public

Buildings and Grounds under the

Chief of Engineers until 1933. 

1875 

Captain William Ludlow’s

expedition to Yellowstone

identified a critical need to 

protect and improve the park.

1878

Three-person commission,

including by law an engineer

officer, replaced elected

government in the District of

Columbia until 1967.

1879

Mississippi River Commission

created to execute a

comprehensive flood control and

navigation plan on the Lower

Mississippi.

1882 

In first authorized emergency

operation, Corps used its vessels

to deliver relief supplies to 

flood victims.

1883

Congress designated Corps to

make improvements in

Yellowstone Park.

Brig. Gen. Montgomery Meigs

managed many Corps construction

projects in the District of Columbia

from the 1850s to the 1880s.

National Archives
xi

1884–1902

Military railroad in

the Philippines

The Library of

Congress, c. 1897

National Archives

Washington Monument nearing

completion, early 1884 

National Archives

The Engineer School

academic building, on

present-day Ft. McNair,

Washington, D.C.

1884

Construction of Washington

Monument completed by Army

engineers.

1884

First Corps reservoirs completed

at Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake,

and Pokegama, Minn.

1885

Davis Island Lock and Dam, just

south of Pittsburgh, completed—

the largest Chanoine wicket dam

in the world.

1888

Chief of Engineers created five

engineer divisions based on

geographical regions.

1897

Library of Congress building

completed.

1898

Spanish-American War: U.S. Army

engineers erected landing piers,

built bridges and roads, and

repaired and operated railroads in

Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the

Philippines.

1899

Refuse Act gave Corps authority

to regulate obstructions to

navigation.

1901

Engineer School moved from Willets

Point to Washington Barracks,

Washington, D.C. 

1902

Board of Engineers for Rivers and

Harbors established to examine

costs, benefits, and the need to

improve waterways. The board

was disestablished in 1993.
xii

1911–1927

The power generators

at Wilson Dam, Tenn.,

under construction,

1926

World War I Army

engineers building

a corduroy road

During a 1912 flood,

residents of Hickman,

Ky., find refuge on

levees and rooftops.

1911

Using a cofferdam, Corps raised

wreck of the battleship Maine in

Havana Harbor.

1914 

Panama Canal completed under

supervision of U.S. Army engineer

officers. Engineer officers served

as governors of the Canal Zone

from 1914 to 1979.

1917 

Congress passed first federal

Flood Control Act.

1917–1918 

World War I: U.S. Army engineers

served in combat; built ports,

roads and railroads; organized 

first U.S. Army tank units; 

and developed chemical 

warfare munitions.

1919

Engineer School moved 

to Camp A.A. Humphreys, Va.

(later renamed Fort Belvoir).

1925 

Wilson Dam completed with 

major hydroelectric power

component at Muscle Shoals on

the Tennessee River.

1927

Congress authorized 308 Reports

to present plans for multipurpose

improvement of navigable streams.

Steam shovel at work in the Culebra Cut; 

a lithograph in a series on the Panama

Canal by Joseph Pennell, noted American

artist and illustrator

USACE Museum Collection
xiii

1927–1939

Dashields Locks and

Dam on the Ohio River

near Glenwillard, Pa.,

opened for navigation

August 1929.

Sandbagging a

levee during

flooding of the

Mississippi River

President Roosevelt

visited Ft. Peck

during the New Deal

Era.

Maj. Gen. Edgar Jadwin,

Chief of Engineers,

1926–1929

1927

Flood devastated Mississippi 

River Valley and demonstrated

insufficiency of “levees only”

policy.

1928

Jadwin Plan becomes basis for

landmark Flood Control Act that

adopts a comprehensive plan for

flood control on the Lower

Mississippi River. Plan includes the

use of floodways and spillways in

addition to levees.

1929

Nine-foot channel completed on

the Ohio River.

1933

During the Roosevelt

administration, Corps’ New Deal

public works program included

Fort Peck, Bonneville, Conchas,

and Tygart dams.

1936

Flood Control Act made flood

control a federal policy and

officially recognized the Corps as

the major federal flood control

agency.

1939

Nine-foot navigation channel

completed on the Upper

Mississippi.
xiv

1940–1945

Hangar at Lowry

Field, Colo.,

1940

Meeting of bulldozers 

at Beaver Creek, 

Yukon Territory, along

the ALCAN Highway

in 1942

An aerial view of

the completed

Pentagon

Maj. Gen. Lewis A. Pick 

in the first convoy on the

Ledo Road, May 20, 1945

1940 

Corps took over airfield

construction from the

Quartermaster Corps’

Construction Division.

1941

Congress transferred Army

construction and real estate

programs to the Corps of

Engineers. 

1942

Manhattan Engineer District

established to oversee

construction of production

facilities for the atomic bomb. 

1942 

Engineers completed a 1,500-mile

pioneer road, called the Alaska or

ALCAN Highway, between Dawson

Creek, British Columbia, and

Fairbanks, Alaska.

1943 

Construction of the Pentagon

completed fifteen months 

after groundbreaking.

1944

Flood Control Act authorized Corps

to develop recreational facilities on

Corps’ projects and to develop

water projects in the Missouri River

Valley in accordance with the

Pick-Sloan Plan.

1945 

Construction, begun in late 1942,

completed on Ledo Road,

stretching through some of the

world’s most difficult terrain from

India to the old Burma Road near

the Chinese border.
xv

1946–1958

The dredge Poseidon

clearing the Corinth Canal

in Greece, 1947

Engineers prepare a

bridge for demolition

in Korea

National Archives

1946

Corps began hospital construction

program for the Veterans

Administration.

1946–1949

Corps’ Grecian District supervised

postwar reconstruction to restore

damaged Greek transportation and

communication network to check

communist expansion.

1950–1953

Korean Conflict: Engineers

destroyed bridges and mined roads

to obstruct the enemy, and built

bridges and roads to assist advance

of American forces. Engineers

frequently fought as infantry.

1950s

Corps built early warning facilities

and air bases in Greenland,

Morocco, and Libya.

1952

Corps assigned responsibility for

the Army Nuclear Power Program.

1954

Construction of first Nike Ajax

missile battery completed.

1958

Corps completed work on 

the American portion of the

St. Lawrence Seaway.

Nuclear power plant at

Ft. Belvoir, Va.

Nike Ajax missile

battery
xvi

1960–1976

Depiction of a

Rome Plow

clearing jungle

1960 

Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile

Construction Office established to

build launch sites and related

facilities for intercontinental

ballistic missiles.

1961

Foreign Assistance Act initiated

Corps involvement in reimbursable

programs through the State

Department’s Agency for

International Development.

1961 

Corps began construction for

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), including

the Manned Spacecraft Center 

in Houston, Texas, and John F.

Kennedy Space Center in Fla.

1962

In U.S. Army reorganization, Corps

lost control of Engineer School

and engineer troops but retained

responsibility for engineering,

construction, and real estate

services required by the Army, 

Air Force, and NASA.

1963–1973

War in Vietnam: Forty thousand

Army Engineers support combat

operations in Southeast Asia.

1967 

Rome plow introduced to enhance

engineer jungle-clearing operations

during Vietnam War.

1970

National Environmental Policy Act,

signed on January 1, established

requirement for environmental

impact statements.

1971–1976

Corps constructed bulk-mail

handling centers for the 

U.S. Postal Service.

Vehicle Assembly

Building at Cape

Kennedy

Titan I ICBM 

in firing position
xvii

1972–1985

1972

Clean Water Act of 1972

Amendments authorized Corps to

regulate dredging and dumping

activities in U.S. wetlands.

1975

First Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Civil Works named to

position originally created in 1970

legislation.

1975

Corps redesignated as a combat

arms branch.

1976

Middle East Division established 

in Riyadh as Saudi Arabia

construction program expanded.

Division disestablished in 1986.

1979

Corps of Engineers became an

Army Major Command (MACOM).

1982

Design and construction effort

begun in support of Environmental

Protection Agency’s Superfund

cleanup program.

1982

Israeli air bases completed in

program initiated in 1979 by 

Camp David Accords.

1983

Defense Environmental Restoration

Program enlarged the Corps’

environmental work relating to

military installations.

1985

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway,

largest navigation project in Corps’

history, completed 13 years after

construction began in 1972.

Assistant Secretary of

the Army (Civil Works)

Victor V. Veysey

The Corps’

Distinctive

Unit Insignia

Tennessee-Tombigbee

Waterway, Miss.
xviii

1986–1999

President Reagan signs the Water Resources Development Act, 1986.

Installing

temporary

roofs following

Hurricane

Andrew

1986 

The Water Resources Development

Act of 1986 brought major change

in financing by requiring nonfederal

contributions toward most federal

water resources projects.

1988

The Engineer School relocated to

Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.

1990–1991

Desert Shield/Desert Storm: 

Corps provided construction 

and real estate support. 

1991

Recovery effort in Kuwait initiated

through the Kuwait Emergency

Recovery Office. 

1991

Beginning of successive rounds 

of base closures under 

a presidentially appointed

realignment commission. 

1992 

Corps undertook major 

disaster recovery in wake of 

hurricanes Andrew and Iniki.

1993

Assistant Chief of Staff for

Installation Management created

on the Department of the Army

staff. The new office absorbed

many of the functions of the

Assistant Chief of Engineers.

1996

Groundbreaking ceremony for 

the Olmsted Lock, the last major

lock modernization project on the

Ohio River in a program begun in

the 1950s.

1997

Formerly Used Sites Remedial

Action Program transferred 

from Department of Energy to the

Corps of Engineers.

1999 

Dedication of the Seven Oaks

Dam of the Santa Ana River

Mainstem Flood Control Project—

potentially the Corps’ last big 

dam project. 

Seven Oaks Dam, Ca.

Photo by Dave Schumaker
xix

2000–2005

Personnel from the 

Gulf Region Division

discuss construction 

with Iraqi contractors 

in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq

Personnel of

the Gulf Region

Division in

Baghdad, Iraq

Chinook helicopter

prepares to lift 5,000-

pound sandbags to

repair damaged 

flood walls.

2000

Congress approved the

Comprehensive Everglades

Restoration Plan with the Corps

designated as the lead agency.

2001

The Upper Mississippi River/Illinois

Waterway Navigation Study and

its recommendation for the

construction of new and larger

locks generated substantial

controversy and opposition.

2001

9/11: Corps of Engineers responded

to terrorist attacks at the World

Trade Center and the Pentagon. 

2001

Missouri River Master Water Control

Manual became increasingly

controversial because of 

environmental issues and competing

interests in the river basin. 

2002

After the fall of the Taliban regime

in Afghanistan, the Corps of

Engineers began a program to

construct facilities for the Afghan

National Army. 

2003

Soon after coalition forces entered

Iraq, the Corps began to restore 

the Iraqi oil and electrical

infrastructure.

2004

The Gulf Region Division

established in Baghdad to manage

the reconstruction program.

2005

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

ravaged the Gulf Coast and

subsequent storm surges

overwhelmed the protective 

levees around New Orleans,

flooding the city.

Ruins of the 

World Trade Center, 

New York City,

September 2001
Battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775,

by H. Charles McBarron

U.S. Army Center of Military History

1The Making of the Corps
When Congress organized

the Continental Army 

on June 16, 1775, it 

provided for a Chief Engineer and

two assistants with the Grand Army

and a Chief Engineer and two assistants in a separate department,

should one be established. Colonel

Richard Gridley of Massachusetts

was an artillerist in that colony’s

militia and a veteran of decades of

colonial warfare against the French,

and thus one of the few patriots with

experience in the design and construction of batteries and fortifications. Gridley became General

George Washington’s first Chief

Engineer. Another native of

Massachusetts, Rufus Putnam, who

succeeded Gridley as Chief Engineer

in 1776, was one of his assistants

while the Army remained in Boston.

From the start, the predominantly

defensive nature of the war convinced Washington he would need

even more trained engineers, but he

was continually frustrated in his

efforts to find them. Qualified engineers were scarce because formal

schooling in siegecraft, the erection

of field fortifications, and technical

The Revolutionary War

Society of American Military Engineers plaque honoring Col. Richard Gridley’s actions

at Breed’s Hill

1

Washington takes command of the Continental Army at Cambridge, Mass., 

July 1775

National Archives
subjects was practically nonexistent

in America at the time. In response

to Washington’s plea for more engineers, Congress turned to France,

which was an enemy of Britain and

the center of technical education in

Europe. The French also had a long

tradition of military engineering.

Beginning in 1776, Frenchmen

began to arrive in America to 

serve as engineers. Before the end of

1777, Congress had promoted one of

them, Louis Duportail, to brigadier

general and Chief Engineer, a position he held for the duration of the

war in spite of a period of capture

and imprisonment by the British

following the Battle of Charleston.

Frenchmen, joined by other foreigners, dominated the ranks of the engineers throughout the war.

When Duportail took command

of the engineers, he renewed the

pressure begun by his predecessor to

establish a permanent, separate, and

distinct engineering branch of the

Army. His proposal included a provision for companies of engineer

troops, to be known as Sappers and

Miners, with American officers.

From their ranks would come the

engineer officers to replace the

French when they returned home.

On May 27, 1778, Congress

finally authorized three companies 

of Sappers and Miners who were to

receive instruction in erecting field

works—the first step in technical

education—and were to direct

fatigue parties, repair damaged

works, and erect new ones. Recruitment continued for more than two

years, and the three companies 

were not activated until August 2,

1780. Meanwhile, on March 11,

1779, Congress passed a resolution

that formed the engineers in the

Continental Army into the Corps of

Engineers that Duportail had sought.

Despite the shortage of engineers and the delay in forming companies of engineer troops, the Army’s

engineers made numerous contributions to the war. Engineer officers

reconnoitered enemy positions and

probable battlefields, wrote useful

reports based on their observations,

oversaw the construction of fortifications, and drew detailed maps for

commanders. Congress relieved

some of the mapping burden when it

appointed Robert Erskine as

2

The Making of the Corps

Boston Area Fortifications drawn by

John Trumbull depicting American

positions surrounding Boston in

September 1775

John Trumbull, Autobiography, 1841

Louis Lebègue Duportail,

Chief Engineer, 1777–1783 

by Charles Willson Peale

Independence National 

Historical Park Collection
Geographer of the Army in 1777.

Erskine and his successor, Simeon

DeWitt, employed several assistants,

as did Thomas Hutchins, whom

Congress appointed as Geographer

for the Southern Army in 1780.

Following this precedent, Congress

would add Topographical Engineers

to the Corps of Engineers in 1813

and create a Topographical Bureau

in the Engineer Department in 1818.

Engineer officers often took

action that helped achieve decisive

results on the battlefield. One such

incident occurred during the Siege of

Boston. In February 1776, General

Washington’s council of war decided

to draw the British out of Boston by

erecting works on the unfortified

Dorchester Heights. To achieve 

surprise, the Army needed to move

quickly, but the ground was frozen

more than a foot deep. Colonel Rufus

Putnam, Washington’s Chief Engineer

at the time, offered an innovative

solution to the problem. He recommended using chandeliers—wooden

frames filled with bundles of sticks—

to raise walls above ground. To the

astonishment of the enemy, the

Continentals erected the chandeliers

overnight on March 4. When the

British determined three days later

that Dorchester Heights could not be

taken, they found that their hold on

Boston was no longer tenable and

evacuated the city.

The next year, Lieutenant

Colonel Thaddeus Kosciuszko, a

native of Poland commissioned as an

engineer officer in the Continental

Army, placed obstructions that significantly impeded Burgoyne’s advance

toward Albany after the fall of Fort

Ticonderoga. Later, Kosciuszko

helped design the network of defenses

at West Point, and in 1781 he was

instrumental in enabling Nathaniel

Greene’s Southern Army to evade

capture by the enemy.

During the difficult winter of

1777–1778, Washington followed

Duportail’s admonition to avoid general battle and instead wear down the

British at Philadelphia while avoiding attack. “We should not forget that

in war, to advance or retreat are neither honorable nor dishonorable; that

3

The Revolutionary War

Thaddeus Kosciuszko 

by Charles Willson Peale

Independence National 

Historical Park Collection

The Camp at Valley Forge. A sketch in Duportail’s hand showing the

entrenchments he planned.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania
4

The Making of the Corps

it is [at] the end of a Campaign that

the Prize is given, and that Glory is

his reward who has gained his end,”

Duportail noted in recommending

that Washington keep his forces at

Valley Forge. This strategy helped

preserve the Army and compelled the

British to evacuate Philadelphia the

next summer.

The Corps of Engineers and

its companies of Sappers and

Miners enjoyed their finest hour in

October 1781 at Yorktown, where

Washington conducted a siege in the

classical manner of Sebastien de

Vauban, the great French master of

siegecraft. Engineer officers, numbering thirteen in the combined

French and American armies, performed crucial reconnaissance and,

with the fifty men in the Sappers

and Miners, planned and executed

field works. In addition, the Sappers

and Miners assembled fortification

materials, erected gun platforms,

transported cannon and ammunition,

and cleared the way for the decisive

infantry assault on Redoubt 10.

After the battle, Washington cited

Duportail for conduct that afforded

“brilliant proofs of his military

genius, and set the seal of his

reputation.”

When the Revolutionary War

ended in 1783, a debate followed on

the peacetime nature of the Army.

Proposals regarding the engineers

varied. They included merging the

engineers with the artillerists and

establishing an academy to provide

training. Those who favored a

centralized system of fortifications,

which would need engineers to build

and maintain them, believed that

retaining an engineer presence in the

Army was necessary. Two arguments

in favor of retaining the engineers

drew directly upon Revolutionary

War experience. Without a permanent, trained Corps of Engineers, it

was maintained, the new Nation

would be forced to call on foreigners

again in time of war. Moreover, as the

Revolutionary War had demonstrated,

it was extremely difficult to put

together an effective technical organization in a short time. But Congress

did not approve a peacetime Army,

and with that decision went any hope

of retaining the Corps of Engineers.

By the end of 1783, the Corps and its

companies of Sappers and Miners

had mustered out of service.

British defenses and the

American and French siege

works at Yorktown drawn by

Col. Gouvion of the Corps of

Engineers, October 29, 1781

National Archives
5

The Revolutionary War

On June 1, 1779, the British

captured Stony Point, New

York, on the western side of

the Hudson River, and Verplanck’s

Point directly across the river to the

east. Possession of the forts brought a

key part of the river under enemy control and threatened the American position less than fifteen miles to the north

at West Point. After reinforcing Stony

Point, the British commander regarded

it as a “little Gibraltar.”

Recognizing the danger, General

George Washington planned a daring

surprise assault. On the night of July

15–16, Lieutenant Colonel François

de Fleury, an engineer in command of

a battalion in the 1st Regiment of

Brigadier General Anthony Wayne’s

Corps of Light Infantry, led one of

two simultaneous attacks on Stony

Point. In the hour after midnight,

the twenty-nine-year-old de Fleury

single-handedly struck the colors of

the British 17th Regiment of Foot.

Invaders and defenders engaged

in furious hand-to-hand combat.

The whole encounter was brief.

At 2 a.m., Wayne triumphantly

wrote Washington, “The fort and

garrison...are ours. Our officers and

men behaved like men

who are determined to

be free.”

A few days later,

Washington abandoned

the fort for lack of

resources. The British

quickly reoccupied the

site, temporarily making 

it stronger than ever. 

But reinforcements never

arrived, so the Redcoats

gave up the position for

good in October. Stony

Point was a timely boost

to American morale. It

was, according to one

historian, “a successful

attack upon British regulars in a fortified position,

with the bayonet alone,”

resulting in “an achievement unparalleled up to that time.” It also marked

the last major battle of the war in 

the north.

In recognition of the bold, decisive

action at Stony Point, Congress

awarded a gold medal to Wayne and

silver medals to de Fleury and Major

John Stewart, who commanded a battalion in the 2d Regiment of Wayne’s

corps. Congress noted that de Fleury

and Stewart “exhibited a bright example to their brother soldiers, and merit

in a particular manner the approbation

and acknowledgment of the United

States.” De Fleury, one of several

French engineers to volunteer for

service in the Continental Army, was

the only foreigner so honored during

the Revolutionary War.

Storming of Stony Point depicted in a nineteenth

century lithograph

Congress Recognized a Revolutionary War

Engineer as a Hero for His Role in Taking

Stony Point in July 1779
Plan of Fort Mifflin

National Archives
After the American

Revolution, there was

strong opposition to the

establishment of a large, permanent,

national army. Indeed, at one point

in the summer of 1784, the surviving U.S. military establishment consisted solely of an infantry regiment

and a company of artillery stationed

at West Point, New York; however,

Congress soon approved the formation of an additional line unit, the

1st American Regiment, to construct

forts and protect surveying parties

on the new western frontier. 

When a strengthened federal 

government under the new U.S.

Constitution was launched in 1789,

Secretary of War Henry Knox 

recommended “a small corps of 

well-disciplined and well-informed

artillerists and engineers.” Nevertheless, no engineers served in the

U.S. Army until March 1794, when

war with Britain threatened. Suddenly there was an acute need to

upgrade neglected coastal fortifications and construct new ones. At that

time, Congress authorized President

Washington to appoint temporary

engineers to direct the fortification of

key harbors. Among those named

were Major Pierre L’Enfant and

Major Stephen Rochefontaine, veterans of the Revolutionary War Corps

of Engineers.

Seizing the opportunity, Knox

again urged Congress to approve the

plan he and others such as L’Enfant

and Duportail had earlier advanced.

A corps combining artillerists and

engineers, he argued, would provide

the additional trained troops now

needed to garrison the coastal fortifications. The new corps was to be

commanded by a lieutenant colonel

Portrait of Henry Knox by James Harvey

Young, 1873

U.S. Army Center of Military History

Artillerists and Engineers, 1783–1802

7
and to have four battalions, each

commanded by a major and consisting of four companies.

Heeding this advice, on May 9,

1794, Congress established a single

Corps of Artillerists and Engineers,

consisting of one regiment. This

action returned engineers to the

ranks of the Army for the first time in

more than ten years and ensured that

an engineering presence, established

with the appointment of the Army’s

first Chief Engineer in 1775, would

continue in the new U.S. Army.

Although international tensions

eased in the latter half of 1794 and

jeopardized the whole effort, Congress

resolved to continue a seacoast

defense program. By the end of the

year, there were single-company

garrisons of artillerists and engineers

at Fort Jay (New York); Fort Mifflin

(Philadelphia); Fort Whetstone, later

McHenry (Baltimore); and Fort

Johnson (Charleston). The following

February, Rochefontaine was commissioned a lieutenant colonel and

took command of the Corps. At the

same time, a school to train U.S.

Army officers took shape at West

Point, New York.

In 1798, war with France

appeared likely, so Congress added

a second regiment to the Corps.

By the time Thomas Jefferson

became president in 1801, it had

become clear that the united Corps

was not producing the desired welleducated, scientific body of engineer

officers. In 1802, a thrifty Congress

again reduced the military establishment and separated the artillerists

and engineers. The united corps,

which so many Revolutionary War

engineers had supported, was thus

short-lived; however, an Army

engineering branch would emerge

from the peacetime reduction. On

March 16, 1802, Congress permanently established a separate U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and the

U.S. Military Academy at West Point

as the Nation’s first engineering

school.

8

The Making of the Corps

Only known authentic likeness of

Pierre Charles L’Enfant. Silhouette

by Sara DeHart, c. 1785.

Diplomatic Reception Room,

U.S. Department of State

Parade Field at West Point, c. 1790

U.S. Military Academy Library
9

Artillerists and Engineers, 1783–1802

At the end of the Revolutionary War, General George

Washington recommended

retaining a regular, standing force to

garrison forts and one or more academies to provide Americans with engineering and military training. Otherwise

he predicted that domestic security in

the future would depend entirely on

the assistance of foreigners. 

Congress failed to act on his recommendation. As president in 1794 he

faced the prospect of renewed war

with Britain. Coastal forts lay in disrepair, and America’s tiny Army lacked

artillerists and engineers. Congress

quickly appropriated funds to fortify

nearly twenty ports and harbors and

created a combined Corps of

Artillerists and Engineers. 

Few native-born Americans were

available to plan and oversee the

required defenses, but Secretary of

War Henry Knox knew that some one

dozen Frenchmen, who had either

served in the French or Continental

armies during the Revolution, were in

the United States. Most had returned

to France after the Revolution but fled

in the wake of the French Revolution’s

Reign of Terror. They found their way

back to the United States either directly or by way of Santo Domingo. Knox

employed seven of these Frenchmen

as “temporary engineers” without military rank to supervise the new work.

Each was assigned a section of the

Atlantic coastline. 

Greatest attention and funding

focused on Philadelphia, the Nation’s

temporary capital (1790–1800). Initially

Knox assigned Pierre L’Enfant to oversee improvements at Mud Island (later

Fort Mifflin) just below the capital city.

After service as an engineer in the

Revolutionary War, L’Enfant returned

briefly to France in 1783 but took up

residence in the United States in

1784. Later he designed the city

of Washington.

Convinced that Fort Mifflin provided inadequate protection for a

capital city, L’Enfant embarked on an

ambitious plan of improvements. He

quickly exhausted the available funds

and antagonized state officials in the

process. Within a year Knox replaced

him with another Frenchman and

Revolutionary War veteran, Stephen

Rochefontaine. More improvements

and additional funding followed. 

A “quasi” war with France in 1798

led Congress to strengthen the Corps

of Artillerists and Engineers and appropriate more funds to defend American

shipping, the coastline, and harbors.

As Rochefontaine was also commander of the artillerists and engineers,

Lewis Tousard, another Frenchman,

took over at Fort Mifflin. Once again he

got the job because no American possessed the technical qualifications.

Nearly half the funds expended on

American forts between 1794 and

1800 went to Fort Mifflin. The experience of having the Nation’s defenses

planned and executed by foreigners

finally convinced Congress to establish

a military academy and create a separate Corps of Engineers.

French Engineers Defended 

Early Capital City

Oil painting of Fort Mifflin c. 1872 by Brig. Gen. Seth Eastman

Architect of the Capitol Collection
Plan of Fort McHenry by Capt. Richard Delafield, September 1836

National Archives
After the American Revolution, engineer officers did

not see formal combat

again until the War of 1812. During

the years immediately preceding 

that conflict, engineer officers had

worked full time constructing permanent defenses along the Atlantic

Coast. The War Department had

been debating with the engineers

over their desire for command

responsibility since 1802. Jonathan

Williams, the first superintendent of

West Point, had even resigned his

position over the issue. 

The Corps of Engineers

remained small in numbers. When

war broke out in June 1812, the

Corps’ actual strength was only

seventeen officers and nineteen

enlisted men. (Although Congress

had authorized 22 officers and 

113 enlisted men for the Corps in

April 1812, full strength was not

approached until 1815.) West Point

graduates dominated the list of engineer officers, and for them the War 

of 1812 would be their first experience in combat. 

During the War of 1812, the

record of the Corps was exceptional

when compared with the record of

the other branches of the U.S. Army,

which suffered several notable

defeats. Engineer officers assumed

command responsibility for the first

time. Captain Charles Gratiot, later

Chief Engineer, at one point commanded all forces in the Michigan

Territory. In 1813, Brigadier General

Joseph G. Swift, another future Chief

Engineer, commanded line units on

Staten Island in addition to Fort

Richmond and Hudson Battery. By

late the next year, he commanded

the entire New York operation, which

included more than ten thousand

soldiers and civilian volunteers. 

Engineers in the War of 1812

Battle of Lundy’s Lane, where U.S. Army engineers figured prominently, July 1814

Library of Congress

11

Burning of the U.S. Capitol by the

British, August 1814, from mural 

by Allyn Cox in the House of

Representatives Cox Corridor

Architect of the Capitol Collection
As the war progressed, the War

Department increasingly transferred

engineers to serve in the field on the

northern frontier. In combat, the

engineers performed many of the

same tasks they had in the Revolution, including constructing fortifications, reconnoitering and mapping,

and assisting the movement of

armies. In at least two instances,

engineer officers directed construction of quarters. 

Still, fortifications were the

primary concern of the engineers

during the War of 1812, as they had

been earlier. Despite the views of

later critics, coastal harbors and

river towns heavily fortified by the

engineers did deter British attack.

Notable examples of this were at 

Fort Meigs in Perrysburg, Ohio, and

Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland. 

The performance of the U.S.

Army engineers in combat between

1812 and 1815 helped them earn

respectability and strengthened the

military academy at West Point,

which had been languishing on the

eve of the war. While many battles in

this indecisive war ended in a standoff, the results might have been far

worse without the contributions of

the U.S. Army engineers.

Map of Fort Erie depicting how Army engineers changed the old British fort into a

bastioned work

National Archives

12

The Making of the Corps

Bombardment of Fort McHenry by J. Bower

Maryland Historical Society
13

Engineers in the War of 1812

From the beginning of the War

of 1812, the British captured

American ships, blockaded

major ports, and raided towns along

the coast. In 1814, British troops even

seized Washington, D.C., burning the

White House and U.S. Capitol and

occupying Alexandria, Virginia.

Recalling its own capture by the 

British during the American Revolution,

New York—the Nation’s largest city—

felt especially threatened. 

While British ships cruised just off

Sandy Hook, New Yorkers turned to

the U.S. Army for help. During most of

1813 and 1814, Brigadier General

Joseph G. Swift, Chief Engineer of the

Army and superintendent at West

Point, directed the city’s defenses.

Until mid-1814, he concentrated on

the harbor’s permanent forts.

In the summer of 1814, a reinforced British fleet appeared off New

York’s coast. Fearing an amphibious

attack from the north or east, the city’s

Committee of Defense asked Swift to

take charge of emergency preparations. Quickly, he drew up a plan calling for two lines of field fortifications,

one stretching along hilltops outside

Brooklyn, the other cutting across

Manhattan from the mouth of the

Harlem River to the Hudson. Then he

began to implement the plan and

called upon citizens for support. The

response was overwhelming.

Between August and November,

thirty-eight thousand people worked on

the defenses. Carpenters and pharmacists, brewers and lawyers, butchers

and college students, tailors and artists,

free blacks and city officials rubbed

shoulders in the trenches, wielding

axes, shovels, and spades. Organized

in parties of 1,200–2,000, often working

from sunrise to sundown, and singing

to keep their spirits high, they built two

lines of field defenses. Volunteers put in

a total of more than one hundred thousand workdays. People unable to work

contributed money, food, tools—and

more than five thousand fascines for

the parapets.

Swift oversaw all defense preparations. Before long, he also was plotting strategy; inspecting troops; and

directing ordnance, artillery, quartermaster, and medical activities. In the

event of a British landing, he intended

to lead the main force to repulse them.

Impressed by the strength of New

York’s defenses, the enemy chose

easier targets to attack.

In gratitude for Swift’s service, the

New York Common Council declared

him a benefactor of the city, showered

him with gifts, and commissioned John

Wesley Jarvis to paint his full-length

portrait. After the war, to commemorate the Chief Engineer’s heroic effort

on their city’s behalf, officials hung the

painting in New York’s City Hall.

An Engineer Helped Save New York City

from British Attack During the War of 1812

Joseph Gardner Swift (1783–1865)

Courtesy of the Art Commission of the

City of New York
Plan of West Point, 1780

National Archives
15

During the American

Revolution, many officers,

including General George

Washington, the Commander-inChief, saw the need for technical

education so that the Army would

have skilled, native-born American

engineer officers in the future. When

Congress established the companies

of Sappers and Miners in 1778, it

stated that the companies were to

receive instruction in field works. 

In subsequent general orders,

Washington referred to the Sappers

and Miners as “a school of engineering.” Regulations issued in 1779 for

the Corps of Engineers and companies of Sappers and Miners declared

that the Sappers and Miners were to

receive instruction at times when

they were not exercising duties. The

Chief Engineer was to devise an

instructional program and appoint

engineer officers to give lectures;

however, the amount of education

actually given the Sappers and

Miners during the Revolution was

minimal. 

During the debate over a peacetime military establishment in 1783,

several Army officers proposed

establishing an academy at West

Point, either as the sole military

academy or as one of several academies. Army leaders thought engineers in particular needed formal

L’Enfant watercolor of West Point,

1780

National Archives

The Corps and the Military Academy at West Point,

1802–1866
16

The Making of the Corps

training. When Congress decided

against a peacetime standing Army,

the need for an academy disappeared.

Some instruction did occur at

West Point from 1794 until 1796, but

it was not until March 16, 1802, that

Congress reestablished a separate

Corps of Engineers to remain at West

Point and constitute the U.S. Military

Academy. As Chief Engineer,

Jonathan Williams, grandnephew of

Benjamin Franklin and a man keenly

interested in the development of

science, became the Academy’s first

Superintendent. Williams introduced

new texts from England and the continent and, by 1808, had broadened

the curriculum from its heavy emphasis on mathematics to include engineering. In 1812, Congress created a

professorship of engineering at the

Academy. It was the first such position at an institution of higher learning in the United States. 

Major advances in the organization and the course of study, as well

as an honor code and a disciplinary

system, followed under Sylvanus

Thayer, superintendent from 1817

until 1833. Thayer patterned the

reorganization of the Academy on the

program he observed at the Ecole

Polytechnique while on a visit to

France. Claudius Crozet, who occupied the professorship of engineering

from 1817 to 1823 and who was a

graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique,

introduced numerous French texts in

his courses. Later, under professor

Dennis Hart Mahan, the Academy’s

reputation as a school of civil engineering advanced still further. In his

lectures, Mahan, an 1824 graduate

with a commission in the Corps of

Engineers, drew upon his experiences while on duty in Europe

(1826–1830). He prepared and

added several texts to the West Point

curriculum. The most important were

A Treatise on Field Fortification

(1836) and the Course of Civil

Engineering, which first appeared

in 1837. 

In 1800, Secretary of War James

McHenry emphasized that fortification was only one part of military

engineering. The engineer’s utility,

he declared, “extends to almost

every Department of War; besides

embracing whatever respects public

buildings, roads, bridges, canals and

all such works of a civil nature.”

Training in practical military

engineering

U.S. Military Academy Library

Dennis Hart Mahan

U.S. Military Academy Library
17

The Corps and the Military Academy at West Point, 1802–1866

A June examination by the Board of Visitors

U.S. Military Academy Library

Cadets working with models, Class of 1904

U.S. Military Academy Library
After the War of 1812, West Point

exemplified McHenry’s dictum. The

Academy was the first school of

engineering in America. For many

years it produced graduates who, 

in addition to heroic battlefield

achievements, played a major role

in the Nation’s internal improvement in areas such as mapping,

roadbuilding, constructing canals,

improving harbors, and building

railroads. President Andrew

Jackson labeled it “the best school

in the world.” 

The Military Academy continued

under the supervision of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers until 1866,

when Congress opened the superintendency to all branches of the Army

and placed control of the Academy

under the Secretary of War, thus ending the Chief of Engineers’ role as

Inspector. This change responded, in

part, to the fact that the Academy supported the entire Army, not just the

engineers; however, mathematics, science, and engineering continued to

remain at the center of the curriculum.

18

The Making of the Corps
19

The Corps and the Military Academy at West Point, 1802–1866

Robert E. Lee was a U.S. Army

engineer officer from 1829 to

1855. Coming from a wellknown family that already had its military

heroes, Lee’s career as a military officer

was virtually foreordained. After preparatory school, Lee, gifted at mathematics,

sought admission to West Point. 

The number of applicants rejected

by West Point far outnumbered those

accepted each year so a relative wrote

to Secretary of War John Calhoun on

Lee’s behalf and Lee presented the

letter to the Secretary in person to make

a positive impression. Family connections to important congressmen further

aided him in his quest. On March 11,

1824, Lee received admission to the

Academy for the class beginning in the

summer of 1825—the delay resulting

from a backlog of admitted cadets.

Lee entered the U.S. Military

Academy in West Point, New York, on

July 1, 1825. An excellent student, he

graduated number two in the Class of

1829. As most top graduates did in

the nineteenth century, Lee entered

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a

second lieutenant.

His first assignment was constructing fortifications in Georgia and

Virginia, including Fort Monroe. He

later supervised navigation work along

the Mississippi River, and for five years

he oversaw upkeep of the forts in 

New York Harbor. In 1846, Lee was

assigned to the campaign in northern

Mexico. He eventually participated in

all the main battles from Vera Cruz to

Mexico City, and received a final brevet

to colonel for his valor at Chapultepec.

From 1848 to 1852, Lee was the

supervising engineer for construction of

Fort Carroll near Baltimore, Maryland.

In 1852, Lee accepted an assignment as Superintendent at the United

States Military Academy, a position

reserved for Corps of Engineer officers

until 1866. While heading the Academy,

he instituted many important changes to

the curriculum. He also encountered

cadets who would be prominent in the

coming Civil War—including Union

generals James McPherson, Philip

Sheridan, and O. O. Howard, and

Confederate generals John B. Hood

and Jeb Stuart. Lee’s son, G. W. Custis

Lee, also served as a cadet while his

father was Superintendent.

Lee left the Corps of Engineers in

1855 when he accepted an assignment

as a lieutenant colonel in the 2d Cavalry

Regiment. In 1859, he led a contingent

of Marines to retake the armory seized

by John Brown at Harper’s Ferry.

Offered command of all Union forces at

the outset of the Civil War, Lee chose

loyalty to his state and the South and

accepted a Confederate generalship.

Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee’s

biographer, said that Lee’s mind was

mathematical and his imagination that

of an engineer, and that his training as

an engineer worked to his advantage

when strategizing. Lee recognized 

and admired the engineers among his

opponents, many of whom were his

former students or fellow engineer

officers. Asked to name the best

Union general, Lee answered George

B. McClellan, commander of the 

Army of the Potomac and Corps of

Engineers officer from the West Point

Class of 1846.

Robert E. Lee as an Army Engineer

Robert E. Lee as a captain
Map of the Rio Grande Valley, drawn in

1846–47 for Mexican War reconnaissance

National Archives
The U.S. Army played a key

role as the young Nation

rapidly expanded during the

nineteenth century. During his first

inaugural address in 1801, President

Thomas Jefferson said, “However our

present interests may restrain us

within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant

times, when our rapid multiplication

will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole...continent.”

Seizing upon an opportunity to

greatly increase the land size of the

United States, Jefferson negotiated

with Napoleanic France for the

Louisiana Purchase. Soon thereafter,

the imaginative president sought to

have this large expanse explored,

with the ultimate goal of finding a

Northwest Passage. The reconnaissance of the Trans-Mississippi West

began with the four-thousand-mile

epic journey of Lewis and Clark in

1804–1806. They traveled the

length of the Missouri, Clearwater,

Columbia, and Snake rivers to the

Pacific Ocean.

Another ten years would pass

before the government began to professionalize official exploration. In

1816, topographical officers, known

The Topographical Engineers

View of “insulated tablelands” or

buttes during Maj. Stephen Long’s

expedition to the Rocky

Mountains, 1820

Library of Congress

21
as Geographers during the American

Revolution and as Topographical

Engineers during the War of 1812

and thereafter, were added to the

peacetime Army. Unlike the other

officers of the Corps of Engineers,

whose primarily military duties centered on the construction and maintenance of fortifications, “topogs”

performed essentially civil tasks as

surveyors, explorers, and cartographers. In 1818, the War Department

established the Topographical

Bureau under Major Isaac

Roberdeau to collect and store the

maps and reports of topographical

operations. Like the topogs, who

numbered only six at this early date,

the bureau was placed under the

Engineer Department. 

Almost from the outset, there

was a great demand for the skills of

the Topographical Engineers. The

accelerated movement of Americans

into the interior of the continent

served to emphasize the Nation’s

Map depicting the route of Stephen Long’s 1823 survey of the upper Midwest

National Archives

22

The Making of the Corps
23

The Topographical Engineers

need for networks of transportation

and communication. Congress recognized the compelling nature of the

requirement in 1824 and passed the

General Survey Act. This law, which

authorized surveys for a national network of internal improvements,

became the basis for topog involvement in the development of canals,

roads, and later, railroads. 

Along with the growing importance of the topogs came increases

in their numbers and improvements

in the organizational structure. Most

of the changes came during the first

decade of Colonel John J. Abert’s

tenure as Chief of the Topographical

Bureau. A strong-willed and ambitious West Pointer who received the

appointment after Roberdeau died in

1829, Abert sought independence

Joseph Nicollet’s map of the

confluence of the Minnesota and

Mississippi rivers

National Archives

John J. Abert

Historical Society of Pennsylvania
for both the bureau and the topogs.

He realized the first goal in 1831

when Congress removed the bureau

from the Engineer Department and

gave it departmental status under

the Secretary of War. Seven years

later, he attained the second objective and became Chief of an independent Corps of Topographical

Engineers, a position he held for

twenty-three years. 

Colonel Abert sought a great

deal more for the topogs than prominence within the bureaucracy. While

Roberdeau had been content to manage the office as a depot for maps

and instruments and as a clearinghouse for correspondence, Abert saw

his role as a planner and administrator for national policy regarding

internal improvements and western

exploration. As a member of the

Board of Engineers for Internal

Improvements, established to evaluate projects considered under the

General Survey Act, Abert had a part

in the selection of tasks and their

execution. In western exploration,

though, which for many years took 

a back seat to internal improvements, Abert’s role remained minor.

His bureau distributed instruments,

collected maps, and forwarded

correspondence. 

Individual members of the Corps

of Topographical Engineers, however,

achieved great importance in western

exploration and surveys. During the

expansionist era of the 1840s, from

the first stirrings of Oregon fever in

the early years of the decade to the

acquisition of the huge southwestern

domain after the Mexican War,

topogs examined the new country

and reported their findings to a populace eager for information about the

lands, native peoples, and resources

of the West. Best known of all was

John C. Frémont, the dark-eyed and

flamboyant pathfinder who led three

parties to the Rockies and beyond

during this age of expansion. The

ranks also included William H.

Emory, author of a perceptive assess24

The Making of the Corps

(pictured above) Rare Corps of

Topographical Engineers Model

1839 pattern uniform coat, from the

USACE museum collection. This

example is believed to be the

uniform of First Lt. Jacob E. Blake.

(pictured right) Sword hilt insignia of

the Corps of Topographical Engineers

(pictured far right) Corps of

Topographical Engineers cap device
25

The Topographical Engineers

ment of the Southwest, and James H.

Simpson, discoverer of the ruins of

the ancient Pueblo civilization of

New Mexico. Howard Stansbury,

whose report of an exploration of the

Great Salt Lake is still considered a

frontier classic, also wore the gold

braid of the Corps of Topographical

Engineers. In the 1850s, when the

emphasis shifted from reconnaissance to more detailed exploration

and roadbuilding, topogs continued

to make their marks. John N.

Macomb laid out the basic road network of New Mexico, George H.

Derby initiated harbor improvements

in California, and Joseph C. Ives

became the first Anglo-American to

descend the Grand Canyon. 

The disparity between the

renown of members of Abert’s Corps

and the obscurity of his bureau was

due to the absence of a government

policy regarding exploration. The

Topographical Engineers frequently

went into the new country on an ad

hoc basis at the behest of a politically powerful figure like Missouri

Senator Thomas Hart Benton or to

accompany a military expedition.

From Major Stephen H. Long’s 1819

journey up the Missouri River as a

minor adjunct of Colonel Henry

Atkinson’s Yellowstone Expedition

Lithograph, c. 1850s, depicting John

C. Frémont ascending Snow Peak

A portion of John C. Frémont’s 1841

map of the Des Moines River

National Archives
to Emory’s southwestern exploration

during the Mexican War and

Mexican boundary surveys, topog

exploration often took a secondary

position to other purposes. 

When exploration and surveys in

the Trans-Mississippi West were

finally organized and coordinated in

the 1850s, Abert no longer wielded

the political influence that had

brought his ambitions so near fruition

in the 1830s. Duties he hoped would

devolve on the Corps of Topographical

Engineers went instead to the Office

of Pacific Railroad Explorations and

Surveys, a small organization created

by Abert’s political foe, Secretary of

War Jefferson Davis. This new office

would manage the surveys for railroad routes to the Pacific Ocean. 

Despite the lack of a unified policy and central direction, the history

of topog expeditions forms a coherent

entity. Topographical officers provided

the necessary link between the first

explorations of the mountainmen—

those rude, brawling beaver trappers,

who first probed far beyond the

frontier and were no less than walking storehouses of geographical

knowledge—and the civilian scientific specialists, who undertook a 

rigorous study of western natural 

history and resources after the Civil

26

The Making of the Corps

Pacific Railroad survey party

camped in the Mohave Valley
War. Between the trappers and the

specialists of the United States

Geological Survey, topogs provided

the Nation with an overall picture of

the Trans-Mississippi region. They

explored bits and pieces, as opportunity allowed, until a coherent general

understanding of western topography

emerged in the form of Lieutenant

Gouverneur K. Warren’s map of

1858. His achievement, the first

accurate, overall depiction of the

Trans-Mississippi West, was a

milestone in American cartography.

Thereafter, topog activity centered 

on filling in the few blank spaces in

Warren’s map. 

During the Civil War, the Corps of

Topographical Engineers was merged

into the Corps of Engineers, whose

officers renewed the topogs’ efforts

after Appomattox. Their work continued until 1879, when primary mapmaking responsibilities passed from

the Army to the newly established

U.S. Geological Survey. By then, the

officer-explorers had done their major

task. They had extended and codified

the knowledge of the mountainmen

and, in turn, laid the groundwork for

scholarly analysis. The Topographical

Engineers had performed an essential

service to a nation growing in size and

in self-understanding. 

27

The Topographical Engineers

Gouverneur K. Warren

National Archives
By 1853, influential members

of Congress had decided to

support the construction of

a transcontinental railway; however,

there was a serious dispute over the

proposed route for such a line.

Congress amended Army appropriations to fund the reconnaissance

of several potential routes by the

Corps of Topographical Engineers.

The Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis,

established the Office of Pacific

Railroad Explorations and Surveys

and appointed Captain Andrew A.

Humphreys of the Topographical

Engineers to oversee the project.

Ultimately, the topogs explored four

different routes in seven different

expeditions. The northernmost expedition, led by Isaac Stevens, a former

engineer officer, traversed from

Minnesota to Washington. Captain

John Gunnison surveyed the area

along the Arkansas Valley into the

Great Salt Lake. Lieutenant Amiel

Whipple explored the area along the

35th parallel through New Mexico.

Two expeditions, those under

Lieutenants John Pope and John G.

Parke, surveyed the final route through

the recent Gadsden Purchase and

Texas. Additional survey parties under

Robert S. Williamson and Lieutenant

Henry L. Abbot and another by Parke

probed the mountains of Oregon and

California for railroad passes.

These parties faced an assignment of considerable complexity. Each

expedition was required to report on

the numerous determinants of railroad

construction, among them were distances, grades, mountain passes,

canyons, bridge sites, and tunnels. In

addition, each survey had to consider

natural resources, particularly timber,

stone, coal, and water, all crucial for

building and operating a railroad.

The surveying parties faced great

hardships as they made their way

westward. In the Northwest, the

Stevens expedition ran into the blizzards of the Rocky Mountains. Pope

and his men would spend many days

without water on the barren Llano

Estacado. The party of Abbot and

Williamson stumbled into nests of

rattlesnakes near Lake Klamath. In

eastern Utah, Gunnison and several

assistants were cut down in a

predawn attack. 

In spite of the obstacles, the

topographic expeditions brought back

a remarkable amount of data. The

thirteen-volume final report was a

comprehensive record of the transMississippi region’s flora and fauna,

geological morphology, and geographical characteristics. The immense

28

Toward a National Transportation Network:

The Pacific Railroad Surveys

The Making of the Corps

Henry L. Abbot as a general officer
29

The Topographical Engineers

compendium of this report remains as

a reference that naturalists continue

to consult.

Although Congress, divided by

sectional animosities, failed to agree on

any one route, the surveys ultimately

proved of great significance. When the

first transcontinental railroad, the Union

Pacific–Central Pacific running from

Omaha to Sacramento, was built after

the Civil War, it followed the path surveyed by Gunnison’s party after his

death. Later lines also went along

routes first examined by these

Topographical Engineers. The Pacific

railroads bound together the farms,

markets, resources, and industry of a

growing nation.

The Williamson survey party at work near Livermore Pass
Construction of rock and brush wing dams on the Mississippi River in 1891.

The photographer, Henry Peter Bosse (1844–1903), worked as a civilian

engineer and draughtsman for the Corps of Engineers during the reshaping 

of the Mississippi River for modern transportation. Rediscovered only in the

early 1990s, Bosse’s photographs have won international acclaim, earning him

a place among the J. Paul Getty Museum’s “38 Photographers of Genius.”

2 Contributing to National Development
As pioneers and immigrants

settled west of the

Appalachian Mountains,

Americans felt a pressing need for

reliable transportation routes to the

newly formed states in the Ohio and

Mississippi river basins. President

Jefferson’s Secretary of the Treasury,

Albert Gallatin, and others proposed

many road and river improvement

projects to meet this need, but before

1840, only one project received

substantial federal financial support.

This was the National Road between

Cumberland, Maryland, and Vandalia,

Illinois, which the government built

between 1811 and 1841 at a cost of

more than $6 million.

Gallatin’s Treasury Department

supervised the construction of the

first segment of the road, built

between 1811 and 1818 between

Cumberland on the Potomac River

and Wheeling on the Ohio River. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

assumed supervision of the road’s

construction in 1825, when Congress

authorized the continuation of the

road west of the Ohio River. The

Secretary of War then ordered that

the road be constructed using the

method introduced in England by

John McAdam. McAdam found that

applying three successive three-inch

layers of broken stone above ground

level produced a well-compacted road

surface that could bear the heaviest

contemporary loads. Civilian superintendents reporting to the Engineer

Department oversaw the road’s construction until Congress, in 1832–

1834, mandated that engineer officers be placed in immediate charge.

By then, the road east of the

Ohio River had fallen into serious

disrepair and Congress ordered that

an engineer officer fix it and then

turn it over for maintenance to the

states through which it passed. That

The National Road

31

Conestoga wagons

crossing the Appalachian

Mountains on the

National Road. Carl

Rakeman, an artist with

the Bureau of Public

Roads, painted this

image in the midtwentieth century.

Federal Highway Administration
section of the road had been built

with large foundation stones, and

many of these had worked their way

to the surface at dangerous angles. 

In return for subsequent state

assumption of maintenance responsibilities, the federal government

agreed to macadamize the road, to

build a new route just west of

Cumberland that avoided a steep

mountain ridge, and to replace

several decaying original bridges.

Engineer Captain Richard

Delafield, a future Chief of Engineers, supervised most of the eastern

repair work. His new solid masonry

bridge over Will’s Creek west of

Cumberland had two elliptical

arches, each spanning 59 feet and

standing more than 26 feet above 

the water. With wing walls, its total

length was 291 feet. Across Dunlap’s

Creek at Brownsville, Pennsylvania,

Captain Delafield built the first

bridge with a cast-iron superstructure in the United States, an 80-footlong span that remains in use today.

The Cumberland Road Project was

an early example of the Corps providing imaginative and durable

engineering work under challenging

circumstances.

32

Contributing to National Development

North elevation of Dunlap Creek Bridge from drawings made in 1992 for the Historic American Engineering Record. After four

other bridges failed at Dunlap Creek, Capt. Richard Delafield designed this cast-iron bridge in the mid-1830s. Construction began

in 1836, but bad weather, labor shortages, and inadequate funding delayed completion until 1839.

Library of Congress
33

The National Road

First cast-iron arch bridge built in the United States. Carl Rakeman painted this

image of the Dunlap Creek Bridge.

Federal Highway Administration

The National Road at Clarysville, Md.

National Archives
34

Contributing to National Development

During the 1960s, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers

oversaw a program to improve

Afghanistan’s poor system of roads. 

At the time, Afghanistan’s rudimentary

highway system consisted of a 1,700-

mile circle of rock-bed and dirt roads

linking principal towns and cities. From

Kandahar in the south, the roads ran

both northeast to Kabul and northwest

to Herat. The main road then looped

across the northern tier of the country

to connect Herat and Kabul. Spurs

from this great elliptical route known as

the ring road extended toward Iran to

the west and Pakistan to the southeast.

The Mediterranean Division’s Gulf

District established an Afghanistan Area

Office at Kabul to tackle the construction challenge.

In 1961, the Corps initiated construction of one part of the highway

system, a ninety-six-mile spur from

Kandahar southeast to the border with

Pakistan at Spin Baldak. Although this

project had been completed in a relatively rapid manner, the major portion of

the Afghanistan highway, the 300-mile

road from Kabul to Kandahar, languished in the design stage. A border

closing restricted construction operations for several years as the contractor

had to develop alternate routes for

transporting equipment and supplies—

principally through Iran to Meshed,

across a primitive road to Herat,

Afghanistan, and on to Kandahar. But

modified specifications allowed the contractor to complete the initial segment

in the north by 1964. Within two more

years, the contractor turned over the

final portion of the highway, along with

a series of bridges and drainage ditches

completed as ancillary projects.

The Mediterranean Division oversaw construction of a third highway

segment running seventy-five miles

west from Herat to the city of Islam

Qala on the Iranian frontier, which was

completed by late 1967. The total cost

of constructing this road had risen to

$9.5 million with the considerable

repair and redesign necessitated by

massive flooding.

The Herat-Islam Qala highway, the

Kabul-Kandahar highway, and the

Kandahar-Spin Baldak highway linked

systematically with Russian-built roads.

The total American contribution to this

highway system consisted of more

than $55 million for construction and

another $25 million in related costs.

The Corps played a major role in

providing Afghanistan with a modern

highway system at the height of the

Cold War. After the Soviet invasion of

Afghanistan in 1979, the road network

continued to degrade while it was 

used to facilitate occupation of the

country. With the establishment of a

new national government following the

overthrow of the Taliban regime in

2001, the Corps resumed its role,

constructing bridges and providing

technical assistance to the Agency 

for International Development’s transportation reconstruction program

in Afghanistan.

The Corps Helped Construct Portions of

Afghanistan’s National Road

Laying highway asphalt along the ring road
As early as 1716, private

parties built lighthouses on

the Atlantic Coast. U.S.

Army engineers began supervising

lighthouse construction in 1827. In

1831, the Treasury Department

placed funds appropriated for lighthouses in the hands of the Chief

Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. A federal Lighthouse

Board, created in 1852, assumed

responsibility for supervising lighthouse construction and inspection.

Three engineer officers were members of the original Lighthouse

Board, and U.S. Army engineers

were assigned to each of the twelve

lighthouse districts.

In the nineteenth century, engineer officers designed lighthouses to

help mariners weather violent

Atlantic storms. Adopting European

technology, those officers often innovated to solve particular problems.

Major Hartman Bache borrowed from

British engineers the design for the

first screw-pile lighthouse in the

United States. This type of pile was

ideal for the bottom of the Delaware

Bay because it could be securely

twisted into an unstable sea floor. To

fend off the floating ice that threatened a structure at Brandywine Shoal,

Delaware, Major Bache installed a

fence of screw piles five inches in

diameter around the lighthouse. He

then added an outer fence and erected

a platform over the space between

the two fences. Tons of stone riprap

were dumped around the structure to

provide additional protection.

Lighthouses

Cape Lookout Lighthouse, N.C.,

completed by the Corps of

Engineers in 1859

Minot’s Ledge Lighthouse on the

Mass. coast under construction in

August 1859

National Archives

35
36

Contributing to National Development

Sombrero Key Lighthouse designed

and built by Lt. George G. Meade.

Photograph taken 1971.

U.S. Coast Guard

Engineering advances later made

it possible to erect sturdy lighthouses

on the reefs around the Florida Keys.

The most famous of these was the

Sombrero Key Lighthouse, built by

Lieutenant George G. Meade seven

years before he met General Robert

E. Lee at Gettysburg in July 1863.

U.S. Army engineers also erected the

first lighthouses on the Pacific Coast.

By the Civil War, engineer officers
had placed new Fresnel lenses in all

lighthouses.

In addition to making design

innovations, the Lighthouse Board

oversaw significant advances in

optics, sounding mechanisms, and

mariner warnings. Engineers continued to serve as board members and

as lighthouse district inspectors and

engineers until Congress abolished

the Lighthouse Board in 1910. The

overall number of aids to navigation,

including lighthouses, buoys, and fog

signals, had grown from around four

hundred at the inception of the board

to just fewer than twelve thousand at

its conclusion. After the board was

abolished, U.S. Army engineer

officers continued to work on intermittent lighthouse assignments.

37

Lighthouses

Lighthouse plan for Chicago Harbor

National Archives
Captain William H. Swift

designed the screw pile iron

lighthouse for Minot’s Ledge

outside Boston harbor and construction began in 1847. He studied examples of these new technologies in

England and adapted them for

American lighthouses. The Minot’s

Ledge location was a small, rocky

island battered by the sea. Swift

designed the lighthouse seventy feet

high with a twenty-five-to-thirty-foot

base. In 1849, after a violent storm, 

he began to add diagonal bracing to

strengthen the structure, but, before

this adaptation was complete, a

tremendous gale in April 1851

destroyed the structure killing two

lighthouse keepers. Accusations and

recriminations began immediately with

critics favoring a traditional heavy

stone structure. Swift asserted that

modifications made by the lighthouse

keeper had weakened the iron structure. Congress eventually funded a

stone lighthouse that exists today, but

engineers continued to build iron lighthouses safely in other locations.

The failure of Minot’s Lighthouse

did not stop work on the other

[iron] lighthouses authorized by

Congress in 1847 and had relatively little impact on their

designs, apart from underscoring

the importance of large bases

relative to height and the need for

diagonal bracing. An interesting

feature of the early iron skeleton

lighthouses is how unique each

one was. Differences due to varying site features and requirements

for the light—such as height, type

of foundation, and environmental

conditions (breaking waves or

harbor rollers)—are understandable. But the towers varied in

other ways, which indicated that

the designers were experimenting. It also shows that Colonel

[John J.] Abert [Chief of the

Corps of Topographical Engineers] gave his officers latitude to

experiment and to use their judgment in deciding the details of the

lighthouses in their districts.

Quoted from Sara E. Wermiel, Army

Engineers’ Contributions to the

Development of Iron Construction in

the Nineteenth Century, Essays in

Public Works History, #21 (Kansas

City, Mo.: Public Works Historical

Society, 2002), p. 18.

38

Two Lighthouses at Minot’s Ledge

Contributing to National Development

The iron lighthouse at Minot’s Ledge,

Cohasset, Mass.

Boston Journal, April 21,1851
39

Lighthouses

Plans for stone lighthouse at Minot’s Ledge built after the destruction of the iron lighthouse in 1851

National Archives
U.S. Snagboat No. 2, from Harper’s Weekly,

November 2, 1889
One of the major lessons of

the War of 1812 was that

the Nation needed an

improved defense and transportation

system. The British had invaded the

United States from the north, from

the south at New Orleans, and from

the east, marching inland and even

putting the capital to the torch. In

the 1816 mobilization studies based

on the lessons of the War of 1812,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

reported that national defense should

rest upon four pillars: a strong Navy

at sea; a highly mobile regular Army

supported by reserves and National

Guard; invincible defenses on the

seacoasts; and improved rivers,

harbors, and transportation systems

that would permit rapid armed

concentration against an invading

enemy, and swifter, more economical

logistical lines.

In 1819, John C. Calhoun, then

Secretary of War, recommended that

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be

directed to improve waterways

navigation and other transportation

systems because such civil works

projects would facilitate the movement of the U.S. Army and its

materials while contributing to

national economic development. “It

is in a state of war when a nation is

compelled to put all of its resources

... into requisition,” said Calhoun,

“that its Government realizes in its

security the beneficial effects from 

a people made prosperous by a 

wise direction of its resources in

peacetime.”

Congress finally accepted

Calhoun’s recommendations in 1824.

It passed the General Survey Act on

April 30, authorizing the president to

use U.S. Army engineers to survey

road and canal routes “of national

importance, in a commercial or military point of view.” A few weeks

later, on May 24, Congress appropriated $75,000 for improving navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi

rivers. This law allowed the president to employ “any of the engineers

in the public service which he may

deem proper” for the work. Also

under this act, the Corps began to

remove snags and floating trees from

the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and

to improve the Ohio’s channel by

attacking the sandbars that impeded

river commerce.

Origins of Civil Works Missions

41

John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War,

1817–1825, by John Wesley Jarvis

U.S. Army Collection
By 1829, U.S. Army engineers

were using snagboats developed by

the famous steamboat captain, Henry

M. Shreve, to remove obstructions in

river channels. Appointed by the

secretary of war as superintendent of

western rivers, Shreve realized that

the use of a steam engine and other

design techniques would cut the cost

of snag removal in half. His first

double-hulled snagboat, the

Heliopolis, successfully removed

extensive obstructions along the

lower Mississippi and Red rivers

(and later the Missouri, Ohio, and

upper Mississippi rivers). An iron

42

Contributing to National Development

Design plans for Shreve’s snagboat Archimedes (1838)

Captain Henry M. Shreve Clearing the Raft from Red River, 1833–38, painted in

1969 by Lloyd Hawthorne

Courtesy of the R. W. Norton Art Gallery, Shreveport, Louisiana
beam connecting the two hulls was

used as a battering ram to dislodge a

snag from the river bed. The vessel’s

lifting capability was provided by

machinery instead of by hand, which

made it a much more powerful snag

remover. These Corps snagboats,

which could lift a submerged tree

weighing seventy-five tons lodged up

to twenty feet deep, became known

as “Uncle Sam’s Toothpullers.”

Shreve, who eventually received a

patent on his snagboat design, also

began clearing riverbanks to prevent

falling trees from becoming navigational hazards.

This early activity marked the

beginning of the Corps’ civil works

mission—a dual role that emphasized a practical blending of civil

works and military skills and fostered the development of a federal

agency prepared to shoulder the

engineering burden in the event of

war or national emergency.

43

Origins of Civil Works Missions

(right, top to bottom) Henry Bosse photo

of the snagboat General Barnard (1885),

named after brevet Major General John

Gross Barnard, chief engineer of the

Washington, D.C., defenses during the

Civil War

Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Snagboat Chauncey B. Reese,

built in 1879
Major Stephen H. Long, an

engineer officer famous for

his exploration of the American West and for the survey and construction of early American railroads,

also designed his own steamboat. In

1818, Long planned the building of the

experimental craft, the Western Engineer, to transport himself and a task

force of scientists, naturalists, and

artists as far west as possible by water

on their projected trip into the frontier.

The result was a steamboat

designed to navigate narrow, shallow,

snag-littered channels of inland rivers.

It contained a particularly strong engine

to provide increased power for pushing

against swift currents. Another novel

feature was a paddlewheel built into

the stern to reduce the danger of damage from snags. The shallow-draft boat

had a seventy-five-by-thirteen-foot hull

with the weight of the machine carefully

distributed to permit increased

maneuverability in shallow channels.

The Western Engineer made an

imposing debut when launched on the

Ohio River in May 1819. To protect the

vessel from Indian attack, Major Long

installed a bulletproof pilot house. In

addition, he had a cannon mounted on

the bow, placed howitzers along the

sides, and armed the crew with muskets

and sabers. The boat had a serpentlike shape to frighten any would-be

attackers. Drawing but nineteen inches

of water compared to the five or six

feet of most steamboats, the Western

Engineer became the prototype of the

Western river steam vessels.

At the beginning of that summer,

the Western Engineer joined the

“Yellowstone Expedition” of Colonel

Henry W. Atkinson. In this vessel, Long

and his crew explored the Ohio River,

ascended the Mississippi River, then

entered the Missouri River well into

Nebraska. At this point, Long abandoned the Western

Engineer and struck out

overland for the Rocky

Mountains in the spring

of 1820, finally reaching

the Arkansas River late

that summer. Though

plagued throughout the

expedition by frequent

breakdowns, Long’s

steamboat was the first

such vessel to explore

the territory of the

Louisiana Purchase and

had traveled further

westward than any

other steamboat.

44

Long’s Steamboat

Contributing to National Development

Engineer Cantonment and Western Engineer (1820) by Titian R. Peale

American Philosophical Society Library
Benjamin Henry Latrobe, a

famous early nineteenth

century engineer, once

remarked that “nothing is so easily

converted to a civil use as the science

common both to the profession of a

civil and military engineer.” Few of

Latrobe’s contemporaries questioned

this observation; engineers were also

scientists, and navigation improvements required a scientific approach

using principles developed mainly in

Europe. At West Point, U.S. Army

engineers learned the principles and

applied them in their surveys of

navigable rivers, often making their

own significant contributions to river

hydraulics in the process. In the

early 1820s, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers officers surveyed both the

Ohio and Lower Mississippi rivers. In

the succeeding years, the Corps

investigated a number of additional

rivers. Many early navigation

improvements resulted from trial and

error, rather than from strict adherence to theory. If the obvious did not

work, the less obvious was used until

some method produced the desired

result. A good example was the work

on the Ohio River.

In 1824, Chief Engineer

Alexander Macomb dispatched Major Stephen H.

Long to the Ohio to initiate

experiments on providing

safer navigation. The main

challenge was to deepen

channels across sand and

gravel bars. Major Long

decided to perform experiments on a compacted gravel

bar near Henderson, Kentucky, just below the mouth

of the Green River. At lowriver stage, this bar was

covered by only fifteen inches

of water. After preliminary studies,

the major outfitted several flatboats

with hand-powered pile drivers and

Waterway Development

45

Early steamers 

on the Ohio River,

c. 1820

Up the Heights of 

Fame and Fortune,

Frederick B. Read,

1873

Topographical map of Henderson

Island sandbar in the Ohio River,

1825

National Archives
began to build a wing dam, so called

because the structure extended from

the bank of the river at a forty-fivedegree angle. The dams decreased

the width of the channel, thereby

increasing the current’s velocity and

directing its force against the

riverbed. Theoretically, this would

cause the river to scour a deeper

channel. Major Long built the dam to

various widths, lengths, and heights.

The final structure was 402 yards

long and consisted of twin rows of

1,400 piles joined with stringers and

filled with brush. Sediment gathered

against the dam and helped anchor it

to the riverbed. The project’s total

cost was less than $3,400.

46

Contributing to National Development

Henry Bosse photo of wing dams below Nininger, Minn., on the Upper Mississippi River in 1891. These river structures were

designed to constrict the river at shallow places, resulting in a narrowing and deepening of the channel.
Wing dams such as Long’s were

used on the Ohio and other major

rivers during most of the nineteenth

century, but their effectiveness was

always marginal. They were easily

destroyed and did not always produce

the desired results. After the Civil

War, Corps officers grew increasingly

skeptical about the dams. Brevet

Major General Gouverneur K.

Warren, a well-respected engineer

officer, candidly wrote in 1867, 

“I do not believe the country will

ever stand such a heavy continuous

outlay as the wing-dam system of the

Ohio has caused, and I believe that

the extravagant and useless expenditure there, in the palmy days of

western river improvements between

1830 and 1844, did more than anything else to bring the whole subject

into disrepute.”

Major General Warren’s pessimism was unjustified, for both

Congress and commercial interests

continued to support waterway

improvements after the Civil War.

Indeed, the support increased. 

River and harbor work jumped from

about $3.5 million for 49 projects

and 26 surveys in 1866 to nearly

$19 million for 371 projects and 

135 surveys in 1882. Nevertheless,

Warren’s frustration was shared by

other engineers. W. Milnor Roberts,

a well-known civil engineer, concluded in 1870 that existing navigation facilities on the Ohio, while

certainly of public benefit, were no

better than an “amelioration of the

present difficulty.” He proposed

instead to canalize the river through

the construction of 66 locks and

dams. This project would offer sixfoot slackwater navigation from

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cairo,

Illinois.

Chief of Engineers Andrew A.

Humphreys organized an Army

Engineer Board of Inquiry, composed

of Majors William E. Merrill and

Godfrey Weitzel, to examine the

question of canalizing the Ohio. 

The officers agreed with Roberts that

a system of locks and dams would

best provide for future navigation.

Somewhat surprisingly, the recommendation met resistance from the

very group that would most profit

from its implementation. Coal shippers, in Major Merrill’s words, were

“absolutely opposed to a slack-water

system, unless arrangements can be

made to pass their fleets through

without stopping and separating for

the passage of locks.”

The resistance forced Merrill,

who was in charge of Ohio River

improvements, to look for alternative

solutions. He thought the wicket 

dam design, developed by Jacques

Chanoine in France in 1852, might

be adapted for use on the Ohio. The

structure used a number of large

folding boards called wickets, which

were hinged to a concrete base at 

Gouverneur K. Warren as a 

Bvt. Maj. Gen.

47

Waterway Development
the bottom of the river. Each 

wicket was about 3.75 feet wide 

and 12 feet long. When the wickets

were raised, the water behind them

rose high enough to permit navigation. During high water, they could

be lowered to allow boats to pass

unimpeded. In this way, the delays

the coal shippers feared would be

avoided.

In 1874, Merrill proposed that a

series of movable dams, employing

Chanoine wickets, be constructed on

the Ohio. For the first step he recommended that a 110-by-600-foot lock

and movable dam be built at Davis

Island, five miles below Pittsburgh.

In 1877, Congress approved Merrill’s

plan. A year later the Corps began

construction of the Davis Island

Project, completing it in seven years.

The 110-by-600-foot lock was the

largest in the world, as was the

1,223-foot-long dam. The dam was

actually composed of 305 separate

Chanoine wickets and three weirs.

Impressed by the early success

of the Davis Island Project, in 1888

Congress authorized the extension of

the Six-foot Navigation Project down

the Ohio. By 1904, two locks and

dams had been completed, seven

were under construction, and five

more were funded. At this time,

before further work was done, Chief

of Engineers Alexander Mackenzie

decided to conduct another complete

review of the project. The basic

question was whether the project

should be extended down the Lower

Ohio River, particularly in view of

generally declining commerce on

inland waterways.

Pursuant to congressional

authorization, Mackenzie appointed

a board headed by Colonel Daniel W.

Lockwood. The Lockwood Board’s

review of the Ohio River Project led

to recommendations for a nine-foot

project for the entire course of the

Ohio. This conclusion rested on the

finding that the probable cost per

ton-mile for a six-foot project would

be nearly 50 percent greater than for

the nine-foot project. In the 1910

Rivers and Harbors Act, Congress

authorized the construction of a

nine-foot Ohio River canalization

project. The Corps of Engineers

completed the $125 million project

in 1929.

Meanwhile, the Corps had been

busy in other parts of the country

developing a reliable internal waterway system. One of the key projects,

going back to the mid-nineteenth

48

Contributing to National Development

Wicket dam at Lock and Dam 52

on the Ohio River, 1996

The Davis Island

Lock dedication,

October 7, 1885
century, was the Soo Locks at Sault

St. Marie, Michigan. These locks

were instrumental in securing a navigable route from the copper and iron

mines on the shores of Lake Superior

to the industrial plants of the East. 

In 1852, Congress agreed to help

private interests finance the cost of

building a canal at St. Mary’s Falls to

replace a structure on the Canadian

side that had been destroyed during

the War of 1812. Congress granted

750,000 acres of land to the state of

Michigan. Captain Augustus Canfield

of the Topographical Engineers was

assigned as chief engineer and superintendent of the project for the state

of Michigan. Captain Canfield’s

design for the canal conformed to 

the congressional stipulation that the

passage be not less than 100 feet

wide and 12 feet deep, with two locks

not less than 250 feet long and 60

feet wide.

Within two decades, burgeoning

traffic and larger vessels made the

original canal inadequate to serve

commercial needs, so Congress

authorized the deepening of the

St. Marys River Channel and the

construction of a new facility—the

Weitzel Lock. Corps work began on

July 11, 1870, with an appropriation

of $150,000. The original canal was

49

Excavating the Illinois and

Mississippi Canal, 1904

National Archives

Waterway Development

Mixing plant on the Illinois and

Mississippi Canal, 1900
widened, and the depth was increased

from 12 to 16 feet. The Corps constructed a lock 515 feet long by

80 feet wide with a lift of 17 feet.

At the time of its construction,

the Weitzel Lock was considered the

latest in lock technology. Its culvert

valves, of the butterfly type, were

operated by a single stroke hydraulic

engine directly connected to the

valves. Hydraulic turbines generated

the power that operated the lock

50

Contributing to National Development

Steamboats on the

St. Louis waterfront,

1909

National Archives

Dredging a cut-off to shorten the river at Jackson Point, Miss., 1940
gates. A movable dam was also introduced to shut off the flow of water

during maintenance operations.

The U.S. Army’s success in providing a passage to Lake Superior and

Canada’s commitment to canal building whetted the desires of shippers

and industrialists for a deep-water

route through the Great Lakes—

a dream eventually realized in the

twentieth century with the completion

of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

It was the turn of the century

when Congress responded to the

renewed interest in water transportation by authorizing navigation

projects designed to create an

integrated system connecting 

inland areas with coastal harbors.

Sandbars and rapids along the 

Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, and 

other major rivers posed significant

obstacles to the maintenance of 

year-round navigation channels.

Eventually, with the advancement 

of lock-and-dam technology and

more efficient dredging equipment, 

a nine-foot channel depth was

ensured in the Mississippi and its

major tributaries.

51

Waterway Development

Barge and articulated

concrete revetment along

the Arkansas River, 1940
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

navigation projects continue to play

an important role in support of

America’s economic well-being.

Commercial use of the twelve

thousand miles of inland and intracoastal waterways has increased:

approximately one-sixth of all intercity cargo is transported by water.

Waterborne commerce, recognized by

experts to be the least expensive and

least energy-consumptive means of

transportation, is the logical choice

for shippers of energy-producing

commodities. Petroleum and coal

together constitute more than half 

of all waterborne freight on the

federally maintained waterways.

This expansion of commercial

water transport has been facilitated by

the Corps’ work on major waterways,

including locks and dams. The Corps

dredges more than 300 million cubic

yards of material annually to maintain

authorized channel depths and constructs bank stabilization projects in

its traditional role as the primary

developer of the Nation’s waterways.

Also, as of 2005, engineer districts

and divisions owned 257 lock chambers at 212 sites, although only 240

chambers at 195 sites received funding and were operational. The oldest

operating locks are Locks 1 and 2,

which were built on the Kentucky

River in 1839. The Nation’s newest

lock, opened in July 2004, is Montgomery Point Lock located on the

White River in Arkansas. An efficient

system of interconnected waterways

not only provides vital commercial

links, it has proven to be a key factor

in America’s ability to mobilize in the

event of war.

52

Contributing to National Development

Completion of the dewatering of the

cofferdam at the Olmstead Locks

and Dam in Illinois, which took forty

days, August 8, 1995
53

Waterway Development

Launching the new dredge Essayons, 1982

John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Ky.
The “can-do” spirit of U.S. Army

engineers often manifests in

unexpected contributions to the

public well-being. Such devotion is

exhibited in an anecdote arising from

work on an early Corps navigation

project. In 1873, Captain Charles W.

Howell, District Engineer at New

Orleans, assigned his deputy, Lieutenant

Eugene A. Woodruff, to the Red River of

Louisiana as supervisor of the project to

clear the river of the “great log raft,” a

formidable obstruction to navigation.

In September of that year,

Lieutenant Woodruff left his workboats

and crew on the Red River to visit

Shreveport and recruit a survey party.

When he arrived in Shreveport, he

found the city in the grip of a yellow

fever epidemic. Fearing that he might

54

Lieutenant Eugene A. Woodruff: 

“A Model for All Similar Undertakings”

Contributing to National Development

The U.S. Steamer Aid battles Raft Number 5 on the Red River

U.S. Military Academy Library

Captain Charles W. Howell
carry the disease to his workmen if he

returned to camp, Woodruff elected 

to remain in Shreveport and tend to

the sick. Volunteering his services to

the Howard Association, a Louisiana

disaster relief charity, he traveled from

house to house in his carriage, delivering food, medicine, and good cheer to

the sick and dying. He contracted the

disease and died of it in Shreveport on

September 30.

Captain Howell effectively captured

this spirit in his eulogy to Woodruff: 

“He died because too brave to abandon his post even in the face of a

fearful pestilence and too humane to

let his fellow beings perish without giving all the aid in his power to save

them. His name should be cherished,

not only by his many personal friends,

but by the Army, as of one who lived

purely, labored faithfully, and died in the

path of duty.... His conduct of the

great work on which he was engaged

at the time of his death will be a model

for all similar undertakings and the

completion of the work a monument to

his memory.”

Captain Howell then assigned the

task of completing the work on the

Red River to Assistant Engineer

George Woodruff, the lieutenant’s

brother. On November 27, 1873, the

engineers broke through the raft, finally

clearing the Red River for navigation.

55

Waterway Development
Flood refugees flee to the levees

at Hickman, Ky., 1912.
Congress did not authorize a

comprehensive topographic

and hydrographic study of a

major river basin until 1850, when

floods along the Mississippi River

drew congressional attention to the

need for a practical plan for flood

control and navigation improvements

at the river’s mouth. The Secretary

of War, Charles M. Conrad, sent

Lieutenant Colonel Stephen H. Long

and Captain Andrew A. Humphreys,

two officers of the Corps of Topographical Engineers, to the

Mississippi Basin to conduct the

survey. Charles S. Ellet, Jr., one of

the best-known engineers of the day,

also applied to make the delta survey. Conrad suggested that Ellet

work with Long and Humphreys, 

but Ellet preferred to work independently. Under pressure from

some congressmen and after seeing

President Millard Fillmore, Conrad

relented, dividing the $50,000 congressional appropriation between the

U.S. Army’s survey and Ellet’s.

Before the U.S. Army survey 

was complete, Captain Humphreys

became quite ill and took an extended

leave of absence. Lieutenant Colonel

Long drafted a report based on

Humphreys’ notes, but he confined it

simply to an exposition of what had

been done without offering any specific recommendations. Therefore,

Ellet’s essay became the first comprehensive study of flood control on the

Mississippi. Both reports were sent to

Congress in January 1852. What distinguished Ellet’s submission was the

author’s insistence on both the practicability and value of building reservoirs on the Mississippi’s tributaries

to reduce flooding. That recommendation prompted Colonel John J.

Flood Control

57

Early levee construction

Bvt. Maj. Gen. Andrew Atkinson

Humphreys during the Civil War
Abert, Chief of the Corps of Topographical Engineers, to write, “While

I willingly admit that all the speculations of a man of intellect are full of

interest and deserving of careful

thought, yet I cannot agree with him

that these reservoirs would have any

good or preventive effects upon the

pernicious inundations of this river.”

Nine years later, Humphreys

elevated Abert’s comment to official

Corps policy. After a long convalescence and subsequent work on the

Pacific Railroad Surveys, Humphreys

took up his task once more in 1857,

this time with the assistance of

Lieutenant Henry L. Abbot. The

Flood victims on a Mississippi River levee at Arkansas City, Ark., 1927. Note flooding behind the levee

from the Arkansas River.

58

Contributing to National Development

The HumphreysAbbot Report (1861)

represented the most

thorough analysis of

the Mississippi River

ever completed and

decidedly influenced

the development of

river engineering in

America.
young lieutenant supervised a party

that took gauge readings, determined

discharges at various points, measured cross-sections, and reported on

the state of various river improvements. When possible, he compared

his data with that obtained by earlier

survey parties. “In a word,” Abbot

later wrote, “the finger was to be

firmly placed on the pulse of the

great river, and every symptom of its

annual paroxysm was to be noted.” It

was in the shadow of the Civil War

that Humphreys and Abbot finally

put their five hundred-page report

together. They submitted it to the

Chief of Topographical Engineers in

August 1861, a few months after the

firing on Fort Sumter. Humphreys

was technically the report’s author,

but he insisted on listing Abbot as

coauthor in recognition of his diligence and skill.

Humphreys’s and Abbot’s Report

Upon the Physics and Hydraulics of

the Mississippi River not only contained much new data about the

Mississippi, it also analyzed other

alluvial rivers around the world. The

authors introduced entirely new formulations to explain river flow and

sediment resistance and concluded

that Ellet’s calculations and assumptions were erroneous. Their own position, based on significantly more

information, was that “levees only”

59

Flood Control

Shoring up a levee near Memphis,

Tenn., 1927
could prevent flooding on the

Mississippi. Neither reservoirs nor

cut-offs were needed. Already a member of the American Philosophical

Society, Humphreys received numerous honors for his work on hydraulics.

He was made an honorary member of

the Imperial Royal Geological Institute of Vienna in 1862 and the following year a corporator of the National

Academy of Sciences and a fellow of

the American Academy of Arts and

Sciences. In 1864 he was elected an

honorary member of the Royal

Institute of Science and Arts of

Lombardy, and in 1868, Harvard

College conferred upon him the

degree of Doctor of Laws.

In considering navigation and

flood control as interrelated problems, Humphreys, Abbot, Ellet, and

other engineers in the United States

and many in Europe were ahead of

their time. By 1879, growing pressures for navigation improvements

and flood control prompted Congress

to establish the Mississippi River

Commission, a seven-member organization responsible for executing a

comprehensive plan for flood control

and navigation works on the Lower

Mississippi. This permanent body of

experts included three members from

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

one from the Coast and Geodetic

Survey, and three civilians, two of

whom had to be civil engineers. The

creation of this river basin authority

marked the federal government’s

growing commitment to the development of a reliable inland waterway

system. Initially, Congress authorized

the commission to build and repair

levees only if the work was part of a

general navigation improvement plan.

Monumental floods in 1912 and 1913,

however, drew national attention to

the need for federal flood relief legislation. Finally in 1917, Congress

passed the first Flood Control Act.

This legislation appropriated $45

million for flood control on the 

Lower Mississippi and $5.6 million

for work on the Sacramento River.

Flood at Greenville,

Miss., 1927

High water at Pine Bluff,

Ark., 1927

60

Contributing to National Development
The 1861 report of Humphreys

and Abbot enormously influenced

river engineering in the United States.

Until 1927, when a catastrophic flood

hit the Lower Mississippi, the Corps’

position was that “levees only” could

control flooding on the river. The

Corps was not unalterably opposed to

reservoirs, however. Several were

built on the Upper Mississippi, but

principally to aid navigation.

Advocates of reservoir construction also received support in 1897

from Captain Hiram S. Chittenden of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Chittenden’s essay, Preliminary

Examination of Reservoir Sites in

Wyoming and Colorado, submitted in

response to a congressional directive, was a comprehensive and lucid

presentation of engineering, physiographic, and economic data. In it

Chittenden declared that reservoir

construction in the arid regions of

the West was “an indispensable condition to the highest development of

that section.” He also warned, “The

function of reservoirs will always be

primarily the promotion of industrial

ends; secondarily only, a possible

amelioration of flood conditions in

the rivers.” So far as the Mississippi

was concerned, “the difficulty was

not so much a physical as a financial

61

Flood Control

Floodwall at Cairo, Ill., 1936

Capt. Hiram M. Chittenden
one.” He identified a few potential

reservoir sites in the Mississippi

Basin but thought that flood control

alone would never justify construction. He also examined the various

methods of constructing reservoirs,

noting that the arched dam, first

constructed in France in the 1860s,

showed promise for use in the West.

Finally, Chittenden boldly proposed

that public agencies, mainly federal,

be charged with the responsibility for

reservoir development.

With the passage of the second

major Flood Control Act in 1928, the

federal government became firmly

committed to flood control on the

Mississippi. This act resulted from

public response to the flooding the

year before, which had taken between

250 and 500 lives in the Lower

Mississippi Basin, had flooded more

A willow mattress for bank protection along the Arkansas River, 1938

62

Contributing to National Development
than sixteen million acres, and had

left more than half a million people

requiring temporary shelter. Two

reports were submitted to Congress

recommending ways to prevent future

disasters of this magnitude, one by

the Mississippi River Commission

and the other by the Chief of Engineers, Major General Edgar Jadwin.

Principally because Major

General Jadwin promised equal protection for less than half the money,

Congress accepted his plan. This

time, there was no dispute about

levees. The 1927 flood demonstrated

the bankruptcy of the “levees only”

policy. In addition to levees, Jadwin

proposed a mix of floodways and

spillways, including the much

discussed Bonnet Carré Spillway

connecting the Mississippi with 

Lake Pontchartrain. Also included 

in the plan was the controversial

idea of sending about half of the

Mississippi’s flood waters down the

Atchafalaya River into the Gulf of

Floodwater over Bonnet Carré Spillway

63

Flood Control

Wappapello Dam on the St. Francis River, Mo., 1941. Wappapello is a vital component of the flood control system for the Lower

Mississippi River.
Mexico. This was an idea that

Humphreys and Abbot had deemed

“virtually impracticable,” but the

Atchafalaya had greatly enlarged over

the years so that most engineers now

considered the proposal workable. 

On the other hand, Major General

Jadwin stood firmly in the tradition of

his predecessor in opposing reservoirs. He had established a special

Reservoir Board of engineer officers

to examine the subject, and the board

had concluded that Jadwin’s plan was

“far cheaper than any method the

board has been able to devise for

accomplishing the same result by any

combination of reservoirs.”

Nevertheless, the idea of locating

reservoirs on the Lower Mississippi

was far from dead. In fact, the Corps’

own work stimulated interest in the

subject. In 1927, Congress authorized the Corps to survey the country’s

navigable streams to formulate plans

Soldiers sandbagging a levee during the Mississippi River Flood, 1944

64

Contributing to National Development
for the improvement of navigation,

water power, flood control, and irrigation. The surveys came to be called

“308 Reports,” named after Congressional Document 308, in which the

Corps and the Federal Power Commission had jointly presented to

Congress the estimated cost for the

surveys. Soon after funds were appropriated, Corps district offices around

the country proceeded with the work.

Having dispensed with the main stem

of the Mississippi in the Jadwin plan,

district engineers along the Lower

Mississippi directed their attention to

the major tributaries. Not surprisingly,

engineers concluded that construction

of reservoirs along such streams as

the Yazoo and St. Francis, while contributing to local flood control, would

not be cost effective. This position

proved politically unpopular in the

midst of growing unemployment

resulting from the Great Depression.

Public works projects, once considered uneconomical, began looking

very attractive as a means of employment. Moreover, many politicians felt

that flood control was essential to

protect human life, no matter what

the economists said. Mainly reacting

to this political interest, the Corps

reversed its position on a number of

flood control projects. Revised

reports concluded that the necessity

for “public-work relief” and the

suffering caused by recurring floods

provided grounds for construction.

65

Flood Control

A flood control levee just below Medora Crossing on the Mississippi River

at Mile 210

Construction of the Conchas Dam in northeast N.M., 1939
The 1936 Flood Control Act

recognized that flood control was 

“a proper activity of the Federal

Government in cooperation with

States, their political subdivisions,

and localities thereof.” Congress

gave responsibility for federal flood

control projects to the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, while projects

dealing with watershed run-off and

soil erosion were assigned to the

Department of Agriculture. This law

made the Corps responsible for flood

control throughout the Nation, working in cooperation with the Bureau of

Reclamation. In the years following

passage of this law, the Corps built,

pursuant to congressional authorization and appropriation, close to four

hundred reservoirs whose primary

benefit was flood control; however,

flood control alone could never have

justified the construction of these

reservoirs. In the age of multipurpose

projects, possible navigation, water

storage, irrigation, power, and

recreation benefits were considered

before a final economic benefit

figure was determined.

Since the 1970s, in an era

increasingly sensitive to environmental protection and to the limitations

of traditional structural answers to

flood-damage reduction, the Corps

has designed and implemented

hundreds of nonstructural projects to

provide some level of flood protection. Nonstructural measures reduce

or avoid flood damages without

significantly altering the nature or

extent of flooding. They may be

considered separately or in combination with structural measures. Nonstructural methods include moving

communities away from a flood’s

destructive path, raising and flood

proofing buildings, acquiring vulnerable structures, preserving wetlands,

buying out floodplains, and establishing a flood warning system.

66

Contributing to National Development

Corps personnel laying

down sandbags 

Navarro Mills Lake and Dam in

Texas. Completed in 1963, the dam

provided flood control and water

conservation and later served an

important recreational function.
The Fourth Engineer District at

New Orleans received word in

early 1897 that a major flood

was southbound on the Mississippi.

Major George M. Derby, District Engineer, and civilian assistant W. J.

Hardee prepared to defend the levees

along more than 450 miles of river in

the Fourth District. As had become

customary by 1897, they stationed

barges and quarterboats loaded with

tools, sandbags, and lumber at roughly

15-mile intervals along the river with

towboats assigned to each 60-mile

section.

During previous flood emergencies,

Fourth District personnel had encountered great difficulty maintaining regular

patrols of the levee system and coordinating the work of five other involved

parties: individual planters, railroads,

parish governments, levee districts, 

and state government. Backwater 

and washouts had closed roads and

railroads; there were no motorized vehicles available then, and the towboats

moved too slowly and usually too far

from the levees for proper inspection.

To improve coordination and

inspection, Hardee equipped field

personnel with bicycles. During the

subsequent flood fight, the inspectors

kept constantly on the move atop the

levee crowns on their new transportation equipment. Hardee personally

covered as much as thirty miles of

levee a day on his bike, including

stops for observation (and presumably

to catch his breath).

67

Flood Control

The Bicycle Flood Fight, 1897
Installation of large turbine at Wilson Dam

on the Tennessee River near Florence, Ala.

The dam was the largest in the world upon

completion in 1925.
Since the turn of the

twentieth century, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers

has moved from a position opposing

involvement in hydroelectric power to

one of total endorsement. By 1900,

Congress had already initiated

partial federal control over dam

building. The Corps participated in

the regulatory process but conceived

its role narrowly.

In January 1905, Brigadier

General Alexander Mackenzie, the

Chief of Engineers, summed up the

Corps’ traditional views on the federal

government’s limited role in improving American waterways. Congress,

he said, could legally “exercise

control over the navigable waters 

of the United States ... only to the

extent necessary to protect, preserve,

and improve free navigation.”

Mackenzie further maintained that

nothing should be permitted to interfere with the central purpose of locks

and dams—to facilitate navigation

and commerce. All other interests

were clearly secondary. These views

fit the prevailing judicial interpretation of federal powers under the

Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

During the years following 

Brigadier General Mackenzie’s pronouncements, attitudes gradually

changed. The engineers became convinced that the escalation in private

dam building, largely for hydropower

purposes, threatened to jeopardize

their prerogatives in navigation work,

and they guarded those prerogatives

jealously. While the federal government redefined its part in water

resources development, the Corps

staked out its own territory. As an

auxiliary to navigation and later to

flood control, hydropower benefited

from more liberal interpretations of

federal authority. Cautiously, with

frequent hesitation and some inconsistency, the engineers embraced 

the new philosophy. What began as 

a regulatory role in hydropower

expanded to include much more. By

mid-century, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers emerged as the largest

constructor and operator of federal

power facilities.

The change in the engineers’

role was dramatic by the end of the

1920s. By that time, they were heavily involved in surveying rivers for

flood control, power, and irrigation,

Hydropower Development

Brig. Gen. Alexander Mackenzie

69
70

Contributing to National Development

Chief Joseph Dam

under construction,

Wash., 1955

Contemporary view of

Chief Joseph Dam along

the Upper Columbia Basin
as well as for navigation. Public

power at multipurpose projects took

hold during the New Deal and proliferated after World War II. In the

mid-1950s, the Corps had more than

twenty multipurpose projects under

construction. By 1975, the energy

produced by Corps hydroelectric

facilities was 27 percent of the total

hydroelectric power production in

the United States and 4.4 percent of

the electrical energy output from all

sources. By the late 1980s, the Corps

was operating and maintaining

approximately seventy-five projects

with hydropower facilities, and the

total capacity at Corps dams was

more than 20,000 megawatts.

71

Hydropower Development

California’s Folsom Dam in 1956, the year its construction was completed

Powerhouses, surge tanks, and switchyard at the Fort Peck Dam along the

Missouri River, Mont.
The largest hydropower dams

built by the Corps are on the

Columbia and Snake Rivers in 

the Pacific Northwest. The biggest 

of these is the John Day on the

Columbia River, which has a

generating capacity of nearly 2,200

megawatts. Although by 2005 the

Corps’ overall percentage of

hydropower capacity had slipped to

24 percent of national hydropower

capacity and 3 percent of the total

electrical supply, the contribution to

the Nation has remained substantial.

In 1951, the Chief of Engineers

referred to the development of

hydropower as “one of the most

important aspects of water resource

development.” Further, he argued,

“proper provisions for hydroelectric

power development are an essential

part of comprehensive planning for

conservation and use of our river

basins for the greatest public good.”

Two decades later, the Office of the

Chief of Engineers reaffirmed and

strengthened its commitment, stating

that “generation of hydroelectric

power to serve the growing needs of

the American people is a task the

Corps welcomes.” The Corps’ turnabout and its expanding mission in

hydroelectric power development

were a significant part of the organization’s history during the latter

twentieth century. Today, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers continues

to operate, maintain, and occasionally

add capacity at existing hydroelectric plants.

72

Contributing to National Development

(top to bottom) 

Generators at Bonneville Dam, Ore.

Bonneville Lock and Dam on the

Columbia River

Fort Peck Spillway, Mont.

Powerhouse construction, Richard B. Russell Dam on the

Savannah River, Ga., 1982
73

Hydropower Development
On January 15, 1907, Major

William Sibert, Pittsburgh

District Engineer, learned the

depressing news that heavy flooding

was undermining the abutment of

Allegheny River Dam 3. If the dam

continued to hold, which seemed

likely, the flooding would gradually

undermine the bank, thereby threatening a railroad track and a million-dollar

glass factory. Already nine homes,

various outbuildings, and 5.3 acres of

land had caved into the river.

After a long and undoubtedly

agonizing discussion with his staff,

Major Sibert made his decision: the

dam would have to go. To allow the

water to continue around the dam was

to invite further catastrophe.

The next morning blasting began.

Five-hundred-pound dynamite charges

were placed along the dam crest.

Dynamiting continued until a 560-foot

section at midstream had been

removed. Then stones were placed

along the bank to protect the glass

factory and the railroad.

On January 30, the New York Sun

printed an editorial that attacked the

lack of progress on waterway projects;

however, the editors noted, “no charge

of dilatoriness can be brought against

the officer who a few weeks ago saved

a million dollars worth of property by

assuming the responsibility of blowing

up $80,000 worth of dam.” Major

Sibert became perhaps the only Corps

officer ever commended by the Chief

of Engineers for blowing up a government dam. His courage, imagination,

and ability to bend to circumstances

set high standards for his successors

at the Pittsburgh District Office.

74

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Dam Destroyers?

Contributing to National Development

Lt. Col. William L. Sibert

(above) View of eroded bank below abutment, Allegheny River, Dam 3, Jan. 1907

(below) View of broken dam, Allegheny River, Dam 3, Jan. 1907

(both images) Library and Archives Division, Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Penn.
As explorers and mapmakers

for the pioneers, the engineers were among the first

to recognize the need for protection

of natural resources. As early as the

1840s, when the vast herds of buffalo

seemed limitless to most travelers,

engineer officers warned of their

impending destruction. In one

observation, Captain Howard

Stansbury noted their shrinking

ranges and warned that the buffalo

“seem destined to final extirpation

at the hands of men.” While it is

unfortunate that such admonitions

very nearly came to pass, it is illustrative that at one point in time, one

of the few surviving buffalo herds

was protected at a U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers project.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was also influential in the

creation and development of the first

national park at Yellowstone in 1874,

and the Corps operated and protected

that park for many years. In the

1870s, Captain William Ludlow 

and an engineer survey party at

Yellowstone confronted tourists,

harbingers of the future, carving

their initials, scattering their rubbish,

and breaking off pieces of rock formations. Alarmed, Captain Ludlow

pleaded with the visitors to respect

nature’s work. He stopped one woman,

poised with a shovel over a mound

formed over thousands of years by a

bubbling spring’s mineral deposits,

in time to prevent her smashing the

formation. In his report, Captain

Ludlow proposed several ways to

protect the new park. Congress

authorized his recommendations,

including military patrols and

assignment of road construction to

Army engineers, in 1883.

For thirty-five years, from 1883

to 1918, when the newly created

National Park Service took over

Yellowstone, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers built and maintained the

park’s roads and bridges, including

279 miles of main roads, 25 miles 

of secondary roads, and 106 miles 

of approach roads in the forest

reserves. Partly thanks to Captain

Ludlow, who had provided the

blueprint for saving the park, and

Lieutenant Dan C. Kingman and

Captain Hiram M. Chittenden, who

designed and oversaw construction 

of a road system that has left a

The Environmental Challenge

75

Brig. Gen. William Ludlow
lasting imprint, Yellowstone became

one of the crown jewels of America’s

scenic wonders.

To prevent the obstruction of

navigable waterways, Congress in the

1870s directed the Corps to regulate

the construction of specific bridges.

The job was expanded during the

1880s and 1890s to prevent dumping

and filling in the Nation’s harbors, a

program that was vigorously enforced

by the engineers. At the Port of

Pittsburgh in 1892, for instance, the

Corps took a grand jury on a boat

tour of the harbor and later obtained

some fifty indictments against firms

dumping debris into the harbor.

When the engineers learned that

firms were piling debris on the

stream banks during the day and

pushing it into the harbor at night,

they began night patrols in fast boats

with searchlights.

In 1893, a citizen of an Ohio

River city complained to the Corps

that the city was dumping into the

river “household garbage, refuse of

wholesale commission and slaughter

houses, wagon loads of decaying

melons, fruit and vegetables and car76

Contributing to National Development

Thomas Moran (1837–1926),

Golden Gate, Yellowstone

National Park, 1893, oil on

canvas. The artist participated 

in the Hayden geological survey

of Yellowstone in 1871 and

returned to the region in 1892 to

paint a view of the pass named

“Golden Gate.” In addition to

capturing the inspired beauty of

the region, Moran also depicted

a precipitous section of the

“Grand Loops,” a system of

scenic roads built under the

supervision of Lt. Dan C.

Kingman, an officer in the Army

Corps of Engineers. 

Buffalo Bill Historical Center, 

Cody, Wy. 
casses of animals.” The city officials

replied that the complaint was exaggerated—very few dead animals

were dumped into the river—and

refused to stop the practice because

the city then would have to build

incinerators to dispose of the refuse.

The Corps managed to stop the

dumping anyway, forced the city to

build an incinerator, and prosecuted

the offenders, arguing that the

garbage formed piles sufficient to

obstruct navigation.

In the Rivers and Harbors Act

of 1899, Congress gave the Corps

authority to regulate almost all types

of obstructions to navigation. The

engineers were disappointed that they

were not also given authority to deal

with polluters, for many of the Corps

personnel lived on the waterways

and water quality was an immediate

personal concern.

The Corps used the Rivers and

Harbors Act of 1899 to the fullest

extent legally possible to protect 

the environment of navigable waterways. In one extreme instance, the

Corps managed to stop a firm from

discharging a liquid effluent into a

waterway by contending in court 

77

The Environmental Challenge

Lake Lanier metal basket erosion

control, Buford, Ga.

Great Salt Plains Lake, Okla., 1964.

Located east of the Salt Fork of the

Arkansas River, the lake is the oldest

in the Tulsa District.
that the discharge obstructed navigation because it entered steamboat

boilers and corroded them. The Oil

Pollution Act of 1924 gave the 

Corps responsibility for protecting

the Nation’s harbors from offensive

and dangerous oil discharges; however, the Corps could not adequately

control the problem because of lack

of regulatory power and insufficient

manpower, and Corps officers periodically urged Congress to grant

the agency adequate authority and

resources.

The Corps’ regulatory authority

was expanded by the Clean Water

Act (Federal Water Pollution Control

Act) of 1972 to include all waters of

the United States. The Corps began

to regulate discharges of dredged or

fill materials into any waters of the

United States, and the permit program that resulted gave environmental protection the fullest consideration. This new work was well

received even among strong environmentalists. One member of the

National Resources Defense Council

commended the Corps for the “will

with which it is turning to carrying

out the responsibilities Congress

gave it in Section 404 for protecting

the water quality on which the health

and economic well-being of every

American depends.”

In 1990, under Public Law 101–

640, Congress officially directed the

Secretary of the Army to include

environmental protection as one of

the Corps’ primary missions. Four

years earlier, in the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986, Congress

had authorized the Corps to review

the operation of completed water

resources projects to determine the

need for modifications to improve

environmental quality. Subsequently,

in 1992 and 1996, the Corps

received additional authorization to

protect, restore, and create aquatic

and ecologically related habitats,

including wetlands. In the twentyfirst century, the Corps actively promotes and is directly involved in

ecosystem restoration throughout

78

Contributing to National Development

Davis Pond Freshwater Diversion

Project: lower guide levee at

Lake Salvadore at Mile 150 on

the Mississippi River, La., 1998
the country, focusing on water and

related land resource problems.

Along with protective measures

for the environment, the Corps

pursues an active program for the

preservation of cultural resources on

its own land and at authorized project sites. The authorizing legislation,

Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, stipulates

that up to 1 percent of the funds for

a project can be expended for cultural resource surveys, for artifact and

data recovery, and for mitigation

efforts. The Corps’ cultural resource

preservation efforts have generated

substantial results. For example, the

Corps relocated a navigation lock on

the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway

to avoid destroying an Indian burial

ground; and in Pennsylvania, the

Corps successfully preserved a

unique nineteenth-century wagon

works by moving it from the project

area. To avoid accidental destruction

of archeological sites, the Corps is

searching for the homes of ancient

tribes, especially along proposed

dredge disposal sites.

The Corps’ responsibility for

improving and maintaining navigation on the Nation’s waterways

requires dredging if channels are to

remain open. In 1969, the dredging

79

The Environmental Challenge

Kotzebue, a hub village in

northwestern Alaska, was

included in an environmental

infrastructure assistance initiative

that recommended an upgrade

to its freshwater system.

Restored Gruber Wagon

Works, Berks County, Pa.
program was attacked as environmentally unsound. “All of a sudden,

dredging became a four-letter word,”

reminisced Lieutenant General John

Morris of the Corps. “Now this came

as rather a surprise to us,” he continued, “since dredging has been a

daily activity within the Corps for

150 years and nobody paid much

attention to it.”

In 1970, the Corps began the

Dredged Material Research Program

to identify dredging and dredged

material disposal systems that would

be compatible with the new environmental protection mission. Completed in 1978, the Dredged Material

Research Program reversed some

traditional thinking about the effects

of dredging. It indicated that dredging need not have adverse impacts

on aquatic life and that dredged

materials can create new wetlands

and wildlife management areas. The

research identified improved methods

for constructing diked disposal areas

and for using physical, chemical,

and biological agents in the dredging

process. It demonstrated that

dredged fill can be used to reclaim

strip-mined lands and other environmentally damaged areas.

Streambank erosion can cause

major detrimental impacts on the

environment and human welfare. 

It results in sediment deposits in

reservoirs and waterways; it impairs

navigation, flood control, and water

supply project effectiveness; and it

blights valuable recreation areas and

streambank lands. Since 1969, the

Corps has conducted intensive

studies of streambank erosion, with

demonstration control projects along

the Missouri, Ohio, and Yazoo rivers,

and has identified its causes and

80

Contributing to National Development

Point Mouillee confined disposal facility, Mich.

Gaillard Island in Mobile Bay, Ala.,

where a man-made dredge disposal

site is home to 16,000 shore and

seabirds, including the Brown

Pelican.
some potential new techniques for 

its control.

Since 1969, the Corps’ Coastal

Engineering Research Program has

devised some innovative approaches

to the problems of beach erosion,

coastal storm damage, and navigation along the coastline. Analysis of

wave patterns has led to rational

design of rubble mound structures

for the protection of threatened

beaches and coastline. Research has

identified possible uses for beach

and marsh grasses in controlling

coastal erosion and has established

some basic relationships governing

the size and shape of coastal inlets

and harbor entrances.

Fish and wildlife conservation

has been a concern of the Corps

since Captain Stansbury warned that

the buffalo were disappearing. The

engineers built the first federal fish

hatchery in 1879–1880 and have

included such features as fish ladders

in project planning for many years.

Corps projects are designed to minimize damage to fish and wildlife

resources, and even enhance wildlife

resources through effective wildlife

management. Approximately 2.5 million acres of land are primarily used

for fish and wildlife purposes;

one-fifth of this land is managed by

other federal and state agencies in

cooperation with the Corps.

81

The Environmental Challenge

“Tanks to Reef” Project in Mobile District: The Corps used surplus tanks to help create a 1,000-squaremile artificial reef zone near Mobile, Ala., 1994.
The intense interest of the Corps

in fish and wildlife management

derives in part from the program’s

value to the recreational functions 

at 456 Corps water resource projects

covering an aggregate of more than

11.5 million acres. Nearly 400 million visitors annually enjoy fishing,

Fish ladder on Little Goose Dam, Wash.

82

Contributing to National Development

Fish viewing window at Lake Washington Ship Canal, Wash., 1990
hunting, swimming, and other

water-related sports at Corps

recreation areas.

Through its floodplain management program begun in 1960, the

Corps provides technical services and

planning guidance for many local

agencies and groups to encourage

prudent use of floodplains. At the

request of state or local agencies,

the Corps identifies flood hazard

potentials, establishes standard

project floods (the flow that can be

expected under conditions of maximal severity), devises flood frequency

curves, and maps the floodplains.

The resulting information is used by

the local agencies to regulate floodplain development—even to the

extent of evacuating flood-prone areas

and converting them to recreation

parks or fish and wildlife habitats.

83

The Environmental Challenge

Aerial view of Mallard Island, Minn., in the Mississippi River, part of the Weaver

Bottoms Habitat Restoration Project
Long before the construction of

the famous fish ladders at

Bonneville Dam, a U.S. Army

engineer warned that the Columbia

River salmon required protection.

Major William A. Jones, an experienced

engineer and explorer who discovered

Togwotee Pass through the Wind River

Mountains, observed over time the

impediments faced by salmon in their

efforts to spawn.

While serving as Portland District

Engineer, Major Jones wrote his

Report on the Salmon Fisheries of the

Columbia River, published in 1888.

Stunned at the maze of nets, traps,

and fish wheels that clogged the

Columbia near places like Astoria, 

he concluded that it was “a sort of

miracle that any fish escape to go up

the river.”

Jones proposed means for mitigating the threat to the fisheries. Along

with continuing the practice of closing

the river to fishing at regular intervals,

he recommended an increase in the

number of hatcheries and uniformity

between the fish laws of Oregon 

and Washington.

Major Jones had recognized the

threat to the survival of the salmon

fisheries many years before the 

general public would become aware of

the problem. His suggestions were

later adopted, but long after he first

proposed them.

84

Saving the Salmon

Contributing to National Development

Fish ladder and the Visitors Center at Bonneville Dam, Ore.

Coho fingerlings at Bonneville Dam
U.S. Army engineers contributed to both the planning and construction of 

the nation’s capital. From early

bridges to the modern subway system, Corps officers and civilians

helped plan and construct Washington’s transportation system, city

monuments, and public buildings.

Parks, water supply and sewage systems, flood control structures, and

public health measures in the city

were or still are the engineers’

responsibility. U.S. Army engineers

served as administrators as well 

as construction experts. Their influence and responsibilities declined

only as civilian agencies assumed

control of certain activities and

home-rule movements lessened

Work in the District of Columbia

85

Andrew Ellicott’s drawing of

L’Enfant’s plan of Washington,

D.C., 1792

National Archives
federal responsibility for public

works in Washington. 

In 1791, former Continental

Army engineer Pierre Charles

L’Enfant designed the master plan

for the new capital. Other Army

engineers designed and built fortifications for the city. During the War

of 1812, the British army destroyed

some of those defenses as well as the

partially built Capitol Building;

Chief Engineer Joseph G. Swift

helped rebuild the Capitol. In 1822,

Major Isaac Roberdeau, a topographical engineer, supervised the installation of cast-iron pipes to bring

spring water to the White House 

and the executive offices around it.

In the 1850s, Congress funded the

construction of a permanent water

supply for the cities of Washington

and Georgetown. Eventually placed

86

Contributing to National Development

Arch of the Cabin John

Bridge under construction,

August 12, 1861

U.S. Capitol

dome under

construction,

December 31,

1857
under the supervision of engineer

Lieutenant Montgomery C. Meigs,

the project evolved into what is today

the Washington Aqueduct Division 

of the U.S. Army Engineer District,

Baltimore. Lieutenant Meigs’s plans

included construction of two bridges

to carry traffic as well as water

pipes—one over Cabin John Creek

and one over Rock Creek. Both

bridges were engineering feats of

their time, and the Cabin John Bridge

remains in use. For forty years, the

Cabin John Bridge (begun in 1857

and completed in 1864) held the

record for having the longest masonry

arch in the world. 

Lieutenant Meigs and other

engineer officers also reconstructed

the U.S. Capitol, fireproofed the

Smithsonian Institution, and rebuilt

or repaired bridges and streets

throughout the city. Using new techniques, Meigs provided the first

adequate heating and ventilation

system for the home of Congress.

As construction of the two new wings

of the Capitol progressed, the old

dome began to look disproportionately small; a new Capitol dome was

designed, consisting of cast and

wrought iron and weighing almost

4,500 tons. Work on the dome continued during the Civil War. 

After the Civil War, Corps officers and civilians designed and built

many of the monuments and public

buildings that decorate Washington

today. At the request of the Senate,

Major Nathaniel Michler surveyed

sites for a new park and a new

location for the White House. His

praise drew attention to Rock Creek

Valley. Later, the Chief of Engineers,

Brigadier General Thomas L. Casey,

and other officers worked for and

supervised the development of that

large, urban park. 

Congress continued to institutionalize the Corps’ role in the District of

Columbia. In 1867, the legislators

removed control of many public

buildings from civilian hands and

gave it to what became the Office of

Public Buildings and Grounds under

the Chief of Engineers. In 1878,

Congress replaced Washington’s

elected government with a three-man

commission. A U.S. Army engineer,

holding the title of Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia,

served on that governing board with

responsibility for the city’s urban

infrastructure. 

Meanwhile, other engineer work

in Washington grew to such an extent

that in 1874, the Chief of Engineers,

Brigadier General Andrew A.

Humphreys, established the United

States Engineer Officer, Washington,

under the civilian engineer, Sylvanus

T. Abert, to carry out navigation

improvements on the Potomac River

and its tributaries. 

Two years later, Congress asked

the Corps to complete the Wash87

Work in the District of Columbia
ington Monument, left partially built

by its bankrupt sponsors. Then

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Casey

and his assistant, Bernard Green,

corrected major problems with its

foundation, redesigned it, and supervised its completion. The construction culminated in December 1884

with placing on its tip a pyramid of

100 ounces of aluminum, the largest

piece of the new metal yet cast in the

Western Hemisphere. Casey and

Green went on to help design and

supervise the construction of the

State, War and Navy Building next 

to the White House. It is now the

Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

The two men also helped design and

construct the Library of Congress. 

In 1883, Brigadier General

Meigs came out of retirement to

build the Pension Building.

Designed to house the offices providing pensions to war veterans, the

building is so attractive that it is

sometimes used for inaugural activities and is the new home of the

National Building Museum.

Between the 1880s and the

1920s, Corps dredge-and-fill operations not only protected Washington

from Potomac and Anacostia river

floods, but also created waterfront

park land. Potomac Park, the

Washington Channel with its adjacent

recreation areas, and the land for the

Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials are

all products of this river improvement

and reclamation work. The attractive

tidal basin in front of the Jefferson

Memorial that automatically changes

the water in the Washington Channel

with the tidal flow is another product

of this work. 

Meanwhile, Lieutenant Colonel

William W. Harts of the Office of

88

Contributing to National Development

“572 feet high—Setting the 

Cap-Stone on the Washington

Monument—From a sketch on 

the spot by S. H. Nealy.” Harper’s

Weekly, December 20, 1884. 

Col. Thomas Lincoln Casey is 

to the right of the capstone and

Bernard R. Green, his chief civilian

assistant, far left.
Buildings and Grounds accelerated

the development of Rock Creek Park

into a major resource for urban

recreation and beauty. Lieutenant

Colonel Harts also oversaw the construction of three other important

memorials. In 1913, he directed the

start of work on the new headquarters of the American Red Cross. The

following year, he initiated construc89

Work in the District of Columbia

State, War and Navy Building under construction, 1886. Army engineers completed most of the building that is now known as

the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

National Archives

Library of Congress under

construction, November 8, 1892

Library of Congress
tion on both the Lincoln Memorial

and the Arlington Memorial

Amphitheater and Chapel. 

The Corps also built or supervised the construction of practical

and attractive buildings to house the

Government Printing Office and the

Army War College at Fort McNair. 

In addition, Army engineers managed the construction of numerous

bridges including the Arlington

Memorial Bridge and the Francis

Scott Key Bridge.

The George Washington

Memorial Parkway, the Pentagon,

and Ronald Reagan Washington

National Airport began as pre-World

War II construction projects of the

Corps of Engineers. After World War

II, the Corps was involved in the

90

Contributing to National Development

Hoisting a twenty-ton lintel

at the Army War College

building at Washington

Barracks (later Fort McNair)

March 7, 1906

National Defense University

Lincoln Memorial

under construction,

July 1916

National Archives
complete gutting and rebuilding of

the inside of the White House,

expanding the water supply for the

District of Columbia, and planning

for housing and transportation. 

U. S. Grant III, grandson of the

president, and other officers served

on the planning boards that oversaw

growth in the Washington metropolitan area. Gradually, civilian agencies, such as the National Park

Service and the home rule municipal

government of D.C., began to assume

responsibility for developing the

memorial buildings, streets, sewage

systems, and parks that the Corps

had once handled.

However, the Washington

Aqueduct remains a special responsibility of the U.S. Army Engineer

District, Baltimore, and the district

continues to carry out civil works

and military projects in the National

Capital area.

91

Work in the District of Columbia

Red Cross Building built as a

memorial to women in the Civil War,

under construction, 1916
92

Contributing to National Development

The Washington Engineer District

built the reinforced concrete Francis

Scott Key Bridge over the Potomac

River from 1917 to 1923. Just above

the arches of the Key Bridge still

under construction, the old

Aqueduct Bridge, completed in

1843 and rebuilt in the 1880s by

Army engineers, was dismantled

after the new bridge opened.

Georgetown and Georgetown

University are shown on the right.

National Archives

The Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds built Arlington Memorial

Bridge linking the Lincoln Memorial

to Arlington National Cemetery and

Custis-Lee Mansion between 1925

and 1932.

Library of Congress
93

Work in the District of Columbia

The Corps of Engineers managed construction of the Pentagon, designed to consolidate most of the War and Navy departments’

offices in Washington, and completed it in a remarkable sixteen months between September 1941 and January 1943.

A retired engineer officer managed the reconstruction of the White House from 1948 to1952

during which time the building was stripped to its bare walls. In May 1950 this bulldozer was

digging more basement space for the many offices and other facilities added to the building.

National Park Service
94

Contributing to National Development

National Airport under construction, July 1, 1940

The Baltimore Engineer District carried on the tradition of Corps of Engineers’ work in the national capital area with a wide variety

of military construction and civil works projects. One example is construction of the Korean War Veterans Memorial near the

Lincoln Memorial (barely visible in the background). The Korean War Veterans Memorial is shown here nearing completion in 

April 1995.
95

Work in the District of Columbia

One of the most beautiful

areas in the Nation’s Capital

is Rock Creek Valley, which

runs from north to south through the

entire District of Columbia. In 1867,

Major Nathaniel Michler, the first U.S.

Army engineer to head the federal

government’s Office of Public Buildings

and Grounds, proposed the valley as

a new site for the White House.

The suggestion touched off great

interest in the valley. Praising the

region’s “primeval forest and cultivated

fields, its rocks clothed with rich ferns

and mosses, its repose and tranquility,

its light and shade,” he saw it as a

potential refuge for the president from

the malarial river front and an unsightly

marsh known as the Potomac Flats.

Although the White House was

not relocated to Rock Creek Valley,

development of the area into what

became Rock Creek Park began under

one of Major Michler’s successors,

Colonel Theodore A. Bingham.

Bingham believed that the park would

provide fresh air and places of recreation for crowded city dwellers and

serve as an “emerald setting for the

beautiful city.” Other engineers shared

his vision, and Frederick Law Olmsted,

Jr., was hired to create the basic plan

of the park and construct the parkways that would link the green areas

together. Captain Lansing H. Beach

would lend his name to the road he

constructed that traverses the length

of the park.

U.S. Army engineers also transformed the unsightly Potomac Flats.

Beginning in the 1880s, the Corps

dredged the river channel and dumped

the material onto the flats to create new

land to the south and west of the

National Mall. In 1897, Congress dedicated some 638 acres of this reclaimed

land and directed that it be “forever

held and used as a park for the recreation and pleasure of the people.” Col.

Bingham personally provided Potomac

Park with gardens and athletic fields.

The southernmost tip of the park

became known as Hains Point after

engineer Brigadier General Peter C.

Hains. 

The Corps constructed the Tidal

Basin to flush the Potomac River and

help prevent pollution. This area

became the center of a still-famous

location of natural beauty when the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers directed

the planting of donated Japanese

cherry blossom trees around the basin.

Army Engineers and the District of Columbia Parks

Maj. Gen. Lansing H.

Beach as Chief of

Plan for Improvement of Potomac Flats by Major Peter C. Hains, 1882 Engineers, 1920–1924
Strategic Role in War and Peace 

Interior view of the casemates 

at Fort Jefferson, Fla.

3
When the American

Revolution began in

1775, numerous coastal

fortifications already existed along

the Atlantic Coast to protect communities from pirate incursions and

enemy raids. The British Royal

Engineers, as well as individual

colonies and local communities,

built these structures, which varied

from crude earthen and wooden batteries to strong masonry forts. 

During the War for Independence, the combatants rehabilitated

many of the existing coastal fortifications and constructed new ones. The

small body of Continental Army

Engineers accomplished some of the

work. When the war ended, the new

country abandoned these works,

deciding that the local militia could

man them if necessary. 

A decade later, in 1794, the

United States, fearing attacks from

other nations, began a construction

program to provide fortifications for

the protection of the major harbors

and northern frontiers of the country.

This program and another on the

eve of the War of 1812 made only

modest progress in strengthening

Coast Defense

97

Drawbridge plans for Fort Pulaski, Ga., c. 1846

National Archives

Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas was designated a National Monument in 1935. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
the country’s coastal defenses;

however, the burning of the Capitol

and White House and attacks on

other coastal areas led to a more

concerted post–War of 1812 effort

to build substantial and sophisticated fortifications. Initially Army

engineers followed the prevailing

design principles taken from the

famous seventeenth century French

engineer, Vauban, but gradually

the engineers adopted a variety of

designs, some influenced by the

most sophisticated and novel

98

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Plan for the third fort started on

Pea Patch Island in the middle of the

Delaware River. This design for Fort

Delaware from 1839 constructed the

fort on a wooden grillage depicted in

the upper right.

Brig. Gen. Seth Eastman’s

oil painting of Fort Sumter,

as it looked before the 

Civil War.
99

Coast Defense

(top) Ten-inch disappearing gun of

the Endicott system in the loading

position at Sandy Hook, N.J.

National Archives

(center) Ten-inch gun in firing position

National Archives

(bottom) Mortar battery at Sandy

Hook, N.J.

National Archives
European principles. Fort Monroe

in Virginia, Fort Adams in Rhode

Island, and Fort Washington in

Maryland exhibit traditional influence, while Fort Delaware in Delaware and Fort Point in California

reflect newer concepts. 

Although generally ungarrisoned, the country’s coastal fortifications were a deterrent to foreign

attack until the Civil War, when

newly developed weapons and ships

rendered them obsolete. Heavy rifled

artillery, both land and naval, demolished brick, stone, and masonry fortifications like Fort Sumter, South

Carolina, and Fort Pulaski, Georgia.

As a result, both Union and Confederate engineers began erecting

earth and wood coastal forts and batteries that were much more resilient

to artillery fire. 

For two decades after the

Civil War, America’s coast defenses

received little attention, but by

the mid-1880s the sad state of the

defenses led to the appointment

of a board, named the Endicott

Board, after the Secretary of War.

In 1886 the board recommended

an ambitious program that was

gradually scaled back. Even so,

the new defenses incorporated

the latest technology including

100

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Plan of an emplacement for a fourteen-inch disappearing carriage gun from Col. Eben E. Winslow, “Notes on Seacoast

Fortification Construction,” published in 1920 as an engineer Occasional Paper for instructional use at the Engineer School,

Washington, D.C.
101

Coast Defense

breach loading, disappearing guns

arranged in dispersed batteries;

heavy mortars whose shells were

to penetrate the lightly armored

decks of ships; and mines to obstruct

waterways. Army engineers sometimes placed the batteries inside 

or in the immediate vicinity of old

coastal forts; they purchased new

land for others. With the acquisition

of new territories at the end of the

century, the engineers began erecting batteries in Hawaii, Panama,

and the Philippines. As artillery

improved, the Corps constructed

new batteries for bigger and more

effective guns. 

After World War II, new

weapons—airplanes and missiles—

rendered the coastal batteries obsolete. By 1950, the U.S. Army ceased

using them for their original purpose. Today, the remnants of

these batteries dot the coasts and

from a distance often resemble

concrete bunkers. 

In conjunction with its fortification and battery construction

programs, the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers had other coastal

defense responsibilities. In the

nineteenth century, the Corps

placed obstructions in the bays,

rivers, and harbors along the coasts. Fort Moultrie, S.C., in camouflage

during World War II
102

Strategic Role in War and Peace

These obstructions—from chains

to submarine mines—were intended

to slow down or halt enemy vessels.

Although the Coast Artillery Corps

took over responsibility for submarine mines in 1901, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers continued to

build casemates, storehouses,

loading rooms, and other structures

for the mine defenses. The Corps

also developed a protective concealment program for coast defenses

that evolved into the elaborate camouflage nets and paints used during

World War II. 
Running Chapter Title Here

Sound workmanship is a longstanding tradition within the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

and is exemplified in an early project

the Corps undertook near the Nation’s

capital—Fort Washington on the

Potomac. 

Pierre L’Enfant had only just

begun construction of a new fort on

the site of an earlier one destroyed

during the War of 1812 when he left

the project. When construction on the

fort resumed in 1815, Colonel Joseph

G. Swift instructed Lieutenant Colonel

Walker K. Armistead, “Let us have it

done for posterity, or not at all.”

Lieutenant Colonel Armistead replied

that he would build a fort “exceedingly

strong, of the most durable materials,

and executed in the best manner.”

History has proven that the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers succeeded in 

that mission.

At the outset of the Civil War, 

Fort Washington was the only defense

for Washington, D.C. The U.S. Army

continued to occupy the fort as a

major defensive post until the eve of

World War I. It subsequently served as

home to ceremonial units, an officer

training school, and the site of a

Veterans Administration hospital. In

1946, the fort was turned over to the

Department of the Interior and became

a national park. The old fort,

its fortifications remaining in

original form, still stands as

a major landmark and a testament to the technical

expertise of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers. 

Engineering for Posterity

Aerial view of Fort

Washington, now part

of the National Park

Service system

1823 plan of Fort

Washington, Md.

National Archives

Coast Defense

103
Civil War ponton bridge

National Archives
As the United States

developed and expanded

throughout the balance of

the nineteenth and into the early

twentieth centuries, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers played a key

role during times of war. Engineer

troops have performed heroically in

support of the war-fighting mission,

and as a consequence the Corps

established a history of wartime

service that truly demonstrated the

value of military engineering to

success on the battlefield. 

The Mexican War

On May 15, 1846, soon after the

Mexican War began, Congress

authorized the War Department to

raise a company of engineers. This

unit, the first regular U.S. Army

engineer company fielded, acted as

Combat Operations, 1846–1916

105

Siege of Monterey, July 1846

National Archives
Fort Totten was one of the string of

forts that surrounded Washington,

D.C., defending the Nation’s capital

from attack during the Civil War.

sappers and miners during the arduous and lengthy marches of the war.

It also erected siege batteries at

Mexico City, an important contribution to the assault on that capital. 

At the Battle of Contreras in

August 1847, Lieutenant Gustavus W.

Smith, then commanding the engineer company, asked for and

received permission to participate

in the attack. Lieutenant Smith and

his men initially led the assault, 

but the commanding general halted

and rescheduled the assault for the

next morning when he observed

the arrival of enemy reinforcements.

The next morning, the engineer

company and a rifle regiment

attacked the Mexicans in the rear.

Most of the enemy troops fled, but

a few remained to fire grapeshot at

the Americans from about twentyfive yards. Although partially

shaken by the blast, the engineer

company chased the fleeing

Mexicans for some distance before

receiving orders to return to the

main army. 

In all, forty-four engineer officers

served in the Mexican War, including

Robert E. Lee, George B. McClellan,

P. G. T. Beauregard, and Henry W.

Halleck. Practically all of these engineers served on the staffs of general

officers and performed reconnaissance and intelligence work, especially around Mexico City. 

Following the Mexican War,

the engineer officers returned to

peacetime duties, including fortification construction; exploration;

surveying; and river, harbor, and

road work. The engineer company,

which spent a good deal of its time

106

Strategic Role in War and Peace
Ponton bridges across the

Rappahannock River built by 50th

and 15th New York Engineers, 1863.

Ponton bridge under construction at

Aiken’s Landing on the James River,

summer, 1864.

at West Point in the postwar period,

accompanied some exploration

expeditions to the West and performed other tasks in various parts

of the country. Although the U.S.

Army fought many Indian wars during this period, the engineers were

seldom involved. 

The Civil War

Less than a decade and a half after

the Mexican War, the Civil War

erupted. For Civil War service, the

War Department increased the number of regular U.S. Army engineer

troops to four companies, constituting one battalion. This battalion,

along with the various volunteer

engineer and pioneer units, cleared

obstacles; constructed roads,

bridges, palisades, stockades,

canals, blockhouses, signal towers,

and in one instance, a church; laid

down hundreds of ponton bridges;

and erected field fortifications, augmenting them with entanglements.

Often, these units accomplished

their work under extremely adverse

conditions. At Fredericksburg,

Virginia, in December 1862, they

laid six ponton bridges across the

107

Combat Operations, 1846–1916
Rappahannock River under

devastating fire from Confederate

sharpshooters. In June 1864, Army

of the Potomac engineer troops constructed a 2,170-foot ponton bridge

across the James River, one of the

longest floating bridges ever constructed in modern times. 

When the Civil War began, two

engineer corps existed in the Union

Army: the Topographical Engineers

and the Corps of Engineers. But

the exigencies of the war required

stricter coordination of engineer

activities. Therefore in 1863, the War

Department integrated the smaller

Corps of Topographical Engineers

into the Corps of Engineers under the

command of the Chief Engineer. 

Pre-war engineers McClellan,

Halleck, George G. Meade, William S.

108

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Ponton bridge, held in place by ships, across the James River, June 1864.

Topographical engineers at Camp Winfield Scott near Yorktown, Va., May 1862,

before the two corps were reunited in 1863.
Rosecrans, William B. Franklin,

Gouverneur K. Warren, James B.

McPherson, and Andrew A.

Humphreys did not serve on the

battlefields as engineers. Instead they

were promoted to general officers

commanding combined troops. Likewise, Montgomery C. Meigs became

the quartermaster general of the Union

Army and furnished the required support and supplies to the troops in the

field. By the end of the war, James H.

Wilson was a cavalry general. 

Their engineering expertise

allowed these former Corps officers

to excel. As the Battle of Gettysburg

unfolded during the summer of 1863,

109

Combat Operations, 1846–1916

Company A, Battalion of U.S. Engineers, 1865

1st Michigan Engineers and Mechanics Regiment built this four-tiered, 780-foot

railroad trestle bridge, Whiteside, Tenn., 1864.

National Archives
Warren used the talent for assessing

terrain he had gained from earlier

engineering assignments to discern a

weakness in the Union lines along

the position known as Little Round

Top. He quickly strengthened that

position and thereby foiled a key

part of the Confederate battle plan.

Other able officers—like Henry

Brewerton, John G. Barnard, and

Nathaniel Michler—were engineers

throughout the war. These men conducted surveys and reconnaissances

to provide intelligence reports and

maps, directed siege operations, and

oversaw the operations of engineer

troops. Competent volunteer engineer

officers, like William G. Margedant,

who developed a process for duplicating maps in the field, also greatly

aided the Union war effort. 

Three young engineer lieutenants

—William H. H. Benyaurd, John M.

Wilson, and George L. Gillespie—

received Medals of Honor for gallantry under fire, and the latter two

concluded their U.S. Army careers

as Chief of Engineers. Lieutenant

Wilson received the Medal of Honor

for his actions at the Battle of

Malvern Hill in 1862; Lieutenant

Gillespie received the Medal of

Honor for actions at the Battle of

Cold Harbor; and Lieutenant

Benyaurd won his medal at the

Battle of Five Forks, Virginia. 

The Confederacy gladly accepted

the services of fifteen engineer

officers who had resigned their commissions in the U.S. Army. Former

engineer officers such as Lee,

Beauregard, and Joseph E. Johnston

became Confederate Army commanders. Edward P. Alexander was

the Confederate artillery commander

in the Army of Northern Virginia. To

110

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Students at Willets Point

building a ponton bridge,

1889
accomplish the necessary engineer

work, the Confederacy commissioned

many former civilians and raised

engineer and pioneer units. 

Post-Civil War Period

Between the end of the Civil War

and the outbreak of the SpanishAmerican War, engineer combat

experience was minimal. Most engineer officers returned to civil works

or fortification construction duty,

although they attempted to stay

abreast of new military engineering

methods and innovations. 

Soon after the Civil War ended,

Congress abolished the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers’ supervision of

the U.S. Army Military Academy at

West Point, New York. Therefore the

Corps, unofficially at first, established an Engineer School at Fort

Totten at Willets Point in New York

Harbor in 1866. The school’s staff

instructed students—both officers

and enlisted men—in civil and military engineering and provided practical training in mapping, military

photography, and laying submarine

mines and bridges, both ponton and

trestle. In addition to teaching, the

staff, especially Superintendent

Henry L. Abbot, experimented with

and developed new equipment. 

Some engineer officers served

with the “Indian-fighting army” on

the western frontier. A few, like

William Ludlow, accompanied the

troops on reconnaissance missions

and scouting expeditions. Generally,

though, these officers’ main duties

were surveying and mapping. 

Other officers, such as Barton 

S. Alexander, Cyrus B. Comstock,

Peter S. Michie, John M. Wilson,

William Craighill, and William E.

Merrill, traveled abroad, sometimes

as military attachés. Often they had

the chance to observe foreign engineer troops’ equipment and techniques. A few, including Francis V.

Greene, actually witnessed engineer

operations in battle. 

The War Department created 

a fifth regular Army company of

engineers in December 1865.

Between the Civil War and the

Spanish-American War, the five

companies of the battalion, usually

understrength, performed a range 

of duties, from serving at engineer

depots in New York Harbor, St. Louis,

Underwater mine testing at the

Engineer School, Willets Point, N.Y.

111

Combat Operations, 1846–1916
Engineers’ train in the 

Philippines, 1899

and San Francisco to riot control

during the 1877 railroad strikes.

Individual engineer soldiers 

assisted at numerous civil works 

and fortification sites throughout 

the country. 

The Spanish-American

War and the PhilippineAmerican War

In 1898, the United States went to

war with Spain, and the engineers

provided extensive combat support.

In the far-flung theaters of the war,

from Cuba and Puerto Rico to the

Philippines, the engineers aided the

U.S. Army by erecting landing piers,

constructing bridges, building and

maintaining roads, laying mines offshore, and repairing and operating

railroads. Young but capable lieutenants like Lytle Brown, Eben E.

Winslow, and William D. Connor led

engineer detachments on dangerous

reconnaissance missions, sometimes

in the midst of combat. Volunteer

engineer units, often commanded by

regular U.S. Army officers, also

112

Strategic Role in War and Peace
113

Combat Operations, 1846–1916

Company H, 1st Provisional

Battalion of Engineers, near

Guánica Bay, where U.S. forces

landed on the southern shore of

Puerto Rico, July 1898.

served in the war. Former engineer

officers, such as Francis V. Greene

and William Ludlow, were brigade

and higher unit commanders. 

Following the Spanish-American

War, an insurrection broke out in the

Philippines. Companies A and B of

the Engineer Battalion served in the

initial stages of the conflict. The

insurrectionists’ guerrilla warfare

tactics necessitated rapid movements

by the U.S. Army. Thus, engineer

detachments, commanded by

William Sibert, John Biddle, John C.

Oakes, and Harley B. Ferguson,

among others, had to repair roads,

build bridges, and perform reconnaissance rapidly over difficult

jungle and mountain terrain. Frequently, the engineer troops, who

carried rifles as well as picks and

axes, joined the infantry in fighting

off an attack before completing work

on a road or bridge. The requirements of combat, especially in the

Philippines, influenced the 1901

reorganization of the engineers into

three battalions of four companies

each. Although the fighting subsided

in the Philippines in the early twentieth century, it did not cease, and

engineer troops served in the

islands, often in combat, for many

years afterward. 
114

Strategic Role in War and Peace

The Mexican 

Punitive Expedition

In 1916, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers formed three regiments of

six companies each from the battalions. In the same year, the United

States launched a punitive expedition

to Mexico to chastise the “bandits”

under Pancho Villa, who had raided

American territory. The use of cars

and supply trucks required better

roads and bridges than ever before.

Lytle Brown, now a major, was one 

of many engineer officers who served

in Mexico. These officers gained

experience that became especially

valuable after April 1917, when the

United States entered World War I.

The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in 1898 inflamed public opinion and pushed the U.S. into war with Spain. After the SpanishAmerican War, the Corps of Engineers built caissons in 1911 around the Maine in Havana harbor and pumped out water so the

ship could be examined before it was towed to deep water and sunk in its final resting place. The USACE Museum Collection

has the Maine’s ship’s wheel that the Corps received in appreciation for its work in raising the famous ship.
At the end of 1862, Colonel

William P. Innes and 391 

men of the 1st Michigan

Engineers were repairing roads and

railroads at the rear of the Union Army

near Murfreesboro (Stone’s River),

Tennessee, when a Confederate cavalry

division, commanded by General

Joseph Wheeler, flanked the Union

Army to strike hard at supply trains on

the way from Nashville to Murfreesboro. The surprise attack left Colonel

Innes and the engineers without time

to escape the gray-clad troopers, and

Innes rushed his unit up a nearby hill.

From the top of the hill, Colonel

Innes could see the advancing Confederate columns and realized he had

no time to entrench his position. But

the hill was covered with clumps of red

cedar trees, and Innes quickly decided

to use this resource. He sent the engineers scrambling around the hill,

slashing down the small trees to open

a field of fire and piling the cedars in a

waist-high circle around the crest of

the hill.

Confederates, in greatly superior

force, soon surrounded the hill. An

officer under a flag of truce advanced

to demand surrender from the engineer detachment and was surprised

by Colonel Innes’ acerbic reply: “Tell

General Wheeler I’ll see him damned

first.” Innes continued, “We don’t

surrender much. Let him take us.”

Confederate cavalry soldiers

swept up the hill toward the engineers’

position, but a volley of Union fire

hurled them back pell-mell. The

Confederates then unlimbered field

artillery and began pounding the hill.

The engineers scraped shallow foxholes and held their place. A second

cavalry assault followed, and then a

third. In all, the cavalry made seven

attempts to take the hill, yet the engineers stood their ground until the

Confederates concluded the effort was

not worth the cost. The engineers

suffered eleven casualties, the

Confederates nearly fifty.

115

Combat Operations, 1846–1916

We Don’t Surrender Much!

1st Michigan Engineers and Mechanics Regiment, Company D, on dress parade
West chamber of the Gatun

Upper Locks, March 1912 

U.S. Military Academy Library
Maj. David D. Gaillard

Lt. Col. George W. Goethals

I

n the early morning of May 4,

1904, a young lieutenant from the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

crisply walked into the old French

Hotel in Panama City. He exchanged

brief greetings with officials of the

new French Panama Canal Company.

The new company, which had succeeded Ferdinand de Lesseps’ bankrupt enterprise in 1894, had been no

more successful than its predecessor

in the effort to build a canal across

the Isthmus of Panama connecting

the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Its

workers ravaged by yellow fever and

malaria and its equipment in disrepair, the company was ready to sell

all of its assets to the U.S. government for $40 million. The lieutenant

carefully read the document of transfer. Then, following the directions of

the U.S. Secretary of War, he signed

his name to the receipt: “Mark

Brooke, 2nd Lieutenant, Corps of

Engineers.” The long years of the

French effort to construct an isthmian

canal were over. The American

attempt was about to begin. 

Building the Panama Canal

required the assistance of the foremost engineers of the day. Major

William M. Black, who later became

Chief of Engineers, supervised early

engineering activities at the canal.

John F. Wallace, the first civilian

chief engineer on the project,

brought railroad construction and

operations expertise to the isthmus.

His successor, John F. Stevens, continued his endeavors and established

the basic plan for the construction of

the canal. Stevens resigned, however,

in 1907 when he was severely criticized in the United States. 

Frustrated by his inability to find

a civilian willing to see the project

through to completion, President

Theodore Roosevelt turned for help

to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

“We can’t build the canal with a new

chief engineer every year,” he said.

“Now I’m going to give it to the Army

and to someone who can’t quit.” He

requested the Panama Canal Commission to appoint engineer officer

Lieutenant Colonel George W. Goethals

as Chief Engineer and commission

chairman. Engineer officers Major

William L. Sibert and Major David D.

Gaillard, both West Point graduates

like Lieutenant Colonel Goethals,

also served on the commission. All

The Panama Canal

117
Construction of Pedro Miguel Lock,

1911

U.S. Military Academy Library

three men received several promotions during the time they worked on

the canal. 

Within a year, Lieutenant Colonel

Goethals reorganized canal operations

into three geographical divisions.

Major Sibert took charge of the

Atlantic Division, and Major Gaillard

took the Central Division. To head the

Pacific Division, Goethals selected

Sydney B. Williamson, a civilian engineer who had won Goethals’s respect

when the two had worked together

earlier at Muscle Shoals. The civilian

engineers under Williamson engaged

in a spirited competition with the military engineers. Lieutenant Colonel

Goethals encouraged this competition

to achieve maximum economy while

speeding construction. Rear Admiral

Harry H. Rousseau, chief of the

Bureau of Yards and Docks of the

Navy, assumed responsibility for the

design and construction of terminals,

wharves, docks, warehouses, machine

shops, and coaling stations. Civilian

engineer Ralph Budd directed the

relocation of the Panama Railroad

from 1907 until 1909, when he was

succeeded by Lieutenant Frederick

Mears, an Army cavalry officer.

118

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Miraflores Locks under construction,

August 1912

U.S. Military Academy Library
A rail line assisted the canal’s

construction. In the 1880s, the French had

learned, after several years of effort,

that a sea-level canal across Panama

was an impossibility. Locks were

absolutely necessary. Benefiting from

French experience, the Americans

never seriously considered anything

other than a canal using locks. They

erected a monumental dam across

the Chagres River, thereby creating

Lake Gatun. At each end of the lake,

the engineers constructed locks. The

Gatun Locks lead to the Atlantic.

The Pedro Miguel Locks lead to

Miraflores Lake and, farther on,

Miraflores Locks. From these locks,

ships travel on to the Pacific. 

Major Gaillard directed the huge

engineering task of completing the

Culebra Cut through the continental

divide, which required the excavation of 96 million cubic yards of 

rock and dirt. Spectacular landslides

at the cut were the greatest engineering difficulty. The amount of earth

that had to be removed was nearly

double the original estimate. More

than 100 steam shovels removed

most of the soil, and flatcars hauled

it out. Trains departed at thirteenminute intervals to keep pace with

the steam shovels. 

Construction of the Panama

Canal was the responsibility of the

Panama Canal Commission, but

having Army engineer officers supervising the project enabled problems

to be resolved more easily and

quickly. Engineer officers worked

effectively and completed the canal

well within estimates. Going beyond

mere construction, they also helped

119

The Panama Canal

Steam shovel at work in the Culebra Cut;

a lithograph in a series on the Panama

Canal by Joseph Pennell, noted American

artist and illustrator.

USACE Museum Collection
Culebra Cut

U.S. Military Academy Library

eradicate disease and vastly improved

sanitation in the areas adjoining the

canal. The organization, administration, and implementation of this

massive building effort remain a

model for subsequent large-scale

construction projects. 

The Panama Canal opened ahead

of schedule on August 15, 1914. 

The total excavation for the channel

exceeded 200 million cubic yards 

of earth, of which almost half was

taken from the Culebra Cut, later

renamed Gaillard Cut in honor of the

officer who conquered it. Tragically,

Lieutenant Colonel Gaillard died of a

brain tumor in 1913 without seeing

the canal’s completion. 

U.S. Army engineers retained a

unique relationship with the Panama

Canal after the canal was opened.

Engineer officers traditionally served

as the governor and lieutenant governor of the Panama Canal Zone. The

governor also served as president of

the Panama Canal Company, which

was actually responsible for canal

operations. Goethals himself was the

first civil governor of the Canal Zone

and received a promotion to major

general during his tenure. The last

military governor of the Canal Zone

was Major General Harold R. Parfitt,

a U.S. Army engineer officer, whose

tenure ran from 1975 to 1979. 

In the years immediately after

the canal’s completion, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers accepted

responsibility for dredging the channel, which continued to be frequently

blocked by landslides. Engineers

finally determined the proper incline

for the banks to provide the greatest

assurance against slides. In the

1920s, the Corps further strength120

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Drilling at Culebra Cut,

January 1912

U.S. Military Academy Library
Engineers built Fort de Lesseps in 1911 to protect the canal.

National Archives

USS Saratoga in Gaillard Cut, February 1928

ened the banks by developing a system of drainage control. Still later,

U.S. Army engineers helped enlarge

the canal. The original locks are still

in use. 

U.S. Army engineer officers have

also periodically assisted in studies

on other canal routes across Central

America. Engineers conducted a survey for a route across Nicaragua in

the 1930s. In the 1960s, they were

heavily involved in studies on an

alternate Panamanian route that

would accommodate larger vessels.

Although the United States turned

over control of the canal to Panama

on December 14, 1999, the strategic

fifty-mile waterway remains a lasting

testament to the skill of U.S. Army

engineering.

121

The Panama Canal
One of the most unusual

ways U.S. Army engineers

assisted canal operations

occurred in 1968 when the Corps sent

the Sturgis, the world’s first floating

nuclear power plant, to the Canal Zone

to alleviate dangerous reductions of

electrical power caused by necessary

curtailment of operations at the Gatun

Hydroelectric Station. 

The weather had been so dry that

there was not enough water to operate

the locks as well as supply the turbines.

Because of the increased traffic in the

Panama Canal resulting from the

Vietnam War and the closing of the

Suez Canal, such vast amounts of water

were required to operate the locks that

the water level on Gatun Lake fell drastically during the dry season. Serviced

by hyrdoelectric plants with a combined

output of approximately 100 megawatts,

the Canal Zone had insufficient reserve

capacity to shut down its largest generator without interrupting power supply

to military or civilian consumers.

In this emergency the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers dispatched the

Sturgis to Gatun Lake. The 10-megawatt

floating power plant had been designed

by the Philadelphia Engineer District 

and christened in 1964 in memory of

Lieutenant General Samuel D. Sturgis,

Jr., the former Chief of Engineers who

had died that year. Home port for the

Sturgis was at Gunston Cove on the

Potomac River, and its crew trained at

Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

Towed to the canal, the Sturgis

was connected to the Panama Canal

Company’s power grid and began producing electricity on October 5, 1968.

An additional barge with greater

capacity was deployed the following

month to assist the mission. 

The Sturgis fulfilled a critical

power need. It also helped save more

than one trillion gallons of water for

lock operations that otherwise would

have been used for electrical generation. The ingenuity of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers had paid off.

122

Emergency Nuclear Power for the Panama Canal

Strategic Role in War and Peace

(top) U.S.S. Sturgis, housing the 

MH-1A nuclear power plant, in the

Panama Canal, 1970

(above) Lt. Gen. Samuel D. Sturgis, Jr.
During World War I, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers

was called upon to provide

a much more diverse range of military services than ever before. Not

only did the engineers provide

American combat divisions with the

officers and men to staff the 1,660-

man engineer regiments that were

part of each combat division, they

also built the port facilities, roads,

and railroads needed to bring

essential war materiel to the front;

harvested timber for military construction; employed searchlights in

antiaircraft defense; organized the

first U.S. Army tank units; and

developed chemical warfare munitions and defensive equipment. So

important were these last pursuits

that, in 1918, the Army created a

separate Tank Corps and a Chemical

Warfare Service, the latter headed

by an engineer officer. 

The U.S. Army engineers who

served in World War I brought with

them varied amounts of military

experience. Most senior engineer

officers were graduates of the U.S.

Military Academy and had previously

served with U.S. Army units abroad,

primarily in Cuba or the Philippines.

A few of them had accompanied

General John Pershing in his

expedition to northern Mexico in

1916–1917, which had unsuccessfully attempted to capture the

Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa

after his raid on Columbus, New

Mexico. Some engineer commanders

had been civilian engineers, members

of the National Guard, or Officers

Reserve Corps engineer units organized a few years before the United

States’ entry into the war. But most

of the 240,000 engineers who served

in Europe during the war had no

prior military service. 

The British and French governments made the arrival of American

U.S. Army Engineers in World War I

123

Company D, 11th Engineers,

building a road near the Aire River 

U.S. Military Academy Library
engineers in France their top priority

after the United States declared war

on April 6, 1917. Thus, by the end of

August 1917, nine newly organized

engineer railway regiments, together

with the engineer regiment of the

1st Division, had crossed the Atlantic

and arrived in France. Several of the

railway regiments were assigned to

British or French military formations

pending the arrival of larger numbers

of American combat troops in the

summer and autumn of 1918. It was

while serving with the British near

the village of Gouzeaucourt, southwest of Cambrai, France, on

September 5, 1917, that Sergeant

Matthew Calderwood and Private

William Branigan of the 11th Engineers were wounded by artillery fire,

becoming the first U.S. Army casualties of the war. When the Germans

launched a counteroffensive in late

November 1917 to regain territory

they had just lost to the British near

Cambrai, the men of the 11th

Engineers abandoned their railway

work and assisted the British with

constructing new defensive positions,

which stopped the German advance. 

During 1918, U.S. Army engineers served in combat from the

Vosges Mountains near the Swiss

border north to Oudenaarde,

Belgium. One battalion of the 310th

Engineers served in the Murmansk

area of northern Russia in a mission

to assist Czech troops to rejoin the

fighting on the Western Front after

Bolshevik Russia had left the war in

March 1918. Most of this combat

service consisted of constructing

124

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Company E, 21st Engineers,

operating a train near Menil-la-Tour,

France, March 1918
bridges, roads, and narrow-gauge

railroads at or immediately behind

the front, but engineer units also

engaged in direct combat. 

Two companies of the 6th

Engineers ceased their construction

of heavy steel bridges to join British

and Canadian forces in frontline

trenches. Together they successfully

defended Amiens from a heavy

German assault in March and April

1918. These two engineer companies suffered a total of 77 casualties.

During June and July 1918, troops

of the 2d Engineers fought as

infantry in their division’s bitterly

contested capture of the Belleau

Woods and the nearby village of

Vaux in the Aisne-Marne campaign.

A battalion of the 1st Engineers

fought as infantry in the capture of

Hill 269 in the Romagne Heights

along the Hindenburg Line on

October 8, 1918. It was for his

action during this battle that engineer Sergeant Wilbur E. Colyer 

of South Ozone, New York, received

125

U.S. Army Engineers in World War I

(above) 21st Engineers

maintaining a narrow gauge

rail line to supply ammunition

to the front, April 1918

(left) 107th Engineers building

a bridge, Cierges, France,

August 1918
First ponton bridge over the 

Marne, July 20, 1918

the Medal of Honor. Sergeant Colyer

volunteered to locate a group of

German machine-gun nests that were

blocking the American advance. He

used a captured German grenade to

kill one enemy machine-gunner,

turned his machine gun against the

other enemy nests, and silenced

each of them. 

Other U.S. Army engineers won

personal recognition for their actions

in bridging the Meuse River. Major

William Hoge, Jr., a West Pointer

serving with the 7th Engineers,

5th Division, won a Distinguished

Service Cross for his heroism in

reconnoitering a site for a ponton

bridge across that well-defended

waterway north of Brieulles, France.

Major Hoge selected the bridge site

during the daylight hours of

November 4, 1918, while under

enemy observation and artillery fire,

and he directed the construction of

the bridge that night. After German

artillerists destroyed three ponton

boats supporting the bridge, engineer

Sergeant Eugene Walker, Corporal

Robert Crawford, and Privates Noah

Gump, John Hoggle, and Stanley

Murnane jumped into the icy river

126

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Engineers build a corduroy road
and held up the deck of the bridge

until replacement pontons could be

launched and installed. These

enlisted men were also awarded the

Distinguished Service Cross. This

bridge was one of thirty-eight constructed by U.S. Army engineers

during the critical Meuse-Argonne

offensive, which ended with the

German military collapse. 

U.S. Army engineers also made

essential contributions to ultimate

victory well behind the front lines.

The forestry troops of the 20th Engineers, the U.S. Army’s largest regiment, produced roughly 200 million

feet of lumber in France, together

with some three million standardgauge railroad ties and one million

narrow-gauge ties. American troops,

under the technical supervision of

U.S. Army engineers, used the lumber to construct new and expanded

port facilities for American ships,

including berths for deep-draft

vessels at Brest; storage depots containing more than fifteen million

square feet of covered storage 

space; new hospitals with more than

140,000 beds; and barracks capable

of housing 742,000 men. Engineer

troops constructed 950 miles of

standard-gauge rail lines, primarily

at docks and storage yards; water

supply facilities at several French

ports and communications centers;

and ninety miles of new roads. 

127

U.S. Army Engineers in World War I

African-Americans, here moving

a rail cart, made a significant

contribution to the Army

Engineer war effort. Of the

240,000 Army engineers who

served in World War I, 40,000

were African-Americans.

(above) 33rd Engineers carry

a thirty-foot section of mast for a

stevedore derrick, western France

(left) French officers training

American engineer troops
Engineers laying foundation for barracks and hospital in France

Road construction, France During the war, U.S. Army

engineers also drew and printed

maps, conducted geological studies

with an eye to underground water

supplies, installed and operated

electrical lines and mechanical

equipment, and experimented with

the use of tractors and trailers for

hauling ponton bridging equipment

in the absence of sufficient draft

animals. American engineers also

operated seven cement plants in

France. These varied operations

permitted the U.S. Army to field 

and support a force of nearly

two million men in France within

twenty months of the U.S. entry into

the war. 

128

Strategic Role in War and Peace
The 2d Engineers had their start

during the Civil War and saw

action during many major battles in that conflict. The unit also participated in the Spanish-American War

and the Punitive Expedition against

Mexico.

During World War I, the 2d Engineer Regiment of the 2d “Indian Head”

Infantry Division, commanded successively by Colonels James F. McIndoe

and William A. Mitchell, was considered one of the best regiments in the

American Expeditionary Forces (AEF)

in France. Because of its bloody

engagements at Belleau Wood,

Château Thierry, Soissons, and MeuseArgonne, the division’s infantry units

sustained the highest percentage of

major casualties among all AEF units—

its 30.38 percent casualty rate just

edging the 30.08 percentage of the

“Big Red 1,” the 1st Infantry Division. 

The 2d Engineers, moreover,

stood 15th in the list of casualties with

12.73 percent, by far the highest of

any U.S. Army engineer unit. The reason was simple: the trench war was

preeminently an engineers’ war—

cutting barbed wire entanglements;

putting them up; digging dugouts,

machine-gun positions, and trenches;

and all too often fighting as infantry.

Throughout its time in combat, the

regiment maintained high morale and

unexcelled performance in all its

assignments. A major reason for its

excellent performance was the high

standards its officers and men required

of themselves and each other. These

standards applied throughout the regiment and were vigorously enforced.

An unnamed American general

officer reinforced this assertion by

noting that “the 2d Engineers is the

best regiment I ever saw. . . . The

regiment has assisted the artillery, 

has helped the tanks, built railroads,

manned machine guns, and fought

time after time as infantry. That regiment can do anything.” 

The 2d Engineers lived up to their

motto, “Ardeur et Tenacite.” The unit

received the Croix de Guerre from the

government of France. 

129

Maintaining High Standards: 

The 2d Engineers in France

U.S. Army Engineers in World War I

Dugout entrance, Argonne, France, 1918 Trench warfare, France

2d Engineer Regiment 

Distinctive Unit Insignia
Vehicles of the 3rd Armored Division cross

the Seine River on an engineer-built ponton

bridge, August 1944
As Imperial Japanese forces

expanded their conquest of

China and Nazi Germany

gained territory in Central Europe

during the late 1930s, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers numbered

fewer than 800 officers and 6,000

enlisted men in active Regular Army

service. During the years since the

1922 withdrawal of U.S. Army engineer troops from Coblenz, Germany,

where they had occupied territory

along the Rhine River, the U.S.

Army had maintained on active duty

only eight or nine combat engineer

regiments, two engineer squadrons,

and a single topographic battalion.

Furthermore, it staffed even this

short troop list at only some 70 percent of authorized strength. Engineer officers thus spent most of their

time during the 1920s and 1930s

administering the Corps’ civil works

program, whose budget in 1938 was

nearly four hundred times greater

than its military budget. 

Engineer military mobilization

began in earnest in mid-1940, after

the German conquest of France.

During late 1940 and early 1941,

the U.S. Army inducted eighteen

National Guard divisions, each containing an engineer combat regiment, and their men began to undergo intensive training. The U.S. Army

quickly organized engineer aviation

companies and battalions to build

the airfields needed to defend the

Western Hemisphere. 

A source relatively untapped in

previous wars, African-Americans

joined the U.S. Army in unprecedented numbers during 1940 and

1941. Many were assigned to engineer units. Black Soldiers, who

numbered 20 percent of Corps personnel by war’s end, were assigned to

Combat Engineers in World War II

131

Engineers train in constructing

an assault ponton bridge, 

Fort Belvoir, Va.
segregated units, usually in the construction field, but they were trained

by white officers such as Major (later

General) Andrew Goodpaster.

Initiated well before the attack

at Pearl Harbor, engineer research

and development projects directed

by the Engineer Board at Fort

Belvoir, Virginia, were to have a

significant impact upon the war.

Experiments conducted during 1940

and 1941 developed a light and

inexpensive pierced-steel plank mat

that the U.S. Army Air Forces would

widely use to provide safe, stable

landing fields for American planes.

Spurred by the ideas of engineer

Captain (later General) Bruce

Clarke, Engineer Board studies perfected a new steel treadway bridge

constructed on pneumatic floats that

would carry heavy modern tanks

across the rivers of Europe. By

1943, the Engineer Board produced

a tank dozer capable of knocking

over substantial barriers while conducting an armored assault. 

When the Japanese bombed

military bases in Hawaii and the

Philippines on the morning of

December 7, 1941, engineer units

that had already been deployed to

those islands were called upon to

respond. The 34th Engineers, a

combat regiment that had lost some

equipment but incurred no casualties

during the bombing in Hawaii,

worked to maintain roads that were

suffering from heavy military traffic.

The skimpy, 1,500-man U.S. Army

engineer garrison in the Philippines

was almost evenly divided between

Filipino and American personnel.

After Japanese forces landed there

on December 10, the engineers

destroyed bridges from one end of

Luzon to the other to slow the

enemy’s advance. The engineers later

erected a series of defensive lines on

the Bataan Peninsula and fought as

infantry in these defenses before

succumbing to superior Japanese

forces in April and May 1942. In the

southern Philippines, a number of

U.S. Army engineers escaped to the

mountains of Mindanao, where they

worked with Filipino guerrillas and

132

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Engineers lay pierced-steel plank 

to construct a runway rapidly in

New Guinea, February 1944
remained active throughout the

Japanese occupation. 

On the home front in December

1941, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assumed the military construction role formerly held by the

Quartermaster Corps, and accelerated

construction of military bases, including all of the airfields for the U.S.

Army Air Forces. An engineer officer headed the construction of the

largest office building in the world,

the War Department’s headquarters,

known as the Pentagon. The Corps

established Engineer Replacement

Training centers at Fort Belvoir,

Virginia; Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri;

and Camp Abbot, Oregon, to meet

the high demand for combat engineers. Further, the Corps adopted

enhanced security measures at sensitive facilities such as the Washington

Aqueduct. The Corps also developed,

built, and oversaw the implementation of significant logistical systems

for war support, such as the movement of petroleum and related

products along the nation’s waterways. Of note, at the outset of the

war, the U.S. Army Map Service 

was formed under the command of

the Chief of Engineers. Among the

Corps projects contributing to the

war effort was the Bonneville Dam,

which supplied the power that eventually generated 25 percent of the

Nation’s finished aluminum used for

aircraft and in other armaments. 

U.S. Army engineers first

entered combat against German and

133

Combat Engineers in World War II

The Pentagon under construction
Italian forces in North Africa, when

American forces landed in November

1942. During the first five months of

1943, a few units of American engineers assisted U.S. Army movements

in the broad deserts and fields of

Tunisia, clearing enemy mines and

building roads from scratch. Prior to

the American attacks on Gafsa and

Maknassy in the barren plains of

southern Tunisia, the 1st Engineer

Combat Battalion and a company of

the 19th Engineer Combat Regiment

built combat approach roads through

a no-man’s land between the combatants, where the engineers were vulnerable to surprise attacks. 

After the Allied victory in North

Africa, American and British forces

landed first in Sicily and then in

mainland Italy during the summer of

1943. Defended by well-equipped

and determined German forces,

Italy’s mountainous terrain and

rapidly flowing rivers challenged the

road- and bridge-building skills of

the Army engineers. The combat

engineers particularly distinguished

themselves in the fighting at and just

south of the Rapido River in the

Allied drive north from Naples. 

The 48th and 235th Engineer

Combat Battalions, assigned to an

armored task force under Brigadier

General Frank Allen that was

ordered to capture Mount Porchia

just south of the Rapido, not only

removed obstacles and opened sup134

Strategic Role in War and Peace

(above) Lacking Bailey bridging equipment, the 10th Engineer Combat Battalion

“hung a bridge in the sky” using captured timbers to cross this gap in the road at

Cape Calava, Sicily, August 1943.

(below) Two 5th Army engineer units building a ponton bridge across the Po River

north of Bologna, Italy, April 1945.
ply lines but also fought as infantry

on the flanks of the task force’s

advance. After enemy fire had substantially reduced the armored

infantry units leading this attack, 

the 48th was ordered to secure the

top and sides of the mountain. It was

in this effort that engineer Sergeant

Joe Specker of Odessa, Missouri,

having observed an enemy machinegun nest and several well-placed

snipers blocking his company’s

progress, advanced alone with a

machine gun up the rocky slope.

Although mortally wounded by

intense enemy fire, Sergeant Specker

nevertheless set up and fired his

weapon so effectively that the enemy

machine gun was silenced, and the

snipers were forced to withdraw.

With this assistance, the battalion

was able to clear the summit of

Mount Porchia. Sergeant Specker

was honored by a posthumous award

of the Medal of Honor. 

More than a dozen U.S. Army

engineer combat battalions landed

on the beaches of Normandy during

the Allies’ assault landing on June 6,

1944. The engineers cleared the

beach obstacles and minefields that

the Germans had implanted there

and absorbed substantial casualties

on Omaha Beach, including the 

loss of two battalion commanders.

Bulldozer drivers, often working 

in the face of heavy enemy fire,

opened exits up narrow draws

through the cliffs lining the beaches.

Some of the engineers quickly

engaged in combat with the Germans

alongside assault infantry teams. In

one such action, Lieutenant Robert

Ross of the 37th Engineer Combat

135

Combat Engineers in World War II

Sgt. Joe Specker

American engineers lay out

roads on a French beach, 1944
136

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Battalion took charge of an infantry

company that had lost its leaders

and led it and his own engineer platoon up the slopes adjoining Omaha

Beach, where they killed forty

Germans and captured two machinegun emplacements. 

The U.S. Army engineers again

provided critical support to the

achievement and exploitation of the

breakthrough that American forces

created in late July 1944 in enemy

defenses southwest of St. Lo, France.

U.S. Army and divisional engineer

troops repaired roads and cleared

enemy minefields in and beyond

St. Lo with exceptional speed, and

they rapidly bridged the small 

rivers in the area to maintain the

Americans’ momentum. After the

German line had been effectively

pierced, armored division engineers

constructed the treadway bridges

needed by Patton’s tanks in the

Third Army’s quick pursuit of the

retreating Germans across northern

France. Engineer general service

regiments behind them rapidly

reconstructed or replaced railroad

bridges that had been destroyed

by the retreating Germans. In

Lorraine, the 130th Engineer

General Service Regiment built,

under heavy artillery fire, a 190-footlong double-triple Bailey bridge that

Third Army troops used to cross the

Moselle at Thionville, France. This

bridge had to reach ten feet beyond

the specified maximum span of such

a bridge, yet it successfully carried

heavy American tanks. 

The massive German offensive

in the Ardennes Forest that began on

December 16, 1944, exacted a heavy

Crossing the Seine on a ponton bridge, August 1944 toll among the sparse American

Engineers clear Saint Lo for traffic

from Omaha Beachhead.
forces surprised in the area. A disproportionate number of those troops

were engineers who had been

operating sawmills or repairing forest

roads, and of necessity, these engineer troops were called upon to fight

as infantry. The 81st Engineer

Combat Battalion, which had been

engaged in road maintenance around

Auw, Germany, quickly found itself

caught in the center of the powerful

enemy assault; within a week, the

Germans had captured or killed a

majority of its troops despite their

determined combat, notably in the

defense of St. Vith, Belgium. 

Colonel H.W. Anderson’s 1111th

Engineer Combat Group was headquartered at Trois Ponts, Belgium,

right in the path of Joachim Peiper’s

fast-moving German assault tanks.

Despite their inferior numbers,

Colonel Anderson’s engineers put up

a stout and effective resistance that

crippled Peiper’s force. A minefield

was hastily laid by a squad of the

291st Engineer Combat Battalion

before Stavelot delayed Peiper’s entry

into that town overnight. On the following day, December 18, engineers

from that battalion helped deflect 

the German tank column away from

the critical petroleum depot near

Francorchamps, located on the road

to Spa, where the First Army had its

headquarters. A company of the

51st Engineer Combat Battalion then

diverted the column again at Trois

Ponts by blowing the bridges there

and defending the village alone until

airborne troops could reinforce it.

Peiper’s tanks eventually ran out of

fuel well short of his Meuse River

objective, and Peiper’s men had to

abandon them. 

137

Combat Engineers in World War II

Assembling a treadway bridge

in Belgium, 1945

Army engineers sanding a road,

Luxembourg, 1945
To the south, elements of the

44th, 103rd, and 159th Engineer

Combat Battalions delayed portions

of the German Fifth and Seventh

Armies at the villages of Wiltz,

Hosingen, and Scheidgen in

Luxembourg, before German forces

overwhelmed American positions.

Although ultimately unsuccessful,

the defense undertaken by these

engineer units delayed enemy forces

long enough to permit American

infantry, airborne, and armored units

to come to the defense of critically

located Bastogne. 

Engineer troops also fought

before Bastogne, some using antitank

weapons with which they had no

experience. Private Bernard Michin

of the 158th Engineer Combat

Battalion waited until an enemy tank

came within ten yards of him before

having sufficient assurance of his

target to fire a bazooka at it. The

resulting explosion temporarily

blinded him. He rolled into a ditch

and, hearing enemy machine-gun

fire, lobbed a hand grenade toward

its source. The firing stopped

abruptly. Private Michin was awarded

a Distinguished Service Cross. 

In January 1945, American

forces pushed a badly weakened

German army out of the Ardennes

and advanced to the river barriers of

the Roer and Rhine. Relying on U.S.

Army engineer bridging skills, the

Americans crossed the Roer on

February 23, 1945, before flood

waters released by the breaking of

upstream dams had subsided, thus

surprising the Germans and permitting a rapid American advance. 

Engineers also played a critical

role in the unexpected capture of the

Ludendorff Railroad Bridge across

the Rhine at Remagen on March 7,

1945. As elements of the armored

combat command, under career

138

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Gouldin railroad bridge on the

Rhine built by Army engineers in

ten days, April 1945

Placing explosive charges to demolish concrete tank barriers on

the Siegfried Line, October 1944
engineer officer Brigadier General

William M. Hoge, Jr., approached

the bridge that afternoon, the

Germans set off a charge of dynamite

in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy

the span. Risking a new explosion,

Lieutenant Hugh Mott, Sergeant

Eugene Dorland, and Sergeant John

Reynolds, all members of Company B, 9th Armored Engineer

Battalion, ran onto the bridge in the

company of assault infantrymen. The

engineers first located four thirtypound packages of explosives tied to

I-beams under the decking, cut them

free, and sent them splashing into 

the Rhine. After the infantry had

cleared the far-shore bridge towers,

Sergeant Dorland found the master

switch for some five hundred pounds

of intended bridge demolition explosives, and he quickly shot out the

heavy wires leading from it. Under

continuing heavy enemy fire,

Lieutenant Mott then directed the

repair of the bridge’s planking, and

seven hours later, he reported that

tanks could cross. 

While nine U.S. Army divisions

crossed the Rhine at Remagen, most

139

Combat Engineers in World War II

Engineers assembling a Bailey

bridge to put across the Rhine River

at Wesel, March 1945
U.S. forces crossed that broad river

in assaults in late March 1945 that

were supported by the combat

bridge-building endeavors of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Engineer boatmen piloted Navy

landing craft to carry assault units

across the swift-flowing Rhine.

Behind them, other engineers began

installing numerous heavy ponton

and treadway bridges that would

securely tie the assaulting troops to

their sources of supply. Third Army

engineers built a 1,896-foot-long

treadway bridge across the Rhine at

Mainz under combat conditions.

Further south, Seventh Army engineers completed, in less than ten

hours, a 1,047-foot ponton bridge

across the Rhine at Worms. 

Heavy enemy fire delayed completion of some bridges and exacted

casualties. Captain Harold Love,

commander of an engineer treadway

bridge company, was killed when the

treadway section he was ferrying to a

partially completed bridge at

Milchplatz was struck by a German

shell. Nevertheless, the U.S. Army

engineer efforts achieved remarkable

results. After crossing the Rhine, the

Western Allies pushed rapidly across

Germany toward their rendezvous

with the Russians at the Elbe River.

When the Soviet Red Army arrived

in Magdeburg in May, it found that

Ninth Army engineers had already,

on April 13, 1945, built a treadway

bridge across the Elbe at Barby fifteen miles south of that eastern

German city. 

In the fighting against Japanese

forces in the Pacific, U.S. Army

engineers distinguished themselves

140

Strategic Role in War and Peace

An engineer soldier of the 

96th Engineer Battalion, an

African-American unit, operating

a bulldozer to construct a

reservoir near Port Moresby, 

New Guinea, February 1943.

Roosevelt Bridge over the Rhine
notably during the amphibious

landings that they supported. The

engineer boat and shore regiments

of the 2d, 3rd, and 4th Engineer

Special Brigades directed a series 

of landings on the north coast of

New Guinea and on nearby New

Britain, Los Negros, Biak, and

Morotai Islands as U.S. and Australian

forces advanced by sea in a step-bystep fashion toward their October

1944 return to Leyte Island in the

Philippines. The engineer boatmen,

who brought ashore a task force of

the 41st Infantry Division at Nassau

Bay, New Guinea, on June 30, 1943,

found themselves engaged in handto-hand combat with a much larger

Japanese force assaulting the

beaches just one day after the landing. Demonstrating their skill with

knife and bayonet, the engineers

held their portion of the beach

perimeter. 

After the Allies captured the

Japanese base at Finschhafen three

months later, U.S. Army shore

engineers operating the beach depot

two miles north of that New Guinea

town were surprised by a Japanese

landing attempt before dawn on

October 17, 1943. Here, engineer

gunner Junior Van Noy, a nineteenyear-old private from Idaho, refused

to heed calls to withdraw from his

shoreside machine-gun position,

despite heavy enemy attacks on it

with grenades, flame throwers, and

rifle fire. Van Noy managed to

expend his entire stock of ammunition on the fast-approaching Japanese

before succumbing to enemy fire. 

He alone is thought to have killed at

least half of the thirty-nine enemy

141

Combat Engineers in World War II

Pvt. Junior Van Noy

Engineer aviation battalions used

heavy equipment such as bulldozers

and carryalls to construct airfields for

heavy bombers, Kiriwina Island,

July 1943.
troops who had disembarked. Private

Van Noy was honored with a posthumous award of the Medal of Honor. 

Engineer combat forces also

participated in maneuver warfare

on land against the Japanese. On

May 29–30, 1943, the Japanese,

who had been surrounded by U.S.

Army forces on Attu Island in the

Aleutians, attempted to break

through the portion of the American

lines held by an engineer combat

company, but the Japanese were

decisively repulsed. The unit killed

fifty-three of the enemy while suffering only one officer killed and

one enlisted man wounded in the

battle. In the Philippines, the 302d

Engineer Combat Battalion, responsible for road maintenance across

rice paddies and swamps near

Ormoc on Leyte, built or reinforced

fifty-two bridges for tank traffic in

mid-December 1944, generally

working under small-arms and mortar fire, and contributed men and

armored bulldozers to flush enemy

troops out of their foxholes in the

bamboo thicket. In northern Luzon

and on Mindanao in the Philippines

in early 1945, divisional engineer

battalions completed essential 

road- and bridge-building projects

in difficult mountainous terrain

that sometimes rose higher than

four thousand feet above sea level.

The 106th Engineer Combat

Battalion on Mindanao constructed

142

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Laying pierced-steel plank on an

airstrip at Nadzab, New Guinea, 

February 1944.
a 425-foot infantry support bridge

across the Pulangi River; encountering a gorge 120 feet across and

35 feet deep, they blasted out its

sides to quickly create a crude

rock bridge. Much of the engineer

construction work on Luzon and

Mindanao was interrupted by

enemy fire. Engineer officers also

played principal roles in planning

for the invasion of Japan.

During World War II, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers contributed essential military services

wherever the Army was deployed

throughout the world.

143

Combat Engineers in World War II

Engineers of the 856th Engineer

Aviation Battalion, an AfricanAmerican unit, grading

an airfield on Kiriwina Island,

east of New Guinea, October

1943.

Unloading cargo in New Guinea
144

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Building a Bailey bridge, the Philippines, 1945

Engineers searching

for Japanese mines
When the Germans withdrew from northern

France in the summer

and autumn of 1944, they left

Cherbourg Harbor a shambles. A massive reconstruction job faced engineers

with the American forces who occupied the city. The difficulty of obtaining

adequate construction materials from

the United States only exacerbated the

problem. The situation demanded

prompt and ingenious improvisation,

and the Advance Section (ADSEC)

engineers of the Communications

Zone were up to the task.

The enemy had made a big mistake at Cherbourg, and the engineers

turned it to their advantage. Colonel

Emerson C. Itschner, ADSEC engineer,

recalled the situation: “The Germans

were kind enough to leave us a lot of

very heavy steel beams, one meter in

depth and up to seventy-five feet long.

We had enough of these to bridge

from the piles that we drove back to

the seawall.”

Exploitation of the mistake did not

stop with the reopening of the Port of

Cherbourg. The ADSEC engineers

noted that all of the beams bore the

name of a single steel mill, Hadir, in

Differdange, Luxembourg. Right then,

Colonel Itschner decided they would

head for Differdange. As soon as the

town fell, the ADSEC men were there.

They were not disappointed: the Hadir

plant was intact, and the citizens were

eager to reopen it. 

After a little repair and cannibalization, Hadir began once again to produce meter beams. In a short time,

these beams were put to many important uses, including the construction of

massive railroad bridges across the

Rhine. Thus did engineer alertness and

ingenuity solve a major supply problem.

145

Combat Engineers in World War II

Exploiting Enemy Mistakes: Army Engineers, 

Meter Beams, and the Advance into Germany

Railroad bridge over the Rhine built by Army engineers, April 1945
Completed gaseous diffusion plant

at Oak Ridge, Tenn., part of the

massive construction program

managed by the Manhattan

Engineer District
The Manhattan Project was

the United States’ effort to

develop an atomic weapon

during World War II. In three short

years, the project brought atomic

weaponry from scientific hypothesis

to reality. The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers played a major role in the

development of the largest single

government program undertaken to

that date. 

Following the discovery of

nuclear fission in Germany in 1930,

physicists the world over began

experimenting to determine if neutrons were released during fission,

and if so, how they might be utilized

to create a chain reaction. If controlled in a reactor, such a chain

reaction would be a great power

source. If uncontrolled, it could produce an explosion far greater than

any from chemical explosives.

The initial effort to hasten the

progress of atomic research in the

United States came from the scientific community. A small group of

European scientists had settled in the

United States after fleeing from Nazism

in the late 1930s, and they were well

aware of the atomic research being

done in Germany. Fearing that

Germany would produce an atomic

bomb first, they prevailed upon the

renowned physicist Albert Einstein

to persuade President Franklin

Roosevelt to increase funding for

atomic research and development. 

After America’s entry into the

war in December 1941, researchers

from the Allied nations joined the

effort. The Allies drew up formal

agreements on atomic cooperation,

and established a scientific military

intelligence unit to follow German

progress in atomic research. 

By spring 1942, Allied research

had progressed to the point that an

atomic weapon actually seemed possible. The National Defense Research

Committee, then coordinating atomic

research and headed by Vannevar

Bush, began to formulate plans for

the construction of production

facilities. The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, designated by the

committee to oversee the program,

provided the technical expertise

required for this mammoth construction project. 

On June 18, 1942, Major

General W. D. Styer, chief of staff for

The Manhattan Project

147
Army Services of Supply, directed

Colonel James C. Marshall of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

form a new engineer district. The

district was to carry out the Corps’

new responsibility for construction

for the project. The new district’s

offices were initially located in

Manhattan at the headquarters of the

Corps’ New York District. The name

“Manhattan” stuck. It seemed to be a

name that would arouse the least

suspicion for the district, the project,

and its super-secret mission.

By September, Brigadier 

General Leslie R. Groves, formerly

deputy chief of the Construction

Division in the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, had been named by

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson to

direct the entire project. Under

Brigadier General Groves’s command,

the Manhattan Engineer District

began a construction effort that would

include production sites across the

United States and a workforce of

125,000. Major construction projects

included the electromagnetic, gaseous

diffusion, and liquid thermal diffusion

plants at the Clinton Engineer Works

in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the plutonium production plant at Hanford,

Washington; the weapons design and

production facilities at Los Alamos,

New Mexico; and the numerous facilities such as housing, shopping centers, and hospitals to support the large

workforce at these remote and undeveloped locations. Scientific direction

remained with the National Defense

Research Committee within the Office

of Scientific Research and Development, headed by Vannevar Bush.

As research continued in

autumn 1942, Groves and Marshall

began to select sites for the atomic

material production plants. The sites

all had to be isolated so they could

be sealed off for tight security. They

all needed great quantities of both

water and electricity. An additional

site also had to be found where scientists could finally assemble and

test the weapons. 

On the recommendation of

Groves and Marshall, the government

purchased 83,000 acres of land near

Clinton, Tennessee, for the Clinton

148

Strategic Role in War and Peace

S-50 thermal diffusion plant

under construction at Oak Ridge

National Archives
Engineer Works (later called Oak

Ridge). Here the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers built uranium separation

plants to separate the fissionable

isotope uranium-235 from the more

prevalent isotope in uranium ore,

uranium-238. Army engineers also

constructed residential communities

to house employees. 

In December 1942, when famed

scientist Enrico Fermi produced a

controlled chain reaction at the

University of Chicago, he discovered

a new material suitable for fission.

He found that during the chain

reaction, uranium-238 could capture

neutrons and be transformed into

plutonium, a new element as unstable as uranium-235. Twelve days

after Fermi’s successful experiment,

Groves initiated discussions involving

149

The Manhattan Project

Oak Ridge, Tenn., shopping center (foreground) and district headquarters

(background)

Plant under construction at Oak Ridge, Tenn., April 22, 1944
leading scientists and industry and

Corps representatives to build a

plutonium plant site. The government

soon purchased almost a half million

acres of land around Hanford,

Washington, near Bonneville Dam,

for the construction of five plutonium

reactors and employee housing. 

In addition to building huge

industrial plants and providing the

most basic community needs of

water, roads, sanitation, housing, and

power, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also managed the construction

of scientific equipment, newly

designed and as yet untried. The

initial budget outlay for the atomic

energy project in June 1942 was only

$85 million. Project requirements had

been underestimated. For example,

at Oak Ridge the cost of the land

alone was $4 million. By the end of

1946, construction costs at Oak

Ridge totaled $304 million. Research

at this site eventually totaled $20 million, engineering $6 million, and

operations $204 million. Power for

operations cost $10 million. Instead

of requiring a workforce of 2,500

people, as originally estimated, Oak

Ridge eventually had 24,000

employees on the payroll. 

As work continued at Oak Ridge

and Hanford, General Groves

appointed J. Robert Oppenheimer to

take charge of the newly created

weapons laboratory in an isolated

desert area around Los Alamos, New

150

Strategic Role in War and Peace

First reactor pile

area at Hanford

Engineer Works
Mexico. Here scientists assembled

the actual weapons. The first explosion of an atomic bomb occurred at

the Trinity Site in the predawn hours

of July 16, 1945. The atomic bomb

was a reality, and those meant for

actual use were already in transit to

the Pacific. 

The engineering problems

encountered in the project were

numerous. Groves and his staff

fought constantly for needed raw

materials. The engineers had to

translate the scientists’ theories into

precise specifications. New materials

had to be formulated for building the

reactors and the separation equipment. Contractors were held to

extremely exacting specifications for

everything they supplied. The Corps’

engineering role required the coordination of construction with research

and new discoveries. It required

building huge industrial facilities

along with the housing, community,

and recreational facilities needed to

provide a livable environment for the

employees. It required the transportation of goods to these isolated

areas, the management of huge

amounts of money, and the coordination of input from hundreds of contractors. Further complicating the

development process was the need

for secrecy—only a select few knew

that the ultimate goal of the

Manhattan Project was to produce an

atomic bomb.

The project also required the

maintenance of a delicate relationship

151

The Manhattan Project

Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves

considers potential targets.
between the military and the scientific communities. Workers and scientists had relocated to physically

isolated areas and, because of the

secrecy of their work, had to limit

their contact with the outside world.

Even in wartime, when the work had

a special urgency and sacrifices 

were made for the war effort, morale

was a great concern. The scientists

especially were uncomfortable under

military supervision and security

restrictions. Very few of the thousands

of employees on the project knew

what they were actually working on

because of the strict security; however, the employees did share anxiety

over the unknown dangers inherent

in the materials they dealt with. 

No one dreamed at the beginning how massive the project would

become. The four-year-long research

and development project was completed at a cost of $2 billion. Very

few who worked on the project

understood at the time the tremendous impact the project would

have on the world. In the end, the

Manhattan Project produced the

weapons that leveled Hiroshima 

and Nagasaki, ending World War II

and marking the onset of the

Atomic Age. 

152

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Administrative and residential areas at the Hanford Engineer Works

Completed chemical separation plants and steam-electric facility at Hanford, Wash.
153

The Manhattan Project

While significant numbers 

of civilian women served

at all of the project sites

for the development of the atomic

bomb, many of the women serving in

the Manhattan Engineer District were

Soldiers and officers of the U.S. Army.

During World War II, more than 

150,000 American women served in 

the Women’s Army Corps, or WAC, 

and many assigned to the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers participated in the

Manhattan Project. As early as 1943,

women Soldiers were brought into the

Manhattan Project for clerical, technical,

and administrative work. 

The need for additional personnel

led to the establishment of a Manhattan

District Women’s Army Corps Detachment on June 3, 1943. After February

1, 1945, the entire military complement

of the Manhattan District was designated by the Chief of Engineers as the

9812th Technical Services Unit–Civil

Engineers. By the end of the war in

1945, approximately 425 women

were in this unit, which earned the

Meritorious Service Unit Award.

Jobs performed by women

assigned to the Manhattan Engineer

District included stenographer, telephone operator, laboratory technician,

clerk, cryptographer, classified information handler, metallurgist, electronics

technician, photographer, spectroscopist, nurse, and scientist. A large

number of notable women, both WAC

and civilian, worked in the Manhattan

Project. The first commanding officer of

the WAC detachment was Lieutenant

Frances W. House. She was succeeded

by Lieutenant Arlene G. Scheidenhelm

in March 1944. Master Sergeant

Elizabeth Wilson ran the cyclotron at

Los Alamos. Electronics technician

Jane Heydorn helped to develop

bomb-testing equipment. Lieutenant

Catherine Piccolo wrote official press

releases explaining why the bombs

were utilized. Physicist Chien Shiung

Wu played a key role in developing the

gaseous diffusion uranium separation

process. Leona Woods monitored the

first nuclear chain reaction. The head of

a vital research team, Maria Goeppert

Mayer, later received the Nobel Prize in

physics. Elizabeth Riddle Graves developed a neutron reflector to surround

the atom core at Los Alamos. 

In commending the WACs for their

contributions to the Manhattan Project,

on August 9, 1945, then-Major General

Groves wrote, “I wish to express to 

you, the military personnel of the

Manhattan Project, my official and

personal appreciation for the industry,

ability and attention to duty under 

most trying conditions which you have

displayed since the inception of the

project. Without you, this project could

not have achieved success. Your devotion to duty and particularly your conscientious efforts to maintain the vital

security of the project have been of the

highest order. You have every right to

be proud of the vital role which you

have played in this development which

has culminated in the use in combat

against Japan of the greatest weapon

man has ever forged. Our achievement

could not have been realized but for

your individual effort. The saving in

American lives will be your reward.”

Women Played Key Roles in the Manhattan Project

Women’s Army Corps Detachment at Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Soldiers of the 2d Engineer Combat Battalion

sweep a road for anti-tank mines, March 1953 

National Archives 
Following World War II, the

Korean Peninsula was occupied by the victorious Allies.

By the time the occupation ended,

two Korean governments had arisen

—the Soviet-sponsored Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea in the

north and the Western-supported

Republic of Korea in the south. On

June 25, 1950, the North Korean

government launched an attack

across the 38th parallel in a plan to

unite the peninsula under communist rule.

Surprised by the North Korean

attack, U.S. Army troops in Korea

and the Republic of Korea’s forces

could at first do no more than delay

the advance of the larger and better

equipped North Korean forces. 

U.S. Army engineers played a major

role in this delaying action, mining

roads and destroying key bridges.

The rugged terrain of the Korean

Peninsula and the numerical superiority of enemy forces made engineer

construction and combat vital to the

U.S. Army during the Korean War. 

In the early fighting, engineers

were frequently required to do tasks

not traditionally theirs. For example,

on July 20, 1950, members of

Company C, 3rd Engineer Combat

Battalion, made the first verifiable

combat use of the newly developed

3.5-inch rocket launcher, using it to

destroy a tank that was threatening

their division commander near

Taejon. Attempting to withdraw from

Taejon that evening, U.S. forces were

stopped for a time by enemy roadblocks. Engineer Sergeant George

Libby placed wounded men on an

artillery tractor and used his body to

shield the driver as it crashed

through two enemy roadblocks before

Army Engineers in Korea

155

Engineers mine a bridge to impede 

the North Korean advance, July 1950

U.S. Army Engineer School 
reaching American lines to the

south. Sergeant Libby, who died of

his wounds, was posthumously

awarded the Medal of Honor. 

By early August 1950, U.S. and

South Korean forces had withdrawn

to the southeastern port city of

Pusan. The outnumbered allied

forces maintained a long defensive

perimeter around Pusan as General

Douglas MacArthur prepared to land

a large body of U.S. troops behind

enemy lines at Inch'on. Engineers

were frequently committed to fight as

infantry on the Pusan perimeter.

Private Melvin Brown of the 8th

Engineer Combat Battalion was

awarded the Medal of Honor for

bravely holding his position on a

wall of the ancient fortress of Kasan

during an enemy assault. After he

had expended his ammunition,

Private Brown used his entrenching

tool to repel the armed attackers as

they reached the top of the wall. 

MacArthur’s behind-the-lines

assault at Inch'on, which began on

September 15, 1950, caught the

enemy by surprise. Subsequently,

U.S. forces took the offensive

throughout Korea. The bridgebuilding and road and rail repairs

undertaken by the U.S. Army engineers allowed U.S. and allied forces

to push north rapidly in pursuit of

the disintegrating North Korean

156

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Sgt. George Libby

Soldiers of the 14th Engineer

Battalion place barbed wire along

the banks of the Naktong River,

10 August 1950. 

U.S. Army Engineer School
Army. Handicapped at first by

tremendous shortages of supplies,

the engineers had to make innovative

use of available materials for these

construction efforts. 

When Chinese units began their

powerful counteroffensive in November 1950, the U.S. Army engineers

had to destroy many of the same

bridges they had recently built as

U.S. forces again retreated south of

Seoul. But lateral roads built by the

engineers behind the new defensive

lines proved critical when the

Chinese broke through a portion of

that line. These roads enabled the

157

Army Engineers in Korea

Engineers of the 2d Infantry Division construct a bypass to enable heavy

equipment to cross the Hwang-gang River, 25 September 1950

U.S. Army Engineer School

Men of the 65th Combat Engineer Battalion reinforce a muddy road on the north

bank of the Han River, March 1951

U.S. Army Engineer School
Americans to transport the 3rd

Infantry Division 100 miles in a

single day to plug the hole that the

Chinese had created. 

As U.S. forces returned to the

offensive in mountainous central

Korea in early 1951, engineer units

blasted cliffsides to construct new

roads and built aerial tramways to

carry supplies to the troops. When

the advancing 23rd Regimental

Combat Team and a French battalion

were surrounded at Chipyong-ni on

February 13, 1951, by an attacking

force apparently composed of three

Chinese divisions, the engineer company supporting the combat team

fought as infantry. They withstood

the attack until an American

armored relief column could reach

the town two days later. 

In early October 1951, the 2d

Engineer Combat Battalion converted a rough track leading north to

Mundung-ni into a road usable by

armor, enabling an American tank

battalion to surprise a Chinese

column attempting to relieve hardpressed Chinese troops on Heartbreak Ridge near the 38th parallel.

A U.S. Army engineer construction

battalion also supported the

1st Marine Division in its combat in

mountainous central Korea during

much of 1951. 

The engineers confronted a

critical challenge after the summer

floods of July 1952 washed out two

158

Strategic Role in War and Peace

A cable car built by the 3d Engineers carries men and supplies up the steep hillsides 

National Archives

Soldiers of the 77th Engineer Combat Company lay a single-apron barbed wire fence

National Archives 
159

Army Engineers in Korea

Soldiers of the 185th Engineer

Combat Battalion stand watch

over a floating bridge damaged

by flood waters on the Soyang

River, May 1951. 

National Archives

Built by the 84th Engineer Construction

Battalion, the Libby Bridge provided a

vital high-level crossing of the Imjin

River, July 1953. 

National Archives
of the five high-level bridges across

the Imjin River, located a mere four

miles behind the battle lines of three

U.S. Army divisions. After installing

two temporary floating bridges, engineer troops built at the less critical

site an innovative low-level bridge

sturdy enough to survive if overtopped by flood waters. In the center

of the I Corps line, within range of

enemy artillery, the 84th Engineer

Construction Battalion erected a

modern, commercial-type highway

bridge utilizing sheet-pile cofferdams

and reinforced concrete piers.

Dedicated to engineer Medal of

Honor recipient Sergeant George

Libby, that bridge remains in use

and retains its tactical significance

decades after its construction. 

The U.S. Army engineers in

Korea compiled a remarkable record

of combat and wartime construction

that complemented and often multiplied the combat effectiveness of the

highly motorized and mobile American units engaged there. U.S. Army

engineers often were the unsung

heroes of the Korean War, for they

helped create the environment that

allowed the United States and its

allies to fight and win.

160

Strategic Role in War and Peace

On their way to a second tour of

duty in Korea, soldiers of the 8th

Engineer Combat Battalion wait to

disembark from their troop transport. 

National Archives
The Korean Peninsula was an

inhospitable place in which to

wage a war, not only due to

topography and climate but also

because the U.S. Army faced a wellsupplied enemy fighting an ideological

crusade. In overcoming the elements as

well as a tenacious enemy, U.S. Army

engineers again proved invaluable in

combat support roles. Personal

accounts by some of the participants

shed light on the challenges they faced.

Engineers were deeply involved

with operations in Korea before the

outbreak of hostilities. After reading

intelligence reports, Lieutenant 

Colonel Edward Rowny, a planner in

General Douglas MacArthur’s Far East

Command (FECOM) headquarters,

warned intelligence officials that the

United States needed to be mindful of

the possibility of an attack in Korea.

After the North Koreans invaded, and

U.S. and South Korean forces withdrew south, Rowny and others in

FECOM helped draft a plan for an

amphibious invasion to relieve the

pressure on the Pusan perimeter. The

staff officers recommended invading

near or slightly behind the front line.

MacArthur took a much more aggressive approach, directing his staff to

study an invasion at the port of

Inch'on, 100 kilometers up the coast

opposite Seoul. “One should land as

close as possible to the objective, and

the objective is the capital” the General

said. “You’re all timid,” MacArthur lectured his staff, “you should think boldly

and decisively.” When another planner

cited the danger posed by Inch'on’s

thirty-one-foot tide, MacArthur brushed

those fears aside. “And as for the

tides,” he said, “don’t take counsel of

your fears. Physical obstacles can be

overcome by good planning, strong

nerves and will power.” Rowny would

need all those attributes, for General

MacArthur appointed the young officer

161

Army Engineers in Korea

In Their Own Words: The U.S. Army Engineer

Experience in Korea 

Lt. Col. Edward Rowny is awarded the

Legion of Merit by Maj. Gen. Edward

Almond, commander, X Corps,

December 1950. 

National Archives

Snow and bitter cold made operations in Korea difficult. Here, soldiers of the 

2d Engineer Combat Battalion survey a new supply route.

National Archives 
to be the engineer for the Inch’on

landing and he went ashore in the first

wave of the assault.

During the first winter of the

Korean War, Lieutenant Maurice D.

Roush was a platoon leader with the

13th Engineer Combat Battalion. He

described the lack of personal equipment to face the harsh seasonal conditions following his amphibious

debarkation along the eastern coast of

Korea: “About the time we landed we

were given trigger-finger mittens and

some hats with earflaps. That was the

extent of winter gear. We still had our

blanket sleeping bags. We didn’t have

good parkas or good footgear. We got

into one of the worst winter situations

I’ve ever seen. I’ve never been so

cold—and I come from Wyoming! Up

in North Korea on the plateau, up near

the Yalu River, it’s extremely cold.”

For most of 1952, Lieutenant

Colonel Harry D. Hoskins, Jr., commanded the 10th Engineer Combat

Battalion in support of the 3d Infantry

Division near the 38th parallel. He later

recounted the defensive measures

Army engineers used: “We made a

series of firetraps to be used in the

event the North Koreans got into the

Ch’orwon Valley. That was a wide area,

so we needed to have a lot of people

or a lot of mines or something to stop

them. You have to have a series of

interlocking firetraps to stop that kind

of an attack. At that time the North

Koreans didn’t have tanks. They were

just waves, and waves, and waves of

manpower. You had to have mines,

especially antipersonnel mines, to stop

the manpower and any heavy vehicles.

Then all kinds of napalm were needed,

so you could drop it in quickly. You

couldn’t be waiting around because

once there was a breakthrough they’d

pour in there in a hell of a hurry.”

Colonel Pashal N. Strong, Jr., was

an engineer officer with the Eighth

Army. Commenting on the performance of reserve engineer officers, he

noted, “From my own experience, the

best regimental commanders for heavy

construction work were contractors

who had been doing that in the

reserves. I found them better for that

than the West Point graduates,

because the West Point graduates

hadn’t had the practical experience in

heavy construction that the contrac162

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Republic of Korea Army Engineer Training School

National Archives
tors had. West Pointers also were a bit

too worried about the spit-and-polish,

sometimes at the expense of their

construction activities.”

Personnel shortages forced the

U.S. Army to use Korean soldiers to fill

out many of its under strength units.

The Korean soldiers were introduced

into the U.S. units through the Korean

Augmentation to the United States

Army (KATUSA) program, and the

Korean soldiers quickly proved their

value. Although the KATUSAs had to

be brought up to speed, once trained

they proved invaluable to the U.S.

Army engineers. As Lieutenant Colonel

Evan S. Pickett later commented,

“When we first received them, the

KATUSA troops were untrained and

inadequate for engineer work. They

had no coordination for running bulldozers and graders or running our

hydraulic equipment. They were good

at hand labor, but they were very poor

with mechanical equipment. But, as

time went on, we found that they

learned to operate the mechanical

equipment fairly quickly.... In the end

they were well qualified and seemed to

contribute a lot to our mission.”

Lieutenant Joseph K. Bratton

served with the 13th Engineers,

7th Division. Lieutenant Bratton, who

later became Chief of Engineers,

summed up the importance of his

experience in Korea this way: “The

overwhelming positive lesson I learned

was the great value of direct engineer

support to the infantry regiments. If 

the regiment knew how to use the

engineers, and if the engineers were

not too bashful in explaining their

capabilities to the tactical unit commanders, they gained a great deal

from the engineers’ support. I was

thrilled to see how well our companies

worked with the regiments. That was

happening when I arrived and it built

up while the 7th Division stayed in

Korea. That was a tremendous lesson

that I think not only engineers learned,

but everybody learned.”

163

Army Engineers in Korea

An engineer uses a bulldozer to repair a road damaged by retreating enemy troops. 

National Archives 
Soldiers of the 299th Engineer Battalion

check the alignment of piles before they

are driven, May 1966.
U.S. Army Engineers in the Vietnam Conflict

165

The U.S. Army again called

upon its engineers for combat support in Asia to assist

the Republic of Vietnam in its struggle against a communist insurgency.

Beginning in the early 1960s, the

American commitment of ground

forces to Vietnam eventually numbered more than 535,000 and lasted

for a decade. In South Vietnam,

insurgent forces often relied heavily

upon a strategy of concealment when

in combat against American troops.

U.S. Army operations in Vietnam

thus did not occur along a welldefined front line, but could break

out wherever the Americans encountered Viet Cong guerrillas or North

Vietnamese troops. The elusiveness

of the enemy led U.S. Army engineers to alter the way they pursued

their task of enhancing the combat

effectiveness of friendly forces. 

American forces frequently

employed search-and-destroy missions

to attack areas of enemy strength.

The 1st Engineer Battalion supported Operation Rolling Stone in

Binh Duong Province near Saigon by

building a road into the Iron Triangle

and War Zone D, two staging areas

frequently used by the Viet Cong.

Men of this battalion engaged in a

half-hour-long firefight with the enemy

on February 26, 1966. The following

summer, a fifty-two-bulldozer battalion task force cleared 2,700 acres of

jungle, destroyed six miles of enemy Land clearing at Ben Cat, 

South Vietnam
tunnels, and demolished eleven factories and villages in the Iron Triangle.

The widespread use of helicopter

transport in Vietnam enabled U.S.

forces to respond quickly to attacks

anywhere in the country. After South

Vietnamese forces relieved a

besieged Special Forces camp at

Plei Me in the Central Highlands in

October 1965, an engineer company

of the airmobile 1st Cavalry Division

lengthened and improved an earthen

airfield at a nearby tea plantation,

using equipment brought in by helicopter. The division then pursued

the attacking North Vietnamese regiments west from Plei Me through the

jungles of the highlands. For forward

supply and reinforcements in this

campaign, the division relied upon

helicopter landing zones that divisional engineers quickly cleared

from the jungle using chain saws and

demolitions. By the time the North

Vietnamese forces reached the safety

of Cambodia, they had lost 1,800

men. During the next ten months, the

8th Engineer Battalion built seven

airfields for the division in the

Central Highlands, including one at

a site eight miles from the

Cambodian border to which all construction equipment, supplies, and

personnel had to be transported by

helicopter. Moving the equipment by

air was possible because U.S. Army

engineer planners had modified procurement orders for large earthmoving equipment to obtain machinery

that could be disassembled for airlift

and then quickly reassembled. 

Various technological innovations

aided the U.S. Army engineers in

Vietnam. To combat the thick mud

that could quickly disable the tactical airfields in the monsoon season,

the engineers employed the new T-17

membrane, a neoprene-coated fabric

used to cover the airfields and provide them with an impermeable

“raincoat.” Another problem was the

additional wear on helicopter rotors

caused by the abrasive dust stirred

166

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Soldiers of the 1st Engineer Battalion

sweep for mines near the village of

Thien Thanh.
167

U.S. Army Engineers in the Vietnam Conflict

up by flight operations. The swirling

man-made dust storms also significantly reduced helicopter pilots’

vision, further complicating flight

operations. At the end of 1965, U.S.

Army Chief of Staff General Harold

K. Johnson directed Lieutenant

General William F. Cassidy, the Chief

of Engineers, to find a solution.

Cassidy relied upon the expertise of

the Corps’ research laboratories,

which had been using peneprime, a

dust palliative with an asphalt base,

as a penetrant in civil works projects.

Personnel from the Waterways

Experiment Station led an assessment team to Vietnam to determine

the appropriateness of this agent for

battlefield use. Subsequently, U.S.

Army engineers sprayed peneprime

onto heliport sites during the dry season to prevent dust clouds from interfering with helicopter operations. 

Land clearing was a very effective weapon against the Viet Cong

insurgency. Guerrilla forces used the

thick forests along the nation’s major

transportation routes to conceal

themselves before laying mines or

staging ambushes. Consequently, the

engineers had to clear all vegetation

Installing T-17 membrane

at Bao Loc

Department of Defense

Spreading T-17 membrane

on a runway
up to 100 yards on either side of

major roadways. Finding bulldozers

and flammable napalm unequal to

the task, in 1967 the engineers introduced the Rome plow, a military

tractor equipped with a protective

cab and a special tree-cutting blade

that was sharpened daily. The Rome

plow was used to cut trees at or near

ground level; it also had a stinger to

split longer trees. Lieutenant

General Julian Ewell, commander of

the 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam,

called the Rome plow “the most

effective device” in his arsenal.

A land-clearing engineer company

equipped with thirty Rome plows

could clear 180 to 200 acres of

medium-density jungle each day. 

Supporting the U.S. military effort

in Vietnam required a massive construction effort. During the war, U.S.

Army engineers, supported by a large

contractor workforce, built thousands

of facilities including warehouses,

piers, troop cantonment areas, maintenance facilities, roads, and bridges.

At its peak, Army engineer troop

strength in Vietnam approached

40,000 soldiers, augmented by tens 

of thousands of contractors. The

presence of so many construction

contractors was a notable innovation

and marked the first time civilians

assumed a major construction role in

an active theater of operations.

When American troops and

equipment began to pour into

168

Strategic Role in War and Peace

60th Land Clearing Company’s Rome plow

A heavily armed Rome plow operator clearing jungle
Vietnam in the mid-1960s, the

country had only two ports capable 

of docking oceangoing vessels. With

90 percent of U.S. supplies destined

for Vietnam arriving by ship, the lack

of sufficient port facilities soon created a massive backlog of ships waiting to unload. To ease the congestion,

the United States began improving

South Vietnam’s ports. To improve

access, a fleet of dredges, including

two from the Corps of Engineers, 

set to work clearing waterways and

deepening channels. To expedite the

construction of deep-water berthing

facilities, Army engineers installed

floating piers. Fabricated by the

DeLong Corporation in the United

States, the first pier and all of its

support equipment were towed to

Vietnam and installed by the 

497th Port Construction Company.

The pier consisted of a ninety by

three-hundred-foot-long barge supported by eighteen tubular steel caissons to anchor it to the bottom. Once

caissons were in place the engineers

used pneumatic jacks attached to the

caisson collars to lift the barge up on

its legs to the right height. Engineers

installed the first DeLong pier at

Cam Ranh Bay in December 1965,

and it quickly doubled the capacity

of the port. Soon after, the DeLong

piers were installed at many of South

Vietnam’s major ports.

The enemy’s Tet Offensive early

in 1968 closed for more than a month

several critical roads, particularly in

the northern part of the Republic of

Vietnam. The U.S. Army’s 35th Engineer Battalion, which had concentrated

on road-building during its previous

service in Vietnam, reopened coastal

Route 1 north of Da Nang in late

February 1968 while assigned to the

169

U.S. Army Engineers in the Vietnam Conflict

DeLong pier floated into position with

caissons ready to be driven down,

Cam Ranh Bay, December 1965.

The port of Cam Ranh Bay showing

newly constructed piers.
III Marine Amphibious Force. By this

time, the engineers had built a sufficient number of airfields, heliports,

and troop cantonments to permit them

to continue to concentrate on road

construction. The 27th Engineer

Battalion built a new, all-weather

highway from Hue west to the A Shau

Valley, an enemy stronghold. 

In fact, U.S. Army engineers

constructed much of South Vietnam’s

highway system. Overall, engineer

troops constructed roughly 900 miles

of modern, paved highways connecting the major population centers of

the Republic of Vietnam. Engineer

officers also monitored the construction by private American contractors

of an additional 550 miles of Vietnamese highways. Brigadier General

Carroll Dunn, Director of Construction, Military Assistance Command,

Vietnam, described the road construction effort as “the single most

effective and important development

program undertaken by the American effort in Vietnam.” The engineers also safeguarded the roads.

Units in the Mekong Delta developed

a clay-lime coagulation process that

they used there to build durable

roads from locally available materials. The engineers protected their

bridges by installing extensive lighting systems and antiswimmer and

antimine devices using concertina

wire and booms.

Army engineers also undertook

certain responsibilities for installation security, and these sometimes

170

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Soldiers of the 1st Engineer Battalion

driving pile for the construction of a

new bridge near Di An
171

U.S. Army Engineers in the Vietnam Conflict

involved heroic individual actions.

When an enemy team infiltrated the

base of the 173d Engineer Company

at Camp Radcliff at An Khe in the

Central Highlands on March 20, 1969,

engineer Corporal Terry Kawamura

threw himself on an explosive charge

that had been hurled into his quarters,

absorbing its blast and thereby protecting other members of his unit

endangered in the attack. Corporal

Kawamura was posthumously awarded

the Medal of Honor. 

A half dozen U.S. Army engineer battalions participated in the

Cambodian incursion in May and

June of 1970. Engineers built thirtyfive miles of new roads, twenty-three

fixed bridges, and twenty-five firesupport bases during the attack on

North Vietnamese supply points and

staging areas within Cambodia.

During this period, the senior U.S.

Army engineer officer in Vietnam,

Major General John Dillard, and two

other high-ranking engineers were

killed when their helicopter was shot

down southwest of Pleiku. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers showed

the same bravery and dedication as

the combat troops during service in

Southeast Asia.

Engineers pour concrete for a new

bridge approach.
To counter the immense technological advantage held by

U.S. and allied forces during

the Vietnam conflict, the Viet Cong

developed an extensive network of

underground tunnel complexes. From

these tunnels, which were concentrated

mostly around Cu Chi but spread as

far as the outskirts of Saigon, the

enemy could ambush American forces

and then safely vanish underground.

The tunnels became so highly developed that they eventually contained

armories, hospitals, mess halls, manufacturing centers, and storage facilities.

Some complexes ranged up to fifty

kilometers long. Extensive boobytrapping made it next to impossible 

for American troops to extricate the

enemy from their underground safe

havens, which allowed them to withstand intense aerial bombardment.

U.S. Army engineers developed 

a number of methods for destroying

the tunnels or making them unusable.

The least effective was by mechanical

means, as bulldozers and plows could

displace only the shallowest tunnels.

Moreover, it was difficult to deploy

bulldozers and plows in densely

vegetated and remote areas. Flooding

also proved substantially ineffective

because the Viet Cong had dug additional wells deep inside the tunnel

complexes to prevent

them from becoming

saturated. An even less

desirable—but most

immediately available—

method was for volunteers from special engineer tunnel demolition

teams (who became

known as “tunnel rats”) 

to enter the tunnels

headfirst to clear them

out the hard way. 

Conventional explosives also were used to

clear the tunnels. Block

explosives placed at

critical points with a

force of two pounds 

per foot could bring

down a section, and

shaped charges facing

upward could destroy

certain tunnel segments. Another

method was to deposit cratering

charges in five-foot-deep holes 

along the outside trace of a known

tunnel. Because of their explosive

characteristics, Bangalore torpedoes

were the most successful conventional

means of effecting complete destruction, but each section had to be carried into the tunnels and emplaced

by hand. 

Other methods employed were

innovative. One was to run tubing along

the length of a tunnel and then fill it with

liquid explosive either by gravity fill or a

pumping system, although the highly

flammable nature of these liquid explosives often countered their effective

use. Another means of denying use of

the tunnels was through the introduc172

Strategic Role in War and Peace

U.S. Army Engineers Helped Clear 

Viet Cong Tunnels

An engineer tunnel demolition team 

Department of Defense
173

U.S. Army Engineers in the Vietnam Conflict

tion of tear gas dispersed by the “MiteyMite” blower. Although these chemical

agents could persist on the walls of the

tunnels and render them uninhabitable

for months, the dense jungle and attendant climatic conditions often “swallowed up” chemical dispersants. 

In the most effective method,

engineers used acetylene for destruction of tunnels with less than seven

feet of overburden. Three cubic meters

of acetylene pumped into an area

could destroy forty cubic meters of

tunnel volume. When acetylene was

used in conjunction with conventional

explosives, the effect could collapse

fifteen feet of overburden. In the end,

however, enemy operations from the

tunnels were never completely

eradicated.

Engineers setting charges to collapse underground enemy bunkers
A Saturn V test vehicle emerges from the

Vehicle Assembly Building. The launch

control center is in the foreground.
Given its past experience in

missile site construction on

the Intercontinental

Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

was the logical choice of Congress

and the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) to

oversee NASA’s accelerated construction program in the early

1960s. Not only was the Corps well

versed in missile facility construction, using the Corps also eliminated

the need for NASA to establish its

own construction organization. 

Although the Corps had been

providing NASA with design and construction services since the spring of

1960, the scope of the Corps’ support

changed dramatically in May 1961

when President John F. Kennedy

declared a national goal of landing a

man on the Moon and returning him

safely to Earth within the decade. The

president’s speech was the genesis of

the Apollo Program, and the following

September the civilian space agency

turned to the Corps to build the facilities that would become the hub of the

Nation’s space program—the sprawling Mississippi Test Facility, later

The Corps and the Space Program

175

Carrying an Apollo spacecraft, a Saturn V launch vehicle takes off from Kennedy

Space Center.
renamed the John C. Stennis Space

Center; the Manned Spacecraft Center

in Houston, now the Lyndon B.

Johnson Space Center; and the

84,000-acre facility on the east coast

of Florida that would later be named

the John F. Kennedy Space Center. 

In response to the president’s

mandate, NASA and the Corps

embarked on a massive construction

program along the Gulf of Mexico

and the Atlantic Ocean, an area that

quickly came to be called the

“NASA crescent.” The launch vehicles destined to carry the NASA

astronauts into space were orders of

magnitude larger than NASA had

ever built, and consequently transporting them by water was the only

feasible alternative. As a result,

early in the site construction process

planners decided that it was imperative that all of the new facilities have

easy access to navigable waterways

to transport the boosters for testing

and launch. Indeed, proximity to

water was a factor in the selection of

Houston as the site for the manned

spacecraft center. On September 25,

1961, only three days after NASA

requested the Corps’ assistance, the

Fort Worth District began arranging

preliminary topographic and utility

surveys of the site of the manned

spacecraft center. 

Fort Worth District’s experience

with incremental funding stood NASA

in good stead in the construction of

the center. This method of funding

was based on the congressional tradition of appropriating construction

funds on a year-to-year basis. That

meant the district contracted for each

segment of the center as a separate

unit. One virtue of this procedure was

that it allowed significant changes in

construction plans without delaying

the project. For instance, on July 17,

1962, NASA announced that the

future Mission Control Center would

also be located at the Houston center.

This decision forced the Corps to

insert an entirely new building into

its master plan. 

The incremental funding system

also permitted major modifications of

facilities already under construction.

This was important because speed

was essential if NASA’s goals were to

be met, and the engineers and NASA

had to construct buildings at the

same time NASA was designing the

laboratories and machines they would

176

Strategic Role in War and Peace

A specially configured barge

carries a Saturn booster near

the Mississippi test facility.
contain. Troubles with the Space

Environment Simulation Chamber

showed the value of the arrangement.

The failure of the chamber during its

first vacuum test required not only

its redesign, but also numerous

changes in the one-third-completed

building. Incremental funding

enabled contract modifications to be

made without major delays. In

November 1966, after spending some

$75 million on the 1,600-acre project,

Fort Worth District completed its

work on what came to be called the

Johnson Manned Spacecraft Center. 

Mobile District’s involvement 

in NASA’s rocket testing program

began with the transfer of the Army

Ballistic Missile Agency’s Development Operations Division at the

George C. Marshall Space Flight

Center at Redstone Arsenal in

Huntsville, Alabama, to NASA in

1959. NASA then established the

Michoud Assembly Facility near New

Orleans as a support facility for the

Huntsville projects. Michoud was the

assembly plant for the large Saturn

booster rockets. In autumn 1961,

NASA established its test facility for

the rockets assembled at Michoud on

a 217-square-mile tract at the

Mississippi Test Center, later known

as the National Space Technology

Laboratories, accessible from

Michoud by both land and water.

Mobile District spent more than $200

million constructing space program

177

The Corps and the Space Program

The Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, under construction, December

1966.

Constructed at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., the

Saturn V test stand was designed to withstand 7.5 million pounds of thrust.
facilities up to the completion of the

test center in April 1966. The center’s initial mission was to test the

Apollo-Saturn V second stage booster

and to test flight models of both the

first and second stage boosters, with

thrusts of 7.5 million and 1 million

pounds, respectively. The site

became NASA’s principal test facility. 

Initially, design and construction

work at Kennedy Space Center was

handled by the Jacksonville District,

but to meet the demands of the Apollo

construction program in May 1963,

the Corps of Engineers established

the new Canaveral District to handle

the construction effort. 

Perhaps no other structure better

symbolizes the Corps of Engineers’

contribution to the United States

space program than Launch Complex

39 at the Kennedy Space Center.

Built to assemble and launch the

giant Saturn V rockets that would

carry the Apollo astronauts to the

moon, facility construction began in

1963. Major components of the

launch complex included the Vehicle

Assembly Building (VAB), a 525-

foot-tall building where the rockets

were assembled; the adjacent launch

control center that included four

178

Strategic Role in War and Peace

A Corps official poses with

drawings and specifications

from the mammoth project at

Launch Complex 39. 

The Vehicle Assembly Building at the

Kennedy Space Center. Components

for the Saturn V launch vehicle arrived

by barge in the basin (foreground).
command centers; and a three-milelong crawlerway built to transport the

Saturn V rockets to the launch pad.

The launch complex contained two

launch pads, 39A and 39B, and each

covered a quarter square mile. But

the launch complex was only part of

the project; supporting the NASA

program was a large contractor work

force, and to house them the Corps

constructed an industrial area on

nearby Merritt Island that encompassed fifty buildings, thirty-eight

miles of roads, and at its peak

14,000 employees worked there. 

Ultimately, the Kennedy Space

Center cost $900 million to build, and

in the decades since its completion

has served as America’s gateway to

space. In the words of NASA Administrator James Webb, “The road to the

moon is paved with bricks, steel and

concrete here on earth.” 

Other Corps offices completed

additional construction for NASA.

For example, the New England

Division selected the site for and

supervised the construction of the

Electronics Research Center in

Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the

late 1960s. That facility is now 

the Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center. In supervising 

more than $1 billion of NASA construction, elements of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers in all parts of the

country made major contributions to

the national space effort. 

179

The Corps and the Space Program

Launch Complex 39, Pad A, with 

the crawlerway connecting the pad

to the Vehicle Assembly Building in

the distance.
180

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Lunar Maps for NASA

As the U.S. Government

looked toward manned

spaceflight and an eventual

trip to the moon, it became clear that

astronauts would need concise maps

of that terrain. In 1958, the Army Map

Service of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers began to assess the

feasibility of producing an accurate

map of the moon based upon telescopic photographs. These Corps

topographers concluded that reconnaissance-type photomaps at the

scale of 1:5,000,000 were feasible;

however, such maps would show only

the most general of terrain features.

There were considerable technical

challenges to this topographical effort.

The moon was a quarter million miles

from the Earth. Virtually all photomaps

of the moon were taken from an altitude of six miles above the Earth.

Because all photomaps were nearly

identical, there was no way to utilize

stereoscopic techniques to form threedimensional images that could determine elevations for terrain features.

Furthermore, there were no established fixed reference points on the

moon by which explorers could determine the elevation, latitude, and longitude of their location.

To overcome initial failed attempts,

topographers developed new or

improved techniques and equipment. An important innovation was

the use of closed-circuit television

to enable mapmakers to observe

lunar features under different conditions of light and shadow. This

process made it possible to determine accurately the height and

depth of various terrain features. 

The resultant lunar map represented the visible surface of the

moon at the feasible scale and

showed five thousand geographical features. These terrain features

were shown with 1,000-meter

contours, and in some cases with

500-meter contours. The Corps

managed to map certain small

areas in greater detail; for instance,

proposed NASA landing sites were

mapped at a scale of 1:250,000, with

color tinting added for realism.

The Army Map Service also

produced rubber or plastic threedimensional models of parts of the

moon’s surface. These models were

photographed and the films made from

them, when projected on large

screens, effectively portrayed the varying altitudes that astronauts would

face. The models were used in simulated landings practiced at NASA

experimental stations. 

The topographic engineers also

found solutions to other problems

plaguing the space program. They

developed a material that could withstand the extreme conditions of space

travel and exposure on the moon.

Special plastic and rubber compounds

allowed the development of foldable

maps that could withstand temperatures ranging from –250 to 214 degrees

Fahrenheit. Additionally, photographic

equipment was installed in highorbiting satellites, providing better

images to create improved maps. 

First moonwalk

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
When Iraqi forces invaded

Kuwait in August 1990,

the United States began

to assemble a military and political

coalition that would ultimately drive

the Iraqis out. The liberation of

Kuwait was the centerpiece of Operation Desert Storm, but the coalition’s

accomplishments on the battlefield

were predicated on a large and often

overlooked logistics effort that made

the offensive possible. The Corps of

Engineers was a vital part of that

effort, deploying 160 people to Saudi

Arabia to manage the construction of

nearly $300 million of base camps,

sanitation facilities, roads, bridges,

warehouses, and maintenance facilities. In addition, Corps real estate

specialists leased hundreds of Saudi

facilities, ranging from housing complexes to warehouses to maintenance

facilities, to accommodate the rapidly

expanding Army, Navy, and Air Force

presence in the country. In addition,

scientists and engineers from the

Corps’ research laboratories developed new technologies for analyzing

terrain, detecting mines, locating

water, and controlling dust that

helped coalition forces operate in the

harsh desert environment. 

After coalition forces drove the

Iraqis out of Kuwait in March 1991,

Combat and Reconstruction: 

From the Gulf War to the Global War on Terrorism

181

An abandoned Iraqi tank

with burning oil wells in 

the distance, March 1991
the Corps of Engineers played a

leading role in rebuilding the warweary nation. Working closely with

the Kuwaiti government, the Corps of

Engineers established the Kuwait

Emergency Recovery Office to provide project management, engineering services, and contracting support

for the reconstruction effort. Over the

course of the next year, the Corps

helped to repair hundreds of schools

and government buildings, numerous

hospitals, 3,000 miles of 300-kilovolt

power lines, ninety electrical substations, water and sanitation systems, the international airport and

two military airfields, 150 miles of

national highways, eight bridges, and

two deep-water shipping ports. The

Corps also supervised the construction of Camp Doha, a base for 5,000

U.S. troops that were subsequently

stationed in Kuwait. 

As a part of its reconstruction

efforts the Corps also engaged in the

largest oil-fire-fighting campaign in

history. When Iraqi soldiers withdrew

from Kuwait they set fire to more

than 600 oil wells. The result was

devastating, an environmental catastrophe that darkened the skies over

Kuwait with billowing clouds of

smoke, leaving huge pools of oil on

the desert surface. Capping the wells

and bringing the fires under control

was an intensive effort, but the last

of the wells was sealed off in

November 1991.

For a decade after the Gulf War,

the United States maintained an

uneasy relationship with the nations

of Southwest Asia, attempting to

unsuccessfully broker some type of

lasting peace in the region. The continuing unrest in the region touched

the United States on September 11,

2001, when terrorists launched devastating attacks on New York City

and Washington, D.C. When the

Taliban regime in Afghanistan refused

to expel the al Qaeda elements that

planned the attacks of September

11th, the United States took military

action. The United States and its

Afghan allies began offensive operations in October, and by early

December 2001 forced the Taliban

government out of power. In the

months that followed the United

182

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Cpt. Chris Beck of the Afghan Area

Office discusses the construction of

the Afghan National Army facilities at

Pol-e-Charki, August 2003.
States and its coalition allies helped

the Afghans form a new government

and a new Afghan National Army. In

October 2002 the Corps of Engineers

established the Afghan Area Office

(AAO) in Kabul to build barracks

and facilities for the fledgling Afghan

army. The office also provided construction management for a variety 

of U.S. Agency for International

Development projects in Afghanistan

including the construction of roads,

bridges, schools, and medical clinics. The AAO also provided engineering support for U.S and coalition

forces in Afghanistan and throughout

central Asia. In recognition of the

office’s expanded workload, in the

spring of 2004 the Corps of Engineers

established the Afghan Engineer

District in Kabul.

When the Global War on Terrorism expanded to Iraq, the Corps of

Engineers participated in pre-war

planning prior to the invasion of that

country in March 2003. Shortly

before the war, Corps planners

helped prepare a database of Iraq’s

transportation, oil, and electrical

infrastructure and after the air war

began they helped prepare target

lists and advised coalition forces on

targeting decisions. At the outset of

the war, Corps of Engineers personnel, operating in close coordination

with ground forces, helped capture

and secure Iraq’s southern and

northern oil fields. In the southern

oil fields the Corps of Engineers’

Task Force Restore Iraqi Oil (TF

RIO) and its contractors were instrumental in extinguishing the oil well

183

Combat and Reconstruction: From the Gulf War to the Global War on Terrorism

Barracks take shape at the Afghan

army’s Central Corps headquarters at

Pol-e-Charki. Building the army facilities

was the first major construction

program in Afghanistan in decades,

August 2003.
fires set by the retreating Iraqis.

Combat engineers such as the 249th

Engineer Battalion participated in

the capture of hydroelectric facilities

at the Haditha Dam and later helped

the dam’s Iraqi staff resume electricity production.

An Army engineer also became

the first recipient of the Medal of

Honor in Iraq. Sergeant First Class

Paul Ray Smith served with the 11th

Engineer Battalion, 3rd Infantry

Division. On the evening of April 4,

2003, his unit was attacked by

Republican Guard troops near the

Baghdad airport. To hold off the

company-sized enemy force, Smith

climbed aboard a damaged armored

personnel carrier and repulsed the

enemy attack using the vehicle’s

.50 caliber machine gun. Sergeant

First Class Smith was mortally

wounded during the engagement. For

single-handedly saving the lives of

his men and by killing at least half

of the opposing enemy force, Smith

was posthumously awarded the

Nation’s highest award for valor.

Soon after U.S. forces toppled the

regime of Saddam Hussein, the Corps

184

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Protected by a heat shield and

streams of water, firefighters

approach a burning oil well, 

April 2003.

Sgt. First Class Paul Ray Smith
of Engineers began to address two

vital concerns—helping the Iraqis

resume the production of oil and

jump starting the nation’s battered

electrical infrastructure. To revamp

the Iraqi oil infrastructure, Task

Force Restore Iraqi Oil (TF RIO)

began to repair worn or damaged

facilities including oil pipelines,

pumping stations, gas-oil separation

plants, and refineries. Immediately

after the war, when Iraq was neither

pumping nor refining oil for domestic

consumption, TF RIO also was in

charge of importing hundreds of millions of gallons of benzene and

diesel fuel, and hundreds of thousands of tons of liquid petroleum gas

to sustain the country. 

In the fall of 2003 the Corps of

Engineers established Task Force

Restore Iraqi Electricity (TF RIE) to

bolster electrical production and

enhance the distribution of power

throughout the country. Working

closely with their Iraqi counterparts,

RIE engineers helped refurbish Iraqi

power plants, build new generating

capacity, rebuild hundreds of miles

of electrical transmission lines, construct new electrical substations, and

install automated control systems to

monitor the flow of power across the

nation’s electrical grid.

But the rehabilitation of the

Iraqi oil and electrical infrastructure

was only part of a much larger effort

by the American-led coalition to

help rebuild Iraq and create a safe,

stable, and secure nation. Toward

that end, through the Iraq Relief 

and Reconstruction Fund, the U.S.

185

Combat and Reconstruction: From the Gulf War to the Global War on Terrorism

Engineers inspect the construction

at logistics support area (LSA)

Anaconda, July 2005
government allocated approximately

$11 billion for 3,000 reconstruction

projects that included the construction or rehabilitation of Iraq’s transportation facilities, water and sewage

treatment plants, hospitals and local

health clinics, schools, fire and

police stations, and border forts. To

provide construction management for

the huge undertaking, as well as provide military construction and maintenance services for the U.S. military, in January 2004 the Corps of

Engineers established the Gulf

Region Division (GRD). Headquartered in Baghdad, the division

encompassed three engineer districts

located in the southern, central, and

northern parts of the country. GRD

was staffed with approximately 500

civilians and 200 military personnel.

All of the civilians were volunteers,

and operations in Iraq marked the

first time the Corps of Engineers sent

such a large contingent of civilians

into a combat zone.

In addition to reconstruction, 

the Gulf Region Division also was

responsible for conducting a wide

range of military construction projects

in support of coalition forces operating in Iraq. Other Corps of Engineers

missions in that country included

collecting 600,000 tons of Iraqi ordnance from arms caches scattered

around the country, destroying the

unusable munitions, and storing the

rest in secure depots for use by the

new Iraqi army. The Corps also

deployed archeologists to Iraq to

help with the somber task of exhuming the bodies of thousands of Iraqis

murdered by the former regime.

A key component of the Corps of

Engineers’ operations in Iraq was the

administrative and technical support

provided by Corps employees based

in the United States and Europe.

Another important element of GRD’s

success was the ever increasing role

played by its Iraqi employees. The

division employed several hundred

Iraqis who served in a wide variety of

professional and support functions.

186

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Engineers inspect

the construction of

a border fort near

Kirkuk, May 2005.
Indeed, training the Iraqis to enhance

their technical and managerial skills

has been an important part of GRD’s

overall mission. Training host nation

personnel has been an important element of the Corps’ overseas programs

since the Second World War.

Since 1990 the Corps of Engineers has participated in combat

operations in the Gulf War and again

in Iraq in 2003; in both cases those

operations proved to be only a prelude to the massive reconstruction

activities that followed. Through its

reconstruction activities, the Corps

of Engineers has played a vital role

in helping Kuwait, Afghanistan, and

Iraq begin the difficult and uncertain

process of emerging from the turmoil

of war.

187

Combat and Reconstruction: From the Gulf War to the Global War on Terrorism
On February 28, 1991, a

cease-fire ended military

operations in the Gulf War.

After a 100-hour-long ground offensive, coalition forces had achieved

their objective: Iraqi forces had been

forced out of Kuwait and the small 

Gulf nation was liberated. But the 

end of combat operations yielded a

host of new challenges. When Iraqi

forces withdrew from Kuwait they left

much of the country in ruins. Consequently, at the end of the war, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ mission

rapidly transitioned from one of supporting military operations to helping

the people of Kuwait rebuild their

battered country.

The Corps’ role in the reconstruction of Kuwait actually began long

before coalition forces took the offensive. Anticipating the destruction that

could accompany the liberation of

their country, in October 1990 the

Kuwaiti government requested the

Department of Defense’s help in

rebuilding their country after the

cessation of hostilities. As a result of

those overtures, on November 20,

1990, the Army Staff directed the

Corps of Engineers to serve as the

lead agent in assisting the Kuwaiti

government to rebuild its public works

and municipal utilities. 

In January 1991, Chief of Engineers Lieutenant General Henry Hatch

directed Colonel Ralph Locurcio, the

commander of the Corps’ Savannah

District, to establish an area office in

Kuwait to oversee the reconstruction

effort. That organization, which later

became the Kuwait Emergency

Recovery Office (KERO), was organized much like a Corps district, with

separate offices for project management, emergency operations, engineering services, and contracting and

support. In planning KERO operations

Colonel Locurcio drew heavily on the

Corps’ long experience in restoring

power and water supplies after natural

disasters. The recovery office was

staffed largely with civilian volunteers

from the Corps of Engineers, many of

whom had previous emergency operations experience. 

The KERO advance team traveled

to Saudi Arabia at the end of January

and quickly procured sufficient food,

water, equipment, and vehicles to sustain the office for thirty days. On March

4th, just days after the ceasefire took

effect, the first KERO personnel arrived

in Kuwait City. They found the city in

shambles. There was no electricity, the

municipal water and sanitation systems had been destroyed by the

retreating Iraqis, and thousands of

188

The Reconstruction of Kuwait

Strategic Role in War and Peace

Abandoned Iraqi vehicles litter the highway heading north out of Kuwait City
burned out Iraqi tanks and abandoned

vehicles littered the streets. 

KERO was initially attached to

Task Force Freedom, the Army’s

coordinating activity for the reconstruction of Kuwait. Within hours of

arriving in Kuwait City, KERO engineers, assisted by Kuwaiti volunteers,

began fanning across the city to conduct damage assessments. The KERO

damage assessment groups inspected

ports, the Kuwait airport, the wastewater treatment system, power production and distribution facilities, public buildings, and defense installations.

During its first forty-five days of the

operation, KERO teams conducted

more than 1,000 assessments that

served as the foundation for later reconstruction efforts, many of which were

managed by the Corps of Engineers.

KERO expanded along with its workload, and by the end of March had a

staff of 14 military officers, 112 Corps

civilians, more than sixty Kuwaiti volunteers, and nearly 1,000 contractors.

KERO was a key member of a

U.S. Army effort that quickly restored

Kuwait’s primary power systems within

thirty days, replenished the nation’s

water supplies, and reopened the

badly damaged airport within forty-five

days. KERO’s largest single mission

was the restoration of Kuwait’s public

buildings. Working together, KERO and

its contractors restored more than

1,000 public buildings including 145

schools, the Kuwait Airport, and the

National Assembly building. By

December 1991, a scant nine months

after the end of the war, KERO had

restored power to 99 percent of the

country, returned three desalinization

plants to operation, reconstructed two

sewage treatment facilities, and completed an assessment of the entire

sanitary system. The rehabilitation of

the Kuwait transportation system also

included repairs to more than 150

miles of road, and the removal of

3,700 bunkers, barriers, and abandoned or destroyed vehicles. 

“The contribution of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers to the reconstruction of Kuwait is a source of pride 

to the entire U.S. mission,” wrote

Ambassador Edward Gnehm in a letter

to Colonel Charles Cox. “The achievements of your engineers have won

high praise from both the government

of Kuwait and its people.” On another

level, the working relationships forged

between the Kuwaiti government 

and the Corps of Engineers during 

the reconstruction served both

countries well when the United States

traveled back to Southwest Asia in

early 2003 to begin combat operations

against Iraq. 

189

Combat and Reconstruction: From the Gulf War to the Global War on Terrorism
The Pentagon under construction, 1942

4 A Vital Part of the Army
The military construction mission of the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers dates from just

prior to World War II. Until that

time, the Quartermaster Department

built almost all facilities for the U.S.

Army. By 1940, it was clear that this

arrangement could not continue.

Quartermaster resources were inadequate for the large mobilization job

ahead. Furthermore, the engineers’

civil works organization and experience provided the basis for absorption of the new assignment. So in

November 1940, the War Department

chose the Corps to build facilities

for the Army Air Corps. Thirteen

months later, the Corps of Engineers

undertook all construction for the

U.S. Army’s war effort.

This massive enterprise involved

military and industrial projects. The

Corps managed construction of a

wide range of factories, most notably

for the assembly of aircraft and tanks

and the production of ammunition.

Corps-built military installations

included camps for 5.3 million

Soldiers, depots, ports, and the

Pentagon. Each of these tasks

included planning, site selection,

land acquisition, design, contract

negotiations, procurement, labor

relations, and the construction itself.

All told, the wartime mobilization

program involved more than 27,000

projects and cost $15.3 billion.

Major General Leslie R. Groves,

head of the Manhattan Project,

summed up the significance of this

work for the successful conduct of

the war: “Mobilization was decisive

and construction generally controlled

mobilization.”

Yet there was more to U.S. Army

engineer construction during the war

than the stateside program. Work in

Military Construction

191

Hangar under construction by the

Jacksonville District at MacDill Field,

Tampa, Fla., for Army Air Corps,

January 1942
support of the war against Japan

ranged over a vast portion of the

world, from Panama to India and

from Alaska to Australia. A huge

organization—which grew to include

236,000 engineer troops in an Army

of 1,455,000—built pipelines,

dredged harbors, and built and

repaired ports throughout the

Pacific Theater.

The accomplishments in the

Pacific rivaled those of the Corps on

the home front. Among the major

projects in the Pacific area was the

air ferry route to the Philippines. To

move heavy bombers west across the

ocean, the Corps built airfields on a

host of Pacific islands. U.S. Army

engineers developed these bases in a

matter of a few months. 

Two land routes also merit special

notice. The ALCAN Highway, from

Dawson Creek, British Columbia, to

Fairbanks, Alaska, prompted by the

threat of a Japanese invasion and 

the closure of Alaskan sea routes,

ran through nearly 1,600 miles of

muskeg and mountains. The project,

begun in 1942, involved 133 major

bridges and, at the peak of construction, employed eighty-one contractors

and 14,000 men. Closer to hostilities,

the Ledo Road from northeastern

India to Burma crossed 430 miles of

jungle, mountains, and rivers. Paralleling the road was the longest invasion pipeline ever built. Construction

began under difficult conditions in

192

A Vital Part of the Army

Soldiers of the 95th Engineer General Service Regiment, an African-American unit,

building a bridge on the Alaska-Canada (ALCAN) Highway.

Steel barge bridge along the Ledo Road
late 1942 and was completed when a

convoy from India reached China in

early 1945.

The war against Germany also

demanded massive construction

support. After building bases in

Greenland and Iceland to protect

Atlantic shipping, the Corps moved

to England, where as many as

61,000 U.S. Army engineers created

the ground and air facilities required

to support the strategic bombing of

Germany and the invasion of France.

During the same period, in North

Africa the Corps built many airfields

for British and American air forces

and provided ports and depots to

support the invasion of Italy.

In June 1944, engineers moved

into Europe with the Allied invasion.

Operations included the rehabilitation of ports and railroads as well 

as airfield and depot construction.

For example, engineers cleared and

reconstructed the port of Le Havre

using plans developed well before

the advance into France. Large construction projects also included a

camp and depot at Valognes, France,

that served as headquarters for

logistical forces of the Communications Zone. The post included

tents for 11,000 Soldiers and provided 560,000 square feet of hutted

office space.

After the war, the Corps maintained a large presence in Europe.

Engineers restored transportation

networks and other public services

in Germany and Austria. In France

during the early 1950s, the Corps

performed a wide array of line-ofcommunications construction, from

pipelines to supply depots, in anticipation of the need to reinforce

units in Germany. Additionally, U.S.

Army engineer construction fulfilled

the needs of the large numbers of

193

Military Construction

Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, 

Denver, Colo., 1952
American troops stationed in Germany

through the end of the Cold War by

building housing, hospitals, depots,

and offices.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also remained with the occupation forces in Japan and met all of

their building requirements. When

war broke out in Korea in 1950,

bases in Japan provided the springboard for the movement and supply

of forces deployed against the North

Koreans and Chinese. In Korea

itself, engineers performed remarkable feats of road and bridge construction over extremely difficult

terrain and provided ports and

airfields for friendly forces. They

rehabilitated water supply and sanitation systems that remained in use

by the Republic of Korea for many

years, and they still provide construction support for American units

stationed there.

Military construction after the

Korean War expanded into numerous

countries. Work continued in Europe

and the Far East, but increasing

Cold War tensions led to the establishment of bases elsewhere. Through

the 1950s and into the 1960s, the

Corps built early warning facilities

and airbases in diverse locales,

including Greenland, Morocco, and

194

A Vital Part of the Army

Buildings constructed by the Corps

on Greenland to support Project

Blue-Jay, October 1951. Project

Blue-Jay involved the construction

of Thule Air Force Base.
Libya. These forward bases brought

Strategic Air Command bombers

within striking range of the Soviet

Union.

After the Soviet Union tested its

first atomic bomb in August 1949,

the United States began looking for

ways to protect its vital military

installations and major urban areas

from Soviet air attack. The answer

was the U.S. Army’s Nike antiaircraft

missile system, and in 1952 the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began

purchasing land and building Nike

missile batteries at sites around the

country. Each site encompassed

approximately forty acres, and

between 1954 and 1958 the Corps

built nearly two hundred Nike Ajax

missile batteries. In 1958 the Army

began replacing the liquid-fuel Ajax

missiles with the longer-range, solidfuel Nike Hercules equipped with

nuclear warheads. To house the new

missiles the Corps of Engineers

either modified the existing Ajax

facilities or built new Nike Hercules

missile batteries. Ultimately the

Corps of Engineers constructed a

total of 265 Nike Ajax and Hercules

launch facilities. The last Ajax battery was decommissioned in 1963

and the final Hercules missile site

was closed in 1979. 

Even as the United States was

building an air defense network, 

the evolution of a new technology—

long-range intercontinental ballistic

missiles (ICBM) armed with nuclear

weapons—opened a new chapter in

the arms race with the Soviet Union.

While the United States Air Force

raced to develop an operational ICBM,

in 1957 it turned to the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers to begin building

the research, test, and training facilities to support the development effort,

as well as the operational launch

sites to deploy the ICBMs. In 1960

the Corps established the Corps of

195

Military Construction

Air Force Dormitory,

Brindisi, Italy, 1965
196

A Vital Part of the Army

A Nike Ajax missile battery in 1959. The heavy earthen berm on the right surrounded the refueling area.

National Air and Space Museum

The ICBM site

construction

program spanned

the country and

encompassed

facilities from New

York to California.
Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO) to manage the

project. By 1966 CEBMCO had a

staff of three thousand people managing twenty-two construction projects spread over seventeen states.

Construction of the missile facilities

went on around the clock, and by

1961 more than twenty-one thousand

construction workers were building

missile facilities. Construction of the

Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman missile

silos, most of which were built deep

underground and hardened to survive a preemptive first strike, was

particularly challenging and required

the Corps to develop new construction techniques and management

procedures to support the effort. By

the late 1960s, the Corps had completed 1,200 ICBM launch sites.

In the 1970s the Corps provided

construction support for the Sentinel

and Safeguard antiballistic missile

(ABM) programs. The ABM construction program culminated in the completion of the Stanley R. Mickelsen

Safeguard Complex in North Dakota

in 1972.

During the military buildup of

the 1980s, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers conducted large construction programs for the U.S. Army and

the U.S. Air Force. During the first

half of the decade, the construction

effort reached approximately $1 billion

a year for each service. In the largest

U.S. Army installation construction

197

Military Construction

The main tunnel 

of a Titan I launch

complex nearing

completion, 1960

Activation of the first Titan I squadron at Lowry AFB, Colo., April 1962

U.S. Strategic Command History Office
program since World War II, the

Corps built an almost completely new

base at Fort Drum, New York, for a

newly organized light infantry division, the 10th Mountain. Although

the division used some of the existing buildings, the Corps constructed

almost an entirely new post, including infrastructure, barracks, family

housing, dining facilities, headquarters buildings, a large physical fitness complex, medical clinics, and

an airfield. Built on a tight schedule,

the almost $1 billion construction

program produced a modern, wellplanned installation adapted to its

environment and incorporating

lessons learned at other U.S. Army

installations. With its enclosed

shopping mall, child care center, 

198

A Vital Part of the Army

Barracks under construction,

Vilseck, West Germany, 1983

Shopping center under construction

at Fort Drum, N.Y.
and recreational and entertainment

facilities, the installation reflected

the U.S. Army’s growing concern

about the quality of life of its Soldiers

and their families. Although unique

in its scope and complexity, the 

Fort Drum program was only one

portion of the busy Army and Air

Force construction programs of the

Reagan administration.

With the collapse of the Soviet

Union and the end of the Cold War,

the future of military construction

was uncertain. Many military construction projects were temporarily

frozen as the Nation’s leaders discussed the possibility of a “peace

dividend.” As the military services

struggled to redefine themselves in

the post-Cold War world, the Army

began to consolidate installations

and dispose of unneeded property.

The Base Realignment and Closure

(BRAC) program was an attempt 

to save money and adapt the installation structure to the expected 

decline in the services’ size. BRAC,

however, generated its own demand

for construction, as units moved to

new installations that required new

facilities.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was also active in the effort

mandated by international convention

to dispose of chemical weapons that

were outdated or no longer needed 

in the Nation’s arsenal of weapons.

The Chemical Demilitarization Program involved the construction of

complex and expensive facilities

that, although at times controversial,

were designed to dispose of the

chemical weapons located at eight

sites within the Continental United

States and one on Johnston Atoll in

the Pacific Ocean.

The Department of Defense

began an ambitious environmental

cleanup program in 1984. At former

and current sites, the services worked

to locate and remove old contaminants and operate active installations

in an environmentally responsible

manner. Much of the work associated

with these programs fell to the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. In 1997,

the Corps’ environmental cleanup

duties expanded when the Formerly

Utilized Sites Remedial Action

Program (FUSRAP) was transferred

from the Department of Energy to 

199

Military Construction

Preparing to remove underground

storage tank at the former Kincheloe 

Air Force Base, Kinross, Mich., 1994
the Corps. FUSRAP removed radioactive materials from sites formerly

used by the Manhattan Engineer

District, which built the Nation’s first

nuclear weapons during World War II,

and its successor, the Atomic Energy

Commission.

As part of its military construction mission, the Corps continued to

have responsibility for the renovation of the Pentagon, a structure

that it had built during World War

II. Nearly six decades later, the

Pentagon badly needed repair and

updating. The Corps completed the

first segment of the renovation

before responsibility for the massive

renovation project was transferred 

to another agency in 2000. The

Corps’ work proved its durability

when it resisted the impact of the

September 11, 2001, terrorist airliner attack much better than the

adjacent, unrenovated segment of

the building.

Other military construction

programs aimed to improve the

quality of life for Soldiers. A major

barracks renovation program provided better facilities with more

amenities and privacy to enlisted

Soldiers, and a massive new housing privatization program began

placing large proportions of U.S.

Army family housing in the hands of

private companies. Under the

Residential Communities Initiative,

contractors began renovating and

improving existing family housing

and building large tracts of new

housing. The Nation’s reliance on

an all-volunteer Army meant that

the quality of life for Soldiers—who

were increasingly deployed in combat abroad—and their families at

home was an important priority.

200

A Vital Part of the Army

Barracks at Fort Bragg,

N.C., 2003
Even before the terrorist attacks

of 2001, it had become apparent that

the post-Cold War world would not

be a peaceful one. After years of

research and development, the

United States began acquiring

weapons and building facilities to

provide a defense against a limited

ballistic missile attack, and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers played an

important role in providing the

ground-based facilities in Alaska.

But increasingly, the country found

itself drawn into smaller conflicts

like the civil strife that plagued

Somalia, Rwanda, and the collapsing

Yugoslavia. Large and rigid Cold

War-era U.S. Army units were difficult to use in this new combat environment, and in 1999 Chief of Staff

of the Army General Eric Shinseki

began a massive reorganization of

combat units to make them smaller,

lighter, and more flexible. The Corps

helped to design and build the new

bases that would train and support

these new units.

U.S. Army transformation led to

“Milcon Transformation” with the

objective of providing these new

facilities faster, better, and cheaper

in close cooperation with private

industry. One of the early challenges

was to provide modular facilities

quickly for troops who were moving

back to the United States from Iraq

and other parts of the world and

preparing for transformation. 

In the early years of the twentyfirst century, the Corps confronted

challenges inherent in executing its

normal military construction mission

for the Army, the Air Force, and

other Department of Defense agencies;

201

Military Construction

Exterior view of Camp Zama, Japan,

high rise family housing, 1999
supporting the massive spending on

the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq

and Afghanistan; supporting Army

Transformation; and preparing for an

additional round of BRAC requirements. Although the Cold War with

its large demands on the Corps had

ended, the post-Cold War world

offered a new and daunting set of

challenges that were scarcely

imagined just a decade earlier.

202

A Vital Part of the Army
203

“We are not against

any man—or any

nation—or any

system—except as it is hostile to

freedom.” So stated President John F.

Kennedy in a May 25, 1961, special

address to Congress on urgent

national needs in response to crises 

in Berlin, Germany, and Cuba. In the

address, President Kennedy spoke at

length on civil defense, which he characterized as “insurance for the civilian

population in case of an enemy miscalculation.” To overcome years of

neglect, he assigned responsibility for

civil defense to Secretary of Defense

Robert McNamara and established a

National Fallout Shelter Program.

Secretary McNamara proceeded

to create an Office of Civil Defense

within the Department of Defense and

tapped the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and the Navy’s Bureau of

Yards and Docks to conduct a fallout

shelter survey and other civil defense

tasks. The initial mission was to identify

structures, determine their ability to

block a massive dosage of radiation

resulting from a nuclear attack by a

factor of twenty, and mark them as

public shelters. The goal was to find

shelter for up to 50 million Americans.

The Corps responded by creating

a Joint Civil Defense Support Group in

the Chief’s office with a colonel in

charge. The Corps staffed the new

headquarters organization and similar

offices with division and district personnel. Most of these personnel were

diverted from civil works assignments.

Within a short time, the National

Fallout Shelter Survey achieved impressive results. The Corps developed

specialized techniques for computer

processing of survey data, developed

scientific methods to evaluate potential

shelters, trained nearly 1,500 architectengineers and Corps employees, and

negotiated and supervised more than

500 architectural and engineering

contracts to conduct the nationwide

survey. The fallout shelters thus established were stocked with federally procured water, food, medical, and sanitation supplies, as well as radiation

monitoring kits.

Additional civil defense tasks

included preparing the following: engineering and cost studies of standard

structures for emergency operating

headquarters, pilot feasibility studies to

determine local capabilities to quickly

increase the number of public shelters,

technical civil defense publications, a

nationwide survey of construction and

engineering equipment and inventory

of potential contractors, and a survey

of fallout shelters for selected radio

and television stations in the National

Emergency Broadcast Network.

The program continued throughout the 1960s, and by 1970 it was

consolidated at the Corps’ division

level. Overall management passed to

the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency

in 1972. This organization was subsumed into the Federal Emergency

Management Agency in 1979.

The Corps’ response to President

Kennedy’s call for national preparedness was another example of the

agency’s ability to quickly and efficiently

respond to new missions using its

decentralized organization and established contracting expertise.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Responded to

President Kennedy’s Call for National Preparedness

Military Construction
Precast concrete plant,

King Khalid Military City,

Saudi Arabia
Shortly after World War II, 

the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers became involved

in massive foreign assistance programs sponsored by the United

States government in response to 

the devastating impacts of that 

global conflict. Much of Europe 

was a shambles, suffering in many

instances from physical devastation

and political instability. These conditions made the continent vulnerable to the expansion goals of the

Soviet Union. As a result, in 1948

the U.S. Congress approved Secretary of State George C. Marshall’s

plan to provide financial support for

reconstruction programs developed

by participating European nations.

This ambitious plan followed separate congressional aid packages to

Greece and Turkey, nations that 

were particularly vulnerable to subversion or aggression.

The 1951 Mutual Security Act

extended the U.S. foreign assistance

program to other portions of the

globe. This law was passed in a

period of growing international tensions marked by the advent of the

Iron Curtain, the Berlin Blockade,

the communist success in China, and

the outbreak of the Korean War. The

purpose of the legislation was maintenance of national security and promotion of U.S. foreign policy through

military, economic, and technical

assistance to strengthen friendly

nations. The act consolidated or built

upon a variety of efforts, including

the Military Assistance Program

authorized in 1949 by the Mutual

Defense Assistance Act, through

which the United States offered help

to allies in establishing defenses

against external aggression and internal violence. The Mutual Security

Act also included the program of

technical assistance first articulated

in President Harry S. Truman’s 1949

inaugural address. Finally, the new

law replaced the various economic

aid programs with comprehensive

loan and grant provisions.

Foreign assistance programs

continued to evolve in response to

changing perceptions of the world

situation and American interests. 

In the first years of the Cold War,

economic aid predominated. During

the Eisenhower years, from 1953

through 1961, most of the assistance

Work for Other Nations

205

Gen. George C. Marshall
from the United States was military.

Then, in the decade that followed, an

equilibrium was reached between economic assistance and military programs, including sales. The Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961 established

the U.S. Agency for International

Development (AID) to administer the

major economic aid programs. More

significantly for later U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers activities, Section

607 of this act provided for furnishing services and commodities to foreign countries on a reimbursable

basis. Starting in the mid-1960s, this

became the basis for a number of

major engineering programs.

Other important trends shaped

the role of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers abroad. As bipolar hostilities appeared outside of Europe, base

construction spread from Middle

Eastern and North African countries

to the Far East and South Asia. This

trend coincided with the advent of a

different form for transferring aid to

recipient nations. During the early

years of the Cold War, most aid was

in the form of grants—90 percent 

of American help was outright gifts.

By the mid-1960s, 60 percent of

economic aid was loans.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ contributions to these foreign

206

A Vital Part of the Army

Interior of Dhahran Airport,

Saudi Arabia, completed

by the Corps in 1961
programs took place in this context

of evolving emphasis. Thus, during

the immediate postwar years, when

American foreign policy and assistance programs emphasized Europe

and particularly Greece and Turkey,

the Corps was extremely active in

these two nations. In Turkey, the

Corps concentrated on construction

of military facilities for Turkish and

American armed forces. In Greece,

after the State Department came to

the Corps for technical expertise, the

Corps restored a badly mauled transportation and communication network. The Grecian District, which

was established in Athens in July

1947, cleared the Corinth Canal,

restored the Port of Piraeus, and

built or repaired more than 3,000

kilometers of roads.

Corps operations in Greece

established several major precedents. First was the organization of

an engineer district to administer

and supervise large-scale infrastructure programs in a foreign country.

Second was the provision of technical assistance in conjunction with

economic aid. Third, the practice of

training local contractors and artisans to perform as much of the

actual work as possible became an

integral part of reconstruction and

economic development. Fourth, the

commitment to helping a friendly

nation to help itself, which was manifested in projects aimed at restoring

the Greek economy, became a standard feature of Corps projects.

During the 1950s, the Military

Assistance Program dominated

American overseas efforts. This program was one of two major Department of Defense foreign activities in

which the Corps participated. First

and most important was the maintenance and support of American

forces in other lands. The other, the

Military Assistance Program through

which the United States aided the

military forces of other nations, was

directed largely toward supporting

allies on the periphery of the Soviet

Union and near the People’s

Republic of China.

In the period 1950–1964, this

program dispensed assistance valued

at more than $350 million. Iran,

which was the largest single recipient,

207

Work for Other Nations

Reconstruction of the port of

Piraeus, Greece, February 1948
and four other nations—Pakistan,

Turkey, Taiwan, and South Korea—

received nearly all of the military

assistance money. The projects

carried out in Pakistan by the TransEast District of the Mediterranean

Division illustrate the nature of the

work performed. In a massive

modernization program for the

Pakistani armed forces, the Corps

built cantonments, airfields,

wharves, and marine railways.

While heavily involved in these

efforts, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers also worked in programs

of economic assistance. Projects

intended to buttress a recipient

nation’s economy were administered

by AID and its predecessor agencies.

Corps participation in economic

development programs actually predated the establishment of any of

these agencies. As early as 1946, the

Corps of Engineers worked with

numerous Latin American governments to establish national cartographic programs. These efforts were

ultimately intended to provide the

basis for resource inventories of participating nations. After 1953, when

the Department of State took over

this program, the Corps continued to

contribute to its success. Engineer

personnel worked in twenty-two

countries developing programs,

rendering procurement assistance,

and administering contracts.

In the late 1950s, the Corps

began undertaking large projects

within the economic assistance program. Between 1950 and 1964, the

208

A Vital Part of the Army

The Corps built a cantonment 

for the Pakistani army at Multan

to accommodate 8,500 troops.

The barracks above were two

structures of the 310 built on

the post. Construction at Multan

began in 1959 and was

complete two years later.

The Corps of Engineers’ Peshawar,

Pakistan, resident office opened 

in 1956 in this remote city near the

Khyber Pass. The resident office 

first supervised construction for the

Pakistani air force, and then in 1958

worked on highly classified projects

for the U.S. Air Force. Shortly after

war broke out between India and

Pakistan in 1965, Air Force work

ended and the office closed.
Corps produced major engineering

studies for seventeen different countries. These surveys dealt with beach

erosion problems, river hydraulics,

transportation networks, and entire

public works programs. Corps personnel examined the feasibility of

various port and highway projects.

Engineers also became involved in

actual construction in eight countries.

The major construction projects

included airports, highway systems,

and ports, and the Corps spent

$109.5 million on them between

1959 and 1964.

The Corps’ work on these studies

and construction projects reflected

new directions in the overall program

administered by AID. In the years

just prior to 1965, the focus was on

long-term projects that supported

broad economic development. In 

this framework, engineering and

construction loomed large, and the

Corps, with its unique capability to

plan, organize, and execute major

building programs, made major

contributions.

During the mid-1960s, several

developments led to changes in the

Corps’ role in foreign programs. 

AID changed its emphasis from

major construction efforts aimed at

improving economic infrastructures

to more immediate needs for the

improvement of food supplies, public

health, and education. Moreover,

AID turned more to private engineering and architectural firms for

support in this area. In so doing, 

the agency cited the provisions 

of Section 601 of the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961, which

encouraged maximum utilization of

private resources instead of other

government agencies.

The buildup of American armed

forces in Vietnam also redirected the

foreign operations of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers. The maintenance and support of American

forces in Southeast Asia took an

ever-increasing portion of the Corps’

resources. Moreover, Vietnam

absorbed a growing percentage of the

foreign aid budget, leaving less

money for major projects in other

parts of the world. As AID turned its

attention to Vietnam and Southeast

Asia, the agency became involved in

major geodetic and cartographic

enterprises. The U.S. Army Corps of

209

Work for Other Nations

Housing courtyard, King Abdul Aziz

Military Academy, Saudi Arabia
Engineers, with expertise already

employed in a number of other

nations, contributed again to

resource inventory projects and the

production of maps required for the

land reform program of the government of South Vietnam. Thus, while

the Corps’ involvement in major

construction projects dropped off, it

still participated in other aspects of

AID’s work.

Even before international developments had changed the character

of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’

overseas projects, another major factor had entered the picture. This was

the beginning of Corps involvement

in reimbursable programs funded by

recipient nations instead of by U.S.

loans and grants. Authorized by Section 607 of the Foreign Assistance

Act, these projects were based on

bilateral agreements between the

United States and nations that sought

the Corps’ technical expertise in

development programs. The first of

these was funded by the government

of Saudi Arabia in 1963. There the

Corps engaged in a large number of

construction projects—including a

variety of facilities for the Saudi

Arabian armed forces and civil

projects such as construction of 

radio and television communications

installations—that eventually totaled

$5 billion when it ended in the late

1980s. 

By the late 1960s and early

1970s, the number of reimbursable

programs had grown. In addition to

the work in Saudi Arabia, projects

started in Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, and

Libya. The Corps’ effort in these

nations improved the American

balance of payments and provided

valuable experience for U.S. Army

engineering personnel while sharing

the Corps’ technical and professional

expertise.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers met more pressing requirements in the Middle East while

managing its long-term reimbursable

projects. In accordance with the

1978 Camp David Agreements, the

Corps built two airbases for Israel as

replacements for those evacuated

during the withdrawal from the Sinai.

Completed in 1982, only three years

after the start of construction, the

bases cost about $1 billion, more

than three-fourths of which was an

American grant. Meanwhile, the

Corps also constructed Sinai base

210

A Vital Part of the Army

Saudi Arabian National Guard

headquarters building
camps for the multinational force

and observers who patrolled the

demilitarized zone between Egypt

and Israel. 

Egypt also received considerations as a result of the Camp David

Agreement. In addition to the opportunity to obtain F-16 jets through the

Peace Vector program, the Egyptian

air force received improvements to

airbases to accommodate these new

aircraft. An example of the base

improvement effort was the large

Gianaklis airbase in the Nile delta, a

$250 million project awarded in 1992

and substantially completed by 1996.

After the Wye River memorandum

of 1998, the Corps again participated

in attempts to maintain peace in the

Middle East. In exchange for moving

bases from the West Bank and thereby

freeing land for possible transfer to

the Palestinians in accordance with

the Wye River memorandum, the

Israelis received two infantry training bases and other facilities paid 

for by the United States and constructed by the Corps. Although the

reimbursable programs of recent

years have been less extensive than

the massive Saudi Arabian and

Israeli airbase projects, reimbursable

work continued to be an important

Corps mission.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has consistently played a

major supporting role in “nation

building” around the world. The

211

Work for Other Nations

Construction of

enlisted quarters, 

King Khalid Military

City, Saudi Arabia

Hardened aircraft

shelter with an

F-16D completed 

by the Transatlantic

Programs Center at

Gianaklis Airbase,

Egypt, 1996.
wide variety of projects to help 

other nations has included technical

assistance to the African nation of

Gabon to improve its ports, geological

and hydrological studies of the Niger

River Basin in Africa, technical

advice on water resources development to the People’s Republic of

China, disaster relief in Bangladesh

after devastating floods in 1991, and

construction of hydropower facilities

in the Federated States of Micronesia.

The collapse of the Soviet Union

and the end of the Cold War in the

1990s produced large construction

programs in the former Soviet Union.

Although financed by the United

States, these programs responded to

and reflected the new geopolitical

realities in the world. The breakup 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics led to the creation of a

number of new nations that needed

U.S. embassies, which the Corps

helped construct or renovate. A 

large program began in 1997 as a

result of concern about the handling

of nuclear weapons in the former

Soviet republics. The Cooperative

Threat Reduction Program funded a

variety of cooperative construction

projects, ranging from the building of

a Russian facility to store fissile

materials from dismantled nuclear

212

A Vital Part of the Army

Holding area for fissile

material in Russia

Port of Owendo, Gabon, site

of Corps studies undertaken

for the Agency for International

Development
weapons to the construction of apartment buildings in the Ukraine for

former soldiers of the Soviet Strategic

Rocket Forces who required housing.

In another program in the former

Soviet Union, the Corps, in cooperation with the U.S. Customs Service

and the Republic of Georgia, built

facilities to help the Georgian government secure its borders to inhibit the

movement of dangerous cargo such

as drugs or nuclear weapons and

increase its customs revenues. All of

these programs sought to bring some

stability to a vast area undergoing

the difficult transition to new political and economic systems.

Often overshadowed by such

large programs are a variety of small

projects that affect the lives of perhaps only a few, but with possible

implications for many. The Corps 

has worked in more than 30 African

nations on numerous small infrastructure projects like roads, 

bridges, schools, water wells, low-cost

housing, health clinics, sanitation

facilities, and biodiversity promotion.

Working with U.S. embassies and

local military forces, the Corps has

built facilities such as a community

training and counseling center for

the Kenyan Red Cross to assist in its

struggle with the devastating effect of

HIV/AIDS and drug abuse. In addition, the Corps provided assistance

to AID in the wake of the 1998

embassy bombings in Kenya and

Tanzania to help mitigate damage to

surrounding buildings, and a myriad

of reconstruction projects following

the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Whatever the scope of the

project, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers has sought since the end

of World War II to assist other

nations in improving their infrastructures, to share American

technical know-how, and to help

other countries cultivate their own

capabilities for self-development.

From large-scale construction

programs like the massive Saudi

Arabian effort to smaller feasibility

studies in the 1980s such as the

harbor improvements at the Port of

Asau in Western Samoa, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers has

developed the ability to assist other

nations in vital engineering and

construction management activities,

both large and small.

213

Work for Other Nations

A Corps-built clinic, Rwanda
The advantages of having a

military-civilian engineer organization were demonstrated

when the United States decided to

help Greece recover from the devastation of war. Soon after the end of

World War II, Greece was torn by a

civil war. President Truman and

congressional leaders believed it was

in America’s interest to prevent the

sitting Greek government’s collapse 

by assisting the nation to get on a

path toward economic recovery. To

strengthen the anticommunist

monarchy, a program of economic aid

to Greece was developed under the

auspices of the U.S. Department 

of State.

President Truman appointed

Dwight P. Griswold, a former governor

of Nebraska, as the administrator of

the recovery program. Soon after his

arrival in Greece in July 1947, Griswold

reported on the extensive devastation

214

A Vital Part of the Army

Strengthening the Free World: 

Rehabilitating Postwar Greece

The dredge Poseidon clearing the Corinth Canal, 1947
215

Work for Other Nations

he found. The State Department

decided that the reconstruction and

rehabilitation of roads, railroads, bridges,

ports, and the Corinth Canal, one of the

main Greek waterways, were of primary

importance. Once the country’s transportation system was restored and the

ports were in operable condition, economic recovery would be more rapid.

Although it received some 100 letters from construction firms interested

in doing the work, the State Department was unfamiliar with doing

construction and letting contracts; it

had no organization to do the job. 

It repeatedly sent representatives to

the Office of the Chief of Engineers to

get information regarding such matters

as the selection of contractors, the

types of contracts that could be used,

and the amount of the fee to be paid.

The State Department concluded it

would be unable to do the work itself

and asked the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, which had a capable civil

works construction organization, to

undertake the work on its behalf.

Assigned to the Corps in late July

1947, the program was scheduled to

be completed within a year.

The Corps of Engineers subsequently set up the Grecian District,

headquartered in Athens, to manage

the program. Its personnel were largely

drawn from divisions and districts

throughout the Corps. The new district

entered into agreements with a

number of contractors that formed

joint ventures. By mid-August 1947,

Colonel David W. Griffiths, the new

District Engineer, some of his civilian

employees, and some of the contractors’ employees arrived in Athens.

Actual reconstruction began in

mid-September with the clearing of

debris from the port of Piraeus. Soon

work was under way on the reconstruction of other ports, the repair of

wrecked railroad bridges and tunnels,

and the upgrading of highways, all of

which had deteriorated badly. Debrisclearing operations began on the

Corinth Canal. Soon after arriving in

Greece, Colonel Griffiths was given the

additional duty of upgrading a number

of airfields.

All of this work had to be done

rapidly and efficiently. Secretary of War

Kenneth Royall had admonished that

“the War Department is on continual

exhibition to the President, the

Congress, the State Department, and

to Greece ... and other interested

nations.” Colonel George W. Marvin,

the chief engineer of the American

military assistance group advising the

Greek Army in its fight against the

guerrillas, helped Colonel Griffiths by

obtaining Greek Army units to provide

security for men working on District

projects.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

reconstructed about 900 miles of

highway, rebuilt three major ports,

restored railroad bridges and tunnels

totaling some two miles, and upgraded

ten airfields. The Corinth Canal was

reopened after about one million cubic

yards of earth and debris had been

removed. Actual construction time was

about a year and a half. The schedule

overrun resulted mainly from guerrilla

attacks, unusually severe winter

weather, and unexpected delays in

getting supplies. Once again, the dual

military and civilian organization of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers made

possible the efficient accomplishment

of an important strategic mission.
Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP), Deep Drilling Operation by the Corps’

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 1975. Cold War

strategic interest in cold regions prompted extensive research.
During World War II, the

Office of the Chief of

Engineers and its subordinate activities exercised a broad

range of military responsibilities.

The Corps trained engineer officers

and enlisted men, primarily at Fort

Belvoir, Virginia, home of the U.S.

Army’s Engineer School since 1919,

and at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,

where an Engineer Replacement

Training Center opened in 1941.

The Corps developed the Tables of

Organization and Equipment that

structured U.S. Army engineer units,

wrote the technical manuals that

explained the use of engineer equipment, and prepared the field manuals that detailed military engineering

tactics and doctrine. The Corps

determined the U.S. Army’s engineer

equipment requirements, purchased

the items needed and distributed

them, while supervising the efforts

of the Engineer Board to develop

new and improved equipment. It

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

217

Company barracks, Fort Belvoir, Va.,

home of the U.S. Army Engineer

School until 1988.

Engineer Replacement Training

Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., which

also trained enlisted personnel

during World War II.
selected engineer officers for assignment to troop units, schools, and

civil works. The Corps supervised

all U.S. Army mapmaking. Finally,

the engineers met the huge military

construction and real estate needs of

a rapidly expanding U.S. Army.

These functions, with the exception of general military construction

and Army real estate, transferred to

the Corps in December 1941, were

traditional Corps missions that the

engineers pursued during the war on a

vastly expanded scale. Three months

after the attack on Pearl Harbor,

however, its position within the War

Department changed, as the Corps of

Engineers and other technical and

administrative services of the U.S.

Army were placed under the Services

of Supply, one of three major components into which the War Department

was then divided. General Brehon

Somervell, himself an engineer officer,

commanded this organization throughout the war, although its title changed

in 1943 to Army Service Forces.

When the Army Service Forces

headquarters was dissolved in 1946,

the Chief of Engineers and the chiefs

of the U.S. Army’s other technical

services returned briefly to the direct

supervision of the Army chief of staff.

The director of Logistics, however,

inherited the general supervision of

the technical services in 1948, and

the deputy chief of staff for Logistics

obtained more effective oversight of

their work in 1954. The Under Secretary of the Army (during 1950–1953)

and Assistant Secretaries of the Army

for Materiel; Financial Management;

Civil-Military Affairs; and Manpower, Personnel, and Reserve

218

A Vital Part of the Army

Nuclear reactor built at Fort Belvoir,

Va., in 1955–57 by the Army

Engineers Reactors Group and 

the Atomic Energy Commission.

The Army’s first nuclear reactor,

this facility was decommissioned 

in 1973.
Forces (during the Eisenhower

administration) successively provided civilian direction for the Corps’

military construction, housing, and

real property functions.

For a decade and a half after

World War II, the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers undertook the same

broad range of functions it had

exercised during the war. It even

retained its role as engineering and

construction agent for the U.S. Air

Force after that service became

independent of the U.S. Army in

1947. In 1954, the Corps became

responsible for the Army’s nuclear

reactor program. It created the Army

Engineer Reactors Group, which, in

conjunction with the Atomic Energy

Commission, completed in 1957 the

Nation’s first military nuclear power

plant built primarily to generate

electricity. Other nuclear plants

followed, including a floating power

plant and field reactors producing

both steam heat and electricity.

Research Laboratories

The Corps’ laboratories prospered 

in the postwar years. The Engineer

Research and Development Laboratories at Fort Belvoir, successor to the

Engineer Board, continued its work in

developing new and improved bridging, road construction, camouflage,

demolition, mapping, and mechanical

equipment. A Nuclear Power Branch

was added to the laboratory to engage

in research and development in the

nuclear power field.

219

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

Before computer modeling, the

Waterways Experiment Station

in Vicksburg, Miss., used

physical models to study

waterways problems. This

model of the Mississippi River

at St. Louis, Mo., tested various

measures to reduce siltation in

the harbor.
The Waterways Experiment

Station, established by the Corps and

its Mississippi River Commission in

1929 at Vicksburg, Mississippi, as a

hydraulics laboratory, had entered

the field of military research and

development during World War II.

Soon after it developed the piercedsteel plank and prefabricated bituminous surface used in U.S. Army

airfield construction. Placed under

the direct supervision of the Chief 

of Engineers in 1949, during the 

Cold War the Waterways Experiment

Station developed flexible pavements

for runways designed for heavy 

B-52 bombers, and it examined,

through chemical simulation, the

blast effects of nuclear detonations

in an effort to produce hardened

220

A Vital Part of the Army

The Cold Regions Research

and Engineering Laboratory,

Hanover, N.H.

A joint logistics over-the-shore

sand grid demonstration test,

Fort Story, Va.
structures capable of withstanding

such attack.

Responding to increased U.S.

Army emphasis on Arctic defenses,

during and after World War II, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established laboratories at Wilmette,

Illinois, and Boston, Massachusetts,

to study the impact of cold climates

on military operations. These Corps

laboratories conducted research and

experimentation on materials and

techniques suitable for construction

in areas of snow, ice, and permafrost.

Their efforts aided the development

of the Distant Early Warning (DEW)

Line Radar System that stretched

across Greenland, northern Canada,

and Alaska, as well as the construction of American airfields and bases

in those regions. The laboratories

consolidated in 1961 to form the

Cold Regions Research and

Engineering Laboratory at Hanover,

New Hampshire.

U.S. Army

Reorganization

In 1962 seeking to streamline the

U.S. Army’s structure, Secretary 

of Defense Robert McNamara

implemented the most substantial

reorganization of the Army in the

post-World War II era. The positions

of all of the technical service chiefs,

except for the Chief of Engineers and

the Surgeon General, were abolished,

and three newly created functional

commands took important responsibilities from the Chief of Engineers.

The Army Combat Developments

Command assumed responsibility 

for engineer training and military

doctrine. The Office of Personnel

221

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

A Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line

station on the Greenland icecap
Operations took over the career

management of engineer officers 

and the Army Materiel Command

assumed engineer supply and equipment development functions.

Overseeing the development,

purchase, and supply of a wide range

of U.S. Army weapons and equipment, the Army Materiel Command

created a number of major subordinate commands to which it assigned

responsibility for specific types of

items. The Army Mobility Command

(1962–1967) and its successor, the

Army Mobility Equipment Command,

took over the supply of most military

engineering equipment and the supervision of the Engineering Research

and Development Laboratories at

Fort Belvoir, which became the Army

Mobility Equipment Research and

Development Center. The two commanders of the Army Mobility Command, Major Generals Alden Sibley

and William Lapsley, were both engineer officers, and Sibley moved to

the Mobility Command directly from

his duties as the last Deputy Chief of

Engineers for Military Operations.

This eased the transition in engineer

supply matters.

Major General William Gribble,

later Chief of Engineers, served as

the Army Materiel Command’s

Director of Research and Development in 1964–1966, and Major

General Richard Free, another engineer officer, held that position from

1967–1969. These were important

years for the development of new

engineer materiel used to support

American forces in Vietnam. Aided

by renewed experimentation in airfield mats and membranes at the

Waterways Experiment Station, the

Materiel Command developed the

prefabricated neoprene-coated nylon

membrane, known as the T-17 membrane, used on airfields in Vietnam;

new aluminum and steel landing mats;

and peneprime, a high-penetration

asphalt that met dust-control needs

in Vietnam. The Chief of Engineers

remained the senior engineer advisor

to the Army Chief of Staff; his advice

was sought and implemented on such

decisions as the selection of the

D-7 dozer as the standard bulldozer

in Vietnam rather than the newer but

less easily transported D-8 model.

Despite its loss of important

training, personnel, and materiel

supply responsibilities in 1962, the

Office of the Chief of Engineers continued to supervise the engineering,

construction, and real estate services

required by the U.S. Army, U.S. Air

Force, and National Aeronautics and

Space Administration. The Chief’s

office also continued to formulate

policies governing the maintenance

and repair of U.S. Army housing and

other real property and the operation

of the utilities on Army installations,

as it had since World War II. U.S.

Army facilities engineers implemented

222

A Vital Part of the Army
these policies under the supervision

of installation commanders. The Chief

of Engineers, however, lost control of

funding in the repairs and utilities

sphere in 1958. The Chief of Engineers’ work in all of these fields

remained under the general staff

supervision of the Deputy Chief of

Staff for Logistics, while the Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Installations

and Logistics in 1961 assumed civilian oversight of all of these functions.

In addition, the Office of the

Chief of Engineers continued to supervise U.S. Army mapping, geodesy,

and military geographic intelligence

services, maintaining the Defense

Department’s worldwide map library,

as it had since 1939. Beginning in

1963 and 1964, the office exercised

its topographic responsibilities under

the program direction of the Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Research

and Development, with policy

guidance from the Army’s Assistant

Chief of Staff for Intelligence.

While the Engineer Research

and Development Laboratories were

placed under the Army Materiel

Command in 1962, its former topographic and nuclear power development functions remained the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers.

With the field of military mapping

research expanding rapidly at the

dawn of the satellite era, the Chief of

Engineers in 1960 transferred this

function from the Engineer Research

and Development Laboratories to the

newly created Engineer Geodesy,

Intelligence, and Mapping Research

and Development Agency. The reorganization of 1962 left the military

mapping agency part of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. The

223

Autonomous land vehicle, a test

robotic vehicle developed by the

Engineer Topographic Laboratories,

now the Topographic Engineering

Center

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

Family housing constructed at Ben

Guerin, Morocco, in the late 1950s

as the Corps built airfields to allow

Air Force heavy bombers to reach

the Soviet Union.
agency was renamed the Engineer

Topographic Laboratories in 1967.

The Department of Defense

consolidated the topographic work of

the different military services in

1972, however, and the U.S. Army

Topographic Command, whose

director had reported to the Chief of

Engineers, was absorbed into the

new Defense Mapping Agency. The

Chief of Engineers again retained

responsibility for U.S. Army topographic research and development.

The Engineer Topographic Laboratories, located at Fort Belvoir,

Virginia, developed during the 1960s

and 1970s automated equipment for

producing topographic maps from

aerial photographs and improved

systems of Army field map production. In the 1980s, they developed

systems to convert terrain data into

digital form and used computer

graphics to offer commanders access

to this data in a variety of easily

interpreted formats. The Corps

renamed the Engineer Topographic

Laboratories the Topographic

Engineering Center in 1991.

The Army Engineer Reactors

Group, renamed in 1971 the Army

Engineer Power Group, retained the

Corps’ responsibility for U.S. Army

nuclear power development after the

1962 reorganization. In May 1962,

the Corps created the Army Engineer

Nuclear Cratering Group at

Livermore, California, to study, in

cooperation with the Atomic Energy

Commission, the feasibility of

nuclear methods of excavation.

Although officials considered using

nuclear devices in the construction

of a proposed sea-level canal across

Central America and in several civil

works projects in the United States,

no feasible use of this concept was

found. The Corps disbanded the

Nuclear Cratering Group in 1971.

The Cold Regions Research 

and Engineering Laboratory was

transferred to the Army Materiel

Command in 1962, but because of

continuing Corps of Engineers

requirements for Arctic construction

research, the Materiel Command

approved its return to the Corps of

Engineers in 1969.

After the transfer of the Engineer Research and Development

Laboratories to the Army Materiel

Command, the Chief of Engineers

sought to create a new facility to

conduct basic research into

construction materials and design,

housing habitability and maintenance, and energy and utility systems. As the Ohio River Division’s

Construction Engineering Laboratory

at Cincinnati had begun significant

work in this sphere, the Corps, with

the approval of the U.S. Army

Secretariat, expanded that facility

into a new Construction Engineering

Research Laboratory. The new

laboratory opened in Cincinnati in

224

A Vital Part of the Army
1968 and moved the following year

to its present location at Champaign,

Illinois, where it occupies facilities

leased from the University of Illinois.

This newest Corps laboratory developed a fibrous reinforced concrete

used both in airfield runways and in

some civil works projects, a portable

instrument to test welding quality,

and a centralized facility to control

pollutants where U.S. Army vehicles

are washed.

In order to streamline its business practices and provide better

service to its customers, many of

whom were outside organizations, the

Corps of Engineers reorganized its

research and development laboratories

225

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

Biaxial shock test machine designed

by the Construction Engineering

Research Laboratory to test both

horizontal and vertical structural

strength.

Construction of “the Pier” in the late

1970s at the Field Research Facility,

located near Duck on the Outer

Banks, N.C. The facility was part of

the Coastal Engineering Research

Center, established in 1963 to study

coastal engineering problems. After

several moves and reorganizations,

the center became part of the

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory

of the Engineer Research and

Development Center.
into the U.S. Army Engineer

Research and Development Center

(ERDC) in 1999. The seven component laboratories in ERDC were

the Coastal and Hydraulics,

Environmental, Geotechnical and

Structures, and Information Technology laboratories in Vicksburg,

Mississippi (formerly parts of the

Waterways Experiment Station); the

Construction Engineering Research

Laboratory in Champaign, Illinois;

the Cold Regions Research and

Engineering Laboratory in Hanover,

New Hampshire; and the Topographic

Engineering Center in Alexandria,

Virginia. In the summer of 2006 the

Corps continued this process of

streamlining and consolidating by

combining the positions of Director 

of the Engineer Research and

Development Center and Director 

of Research and Development in

engineer headquarters. 

Engineer Troop Units

After World War II, U.S. Army engineer troops were organized primarily

into engineer combat and construction battalions, supplemented by

topographic battalions and various

specialized engineer companies. The

combat battalions were designed to

provide the engineering capabilities

required by front-line forces, and

their men were trained and equipped

to fight as infantry if necessary.

Engineer construction battalions had

heavier equipment suited for the

more permanent construction typically required to the rear of combat

zones, and their members were not

expected to fight as infantry.

Lieutenant General Walter Wilson,

the Chief of Engineers, proposed 

in 1962 to eliminate the engineer

construction battalion and create a

226

A Vital Part of the Army

A USACE officer at ERDC using a

battlefield computer simulation

A researcher at ERDC’s

Environmental Laboratory carrying

out experiments in environmental

chemistry
single, standardized engineer combat

battalion that could be aided, when

required for heavier work, by a construction equipment company. The

Combat Developments Command

studied Wilson’s proposal but concluded that the construction battalion

would be essential in the event of a

lengthy war. Subsequent events in

Vietnam supported this conclusion,

for engineer construction battalions

there played a leading role in building U.S. Army installations and an

ambitious highway development

program.

The Chief of Engineers regained

staff responsibility for the development of Army engineer units in

1969, and a reevaluation of the

proper role of the engineer construction battalion soon ensued.

The Engineer Strategic Studies

Group, a broadly chartered studies

and analysis activity reporting to the

Chief of Engineers, proposed in

1974 that the engineer construction

battalion be reorganized and its firepower augmented so that it, too,

would be prepared to assume a full

combat role. In the contemporary

climate of congressional concern

over the military’s proportion of

combat and support forces, frequently termed the “tooth-to-tail

ratio,” the U.S. Army then accepted

this proposal. Engineer construction

battalions at home and abroad were

reorganized in 1975 as engineer

combat (heavy) battalions. As part 

of the reorganization, the units were

provided additional antitank weapons,

grenade launchers, radios, and demolition equipment, and their men were

given additional combat training.

The conversion of the engineer construction battalions in Europe contributed significantly to the reduction

of the U.S. Army’s support forces

there, as mandated by the Defense

Appropriation Act for 1975. In that

same year, the U.S. Army again

included the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers among its combat arms

branches, while also retaining it

among its combat support arms and

its services.

Army Facilities

Programs

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

substantially increased its responsibility over the U.S. Army’s military

construction and family housing

programs in 1974. Prior to that time,

the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics

formulated Army budget planning and

set basic policies for these facilities

programs, which the Corps then executed. The Deputy Chief of Staff for

Logistics exercised these functions

through his director of installations,

as he and his predecessors had 

done since 1954. As part of a larger

transfer of Army staff responsibilities

to operating elements, the U.S. Army

in 1974 placed the director of

227

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships
installations, Major General Kenneth

Cooper, together with his staff and his

program development responsibilities, under the Chief of Engineers.

General Cooper became Assistant

Chief of Engineers. In the same year,

the Corps added facilities engineering technical assistance and fossilfuel energy consulting to the thendwindling responsibilities of the

Army Engineer Power Group, which

it renamed the Facilities Engineering

Support Agency.

Environmental

Responsibilities

In 1966 the U.S. Army Chief of Staff

assigned the Chief of Engineers

supervision over the engineering

aspects of the Army’s emerging

program to protect the environment

and abate pollution in the construction and operation of its military

facilities. He also instructed the

Surgeon General and the Chief of

Engineers to work together to develop

pollution abatement programs for the

U.S. Army. In 1971, the deputy chief

of staff for logistics assumed primary

staff responsibility for directing the

Army’s environmental preservation

and improvement activities, exclusive of the civil works arena. His

director of installations created an

Environmental Office in that year to

undertake this responsibility. The

Chief of Engineers continued to

supervise the engineering portion of

the program.

When the director of installations became the Assistant Chief of

Engineers in 1974, the Corps added

the direction of U.S. Army environmental efforts related to military

sites to those involving civil works

projects. This mission came to

include supervising the Army’s water

pollution abatement and solid waste

management programs; issuing policies for monitoring and controlling

air pollutants emitted by Army

facilities and vehicles; and drafting

regulations to govern the Army’s

management of hazardous and toxic

materials, its noise abatement efforts,

and its responses to any Armycaused oil spills. The Corps also

assumed responsibility in 1974 for a

U.S. Army program to preserve

buildings of historic or architectural

significance and noteworthy archaeological sites on Army properties. The

Office of the Assistant Secretary of

228

A Vital Part of the Army

The volatilization system that

removed dangerous organic

compounds that contaminated

ground water around the 

Twin Cities Ammunition Plant,

Minn.
the Army for Civil Works assumed

civilian direction of the Army’s military environmental program upon the

office’s establishment in 1975. The

Army shifted this oversight function

to the office of the Assistant

Secretary of the Army responsible for

installations and logistics in 1978.

The creation of the Defense

Environmental Restoration Program,

first funded by a 1983 law, led to a

noteworthy enlargement of the Corps’

environmental work relating to military installations. The military services had earlier initiated efforts to

remove hazardous materials from

their active installations. The new

program added hazardous waste

disposal from former military sites

and the removal of unsafe buildings,

ordnance, and other debris from 

both active and former military sites.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

which had already begun providing

engineering assistance to the

Environmental Protection Agency in

229

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

Geo membrane and gas vent layers

covering a landfill at K. I. Sawyer Air

Force Base, Mich., 1996

Officers Club at Fort Totten, N.Y.,

built in the shape of the Corps

Castle and placed on the National

Register of Historic Places
its direction of civilian toxic waste

removal under the Superfund Program

enacted in 1980, assumed program

management in 1984 of the environmental restoration program for all

former military sites, for all services.

The deputy for Environmental Policy

in the Office of the Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Installations

selected sites for cleanup after considering the recommendations of the

Office of the Chief of Engineers.

This position was raised to Deputy

Assistant Secretary of Defense,

Environment in 1986.

The U.S. Army Toxic and

Hazardous Materials Agency, created

in 1978 at Aberdeen, Maryland, as a

subordinate activity of the Army

Materiel Command, maintained

operational control of the expanded

environmental restoration program

on active U.S. Army installations. It

also relied on the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers for most of its design

and construction work. The Corps

had provided similar assistance in

the cleanup of many active U.S. 

Air Force installations. In 1988, 

the Army placed the Toxic and

Hazardous Materials Agency under

the Chief of Engineers, consolidating

Army environmental responsibilities

under a single head.

230

A Vital Part of the Army

Removal of contaminated soil, 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal, near

Denver, Colo.

Demolition of a smokestack at a

Bunker Hill, Idaho, Superfund site,

1995
Army Facilities

Maintenance

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

increased its involvement in maintaining and repairing Army housing

and other facilities at the same time

it broadened its environmental

responsibilities. A study panel

headed by engineer Lieutenant

General Lawrence Lincoln in 1968

urged the U.S. Army to encourage

installation facilities engineers to

turn to Corps districts and divisions

for engineering support by funding a

portion of that work. The U.S. Army

agreed to set aside a modest fund for

Corps installation support, invited

installation commanders to turn to

the Corps for additional maintenance

and repair work on a reimbursable

basis, and took other actions recommended by the Lincoln Panel to

strengthen facilities engineering.

When the administration of

President Jimmy Carter proposed

management consolidation and

increased reliance on private-sector

contracting in the maintenance of

U.S. Army facilities, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers undertook several

new studies in this sphere. A panel

headed by Brigadier General Donald

Weinert reviewed Army facilities

engineering in the context of the

era’s heightened emphasis on master

planning, energy conservation,

worker safety, and environmental

protection. The group observed in

1978 that the Corps’ resources were

still often neglected in the facilities

maintenance sphere, despite the 

U.S. Army’s implementation of most

of the Lincoln Panel’s recommendations. A subsequent engineer

planning group headed by Colonel

Charles Blalock proposed incorporating installation facilities engineers

into the Corps’ district organization,

aiding them with the Corps’ substantial experience in contracting, and

giving them a full range of local

engineering responsibilities. 

Although the U.S. Army did not

accept the offer of Lieutenant

General John W. Morris, Chief of

Engineers, to assume such broad

installation engineering responsibilities, it did approve the plan, elaborated by the Engineer Studies Center

(formerly the Engineer Strategic

Studies Group), to centralize Army

facilities maintenance work in the

Military District of Washington under

a single engineer manager. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers in 1980

created the Engineer Activity,

Capital Area, at Fort Myer, Virginia,

to exercise that function.

Although installation commanders

retained responsibility for maintenance work on U.S. Army posts, their

facilities engineers turned increasingly to Corps districts and divisions

for assistance in prosecuting the

Reagan administration’s substantial

231

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships
effort to reduce the backlog of Army

repair and maintenance work. Streamlining its procedures in this sphere,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

saw its reimbursable installation

support work grow from $130 million

in 1980 to $620 million in 1986.

Effective Corps support in this work

was enhanced by new administrative

reforms proposed by internal reviews

made in 1985 and 1988, the former

by a panel headed by North Central

Division Engineer Brigadier General

Jerome Hilmes, and the latter by the

Office of the Engineer Inspector

General, Colonel Dennis Bulger.

A Major Command

Witnessing a decline in support for

large, new water resources projects

in the later 1970s, Chief of Engineers Morris attempted to strengthen

his office’s ties to the U.S. Army as 

a whole. Consequently, in 1979 the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—

comprising the Office of the Chief 

of Engineers and the divisions,

districts, laboratories, and other

agencies subordinate to the Chief 

of Engineers—was designated an

Army major command. This status

gave the Corps a position comparable

to other leading specialized Army

commands such as the Training and

Doctrine Command, Materiel Command, Communications Command, and

Health Services Command, and the

Army components of unified commands, such as U.S. Army, Europe,

and the Eighth Army in South Korea.

The Chief of Engineers’ ties to

the U.S. Army were strengthened

further in 1986 when he was named

Chief of the Corps of Engineers

Regiment, a ceremonial institution

through which all engineer Soldiers,

officers, and units would participate

in the new U.S. Army Regimental

System. The Chief of Engineers’

assumption of this position gave

symbolic recognition to his office’s

long history of leadership among the

U.S. Army’s military engineers.

The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act

of 1986 obliged the U.S. Army to

distinguish clearly between the small

group of personnel who continued to

serve the Chief of Engineers in his

capacity as an Army staff officer, and

the larger number who worked for

him as commander of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, the engineering

and construction organization. The

act also mandated personnel reductions that had an impact on the

Office of the Chief of Engineers as

an Army staff office. Responding to

both the Army staff personnel limitations and his own view of current

management requirements, the Chief

of Engineers, Lieutenant General

E. R. Heiberg III, ordered the consolidation of the Facilities Engineering

Support Agency and the technical

support activities of the Assistant

232

A Vital Part of the Army

Distinctive Unit Insignia of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

as a major Army command
Chief of Engineers in the fields of

facilities engineering and housing

management. The new organization

resulting from the consolidation,

called the U.S. Army Engineering

and Housing Support Center, was

established in 1987 at Fort Belvoir,

Virginia. Its creation left U.S. Army

program development responsibilities in the facilities and housing

spheres in a leaner Office of the

Assistant Chief of Engineers, now

distinctly an Army staff organization.

The Army Environmental Office

became an Army staff support

agency, which also reported to the

Assistant Chief of Engineers. The

new Engineering and Housing Support Center assumed responsibility

for providing engineering support

and technical policy interpretation

for facilities and housing to U.S.

Army forces worldwide.

In addition to supporting U.S.

Army installations at home and

abroad, the Corps undertook a major

new responsibility for supporting the

Army with facilities and services

during military operations. After 

the Cold War ended and the U.S.

Army demonstrated its clear military

superiority on the conventional

battlefield during the Gulf War of

1990–1991, it was not clear what

military challenges the new era

would bring. However, with pressure

to reduce the size of the military, the

U.S. Army’s leaders emphasized

moving uniformed personnel to

combat positions and relying on

civilian contractors to perform more

support services.

The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, in cooperation with the

Department of the Army’s Deputy

Chief of Staff for Logistics, developed

a contract that would use a civilian

contractor to prepare plans and perform selected services to augment

233

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

Dormitory, Fort Huachuca, Ariz.

Family housing, Fort Belvoir, Va.
U.S. forces during military contingency operations overseas. Based 

on the Army’s newly created Logistics Civil Augmentation Program

(LOGCAP), which had been conceived in the 1980s, the contract 

was broadly structured to cover a

number of scenarios worldwide

requiring varying levels of support 

to U.S. military forces based on the

theater commander’s needs. The

Army set up the contract to provide

basic life support, maintenance, and

transportation services. The Corps’

Transatlantic Division awarded the

first LOGCAP contract (LOGCAP I)

in August 1992, and it was used to

support U.S. and United Nations

forces sent to Somalia in December

1992.

In total, U.S. forces used

LOGCAP I to support six contingency operations from 1992 through

1997, including the largest operation, which was in Bosnia. In 1995

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

forces, including American troops,

entered Bosnia on a peacekeeping

mission. LOGCAP I was used in the

Balkans from December 1995

through May 1997.

During this time, the U.S. Army

transferred official responsibility 

for LOGCAP program management

to the Army Materiel Command,

effective October 1996. Because 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

remained responsible for the first

five-year contract, and since the

peacekeeping operations had been

extended in Bosnia, U.S. Army

Europe (USAREUR) asked the

Transatlantic Division, now known 

as the Transatlantic Programs 

Center (TAC), to award a follow-on

logistics services contract. From 

May 1997 through May 1999, logistics services were provided under a

sole source contract to avoid any

disruption of services to U.S. forces

in the Balkans.

With the commitment of U.S.

forces for an indefinite period,

USAREUR asked TAC to competitively award the Balkans Support

Contract with a contract period of

May 1999 through May 2004. Meanwhile U.S. troops entered Kosovo in

1999, and the new Balkans Support

Contract, which was separate from

LOGCAP, provided logistics support

services for operations in both

Bosnia and Kosovo. Subsequently,

the Balkans Support Contract was

extended to accommodate a protracted evaluation period. Ultimately

TAC awarded the follow-on Balkans

Support Contract in June 2005.

While the Corps continued to

support USAREUR with managing

its logistical services contract

requirements, USACE did not have

official responsibility for LOGCAP

after the Army transferred the program to the Army Materiel Command

in 1996.

234

A Vital Part of the Army
Restructuring of

Installation Support

As the U.S. Army turned more of its

attention to its domestic installations

in the aftermath of the Cold War,

Acting Secretary of the Army John

Shannon in 1993 gave broad authority

over planning, programming, and

general support for Army bases,

facilities, and environmental restoration efforts to a new assistant chief of

staff for installation management.

This new Army staff officer assumed

most of the responsibilities of the

Assistant Chief of Engineers, whose

office was abolished. The Army

Environmental Office, the Army

Environmental Center (as the U.S.

Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials

Agency had been renamed), and

elements of the Engineering and

Housing Support Center involved in

policy were also placed under the

new Assistant Chief of Staff. General

officers, who had previously reported

to the Chief of Engineers, became

the first directors of Environmental

Programs and of Facilities and

Housing for the Assistant Chief of

Staff for Installation management.

The military engineering and

topography functions that had been

overseen by the Assistant Chief of

Engineers, however, remained Army

staff responsibilities of the Chief of

Engineers. They were henceforth

exercised by the newly established

Office of the Chief of Engineers

(Pentagon). The Engineering and

Housing Support Center was

renamed the U.S. Army Center for

Public Works. Remaining under the

Chief of Engineers, it has continued

to provide technical support to

installation commanders. Overall,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

retained its design and construction

missions, including the execution of

a large and expanding program for

the cleanup of hazardous materials 

at current U.S. Army and U.S. Air

Force installations and former

defense sites.

In 1998 the headquarters of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began

its own major restructuring of the

installation support mission. The

Center of Public Works became the

Installation Support Center in preparation for abolishing the organization

and establishing two elements in its

place. In 1999 the Corps established

an Installation Support Division as

one of four major divisions in the

Directorate of Military Programs.

The new division oversaw real

property facilities management and

installation support activities for the

Directorate of Military Programs and

provided related services for the

Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation management and the U.S. Army.

Other members of the Installation

Support Center were sent forward to

engineer divisions, where they would

235

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships
be located closer to their customers

and could provide more effective

installation support.

Customer support became even

more important in 2002, when the

U.S. Army instituted one of the most

fundamental changes in the management of installations in its history. In

spite of attempts to centralize installation management, including one by

the powerful Army Service Forces

during World War II, the U.S. Army

persisted in the policy of assigning

the senior combat commander on an

installation the additional duty of

installation commander. With the

establishment of the Installation

Management Agency as a field

operating agency of the Assistant

Chief of Staff for Installation Management, the Army split the two

functions, establishing a separate

garrison commander responsible to

the Installation Management Agency.

The combat unit commander could

concentrate on his military mission,

leaving the Installation Management

Agency responsible for establishing

the standards and providing the

resources to ensure equitable

services and quality of life on all

U.S. Army installations. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers now works

closely with the Assistant Chief of

Staff for Installation Management

and the Installation Management

Agency to perform its military construction responsibilities for the U.S.

Army, one of the Corps’ key missions

since the beginning of World War II.

Corps and Army

Restructuring

In 2006 the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) was undergoing

an organizational transformation from

a major U.S. Army command, which

it had become in 1979, to a direct

reporting unit (DRU). In a major

restructuring that went into effect 

in the summer of 2006, the Army

abolished the major Army command

(MACOM) as an organizational

element and transferred all old

MACOMs and several new organizations to one of three categories:

Army Commands, Army Service

Component Commands, and Direct

Report Units (DRUs).

Three former MACOMs—

Training and Doctrine Command,

Forces Command, and Army Materiel

Command—became Army Commands. Nine Army component commands, such as U.S. Army Europe,

U.S. Army Pacific, U.S. Army

Central, and Eighth U.S. Army,

became Army Service Component

Commands. Eleven Army organizations, including several of the

remaining former MACOMs, such 

as USACE, and a number of other

organizations, such as the Installation Management Agency and 

the Acquisition Support Center,

became DRUs.

236

A Vital Part of the Army
237

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

DRUs are Army organizations

with institutional or operating functions that provide broad general support to the Army, usually in a single,

unique discipline. DRUs report to a

member of the Army staff, but since

the Chief of Engineers was both an

Army staff officer and the USACE

commander, his status in this regard

remained unchanged. USACE’s

lineage and heraldic honors and

insignia also were preserved. An

implementing Army general order

was expected by the end of 2006.

According to the Army

announcement issued on June 6,

2006, the restructuring was intended

to contribute to the process of Army

transformation and increase the

Army’s responsiveness at home and

abroad. By summer 2006 the Corps

of Engineers was undertaking a

huge, multi-year military construction and base realignment and

closure workload for the Army and

the Air Force and providing major

support to the effort to rebuild Iraq

and Afghanistan. The engineers’

domestic and global responsibilities

remained large and diverse as it supported the U.S. Army and the Nation.
Following the successful bombing campaign launched by

nations of the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization to induce Serbia to

cease ethnic cleansing operations in

Kosovo, during the summer of 1999

U.S. military forces entered the

province to provide security and protect Kosovar refugees. Called Task

Force Falcon, this force required

extensive headquarters, logistical,

operational, and housing facilities,

which U.S. Army engineers provided.

The commander of the engineer

brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Colonel

Joseph Schroedel, who later became

commander of the South Pacific and

South Atlantic divisions, oversaw the

initial construction effort to support the

deployment of Task Force Falcon.

Building the Kosovo base camps

involved some 1,700 military engineers

augmented by 1,000 employees of

Brown and Root Services under a

logistics support contract managed 

by the Corps of Engineers. The

Waterways Experiment Station provided data for locating water sources.

A team from the Baltimore District

advised on environmental engineering

and demining. Nearly 7,000 local

skilled and unskilled laborers assisted

the U.S. Army engineers in base

construction.

These engineer troops constructed

four base camps in the region and 

two large ones in Kosovo. The latter

were Camp Bondsteel and a smaller

base camp nearby. Staff Sergeant

James L. Bondsteel received the

Medal of Honor during the Vietnam

conflict. The majority of the construction at Camp Bondsteel, built from the

ground up on a former farm field,

occurred in just three months. Con238

A Vital Part of the Army

Constructing Camp Bondsteel

Soldiers of the 320th Engineer Company set up a positioning receiver to survey the airfield, Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo. The low

building in the left, center, is a SEA hut.

Department of Defense
239

Changing Military Responsibilities and Relationships

struction proceeded twenty-four hours

a day during that time.

The U.S. Army decided to utilize

rapidly constructed, semipermanent

Southeast Asia (SEA) huts to provide

troop housing quickly. The SEA huts,

which got their name from previous

wartime employment in Southeast

Asia, were modified for use in the

Balkans. Each SEA hut was ninety-two

feet long by thirty-two feet wide and

included five sleeping rooms plus a

combination shower and latrine. The

temporary units were made of plywood

with metal roofs. Rooms had wallmounted heating/cooling systems,

electricity, and a drywall finish.

Although the engineer brigade

returned to the United States in 2000,

the support of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers continued thereafter.

Camp Bondsteel, near Urosevac,

Kosovo, subsequently served as headquarters for the Multi-National Brigade

(East). Over time Camp Bondsteel has

evolved into what is by any measure

an immense post. Its perimeter measures 7 miles and encloses an area of

955 acres. In the construction of the

base, 20 miles of roads were built, 

100 miles of electrical cable were laid,

and a half-million cubic yards of earth

were moved. The post is divided into

two sections: North Town and South

Town. Approximately 5,000 Soldiers

live in more than 250 SEA huts. Also

on post are a 30,000-square-foot

headquarters building, an ammunition

dump, motor pools, chapels, recreation and dining facilities, an operations center, two post exchanges, a

wastewater treatment plant, and a

heliport. The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers also helped design force

protection structures for the base.

Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo
Idealized view of water management

President’s Water Resource Policy Commission
Early Civil Works

Oversight

From the earliest beginnings of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both

Congress and the cabinet official

overseeing the U.S. Army carefully

monitored and guided the involvement of the Corps in civil works

projects. In fact, in 1800, it was

Secretary of War James McHenry

who suggested that engineer officers

possess talents that serve the country

not only in war, but also in peacetime “works of a civil nature.”

Once the Corps was permanently

established in 1802, few operational

and organizational changes were

made without the explicit authorization of the Secretary of War. Indeed,

the Chief of the Engineer Department, along with the chiefs of other

War Department bureaus, enjoyed

direct access to the Secretary of War

and protested vehemently whenever

the U.S. Army’s commanding general

attempted to interfere with that

access. Even the correspondence

procedures reflected this close relationship. Mail intended for the Chief

Engineer was sent under cover to the

Secretary of War with the words

“Engineer Department” written on

the lower left-hand corner of the

envelope. Conversely, reports from

the U.S. Army engineers intended for

Congress were transmitted through

the Secretary of War. The precise

role of the U.S. Army commanding

general was not clarified until Congress abolished that position and

created the position of chief of the

general staff at the beginning of the

twentieth century.

Examples of early oversight

activities of the Secretaries of War

are numerous. John C. Calhoun did

not hesitate giving guidance to the

Board for Internal Improvements,

organized in 1824 to administer the

responsibilities imposed by the

General Survey Act. Charles M.

Conrad transferred certain civil works

responsibilities from the Topographical Engineers to the Corps of Engineers following passage of the 1852

Rivers and Harbors Act. His successor, Jefferson Davis, allowed the use

of local funds to continue projects

that had already received some congressional appropriations. In these

and other ways, the Secretaries of

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

241

James McHenry, Secretary of War,

1796–1800 

Charles M. Conrad, Secretary of War,

1850–1853

U.S. Army Center of Military History
242

A Vital Part of the Army

War profoundly influenced the organization and direction of the U.S.

Army engineers.

Meanwhile, Congress also

helped mold the operations and

policies of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. Congress not only appropriated funds and authorized civil

works projects, it also specified how

many officers the Corps was to have,

conditions for their promotion, and

even how much per diem (if any)

they should earn while assigned to a

project. Congress authorized oversight boards of engineer officers and

determined what precise responsibilities the boards were to discharge. It

requested surveys and reports, and

congressional committees carefully

reviewed the Corps’ progress on its

civil works assignments, rarely

failing to call attention to a real or

imagined defect in the Corps’ management. The responsibility of the

Engineer Department to carry out the

wishes of Congress, including the

development of “internal improvements,” was explicitly noted in the

General Regulations of the Army as

published in 1825.

After the Civil War, the congressional role in Corps affairs became

even more evident. While not appreciably increasing the number of

officers assigned to the Corps,

Congress substantially increased the

Corps’ work on rivers and harbors.

Consequently, the Corps was forced

to depend on help from the civilian

engineer community. This dependence

worked to the Corps’ disadvantage.

Most of the civilian engineers did not

become career employees of the

Corps, but the very fact of their

employment helped give credibility

to the charge that the Corps was

unable to fulfill its civil works functions. Civilian engineers maintained

that they, not military engineers,

should be in charge of civil works.

They lobbied Congress, and their

congressional sympathizers introduced numerous bills beginning in

the 1870s to transfer civil works

functions from the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers to some other part of

government; often, the preferred

solution was to create a new Department of Public Works. Railroad

interests, which perceived the Corps

as an unfair competitor in the development of national transportation

systems, wished to have the private

sector do all river and harbor work.

Pummeled from many quarters, the

Corps saw its relationship with

Congress become more dependent

and more fractious.

Authorizations and appropriations during this period reflected

some of the worst evils of pork-barrel

legislation. Projects were poorly

chosen, piecemeal appropriations

were commonplace, and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers often gave

unreliable estimates. Around the turn
of the century, relations improved,

mainly as a result of the work of

Ohio Representative Theodore E.

Burton. As chairman of the Rivers

and Harbors Committee, he shepherded through Congress a bill

establishing the Board of Engineers

for Rivers and Harbors within the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

examine costs, benefits, and necessity

of river and harbor improvements. In

the 1907 Rivers and Harbors Act,

Burton did not allow one new project

to be added unless the entire cost of

the project was appropriated and it

had the express approval of the 

Chief of Engineers. Burton’s efforts

briefly curtailed pork-barrel legislation, but when he left the House of

Representatives for the Senate in

1909, Congress quickly reverted to

its old ways. The 1910 Rivers and

Harbors Act appropriated funds for

projects in 226 of the 391 congressional districts.

Secretary of War’s Role

While Congress busily gave the

Corps work, the Secretaries of War

attempted to oversee the Corps’

execution of its civil works projects.

This attention to Corps operations

may have been a matter of choice

with some Secretaries, but several

rivers and harbors acts passed in the

1880s explicitly mandated that the

Secretary of War supervise the

expenditure of appropriated funds 

to, in the words of the 1884 act,

“secure a judicious and economical

expenditure of said sums.” The

Secretary was directed furthermore

to submit to Congress annual reports

of work done, contracts made, and

funds expended.

Pursuant to these acts, the Secretary of War issued new regulations in

1887 that specifically delegated to

the Chief of Engineers the responsibility to supervise “all disbursements

by officers of the Corps.” Slightly

modified in 1889, these regulations

also charged the Chief of Engineers

to present to the Secretary of War an

annual report of Engineer Department operations and, “with the

approbation of the Secretary of War,”

to determine the quality, number,

and physical characteristics of

equipment needed by the U.S. Army

engineers. The Secretary of War

approved the assignment of division

engineers as well as officers to serve

on the board that oversaw fortifications and river and harbor improvements. He approved the initiation of

new projects and specified the forms

to be used to contract work. Moreover, he approved any modifications

of the original contract. Finally, it

should be noted that it was the

Secretary of War, not the Chief of

Engineers, who Congress charged 

to have surveys done, civil works

projects constructed, and rules

issued to regulate federally operated

243

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

Theodore E. Burton, Congressman

and Senator from Ohio

Senate Historical Office
canals and waterways. The work, 

of course, was then assigned to the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Multipurpose 

Water Management

In the Progressive Era at the beginning of the twentieth century, the

Secretary of War’s office became

embroiled in the controversy over the

development of multipurpose water

projects. Multipurpose planners

sought to develop coordinated river

basin programs that responded to a

wide variety of needs, including

navigation, flood control, irrigation,

water supply, and hydropower. The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers generally opposed the concept, arguing

that other purposes should always be

subordinated to navigation in federal

projects, that multipurpose dams

would be difficult to operate, and

that greater coordination was not

needed; existing government agencies

could provide whatever coordination

was required.

However, multipurpose development supporters had powerful friends

in Congress, especially Senator

Francis G. Newlands of Nevada, 

who introduced legislation to establish a multipurpose water resources

coordinating commission. Henry L.

Stimson, President William H. Taft’s

Secretary of War, was an avid conservationist and a former member of the

board of directors of the National

Conservation Association. He wholeheartedly supported the Newlands

measure. So did Newton D. Baker,

who served as Secretary of War

under President Woodrow Wilson.

Other Secretaries, such as Taft himself, who headed the War Department before he succeeded Theodore

Roosevelt as president, and Lindley

M. Garrison, who served in Wilson’s

first administration, were more sympathetic toward the Corps.

Secretary of War Stimson complained about his relationship with

the Chief of Engineers. Stimson

asked the Chief whether an improvement should be made in light of

other demands on the budget.

Without answering the question, 

the Chief of Engineers, Brigadier

General William H. Bixby, simply

responded that the project was good

for the country without comparing 

it with other projects or budgetary

demands. Stimson pursued his point.

He wanted to use a comparative

approach. However, Bixby objected,

“I have nothing to do with that. I

cannot have anything to do with it.

Congress will not listen to me on

that. They reserve the judgment to do

that themselves.” Stimson thought

the Corps was uncooperative and

unresponsive, but there was some

merit in the argument of the Chief 

of Engineers.

As Newlands himself pointed

out, numerous rivers and harbors

244

A Vital Part of the Army

Francis G. Newlands, Senator 

from Nevada
acts had indeed constrained the

Corps’ flexibility. Although the Corps

had authority only to recommend a

project based on its own merits, it

did seem to support projects that

were politically feasible and not

necessarily urgently required. Also,

the Corps’ opposition to a more

constructive, integrated approach 

to water resources management

reflected a predictable bureaucratic

concern for maintaining maximum

administrative independence. Despite

some initial legislative success,

Newlands saw his plans for a great

waterways commission unravel when

the U.S. declared war on Germany in

April 1917.

The 1925 Rivers and Harbors

Act accelerated the movement toward

multipurpose water management. It

authorized the Corps and the Federal

Power Commission to prepare cost

estimates for surveys of navigable

streams and tributaries “whereon

power development appears feasible

and practicable.” The aim was to

develop plans to improve stream

navigation “in combination with the

most efficient development of the

potential water power, the control of

floods, and the needs of irrigation.”

The Corps responded with a recommendation for 24 surveys at an estimated cost of $7.3 million.

In 1927 Congress appropriated

the necessary funds, whereupon the

Corps launched a series of comprehensive river surveys. The resulting

reports, known as the “308 Reports”

after the House document in which

the survey estimates had first

appeared, became basic planning

documents for many of the multipurpose projects later undertaken by

the federal government. During the

depths of the Great Depression,

Congress authorized the Corps to

supplement the 308 Reports with

studies “to take into account important changes in economic factors as

they occur and additional streamflow

records or other factual data.” This

authority charged the Corps with a

broad responsibility to undertake

continuing river basin planning, 

with an emphasis on navigation and

flood control.

Relationship with

Congress

From about 1885 to 1925, Americans’ daily lives were more and more

affected by the federal government.

Working with the executive branch,

Congress attempted to control abuses

that could threaten the liberty, livelihood, or health of the citizenry. To do

so, it was necessary to increase the

regulatory authority of various federal

agencies, including the War Department. In 1886, Congress gave the

Secretary authority to regulate

harbor lines. The 1890 Rivers and

Harbors Act expanded the Secretary’s

authority to regulate and remove any

245

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War,

1911–1913; 1940–1945 and

Secretary of State, 1929–1933

U.S. Army Center of Military History
246

A Vital Part of the Army

navigation obstructions, including

bridges, waste material, and structures such as dams and piers built

outside of established harbor lines.

In 1894, Congress authorized the

War Department to regulate navigation in all federally owned canals,

whether or not the Corps had built

them. The 1899 Rivers and Harbors

Act gave the Secretary added authority to regulate the dumping of waste

material into navigable streams and

the construction of any structures

that might impede navigation. The

1906 General Dam Act authorized

the Secretary of War to review and

approve plans and specifications for

all dams to be constructed across

navigable waters. While, of course,

most of these new responsibilities

were delegated to the Corps of

Engineers, in no case did Congress

bypass the Secretary and grant power

directly to the Chief of Engineers.

The Corps’ relationship with

Congress in the interwar period was

extremely close. Indeed, Secretary 

of War George H. Dern called the

Corps “an agency of the legislative

branch” in a 1934 report to the

president. Congress did not just

establish overall water resources

policy, but congressional committees

also determined which projects

should be funded and the extent 

and timing of the funding. One procedure that was used extensively

was the committee review resolution,

which required the Corps to reconsider reports in which it had recommended against project construction.

This was a particularly popular

device during the New Deal, when

projects were needed for work relief

as well as for navigation or flood

control. For instance, only about

one-third of the projects authorized

in the 1935 Rivers and Harbors Act

originated as favorable reports.

Reports on most of the others had

been modified in response to a

committee review resolution. The

procedure constituted a kind of

quasi-legislative process that

circumvented both the rest of

Congress and the executive branch.

Corps orders and regulations

directed district engineers to contact

each member of Congress within

their districts to solicit the congressman’s wishes about river and harbor

improvements. The congressman was

also invited to testify at a public

hearing dealing with the project and

to present written arguments to the

Board of Engineers for Rivers and

Harbors, which reviewed the project

report. If the congressman was still

dissatisfied, then he always had

recourse to the committee review

resolution. Although this kind of

relationship could have led to tension,

such was not the case. Congressmen

protected the Corps at the same time

they pressured it. All efforts by

President Franklin D. Roosevelt to

George H. Dern, Secretary of War,

1933–1936

U.S. Army Center of Military History
centralize water resources planning

and institute some Progressive Era

ideas met immovable congressional

(and War Department) opposition;

the Corps remained the water

resources agency of choice in both

wings of the Capitol.

The passage of the 1936 Flood

Control Act, which officially recognizing a federal obligation in flood

control activity, greatly expanded 

the responsibilities of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers. The law authorized the expenditure of $320 million

for about 250 projects and a number

of examinations and surveys. Since

1936, the Corps has built, pursuant

to congressional authorizations 

and appropriations, more than 300

reservoirs whose primary benefit is

flood control.

Policy Coordination

Efforts

More so than any of his predecessors,

President Roosevelt attempted to

ensure interagency coordination of

federal water projects. In 1939, he

instructed the departments of War,

Interior, and Agriculture to cooperate

with his National Resources Planning

Board in drawing up a memorandum

that would ensure consultation

among all federal water agencies

during project planning. The subsequent tripartite agreement resulted

in a better and more efficient

exchange of information among the

agencies; however, it failed to eliminate bureaucratic rivalries.

Roosevelt finally gave up on

developing a centralized natural

resources planning organization in

1943 when Congress refused to

appropriate money to keep the

National Resources Planning Board

in existence. However, the president

continued to press one of the board’s

chief ideas, basinwide planning

commissions such as the Tennessee

Valley Authority established ten

years earlier. His support of the

247

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

National Archives
Missouri Valley Authority reflected

this commitment. A similar authority

for the Columbia River Basin was

discussed, and Roosevelt’s successor, Harry S. Truman, embraced the

idea. Nevertheless, continued congressional skepticism assured that

river basin commissions would never

obtain the authority that Roosevelt

and Truman envisioned.

Although Congress effectively

destroyed the National Resources

Planning Board during the war,

federal agencies continued to coordinate their various responsibilities.

The Departments of War, Agriculture, and Interior established the

Federal Interagency River Basin

Committee (FIARBC), commonly

called “Firebrick.” Later, the Departments of Labor and Commerce and

the Federal Security Agency (which

supervised the U.S. Public Health

Service) joined. Various technical subcommittees attempted to coordinate

water development in specific river

basins, usually meeting limited success. In 1954, President Eisenhower

replaced the commission with the

new Interagency Committee on Water

Resources (IACWR). “Icewater,” as

this agency became known, had

minimal impact because its objective

of strengthening executive authority

elicited little interest in Congress.

The various official committees

and study commissions, like the first

and second Hoover Commissions of

the post-World War II period, mirrored an emerging consensus that

rational water resources development

required uniform procedures and

ongoing coordination. However, executive branch committees such as

Firebrick lacked the clout to be

effective interagency vehicles. The

organization in the executive branch

that did seem to have the necessary

visibility and bureaucratic authority

was the Bureau of the Budget, later

renamed the Office of Management

and Budget. Upon the dissolution of

the National Resources Planning

Board in 1943, President Roosevelt

issued Executive Order 9384, which

directed all federal public works

agencies to submit their updated

long-range programs directly to the

Bureau of the Budget. The major goal

seemed to be to ensure that the

bureau had the opportunity to see

how well agency long-range plans fit

248

A Vital Part of the Army

Harry S. Truman
into the overall administration program. Although the budget bureau

attempted to create a new division to

handle the review of agency programs,

Congress refused to appropriate funds

to hire personnel. Therefore, the

bureau was forced to review the programs with existing personnel, and

the result was a limited review that

ignored such issues as the conformance of agency water project plans

with regional plans, social utility, or

reliability of the cost/benefit analysis.

Nevertheless, in December 1952,

the Bureau of the Budget drafted a

far-reaching directive pertaining to

the planning of water projects. Known

simply as Circular A-47, the document stipulated that the benefits of

each element in a multipurpose project must exceed the costs; it would

no longer suffice for the total benefits

to exceed total costs. Circular A-47

also directed that 50 years would be

the maximum allowable time for the

repayment of a federal investment.

Although criticized in Congress, the

guidance remained the basic planning document for the next decade

and placed the Bureau of the Budget

in the middle of the ongoing debate

over water resources planning.

The Eisenhower administration

attempted to place individual projects

in the context of other national priorities and was skeptical of massive

dam-building projects. The Bureau

of the Budget generally looked far

more favorably at smaller urban

flood control projects. Moreover,

budget personnel advocated reducing

the planning period, if at all possible, to move ahead with actual construction. Of course, Congress could

and often did insert projects into

bills that not only had not received

bureau approval, but had not even

been recommended by the Corps of

Engineers. For instance, a 1956 bill

vetoed by Eisenhower would have

authorized thirty-two projects that

had not been reviewed by the Corps.

A 1958 bill, also vetoed, would have

authorized four projects, costing $27

million, that had no project reports,

and another three projects, costing

$115 million, that had a negative

cost/benefit ratio. In 1959, Congress

passed a bill over a presidential veto.

Eisenhower had disapproved the bill

because of the expense involved,

some $800 million.

249

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Budgetary Oversight

The history of federal water

resources development in the third

quarter of the twentieth century has

two general themes: the growing

influence of the Bureau of the Budget

over water policy, and the continuation of pork-barrel politics to determine actual project authorizations.

Despite the Bureau of the Budget’s

occasionally successful efforts to convince the president to veto a “budgetbusting” bill, Congress generally 

got its way. The bureau could delay

projects by not including them in the

budget submissions to Congress or

by impounding funds for congressional new starts; however, the funds

would often be made available in

short order and Congress would

insert its pet projects when it rewrote

the administration budget proposal.

Rarely were projects fully funded at

the beginning.

The Bureau of the Budget’s

growing involvement in water

resources policy, coupled with a

number of highly publicized attacks

on the Corps’ civil works program in

the decade after World War II,

weakened the Corps’ ability to

influence policy, even though the

agency continued to administer the

largest water resources program. A

lack of strong leadership in this area

at the secretarial level complicated

the problem. In the immediate postWorld War II period, first the War

Department and then (after July

1947) the Department of the Army

considered civil works as somewhat

of an orphan within the country’s

military structure. In fact, the

Secretaries of the Army were quite

content to leave such matters as

dams, floodwalls, and levees to the

Corps and its friends on Capitol Hill.

Within the U.S. Army’s senior

bureaucracy, civil functions were

bounced from office to office.

Civil Works in the

Army Secretariat

In 1950, Secretary of the Army

Gordon Gray placed civil works

under the newly created Assistant

Secretary of the Army, General

Management. When the holder of

that position, Karl Bendetsen,

became the Under Secretary of the

Army in May 1952, the civil works

responsibility moved with him. Two

years later, Congress raised the number of Assistant Secretaries in the

military departments from two to

four, and attached civil works to the

new Office of the Assistant Secretary

of the Army, Civil-Military Affairs;

however, that office was eliminated

in 1958, and civil works landed in

the Office of the Assistant Secretary

of the Army, Manpower and Reserve

Affairs. This change reflected the

clout of Dewey Short—who had

moved from Assistant Secretary for

250

A Vital Part of the Army

Gordon Gray
Civil-Military Affairs to Assistant

Secretary for Manpower and

Reserve—rather than any sound

administrative policy.

Civil functions continued to 

be shuttled around the hallways of

the Pentagon in succeeding years.

During the Kennedy administration,

these functions found a home in the

office of the general counsel, who

obtained a second title, special

assistant to the Assistant Secretary

for Civil Functions. For a while, too,

the title of special assistant to the

Assistant Secretary for Civil

Functions passed to the Deputy

Under Secretary of the Army for

International Affairs, Harry

McPherson. McPherson observed

that overseeing the Corps of Engineers

“was an exercise in amiable futility.”

Although, like other military organizations in the United States, the

Corps fell under civilian control,

McPherson continued, “in its case

the controlling civilians were on the

Hill” rather than in the Pentagon.

Nevertheless, when Alfred B. Fitt

became the general counsel in 1964,

he decided to be the special assistant in fact as well as name.

Creating an Assistant

Secretary for Civil Works

At about the same time that Fitt

became general counsel, Secretary of

the Army Cyrus Vance established a

small, three-man board to review the

entire civil works program. One of

the board’s major findings was that

the Secretary of the Army should

“participate personally and through

his Secretariat” in water resources

matters that involved participation

by secretaries in other agencies of

the executive branch. Board members specifically called for the creation of an Assistant Secretary of the

Army “with responsibilities primarily

for the civil works mission.” Clearly,

the board believed that interagency

coordination and the growth of the

civil works budget relative to the

national budget required secretariallevel overview. Since the Secretary of

the Army needed to give priority to

more traditional military responsibilities, the obvious solution was to

create an additional Assistant

Secretary position. Of course, this

required legislative authorization, but

it appears that the board felt reasonably confident such authorization

could be obtained. They suggested in

their report that “sources outside the

Army” had advocated the creation of

a new Assistant Secretary for Civil

Works position, and it seems likely

that at least some of these sources

were representatives and senators.

Another factor that contributed

to the momentum to establish the

position of Assistant Secretary for

Civil Works was the 1965 decision of

President Lyndon B. Johnson to

initiate the Planning, Programming,

251

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

Eugene Weber, Deputy Director of

Civil Works for Policy, chaired the

board that reviewed the entire civil

works program.
Budgeting (PPB) System throughout

the federal agencies. First advanced

by Secretary of Defense Robert

McNamara in the Pentagon, the program was designed to allow for closer

oversight of executive programs.

Although few federal agencies

reacted enthusiastically to the presidential order, one that did was the

Army’s Office of Civil Functions. In

1965, Fitt established a Systems

Analysis Group to develop new procedures for preparing the civil works

budget and to draft a long-range water

investment program for the Nation.

Group members proposed to shift

emphasis from individual projects—

the details of which were familiar only

to the members of Congress directly

concerned—to water resources problems in the various regions of the

Nation. Under Robert E. Jordan III,

U.S. Army general counsel and

special assistant to the Assistant

Secretary for Civil Functions, the

Systems Analysis Group perfected a

budgeting system and a five-year

investment program based on regional

allocations. This new approach was

firmly installed in the Corps.

Ultimately, however, neither the

Bureau of the Budget nor Congress

proved capable of shedding the projectby-project orientation in favor of a

more programmatic approach to civil

works budgeting. Still, the creation by

Fitt and the use by Jordan of the

Systems Analysis Group initiated an

oversight and broadening of the Corps’

civil works program that was far

removed from the benign neglect of

the preceding decade, and it presaged

the establishment of the position of

Assistant Secretary for Civil Works.

Utah Senator Frank E. Moss’s

attempt to establish a Department of

Natural Resources, which would

have included the Corps’ civil works

functions, and the nearly successful

attempt in 1968 to put a congressional moratorium on public works

projects signified the gradual dissolution of the Corps’ traditionally

strong water resources constituency

in Congress. Under Jordan, and with

the powerful support of Jordan’s

capable successor, Under Secretary

of the Army Thaddeus Beal, the

Systems Analysis Group pressed for

new Corps missions: wastewater

management and urban studies.

Although these initiatives failed to

produce new construction responsibilities for the Corps, the experience

showed that a secretarial-level political appointee, who focused on civil

works, would be of enormous benefit.

That appointee could help strengthen

planning and review functions within

the Corps, and concurrently, give the

Corps more clout within the executive branch, such as in the interdepartmental Water Resources

Council, established in 1965.

Mainly through the efforts of

California Representative Don

252

A Vital Part of the Army
Clausen, Congress inserted a section

in the 1970 Flood Control Act that

authorized the position of Assistant

Secretary of the Army, Civil Works;

however, it was to be another five

years before the executive branch

appointed the first Assistant Secretary. This was largely because

President Richard Nixon supported

the creation of a new Department of

Environment and Natural Resources

and did not wish to do anything that

appeared to strengthen the Corps’

civil works mission. Finally, on

March 20, 1975, Victor V. Veysey, a

former representative from California,

was sworn in as the first Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

He served until January 1977.

Role of the Assistant

Secretaries

Veysey had the difficult task of

defining both his mission and his

relationship with the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers. His approach

was to act the “honest broker”

between the Corps and other organizations involved with water

resources; it was an approach that

succeeding Secretaries emulated.

While working as a conduit between

the Corps and its environmental

opponents, Veysey never lost the

high respect he held for the Corps.

He acted forcefully on certain issues,

but he looked upon his role primarily

as an advisory one. “I wasn’t about to

order the Chief of Engineers to do

anything because I couldn’t; that

wasn’t my role. He takes his orders

from the Army chief of staff. But

influence, yes. We could try to influence him in directions and in policy,

procedure, and so forth.... But from

the post of Assistant Secretary you

don’t order the Chief of Engineers to

do anything.”

President Jimmy Carter, who

questioned the necessity of many

water projects and emphasized environmental concerns, did not appoint

an Assistant Secretary until April

1978. He chose Michael Blumenfeld,

who also served as Deputy Under

Secretary of the Army. The Senate

failed to confirm Blumenfeld as

Assistant Secretary until April 1979.

Working through the Water Resources

Council, he exerted strong leadership to develop new, environmentally

253

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

Victor V. Veysey

Department of Defense

Michael Blumenfeld

Department of Defense
sensitive principles and standards to

guide the planning of water projects.

With the transfer of power from 

a Democratic to a Republican administration in 1981 came new water

resources priorities. The new Assistant Secretary for Civil Works,

William R. Gianelli, had formerly

headed California’s Department of

Water Resources under then-Governor

Ronald Reagan. His objectives were

to reform the regulatory program and

to develop new ways to fund the Corps’

water resources projects. Both objectives reflected political and philosophical shifts. Gianelli considered

the Corps’ responsibility to regulate

the dredging and filling of wetlands a

water quality issue and not a mandate to protect wetlands. He changed

regulatory procedures to shorten the

processing time, partly by limiting

the traditional way of appealing permit decisions. He also led early

Reagan administration efforts to

reduce the federal financial burden

in activities that he believed nonfederal interests could and should fund.

Gianelli’s work, together with an

unexpected positive response by

project sponsors, helped convince

Congress that some sort of costsharing was necessary if sound water

projects were to proceed. It fell to

Gianelli’s successor, Robert K.

Dawson (appointed Acting Assistant

Secretary in May 1985), working

with Congress, to bring the process to

a successful conclusion. The Water

Resources Development Act of 1986,

signed into law on November 17,

1986, signaled a major historical

change in the financing of water

projects by requiring cost-sharing 

for most projects. At the same time,

the act authorized about 300 new

254

A Vital Part of the Army

William R. Gianelli

Department of Defense

Robert K. Dawson

Department of Defense

Robert W. Page

Department of Defense
water projects and numerous studies

at an estimated cost of more than

$15 billion.

Under Dawson’s successor,

Robert W. Page, the Corps addressed

a wide range of subjects to make

project development—from planning

through construction—more efficient,

faster, and cheaper, without sacrificing quality. The Corps rewrote

planning procedures to ensure that

nonfederal project sponsors, principally states and local communities,

were full partners in project development. After Page left office in

October 1990, the position remained

vacant until July 1991, when Nancy

Dorn became the first female Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil

Works. Perhaps more than her predecessors, Dorn was conservative about

seeking new missions. She emphasized instead effective management

of the Corps’ existing missions during her tenure, which lasted until

January 1993.

Under Assistant Secretaries

Dorn and Page, the Corps undertook

major reforms of the wetlands regulatory program. Policy guidance and

255

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

President Ronald Reagan signs the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

National Archives

Nancy P. Dorn

Department of Defense
256

A Vital Part of the Army
changes in interagency agreements

gave the Corps more authority in

regulating the dredge-and-fill program assigned to the agency in the

1972 Clean Water Act. The Corps

also adopted strict time frames and

guidelines governing other agencies’

input to permit actions and also

ensured that the agencies used the

same definitions and standards to

determine wetland jurisdictions.

With the change in administrations in January 1993, Dorn left

office. After a prolonged period in

which Acting Assistant Secretaries

served, H. Martin Lancaster became

the first Assistant Secretary of the

Army, Civil Works in the Clinton

administration. Lancaster sought to

reduce the time and cost of Corps

studies and expand engineering and

construction management opportunities for the Corps through its reimbursable Support for Others Program.

Lancaster, himself a former member

of Congress from North Carolina,

improved communications with

Congress and provided consistent

support for the administration’s environmental initiatives, especially the

restoration of the Everglades and

south Florida ecosystem.

Joseph W. Westphal served as

the next confirmed Assistant

Secretary of the Army, Civil Works

from June 1998 to March 2001. He

brought a wealth of academic, legislative staff, and executive branch

experience to the position. Westphal

was a major driving force behind

more comprehensive basinwide planning efforts, a revitalization of the

257

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

H. Martin Lancaster

Department of Defense

Joseph W. Westphal

Department of Defense

Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986
Corps’ recreation facilities, and an

expansion of the Corps’ ability to

serve the Nation in public infrastructure and environmental restoration

needs. His eventual successor, Mike

Parker, a former representative from

Louisiana, was a strong advocate for

maintaining funding levels for Corps

programs, but he remained in office

for only six months before resigning.

Under Secretary of the Army 

Les Brownlee subsequently also

served as the Acting Assistant

Secretary of the Army, Civil Works

and then as Acting Secretary of the

Army. In 2003 President George W.

Bush nominated John Paul Woodley,

Jr., as the next Assistant Secretary.

Woodley previously held the office 

of the Assistant Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense (Environment),

and was principal advisor to the

Secretary of Defense on environmental, safety, and occupational

health policy and programs. Woodley

served in a recess appointment as

Assistant Secretary of the Army,

Civil Works from August 2003 to

December 2004. In May 2005 the

Senate confirmed his nomination as

assistant secretary. Woodley focused

258

A Vital Part of the Army

Mike Parker

Department of Defense

John Paul Woodley, Jr.

Department of Defense

Acting Secretary of the Army 

Les Brownlee meeting with 

Brig. Gen. Robert Crear, Iraq,

September 2003
the Corps on enhancing performance

measurements, streamlining the regulatory process, building planning

capabilities, and improving strategic

communications.

Civil Works and 

the Nation

U.S. Army policy on civil works has

continued to stress the need for maximizing the benefits of Corps project

investments for the Nation. A notable

achievement in this regard was the

release by the Corps of its final

environmental impact statement on

the operation of the Missouri River

dams and reservoirs, the Master

Water Control Manual, after nearly a

decade and a half of study. Furthermore, the Corps’ plan for restoration

along Louisiana’s coastal areas also

was designed to prioritize the most

promising and beneficial remedial

activities. The Comprehensive

Everglades Restoration Plan to

capture, store, and redistribute fresh

water previously lost to tides and to

regulate the quality, quantity, timing,

and distribution of water flows

throughout south and central Florida,

devised by the Corps and its partners

and approved in the Water Resources

Development Act of 2000, resulted in

a massive ongoing effort to restore

the Florida ecosystem. Most recently,

the water resources, environmental,

regulatory, and emergency response

expertise developed through the civil

works program has been called upon

to support reconstruction efforts in

Afghanistan and Iraq.

Acting through the Assistant

Secretary’s office, the Secretary of

the Army has assumed leadership of

the Corps’ civil works program. The

principal responsibility of this position remains overall supervision of

the functions of the Department of

the Army relating to all aspects of

the civil works program, and in specific terms to see that the ongoing

and future efforts of the Corps are

environmentally sustainable, economically responsible, and fiscally

sound. Although form and style have

varied according to the political

orientation of any given administration, the policies of the Assistant

Secretaries of the Army, Civil Works

have ensured that the Corps remains

the flexible, competent engineering

organization that has continuously

served the country for two centuries

in peace and war.

259

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch
260

A Vital Part of the Army

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
More than a decade before

the environmental movement took hold, Lieutenant

General Samuel D. Sturgis, Jr., Chief

of Engineers from 1953 to 1956, envisioned the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a partner in the fight for

conservation. In a hallmark address to

the International Association of Game,

Fish, and Conservation Commissioners

in September 1953, Sturgis set Corps

policy firmly down a path from which it

has yet to retreat.

“We must obey the laws of nature

and work in harmony with natural

forces rather than against them,”

Sturgis declared in the speech. “Man

cannot dominate these forces; but, by

working in harmony with them, he can

preserve the heritage of future generations.” Sturgis traced his own love of

nature to his boyhood. All forms of

conservation interested him, from soil

to wildlife. The destruction of forests

filled him with “real pain,” and he

regretted that in the march “of what

we often inaccurately term ‘civilization,’

some values are likely to be lost.”

But General Sturgis believed that

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

could help. The Corps could provide

shelter for wildlife on coastal and

inland waters, for instance. In fact,

Corps projects already furnished 

“more than 3.5 million acres of land for

some form of wildlife management,

and recreation.” And Sturgis had a

vision—namely, to see “resting

grounds for migratory game, refuges,

managed public hunting, fish culture,

game management, research laboratories, field headquarters for wildlife

research and administration, arboretums,” all aimed at “public use and

enjoyment of wildlife resources.”

Sturgis proclaimed the support of his

command toward this cause: “The

Corps stands ready and willing to join

with each of you and give you every

possible assistance that our authorized

functions permit to obtain the greatest

practicable benefits for wildlife from

our projects.”

261

Civil Works, Congress, and the Executive Branch

This Chief of Engineers Established the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a 

Partner in the Conservation Movement

Lt. Gen. Samuel D. Sturgis, Jr.,

1953–56, as Chief of Engineers

Pelicans on Gaillard Disposal Island, Mobile Bay, Ala.
Damage assessment following the

Loma Prieta earthquake, Oakland,

Calif., October 1989
The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers received its first

formal federal relief assignment in the winter of 1882 when

Mississippi River floods forced thousands of people from their homes.

When the Army Quartermaster

Department was unable to deliver

relief supplies to the shivering

refugees, Congress turned to the

Corps of Engineers and soon engineer vessels were steaming up and

down the river dispensing hundreds

of tons of supplies and plucking

survivors off rooftops and levees.

In the first half of the twentieth

century the Corps’ role in providing

disaster relief stemmed largely from

its flood control responsibilities. 

The Flood Control Act of 1917

established that flood control was a

responsibility of the federal government and placed it under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. A

decade later, during the Mississippi

River floods of 1927, the Corps of

Engineers organized a massive effort

to reinforce the levees to hold back

the raging water, but eventually the

levees failed, killing hundreds of

people and leaving hundreds of

thousands homeless. With much of

the countryside under water the

Corps quickly transitioned its efforts

from fighting the flood to helping the

communities affected by the disaster.

The engineers’ relief operations

included ferrying supplies to the

communities cut off by the rising

water and rescuing thousands of

beleaguered refugees.

The Corps of Engineers’ role in

providing disaster relief broadened

considerably when Congress passed

the landmark Federal Disaster Relief

Act of 1950. The act provided a

Emergency Operations

263

Residents of Hickman, Ky., find

refuge on levees and rooftops, 1912
mechanism for local and state governments to request federal assistance, and after determining that a

major disaster had indeed occurred,

the president could authorize federal

agencies to provide “equipment,

supplies, facilities, personnel, and

other resources” for the preservation

of life and property. Additional

congressional action followed a

series of hurricanes that buffeted 

the East Coast beginning in 1954.

Under PL 84-99 (1955), Congress

authorized the Chief of Engineers to

undertake activities including disaster preparedness, emergency operations, rehabilitation of flood control

works threatened or destroyed by

flood, and protection or repair of

federally authorized shore protective

works threatened or damaged by

coastal storms.

Under the provisions of the

expanded legislation the Corps was

well positioned to lend a helping

hand when a string of devastating

hurricanes struck the Gulf Coast in

the 1960s. In 1965 Hurricane Betsy

inundated much of the city of New

Orleans, and in 1969 Hurricane

Camille came ashore in Mississippi

accompanied by a twenty-four-foot

storm surge that killed hundreds. In

the wake of Hurricane Betsy the

Corps helped pump flood waters out

of the city, repaired levees, and

removed debris. After Hurricane

Camille the Corps of Engineers

helped clear roads and conducted

extensive dredging operations to

clear harbors blocked by the storm.

In 1972 Tropical Storm Agnes 

buried much of the east coast under

torrential rains that killed more than

100 people and caused more than

$3 billion in damage. To cope with

the devastation along the eastern

seaboard brought on by the storm,

the Corps established the Susquehanna District to help house the displaced residents, clear debris, and

help make the battered communities

livable once again.

The federal government’s disaster policy changed again in the

1980s when Congress passed the

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief

and Emergency Assistance Act. 

The new law tasked the Corps to

provide disaster relief support to the

264

A Vital Part of the Army

A Corps of Engineers disaster

survey team inspects damaged

homes following Tropical Storm

Agnes.
newly created Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA). That

support arrangement was tested in

1992 when Hurricane Andrew roared

ashore in South Florida, cutting a

twenty-two mile path of devastation

from Biscayne Bay to the Everglades.

Relief operations in south Florida

demonstrated a new level of federal

commitment to disaster response: 

In the months following the disaster,

the Corps of Engineers spent nearly

$400 million in federal funds

installing temporary roofs on some

22,500 homes, removing millions of

cubic yards of debris, installing

emergency generators and pumps,

distributing water, installing temporary housing, and helping rehabilitate nearly 270 schools. 

The litany of hurricanes continued

—following Hurricane Isabel in

2003, nearly 300 Corps of Engineers

personnel deployed to the midAtlantic region to distribute water

and ice, install generators, and erect

more than 100 trailers for temporary

housing. In 2004 several hurricanes

struck the Gulf Coast and in their

wake the Corps’ “blue roof program,”

so named for the color of its distinctive blue plastic coverings, installed

135,000 temporary roofs on homes

and businesses across the Gulf region.

In 2005 two powerful hurricanes,

Katrina and Rita, struck the Gulf

Coast within weeks of one another.

High winds and a powerful storm

surge inundated much of the city of

New Orleans and caused widespread

damage across large portions of

Louisiana and Mississippi. The

Corps’ response to the powerful

storms was unprecedented; during

the relief and recovery efforts more

than 3,000 personnel were deployed

to the battered communities along

the Gulf Coast to assist with relief

and recovery operations. Working

265

Emergency Operations

Corps of Engineers contractors

install a temporary roof on a home

damaged by Hurricane Andrew.

Military personnel repair the roof 

of a school damaged by Hurricane

Andrew’s strong winds.
under the auspices of FEMA and the

National Response Plan, the Corps

of Engineers mobilized thousands of

contractors who removed approximately fifty million cubic yards of

debris, installed 193,000 temporary

roofs and 914 generators, and

repaired more than 1,000 critical

public buildings including schools

and hospitals.

Operations in and around the

city of New Orleans posed special

challenges. First, engineers assisted

in removing the flood waters from 

the city. The Corps then launched a

crash program to rebuild the city’s

shattered hurricane protection system to be operational by the start of

the 2006 hurricane season.

In addition to hurricanes, during

the past century the Corps of Engineers has responded to a variety of

other natural disasters including

earthquakes and tornados. Following

the San Francisco earthquake in

1906, soldiers of the First Battalion

of Engineers were the first federal

troops to enter the city, and in the

weeks that followed they helped feed

and house the city’s stricken populace and bring raging wildfires under

control. When a powerful earthquake

rocked south-central Alaska in 1964,

the Corps helped remove debris and

restore critical municipal services.

Following the Loma Prieta, California,

earthquake in 1989, and the Northridge, California, earthquake five

years later, the Corps provided

similar services.

A very different calamity

occurred in 1953 when a powerful

tornado struck Waco, Texas, killing

114 people and devastating much 

of the city. Soon after the storm,

response personnel from the Fort

266

A Vital Part of the Army

At a collection point outside of

New Orleans, contractors

process debris from Hurricane

Katrina, October 2005.

Corps of Engineers personnel

supervising the placement of 

a community health facility in

Chalmette, La., October 2005.
Worth District arrived, set up

portable generators, established

communications, and within thirtysix hours completed structural

assessments of more than 2,000

homes and businesses.

The Corps also has responded to

man-made disasters. In 1947 the

Galveston District helped evacuate

the dead and injured when a devastating explosion destroyed much of

Texas City, Texas, killing 500 people

and injuring thousands more. In

1989 the tanker Exxon Valdez ran

aground in Alaska’s Prince William

Sound, releasing a massive oil spill

that threatened large portions of the

Alaskan coastline. As government

and industry searched for a way to

clean up the spill, the Corps modified two of its dredges to vacuum the

oil from the water’s surface.

Despite more than a century of

experience in dealing with disasters

and their aftermath, the Nation

recoiled in horror when terrorists

attacked the World Trade Center and

the Pentagon on the morning of

September 11, 2001. Soon after the

attack in New York, harbor maintenance and survey vessels from the

New York District began evacuating

3,000 stranded New Yorkers from

lower Manhattan. After discharging

267

Emergency Operations

San Francisco, Calif., following the

April 1906 earthquake and fire
their passengers in New Jersey,

Corps workboats carried emergency

personnel, relief supplies, and fuel

back to the city to sustain rescue

operations at the World Trade Center.

In support of the City of New York

and FEMA, the Corps of Engineers

brought in mobile command and

communication centers to aid emergency operations at the site of the

collapsed Trade Center towers. At

the same time Corps search and

rescue teams searched for survivors

while structural engineers assessed

the extent of the damage and monitored the condition of the buildings

around the World Trade Center

complex. The 249th Engineer

Battalion also deployed to New York

City to help restore power to lower

Manhattan and conduct site assessments in and around Wall Street.

The Corps of Engineers was 

also instrumental in removing and

inspecting the nearly 1.6 million

tons of debris that resulted from the

collapse of the World Trade Center.

The Corps and its contractors moved

the debris from Manhattan by barge

and transported it to the Fresh Kills

Landfill on nearby Staten Island. At

the landfill the debris was carefully

inspected to identify human remains

and recover evidence related to the

attack and the collapse of the towers.

Scores of victims who perished at the

World Trade Center were identified

on the basis of material recovered

during the inspection process.

The terrorist attacks of

September 11th placed new emphasis on domestic security, and in

December 2002, the Headquarters,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

established the Homeland Security

268

A Vital Part of the Army

Corps of Engineers personnel confer

with a member of the New York City

Fire Department at the World Trade

Center, September 2001.

The Corps sent its Deployable

Tactical Operations System (DTOS)

to the World Trade Center to provide

communications for rescue workers.
Office within the Civil Works directorate. The new office oversaw the

Corps’ emergency management

program, has played a leading role 

in assessing the Nation’s critical

infrastructure, completed numerous

facility protection projects, and

developed a new risk assessment

methodology for dams.

The Corps of Engineers emergency operations function has

evolved significantly since 1882

when engineer workboats first

carried supplies to flood victims

along the Mississippi. Over the

course of the last century the federal

government has played a progressively larger role in assisting states

and municipalities responding to

natural and man-made disasters, and

the Corps of Engineers’ role in providing relief and recovery support

has expanded apace. But even as 

the Corps’ mission has expanded 

into new areas, the foundation of 

the Corps’ value to the Nation—

maintaining a nationwide network 

of engineer districts and divisions

with the ability to rapidly mobilize

highly skilled and experienced personnel with long-standing relationships with the Nation’s construction

industry—has remained unchanged.

269

Emergency Operations

(above and below) Government and contractor personnel used mechanized

shakers at the Fresh Kills Landfill, N.Y., to screen the debris from the World Trade

Center.
270

A Vital Part of the Army

I

n the early morning hours of

August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew

roared ashore twenty-five miles

south of Miami, Florida, hitting

Homestead and other south Dade

County communities. The hurricane,

which possessed one of the highest

wind speeds (reported to be 165 mph,

with gusts to 185-190 mph), largest

storm surges, and lowest barometric

pressures ever recorded in the United

States during a hurricane, cut a path

of destruction twenty-two miles wide

and devastated the area from Biscayne

Bay to the Everglades. It leveled thousands of homes and other buildings,

destroyed public utilities, ripped up

trees, and left millions of cubic yards of

debris. Its fierce winds tore down most

of south Florida’s power lines, leaving

1.4 million customers without electricity.

After crossing the Florida peninsula

and the Gulf of Mexico, it hit southern

Louisiana the next day.

The South Atlantic Division and

the Jacksonville District of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers responded

immediately, under the overall guidance

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). During the next

several months the Corps would use

almost $400 million in federal funds to

help south Florida recover from the

devastation.

The Corps provided for immediate

human needs. It supplied 5,400 portable toilets to the area and provided

hundreds of shower facilities and

washers and dryers. Left without a safe

water supply, south Floridians relied on

the Corps for thousands of gallons of

water a day until local water supplies

were repaired. With thousands of

people homeless, FEMA tasked the

Corps to acquire property, clear debris,

provide utilities, and put trailers in two

large mobile home parks. Corps contractors spent $20 million establishing

the parks with more than 250 travel

trailers to provide temporary housing.

The Corps also helped to restore

vital services to the affected areas. It

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Response to

Hurricane Andrew

(right) Unloading roofing

material, Cutler Ridge,

Fla.

(below) Temporary

housing, Gould, Fla.
271

Emergency Operations

turned to its Prime Power units, later

organized into the 249th Engineer

Battalion, to provide emergency

power. In addition to installing twelve

of its own 750-kW generators, the

Army engineer units supervised the

installation of generators and pumps

by commercial firms. Prime Power

specialists also spearheaded the repair

of the Dade County telephone, water,

and wastewater treatment systems.

Damaged homes needed temporary

roof repairs. The Corps and its contractors ultimately supplied 55 million

square feet of roofing material and

installed it on 22,000 homes.

Furthermore, what amounted to a

collection of thirty years’ worth of

debris and refuse littered south Florida

in the aftermath of Andrew. Massive

amounts of debris blocked roads and

posed health problems. The Corps

began debris removal quickly. At the

peak of debris removal efforts, Corps

contractors and troops from the 20th

Engineer Brigade operated 2,000

trucks a day. One important mission

that involved a remarkable degree of

cooperation among agencies was the

refurbishment of schools in the devastated areas. A team of Corps personnel, contractors, Navy Seabees,

Canadian military personnel, and

others opened 268 of Dade County’s

278 schools on September 14, only

three weeks after Andrew had ripped

through the area.

In human terms, Hurricane

Andrew was one of the Nation’s most

debilitating natural disasters, killing

twenty people and leaving a quarter of

a million homeless. In economic terms,

it was one of America’s most costly

hurricanes, resulting in $26.5 billion in

damages. Although the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers was only one 

actor in the complex drama of south

Florida’s recovery, the Corps’ wealth 

of experience and its prompt response

gave it a leading role in helping the

people of the region recover from

Andrew’s wrath.

Corps and contractor personnel install temporary roofing, Perrine, Fla.
Appendices
Corps Castle

The traditional Corps turreted castle is a highly stylized and conventionalized

form without decoration or embellishment. There is no evidence that it was

patterned after an actual structure. The castle was associated with one of the

Corps’ earliest responsibilities, the construction of coastal defense fortifications.

Some of these early fortifications were called castles. U.S. Military Academy cadets

wore the castle emblem as early as 1839 when West Point was part of the Corps

of Engineers. In 1840 the Chief Engineer recommended that the castle appear on

engineer officers’ epaulettes and belt plates. Army regulations first prescribed the

use of the castle on engineer caps in 1841. Subsequently the castle has appeared

on collar ornaments, shoulder knots, saddle cloths, buttons, and now appears as

branch insignia on the dress uniforms of engineer officers and enlisted personnel.

Although its design has changed over time, the castle has remained since its

inception the distinctive symbol of the Corps of Engineers.

Essayons Button

As the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ oldest and most time-honored insignia,

the Essayons button has not changed since its first definitely known use during the War of 1812. It is still the required button for the engineer officers’

dress uniforms. It is difficult to determine the early history of the castle and

the button because the building containing the earliest West Point and Corps

of Engineers records burned in 1838. However, early Army records mention

“the button of the Engineers” and its already existing device and motto. When

the Army prescribed new uniforms by General Orders 7 on February 18, 1840,

it described the button as “an eagle holding in his beak a scroll with the word,

‘Essayons,’ a bastion with embrasures in the distance surrounded by water 

and a rising sun.” Like the castle, the bastion with embrasures symbolized 

the coastal fortification responsibilities of the Corps. In 1902 when the Army

adopted a standard regulation button, it allowed only the Corps of Engineers 

to retain its own distinctive Essayons button in recognition of the traditions

it represented. 

Coat of Arms

In 1867, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted this Coat of Arms that

incorporated the emblems of the Corps of Engineers and the Corps of

Topographical Engineers, which had been reunited during the Civil War. 

This legacy symbol is used primarily for awards, plaques, and honorific

presentations related to the military functions of the Corps.

Insignia of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

273
U.S. Army Engineer School Distinctive Unit

Insignia

The United States Army Engineer School, part of the Army Training and

Doctrine Command, develops, trains, and supports the engineer force to provide maneuver engineering, force support engineering, and geospatial engineering to Army, Joint, Interagency, and Combined Operations. In 1988, the

Engineer School moved to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Personnel assigned 

to the Army Engineer School are authorized to wear this emblem as a dress

uniform device.

Regimental Distinctive Insignia

The entire U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as a branch of the Army, is a

regiment in the Army’s regimental system. The system is designed to enhance

loyalty and commitment, esprit de corps, and combat effectiveness.

Established in 1986, the regiment officially includes engineer officers and

enlisted personnel and civilian employees throughout the Army. The regiment

also is closely connected to retired engineer soldiers and civilians and their

families. Engineer officers and enlisted personnel wear the regimental insignia

on their dress uniforms.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shoulder Sleeve

Insignia

Although associated with the Corps of Engineers becoming a major Army

command in 1979, the shoulder sleeve insignia was actually approved for wear

by military personnel serving in the Corps’ divisions, districts, and other field

organizations in 1977 as a way of recognizing those who performed the Corps’

military construction, civil works, and other distinctive missions. From 1979

to 2006 the shoulder sleeve insignia was the distinctive component of the

Corps’ major Army command flag.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Distinctive 

Unit Insignia

Designed to distinguish the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when it became

a major Army command on June 16, 1979, this insignia incorporated the

traditional Corps motto, “Essayons,” and a stylized castle above a globe

symbolizing the Corps’ world-wide responsibilities. It was expected that this

distinctive unit insignia would remain unchanged when USACE transitioned

from a major Army command to a direct reporting unit in 2006.

274

Appendix I
De Fleury Medal

The de Fleury Medal is an award of the Engineer Regiment given to individuals who have made significant contributions to Army engineering. Awarded

at the bronze, silver, and gold levels, the medal honors the heroic actions

of Revolutionary War engineer François Louis Tesseidre de Fleury at the

Battle of Stony Point in July 1779. A French engineer in the service of the

Washington’s Continental Army, de Fleury led the American troops after his

superiors were wounded in recapturing the important position on the Hudson

River from the British. A few months later the Continental Congress ordered a

medal to be struck honoring de Fleury and that medal was the inspiration for

the Engineer Regiment’s de Fleury Medal.

Traditional Castle

Based on the historic Corps castle emblem, this official graphic is authorized

for use in special and limited circumstances that call for a sense of the Corps’

traditions and history. Since November 30, 1993, it has been a registered

trademark of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Communications Mark

Adopted after the Corps of Engineers became a major Army command in

1979, this official red and white graphic based on the traditional Corps castle

is the standard identifying symbol of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It

became a registered trademark of the Corps on November 30, 1993.

Sapper Tab

The term “sapper” is historically associated with soldiers from the seventeenth

and eighteenth centuries who performed the extremely dangerous work of

digging trenches toward enemy fortifications during sieges. Approved in 2004,

the Sapper Tab is worn on the left shoulder of soldiers who have completed a

special Sapper Leaders Course at the U.S. Army Engineer School at Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri. The course emphasizes the role of combat engineers

fighting in the front lines with other combat troops.

275

Insignia of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Since 1775, more than fifty officers have held the highest position among the

U.S. Army’s engineers. In addition, three officers headed the Topographical

Bureau and the Corps of Topographical Engineers between 1818 and 1863.

Their likenesses and biographies are on the following pages. Ranks listed are the

highest ranks, excluding brevet rank, attained while in office.

Colonel Richard Gridley

Chief Engineer, Continental Army (July 1775–April 1776)

Born January 3, 1710, in Boston, Massachusetts, Richard Gridley was the outstanding

American military engineer during colonial warfare with France and served at important

battles such as the siege of Louisburg in 1745 and the fall of Quebec in 1759. For his

services, he was awarded a commission in the British Army, a grant of the Magdalen

Islands, 3,000 acres of land in New Hampshire, and a life annuity. When the break with

the mother country came, he stood with the colonies and was made Chief Engineer in

the New England Provincial Army. He laid out the defenses on Breed’s Hill and was

wounded at the Battle of Bunker Hill. He was appointed Chief Engineer of the

Continental Army after Washington took command in July 1775. When Washington

moved his Army south, Gridley remained as Chief Engineer of the New England

Department. He retired in 1781 at age 70. He died June 21, 1796, in Stoughton,

Massachusetts. 

Colonel Rufus Putnam

Chief Engineer, Continental Army (April 1776–December 1776)

Rufus Putnam was born April 9, 1738, in Sutton, Massachusetts. A millwright by trade,

his three years of Army service during the French and Indian War influenced him to

study surveying and the art of war. After the Battle of Lexington, he was commissioned

an officer of the line, but General Washington soon discovered his engineering abilities.

Putnam planned the fortifications on Dorchester Neck that convinced the British to

abandon Boston. Washington then brought Putnam to New York as his Chief Engineer.

He returned to infantry service in 1777, taking command of the 5th Massachusetts

Regiment. He and his troops helped to fortify West Point, erecting strong defenses atop

the steep hill that commanded that garrison. The remains of Fort Putnam, preserved

by the Military Academy, still honor his name there. Putnam was named a brigadier

general in the Continental Army in 1783. In 1788, he led the first settlers to found the

present town of Marietta, Ohio. The fortifications that he built there saved the settlements from annihilation during the disastrous Indian Wars. He became surveyor general

of federal public lands and judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio. He died in Marietta on

May 1, 1824.

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers

277
Major General Louis Lebègue Duportail 

Chief Engineer, Continental Army (July 22, 1777–October 10, 1783)

One of General Washington’s most trusted military advisors, Louis Lebègue Duportail,

was born near Orleans, France, in 1743. He graduated from the Royal Engineer School

in Mézières, France, as a qualified engineer officer in 1765. Promoted to lieutenant

colonel in the Royal Corps of Engineers, Duportail was secretly sent to America in

March 1777 to serve in Washington’s Army under an agreement between Benjamin

Franklin and the government of King Louis XVI of France. He was appointed colonel

and commander of all engineers in the Continental Army, July 1777; brigadier general,

November 1777; commander, Corps of Engineers, May 1779; and major general (for

meritorious service), November 1781. Duportail participated in fortifications planning

from Boston to Charleston and helped Washington evolve the primarily defensive military strategy that wore down the British Army. He also directed the construction of siege

works at Yorktown, site of the decisive American victory of the Revolutionary War.

Returning to France in October 1783, Duportail became an infantry officer and in 1788

a field marshal. He served as France’s Minister of War during the revolutionary years

1790 and 1791, promoting military reforms. Forced into hiding by radical Jacobins, he

escaped to America and bought a farm near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. He lived there

until 1802, when he died at sea while attempting to return to France. 

Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Rochefontaine

Commandant, Corps of Artillerists and Engineers 

(February 26, 1795–May 7, 1798)

Born near Reims, France, in 1755, Stephen Rochefontaine came to America in 1778

after failing to gain a position in the French Royal Corps of Engineers. He volunteered

in General Washington’s Army on May 15, 1778, and was appointed captain in the

Corps of Engineers on September 18, 1778. For his distinguished services at the siege

of Yorktown, Rochefontaine was given the brevet rank of major by Congress on

November 16, 1781. He returned to France in 1783 and served as an infantry officer,

reaching the rank of colonel in the French Army. He came back to the United States

in 1792. President Washington appointed him a civilian engineer to fortify the New

England coast in 1794. After the new Corps of Artillerists and Engineers was organized, Washington made Rochefontaine a lieutenant colonel and commandant of the

Corps on February 26, 1795. Rochefontaine started a military school at West Point in

1795, but the building and all his equipment were burned the following year. He left

the U.S. Army on May 7, 1798, and lived in New York City, where he died January 30,

1814. He is buried in old St. Paul’s Cemetery in New York. 

278

Appendix II
Lieutenant Colonel Henry Burbeck

Commandant, 1st Regiment of Artillerists and Engineers 

(May 7, 1798–April 1, 1802)

Born June 8, 1754, in Boston, Massachusetts, Henry Burbeck served as lieutenant of

artillery under Colonel Richard Gridley, the Army’s first Chief Engineer and artillery

commander, in 1775. He remained in the Artillery Corps under General Henry Knox

and, in 1777, assumed command of a company of the 3d Continental Artillery

Regiment. His unit remained in the North to defend the Hudson Highlands and

marched into New York when the British evacuated that city at the close of the

Revolutionary War. Honorably discharged in January 1784, Burbeck was reappointed

captain of artillery in 1786 and commanded the post at West Point, New York, in

1787–1789. He commanded the U.S. Army’s Battalion of Artillery and served as

General Anthony Wayne’s chief of artillery in the Northwest in 1792–1794. He commanded at Fort Mackinac in 1796–1799. From 1798 to 1802, Burbeck was the senior

regimental commander of artillerists and engineers. He also commanded the Eastern

Department of the U.S. Army in 1800 and in that year endorsed the creation of a corps

of engineers separate from the artillerists. He was chief of the new Artillery Corps from

1802 to 1815, first as a colonel and then, during the War of 1812, as a brevet brigadier

general. During the Jefferson administration, Burbeck successfully developed and tested domestically produced cast-iron artillery pieces. He left the Army in June 1815 and

died on October 2, 1848, in New London, Connecticut. 

Colonel Jonathan Williams

Chief Engineer (and first Superintendent of West Point) (April 1, 1802–June 20, 1803,

vacated 1803–1805, resumed command April 19, 1805–July 31, 1812)

Jonathan Williams was born May 20, 1750, in Boston, Massachusetts, a grandnephew

of Benjamin Franklin. Williams spent most of the period from 1770 to 1785 in

England and France, where he assisted Franklin with business affairs and served as a

commercial agent in Nantes. He joined the American Philosophical Society in 1788

and published articles on scientific subjects. President Adams appointed Williams a

major in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers in February 1801, and President

Jefferson made him the Army’s inspector of fortifications and assigned him to lead the

new Military Academy at West Point in December 1801. The following year, Jefferson

appointed him to command the separate Corps of Engineers established by Congress

on March 16, 1802. Williams also became the first officer to hold the title of

Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy. From 1807 to 1812, Williams designed

and completed construction of Castle Williams in New York Harbor, the first casemated

battery in the United States. He founded the U.S. Military Philosophical Society and

gave it its motto, “Science in War is the Guarantee of Peace.” He resigned from the

U.S. Army in 1812 and was heading a group of volunteer engineers building fortifications around Philadelphia when he was elected to Congress from that city in 1814. He

died in Philadelphia on May 16, 1815. 

279

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Colonel Joseph Gardner Swift

Chief Engineer (July 31, 1812–November 12, 1818)

Born December 31, 1783, in Nantucket, Massachusetts, Joseph Swift was appointed a

cadet by President John Adams and in 1802 became one of the first two graduates of

the Military Academy. He constructed Atlantic coast fortifications from 1804 to 1812,

and was only 28 years old when he was appointed colonel, Chief Engineer, and

Superintendent of the Military Academy in 1812. As Chief Engineer of the Northern

Army, he distinguished himself at the Battle of Chrysler’s Farm on November 11,

1813. After completing defensive works in New York, Swift was voted “Benefactor to

the City” in 1814. He helped to rebuild the burned capitol in Washington, D.C. He

also reorganized the academic staff and planned new buildings at the Military

Academy. He resigned from the U.S. Army on November 12, 1818, and was appointed

surveyor of the Port of New York. He held that customs post until 1827. Swift was also

one of the founders of the first New York Philharmonic Society in 1823. As chief engineer for various railroads, he laid the first “T” rail. From 1829 to 1845, Swift worked

for the Corps of Engineers as a civilian, improving two harbors on Lake Ontario. He

died July 23, 1865, in Geneva, New York. 

Colonel Walker Keith Armistead

Chief Engineer (November 12, 1818–June 1, 1821)

Born in Virginia in 1785, Walker Armistead was named a cadet in the Corps of

Artillerists and Engineers by President Jefferson in 1801. On March 5, 1803, he

became the third graduate of the new Military Academy and was commissioned in the

Corps of Engineers. He served as superintending engineer of the defenses of New

Orleans and Norfolk. During the War of 1812, he was successively Chief Engineer of

the Niagara frontier army and the forces defending the Chesapeake Bay. He was promoted to colonel and Chief Engineer on November 12, 1818. When the U.S. Army was

reorganized on June 1, 1821, he became commander of the 3d Artillery. He was

brevetted brigadier general in 1828. He commanded the United States troops that

opposed the Seminole Indians in Florida in 1840–1841. He died in Upperville,

Virginia, on October 13, 1845. 

280

Appendix II
Colonel Alexander Macomb

Chief Engineer (June 1, 1821–May 24, 1828)

Born April 3, 1782, in Detroit, Alexander Macomb entered the U.S. Army as a cornet

of light dragoons in 1799 but was discharged in 1800. He returned to the U.S. Army

in 1801 as a second lieutenant of infantry and served as secretary of the commission

negotiating treaties with the Indians of the Mississippi Territory. He joined the Corps

of Engineers in October 1802 as a first lieutenant and superintended construction of

a depot, armory, and fortifications in the Carolinas and Georgia. He also wrote a

treatise on military law. After rising to lieutenant colonel in the Corps of Engineers in

1810, he was appointed colonel, 3d Artillery, in 1812 and brigadier general in 1814.

In the latter year, he commanded the Lake Champlain frontier force that repulsed a

larger veteran British army at Plattsburg. He was voted thanks and granted a gold

medal by Congress and brevetted major general. In the reorganized U.S. Army, he was

appointed colonel and Chief Engineer in 1821. In that position, he administered the

start of federal river and harbor improvements. He was elevated to commanding

general of the U.S. Army with the rank of major general in 1828. He died June 25,

1841, in Washington, D.C., and was buried with the highest military honors in

Congressional Cemetery. Macomb made the earliest known drawing (1807) to

resemble the engineer button. 

Colonel Charles Gratiot

Chief Engineer (May 24, 1828–December 6, 1838)

Charles Gratiot was born August 29, 1786, in St. Louis, Missouri. President Jefferson

appointed him cadet in 1804. He graduated from the Military Academy in 1806 and

was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He became a captain in 1808 and assisted

Alexander Macomb in constructing fortifications in Charleston, South Carolina. He was

post commander of West Point in 1810–1811. He distinguished himself as General

William Henry Harrison’s Chief Engineer in the War of 1812. He served as Chief

Engineer in the Michigan Territory (1817–1818) and superintending engineer for the

construction of Hampton Roads defenses (1819–1828). On May 24, 1828, Gratiot was

appointed colonel of engineers, brevet brigadier general, and Chief Engineer. For ten

years, he administered an expanding program of river, harbor, road, and fortification

construction. He also engaged in a lengthy dispute with War Department officials over

benefits. In 1838, President Van Buren dismissed him for failing to repay government

funds in his custody. Gratiot became a clerk in the General Land Office and died May

18, 1855, in St. Louis. 

281

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Brigadier General Joseph Gilbert Totten

Chief Engineer (December 7, 1838–April 22, 1864)

Born August 23, 1788, in New Haven, Connecticut, Joseph Totten graduated from the

Military Academy and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers on July 1, 1805.

He resigned in 1806 to assist his uncle, Major Jared Mansfield, who was then serving

as surveyor general of federal public lands. Totten reentered the Corps of Engineers in

1808 and assisted in building Castle Williams and other New York Harbor defenses.

During the War of 1812, he was Chief Engineer of the Niagara Frontier and Lake

Champlain armies. He was brevetted lieutenant colonel for gallant conduct in the

Battle of Plattsburg. As a member of the first permanent Board of Engineers in 1816,

he laid down durable principles of coastal defense construction. He was appointed

Chief Engineer in 1838 and served in that position for 25 years. He was greatly

admired by General Winfield Scott, for whom he directed the siege of Veracruz as his

Chief Engineer during the Mexican War. He was a regent of the Smithsonian

Institution and cofounder of the National Academy of Sciences. He died April 22,

1864, in Washington, D.C. 

Major Isaac Roberdeau

Chief, Topographical Bureau (August 1, 1818–January 15, 1829)

Isaac Roberdeau was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 11, 1763. He

studied engineering in London, returning to America in 1787 to write, survey, and pursue astronomy. In 1791–1792, he assisted Pierre L’Enfant in planning the new federal

capital, the future Washington, D.C. For the next two decades, he practiced engineering

in Pennsylvania. His work included assisting William Weston on a canal connecting

the Schuykill and Susquehanna rivers. During the War of 1812, he served in the U.S.

Army as a major of topographical engineers, employed chiefly on fortifications. After

the war, he assisted the Canadian boundary survey. Secretary of War Calhoun appointed

Roberdeau in 1818 to head the newly created Topographical Bureau of the War Department. At first, his duties were largely custodial; he prepared returns and maintained

books, maps, and scientific equipment. As the nation turned its attention to internal

improvement, Roberdeau used his position to promote the civil activities of the topographical engineers. He was brevetted lieutenant colonel in 1823. He died in

Georgetown, Washington, D.C., on January 15, 1829. 

282

Appendix II
Colonel John James Abert

Chief, Topographical Bureau (January 31, 1829–April 11, 1861)

Chief, Corps of Topographical Engineers (July 7, 1838–September 9, 1861)

Born September 17, 1788, in Frederick, Maryland, John Abert received an appointment as a Military Academy cadet in January 1808. In 1811, he took a position in the

War Department in Washington and resigned as cadet. He joined the District of

Columbia Militia as a private during the War of 1812 and fought at the Battle of

Bladensburg. In November 1814, he was appointed a topographical engineer with the

brevet rank of major. He worked on fortifications, surveys, and river and harbor

improvements before being appointed Chief, Topographical Bureau, in 1829. Abert

headed the Corps of Topographical Engineers from its creation by Congress in 1838

until he retired in 1861. Under his leadership, the Corps of Topographical Engineers

improved the navigability of rivers and harbors, particularly in the basins of the

Mississippi River and the Great Lakes; conducted a survey of the hydraulics of the

Lower Mississippi River; constructed lighthouses and marine hospitals; explored large

portions of the West; and conducted military, border, and railroad surveys. Col. Abert

died in Washington, D.C., on January 27, 1863. 

Colonel Stephen H. Long

Chief, Topographical Bureau (September 9, 1861–March 3, 1863)

Chief, Corps of Topographical Engineers (December 12, 1861–March 3, 1863)

Born in Hopkinton, New Hampshire, on December 30, 1784, Stephen Long graduated from Dartmouth in 1809 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers in

1814. Brevetted major, topographical engineers, in April 1816, he conducted

extensive explorations and surveys in the old Northwest and Great Plains. Long’s

Peak was named in his honor. He fixed the nation’s northern boundary at the

49th Parallel at Pembina, North Dakota, in 1823. He conducted surveys in the

Appalachians for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and, in 1829, published his

Railroad Manual or a Brief Exposition of Principles and Deductions Applicable in

Tracing the Route of a Railroad. He served for years as chief engineer for improvement of the western rivers, with headquarters in Cincinnati, Louisville, and finally

St. Louis. He became Chief, Corps of Topographical Engineers, in 1861. Upon consolidation of the two corps on March 3, 1863, Col. Long became senior officer to

the Chief Engineer, Corps of Engineers. He retired that year and died in Alton,

Illinois, on September 4, 1864. 

283

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Brigadier General Richard Delafield

Chief Engineer (April 22, 1864–August 8, 1866)

Born September 1, 1798, in New York City, Richard Delafield was the first graduate of

the Military Academy to receive a merit class standing, ranking first in the Class of

1818. Commissioned in the Corps of Engineers, he was a topographical engineer with

the American commission to establish the northern boundary under the Treaty of

Ghent. He served as assistant engineer in the construction of Hampton Roads defenses

(1819–1824) and was in charge of fortifications and surveys in the Mississippi River

Delta area (1824–1832). While superintendent of repair work on the Cumberland

Road east of the Ohio River, he designed and built the first cast-iron tubular-arch

bridge in the United States. Appointed Superintendent of the Military Academy after

the fire in 1838, he designed the new buildings and the new cadet uniform that first

displayed the castle insignia. He superintended the construction of coastal defenses

for New York Harbor (1846–1855), was a military observer at the siege of Sevastopol,

and was again Superintendent of the Military Academy (1856–1861). Delafield was in

charge of New York Harbor defenses (1861–1864) and Chief Engineer from 1864 until

his retirement in 1866. He died November 5, 1873, in Washington, D.C. The Secretary

of War ordered that 13 guns be fired in his memory at West Point. 

Brigadier General Andrew Atkinson Humphreys

Chief of Engineers (August 8, 1866–June 30, 1879)

Andrew Humphreys, born November 2, 1810, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was the

son and grandson of chiefs of naval construction. His grandfather designed the

U.S.S. Constitution (“Old Ironsides”). Young Humphreys graduated from the Military

Academy in 1831 and served as an artillery officer in Florida during the Seminole

War. He resigned from the U.S. Army in 1836, but he accepted an appointment as

first lieutenant in the new Corps of Topographical Engineers in 1838. He led a survey of the Mississippi River Delta and, in 1854–1861, headed the Office of Pacific

Railroad Explorations and Surveys. His cowritten Report Upon the Physics and

Hydraulics of the Mississippi River, translated into several languages, became a

classic in hydraulic literature. Gen. Humphreys, a distinguished Army corps commander in the Civil War, became Chief of Engineers in 1866. He established the

Engineer School of Application and oversaw a substantial expansion of the Corps’

river and harbor work. Humphreys held a Harvard degree, published Civil War

histories, and was cofounder of the National Academy of Sciences. He died

December 27, 1883, in Washington, D.C. 

284

Appendix II
Brigadier General Horatio Gouverneur Wright

Chief of Engineers (June 30, 1879–March 6, 1884)

Born March 6, 1820, in Clinton, Connecticut, Horatio Wright graduated second in the

Military Academy Class of 1841 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He

superintended construction at Fort Jefferson at Dry Tortugas, 70 miles west of Key

West, Florida, 1846–1856. While assistant to the Chief Engineer of the Army,

1856–1861, he was a member of boards to study iron carriages for seacoast guns and

the adaptability of the 15-inch gun for ordnance. He cowrote Report on Fabrication of

Iron for Defenses. From Chief Engineer of a division at the first Battle of Bull Run, he

advanced to command the famous Sixth Army Corps, which saved Washington, D.C.,

from capture in 1864 and spearheaded the final assault on Petersburg and the pursuit

of Lee to Appomattox in 1865. He commanded the Department of Texas, 1865–1866,

and served as a member on the Board of Engineers for Fortifications and on many river

and harbor planning boards until he was appointed Chief of Engineers in 1879. While

Wright was Chief of Engineers, engineer officers began a reservoir system at the headwaters of the Mississippi River and initiated the first substantial federal effort to control the river’s lower reaches. Gen. Wright retired March 6, 1884, and died July 2,

1899, in Washington, D.C. 

Brigadier General John Newton

Chief of Engineers (March 6, 1884–August 27, 1886)

Born August 24, 1823, in Norfolk, Virginia, a city his father represented in Congress

for 31 years, John Newton ranked second in the Military Academy Class of 1842 and

was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He taught engineering at the Military

Academy (1843–1846) and constructed fortifications along the Atlantic Coast and

Great Lakes (1846–1852). He was a member of a special Gulf Coast Defense Board

(1856) and Chief Engineer, Utah Expedition (1858). Though a fellow Virginian, he did

not follow Robert E. Lee but stood firm for the Union in the Civil War. Newton helped

construct Washington defenses and led a brigade at Antietam. As division commander,

he stormed Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg and fought at Gettysburg and the siege

of Atlanta. He commanded the Florida districts in 1864–1866. Returning to the Corps,

he oversaw improvements to the waterways around New York City and to the Hudson

River above Albany. He also had charge of New York Harbor defenses until he was

appointed Chief of Engineers in 1884. Newton was famous for blowing up New York’s

Hell Gate Rock with 140 tons of dynamite detonated on October 10, 1885. He retired

from the Army in 1886 and served as commissioner of public works in New York City

(1886–1888) and as president of the Panama Railroad Company (1888–1895). He died

on May 1, 1895, in New York. 

285

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Brigadier General James Chatham Duane

Chief of Engineers (October 11, 1886–June 30, 1888)

James Duane was born June 30, 1824, in Schenectady, New York. His grandfather was

a member of the Continental Congress and mayor of New York City. Duane graduated

from Union College in 1844 and from the Military Academy in 1848, where he ranked

third in his class. He taught practical military engineering there (1852–1854) during

the superintendency of Robert E. Lee. Serving with the U.S. Army’s company of sappers, miners, and pontoniers for nine years before the Civil War, Duane led its celebrated 1,100-mile march to Utah in 1858 and commanded select engineer troops to

guard President Lincoln at his inauguration in 1861. Duane built the first military

ponton bridge over the Potomac at Harpers Ferry in 1862, served as Chief Engineer of

the Army of the Potomac (1863–1865), and in seven hours in 1864, built the longest

ponton bridge of the Civil War (2,170 feet) across the James River. He commanded at

Willets Point, New York (1866–1868), and for ten years constructed fortifications along

the coast of Maine and New Hampshire. He was president of the Board of Engineers in

1884–1886 and Chief of Engineers in 1886–1888, when he retired. He then became

commissioner of Croton Aqueduct, New York. He published the paper, “History of the

Bridge Equipage in the United States Army.” Gen. Duane died December 8, 1897, in

New York City. 

Brigadier General Thomas Lincoln Casey

Chief of Engineers (July 6, 1888–May 10, 1895)

Thomas Lincoln Casey was born May 10, 1831, in Sackets Harbor, New York, where

his father, Lieutenant Silas Casey (later an assault team leader in the Battle of

Chapultepec in the Mexican War and a general in the Civil War), was then assigned.

Young Casey graduated first in the Military Academy Class of 1852 and taught engineering there (1854–1859). During the Civil War, he oversaw Maine coastal fortifications, completing the massive Fort Knox on the Penobscot River. After that war, he

headed the division in the Office of the Chief of Engineers responsible for engineer

troops, equipment, and fortifications. The Corps’ most distinguished builder of monuments and public buildings, Casey headed the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

District of Columbia, from 1877 to 1881. He built the State, War and Navy Department Building, which is now the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, and completed

the Washington Monument. The placing of a sturdier foundation under the partially

completed Washington Monument (already 173 feet high) was Casey’s greatest engineering feat, but his crowning accomplishment was construction of the Library of

Congress Building—all but completed when he died suddenly on March 25, 1896.

Burial was at the Casey farm in Rhode Island. Gen. Casey was a member of the

National Academy of Sciences and the Society of the Cincinnati and an officer of the

Legion of Honor of France. 

286

Appendix II
Brigadier General William Price Craighill

Chief of Engineers (May 10, 1895–February 1, 1897)

William Craighill was born on July 1, 1833, in Charles Town, Virginia (now West

Virginia). A classmate of Sheridan, Hood, and McPherson, Craighill ranked second in

the Military Academy Class of 1853 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers.

After working on several Atlantic Coast forts, he taught engineering at the Military

Academy in 1859–1862. Another Virginian who stood for the Union, Craighill was

division and department engineer during the Civil War and worked on the defenses of

Pittsburgh, Baltimore, San Francisco, and New York. After that war, he superintended

construction of defenses at Baltimore Harbor and Hampton Roads. He headed the

Engineer Office in Baltimore Harbor and Hampton Roads, from 1870 to 1895, overseeing river and harbor work in Maryland and parts of Virginia and North Carolina.

When the Corps began to build locks and dams on the Great Kanawha River in West

Virginia in 1875, Craighill assumed charge there as well. He completed the first of the

moveable wicket dams built in the United States, after visiting France to study their

use. He became the Corps’ first Southeast Division Engineer. Craighill established the

camp for the Yorktown surrender celebration, the first of the sanitary type later adapted to U.S. Army camps. He was a member of the Board of Engineers in 1886–1889.

He was appointed Chief of Engineers by President Cleveland in 1895. He retired two

years later and died January 18, 1909, in Charles Town, West Virginia. 

Brigadier General John Moulder Wilson

Chief of Engineers (February 1, 1897–April 30, 1901)

John Wilson was born October 8, 1837, in Washington, D.C. He graduated from the

Military Academy in 1860 and was commissioned in the Artillery Corps. He transferred to the Corps of Topographical Engineers in July 1862 and was awarded the

Medal of Honor for fighting at Malvern Hill, Virginia, on August 6, 1862. He joined

the Corps of Engineers in 1863 and received three brevets for gallant service in

Alabama. After the Civil War, Wilson worked on Hudson River improvements and

drafted plans for the canal around the Cascades of the Columbia River. He improved

the Great Lakes harbors of Oswego, Cleveland, and Toledo. Wilson headed the divisions of the Chief’s office pertaining to military affairs for four years, was in charge of

public buildings and grounds in Washington during both of the Cleveland administrations, and was Superintendent of the Military Academy in 1889–1893. Before his

appointment as Chief of Engineers in 1897, he was Northeast Division Engineer. As

Chief of Engineers, he directed the Corps’ activities during the Spanish-American War.

He retired April 30, 1901, but remained a prominent figure in the cultural life of

Washington until his death there on February 1, 1919. 

287

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Brigadier General Henry M. Robert

Chief of Engineers (April 30, 1901–May 2, 1901)

Born May 2, 1837, in South Carolina, Henry Robert graduated fourth in the Military

Academy Class of 1857. After receiving his commission in the Corps of Engineers, he

taught at the Military Academy and then explored routes for wagon roads in the West

and engaged in fortification work in Puget Sound. During the Civil War, he worked on

the defenses of Washington and Philadelphia. Robert served as Engineer of the

Army’s Division of the Pacific in 1867–1871. He then spent two years improving

rivers in Oregon and Washington and six years developing the harbors of Green Bay

and other northern Wisconsin and Michigan ports. He subsequently improved the

harbors of Oswego, Philadelphia, and Long Island Sound and constructed locks and

dams on the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers. As Southwest Division Engineer from

1897 to 1901, Robert studied how to deepen the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi

River. He was president of the Board of Engineers from 1895 to 1901. On April 30,

1901, he was made brigadier general and was appointed Chief of Engineers. He

served until May 2, 1901, when he retired from the U.S. Army. He became famous for

his Pocket Manual of Rules of Order, a compendium of parliamentary law first published in 1876 and better known today as Robert’s Rules of Order. He died May 1,

1923, in Hornell, New York. 

Brigadier General John W. Barlow

Chief of Engineers (May 2, 1901–May 3, 1901)

John Barlow was born in New York City on June 26, 1838, and graduated from the

Military Academy in May 1861. He was first commissioned in the Artillery Corps, but

transferred to the Topographical Engineers in July 1862. He served with the Battalion

of Engineers at Gettysburg and as engineer of a U.S. Army corps in the siege of

Atlanta. He supervised the defenses of Nashville and was brevetted lieutenant colonel

for his gallant service there in December 1864. From 1870 until 1874, he was General

Sheridan’s Chief Engineer in the Military Division of the Missouri. During this period,

he made scientific explorations of the headwaters of the Missouri and Yellowstone. His

detailed reports became guides for settlers. Barlow improved the harbors and defenses

of Long Island Sound from 1875 to 1883, executed harbor improvements in northern

Wisconsin and Michigan, and worked on the construction of a canal around Muscle

Shoals on the Tennessee River. He was the senior American member of the international commission that remarked the disputed boundary with Mexico in 1892–1896.

He was subsequently Northwest Division Engineer for four years. On May 2, 1901, he

was commissioned brigadier general and appointed Chief of Engineers. The next day,

May 3, 1901, he retired from the U.S. Army after 40 years of service. He died

February 27, 1914, in Jerusalem, Palestine. 

288

Appendix II
Brigadier General George Lewis Gillespie, Jr.

Chief of Engineers (May 3, 1901–January 23, 1904)

George Gillespie, Jr., was born October 7, 1841, in Kingston, Tennessee. He graduated

second in the Class of 1862 at the Military Academy and was commissioned in the

Corps of Engineers. As a Southerner who remained loyal to the Union, Gillespie joined

the Army of the Potomac in September 1862. He commanded two companies of the

engineer battalion that built fortifications and ponton bridges throughout the Virginia

campaigns until the Appomattox surrender. He received the Medal of Honor for

carrying dispatches through enemy lines under withering fire to General Sheridan at

Cold Harbor, Virginia. He was later Sheridan’s Chief Engineer in the Army of the

Shenandoah and the Military Division of the Gulf. After the Civil War, Gillespie successively supervised the improvement of harbors at Cleveland, Chicago, Boston, and

New York. He initiated construction of the canal at the Cascades of the Columbia

River and built the famous lighthouse on Tillamook Rock off the Oregon Coast.

Gillespie also served on the Board of Engineers and for six years as president of the

Mississippi River Commission. He commanded the U.S. Army’s Department of the

East in 1898. While Chief of Engineers, he was acting Secretary of War in August

1901. He had charge of ceremonies at President McKinley’s funeral and at the laying

of the cornerstone of the War College Building in 1903. He served as Army Assistant

Chief of Staff in 1904–1905 with the rank of major general. Gen. Gillespie retired

June 15, 1905, and died September 27, 1913, in Saratoga Springs, New York. 

Brigadier General Alexander Mackenzie

Chief of Engineers (January 23, 1904–May 25, 1908)

Born May 25, 1844, in Potosi, Wisconsin, Alexander Mackenzie graduated from the

Military Academy in 1864. Commissioned in the Corps of Engineers, he served with

the Union Army in Arkansas in 1864–1865. Mackenzie spent six years commanding a

company of engineer troops at Willets Point, New York, that experimented in the use of

torpedoes in coastal defense. In 1879, he began a sixteen-year stint as Rock Island

District Engineer. He built 100 miles of wing dams on the Upper Mississippi River

and produced a 4.5-foot channel between St. Paul and the mouth of the Missouri

River. Called to Washington in 1895, he became assistant to the Chief of Engineers in

charge of all matters relating to river and harbor improvements. He was a member of

the general staff corps and War College Board when he was appointed Chief of

Engineers in 1904. He retired May 25, 1908, as a major general, but was recalled to

active duty in 1917 at age 73 as Northwest Division Engineer serving again in Rock

Island, Illinois. Gen. Mackenzie died March 21, 1921, in Washington, D.C.

289

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Brigadier General William Louis Marshall

Chief of Engineers (July 2, 1908–June 11, 1910)

William Marshall was born June 11, 1846, in Washington, Kentucky, a scion of the

family of Chief Justice John Marshall. At age 16, he enlisted in the 10th Kentucky

Cavalry, Union Army. He graduated from the Military Academy in 1868 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. Accompanying Lieutenant George Wheeler’s

Expedition (1872–1876), Marshall covered thousands of miles on foot and horseback

and discovered Marshall Pass in central Colorado. He oversaw improvements on the

Lower Mississippi River near Vicksburg and on the Fox River Canal System in

Wisconsin. As Chicago District Engineer from 1888 to 1899, he planned and began to

build the Illinois and Mississippi Canal. Marshall made innovative use of concrete

masonry and developed original and cost-saving methods of lock canal construction.

While he was stationed at New York (1900–1908), his genius further expressed itself

on the Ambrose Channel Project and in fortification construction. He then served for

two years as Chief of Engineers. He retired June 11, 1910, but his engineering reputation earned him a special appointment from President Taft as consulting engineer to

the Secretary of the Interior on hydroelectric power projects. Gen. Marshall died July

2, 1920, in Washington, D.C. 

Brigadier General William Herbert Bixby

Chief of Engineers (June 12, 1910–August 11, 1913)

Born December 27, 1849, in Charlestown, Massachusetts, William Bixby graduated

first in the Military Academy Class of 1873 and was commissioned in the Corps of

Engineers. After serving with the engineer battalion at Willets Point and as assistant

professor of engineering at the Military Academy, Bixby graduated with honors from

the French Ecole des ponts et chaussées. He received the Legion of Honor for assisting

French Army maneuvers. Bixby headed the Wilmington, North Carolina, District from

1884 to 1891. He oversaw improvements on the Cape Fear River, modernized the

area’s coastal forts, and responded to the earthquake that hit Charleston, South

Carolina, in 1886. Bixby served next as District Engineer in Newport, Rhode Island.

From 1897 to 1902, he oversaw improvements on the Ohio River and its tributaries

from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati. After two years in charge of the Detroit District, he

became Chicago District Engineer and Northwest Division Engineer. Bixby was president of the Mississippi River Commission in 1908–1910 and 1917–1918. As Chief of

Engineers, he oversaw the raising of the battleship Maine. He retired August 11, 1913,

but was recalled to service in 1917 as Western Division Engineer. He died September

29, 1928, in Washington, D.C.

290

Appendix II
Brigadier General William Trent Rossell

Chief of Engineers (August 12, 1913–October 11, 1913)

William Rossell was born in Alabama on October 11, 1849, the son and grandson of

U.S. Army officers, and he graduated third in the Military Academy Class of 1873.

Commissioned in the Corps of Engineers, he served until 1880 at Willets Point and as

assistant professor of engineering at the Military Academy. He then engaged in river,

harbor, and fortification work in regions around Portland, Maine; Jacksonville, Florida;

and Vicksburg, Mississippi. Rossell served in 1891–1893 as the engineer commissioner on the three-member governing board of the District of Columbia. After briefly

commanding the Battalion of Engineers, he led Mobile District for six years. He then

supervised lighthouse construction and repair in the New York area and, later, Ohio

River improvements. He was a member of the Mississippi River Commission from

1906 to 1913, as well as Central Division Engineer in 1908–1909 and Eastern

Division Engineer in 1909–1913. After two months serving as Chief of Engineers,

Rossell retired October 11, 1913, but was recalled to active service in 1917. He led

the Third New York and Puerto Rico Districts and was Northeast Division Engineer.

He again retired in 1918. He died October 11, 1919, in Staten Island, New York. 

Brigadier General Dan Christie Kingman

Chief of Engineers (October 12, 1913–March 6, 1916)

Born March 6, 1852, in Dover, New Hampshire, Dan Kingman graduated second in the

Military Academy Class of 1875 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He

served as an instructor at the Military Academy and as the engineer officer of the U.S.

Army’s Department of the Platte. In 1883, he also began the construction of roads and

bridges in the new Yellowstone National Park. Kingman directed improvements along

the Lower Mississippi River in 1886–1890 and received the thanks of the Louisiana

legislature for “splendid service rendered” during the 1890 flood. He oversaw harbor

and fortification work on Lake Ontario in 1891–1895 and improvements on the

Tennessee River in the last half of that decade. In the latter assignment, he initiated

planning for federal cost-sharing with private hydroelectric-power investors for a lock

and dam built below Chattanooga. Kingman oversaw substantial harbor improvements

at Cleveland in 1901–1905 and headed the Corps’ Savannah District and Southeast

Division in 1906–1913. The Panama Canal was completed while he was Chief of

Engineers. He retired March 6, 1916, and died November 14, 1916, in Atlantic City,

New Jersey. Gen. Kingman was buried with high military honors in Arlington National

Cemetery. Among the pallbearers were Chief of Staff General Hugh L. Scott and two

former Chiefs of Engineers, Generals Mackenzie and Bixby. 

291

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Major General William Murray Black

Chief of Engineers (March 7, 1916–October 31, 1919)

Born December 8, 1855, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, William Black graduated first in

the Military Academy Class of 1877 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers.

From 1886 to 1891, Black headed the Jacksonville District, and in 1897–1898, he

was the engineer commissioner on the governing board of the District of Columbia.

In the Spanish-American War, he was Chief Engineer, 3d and 5th Army Corps. As

Chief Engineer under Generals William Ludlow and Leonard Wood (1899–1901), and

six years later as advisor to the Cuban Department of Public Works, he modernized

Havana’s sanitary system. As commandant of the Army Engineer School (1901–1903),

Black moved it from Willets Point, New York, to Washington Barracks, D.C. After his

return from Cuba in 1909, he was Northeast Division Engineer and chairman of a

board to raise the battleship Maine. Devoted to training young engineer officers in

the art of war, Gen. Black’s greatest responsibility came as Chief of Engineers during

World War I in mobilizing and training some 300,000 engineer troops for a wide

range of military engineering tasks. For this work, he was awarded the Distinguished

Service Medal. He retired October 31, 1919, and died September 24, 1933, in

Washington, D.C.

Major General Lansing Hoskins Beach

Chief of Engineers (February 10, 1920–June 18, 1924)

Born June 18, 1860, in Dubuque, Iowa, Lansing Beach graduated third in the Military

Academy Class of 1882 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He developed plans for the reconstruction of the Muskingum River locks and dams soon after

Ohio ceded the state-built improvements to the federal government in 1887. From

1894 to 1901, he worked on public improvements in the District of Columbia, serving

as engineer commissioner there in 1898–1901. As Detroit District Engineer in

1901–1905, he oversaw harbor improvements as far west as Duluth. Beach supervised

improvements along the Louisiana Gulf Coast in 1908–1912 and in Baltimore in

1912–1915. He also oversaw the entire Gulf Division in six of those seven years and

the Central Division in 1915–1920. In the latter capacity and as Chief of Engineers,

he oversaw construction of the huge Wilson Locks and Dam on the Tennessee River.

Beach also served on the Mississippi River Commission and the Board of Engineers

for Rivers and Harbors. After his four-year tour as Chief of Engineers, he retired on

June 18, 1924. After retirement, Gen. Beach served as consulting engineer for various

business interests in the United States and Mexico. He was president of the American

Society of Military Engineers and a member of the International Water Commission

from 1924 to 1930. He died April 2, 1945, in Pasadena, California. 

292

Appendix II
Major General Harry Taylor

Chief of Engineers (June 19, 1924–June 26, 1926)

Born June 26, 1862, in Tilton, New Hampshire, Harry Taylor graduated from the

Military Academy in 1884 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. After

serving in engineer offices in Wilmington, North Carolina, and New York City, Taylor

served from 1891 to 1900 on fortifications and river and harbor construction work in

Oregon and Washington. Later he pursued similar work in New England and New

York. Transferred to the Philippines, he supervised all fortification work there in

1904–1905. Taylor was District Engineer in New London, Connecticut, in 1906–1911.

He then headed the River and Harbor Division in the Office of the Chief of Engineers

for five years. During World War I, he served as Chief Engineer of the American

Expeditionary Forces in France (mid-1917 to mid-1918) and received the Distinguished

Service Medal. He then served for six years as Assistant Chief of Engineers before

assuming the top office in the Corps for two years. Wilson Dam was completed while

he was Chief. He was a member of the French Legion of Honor. Gen. Taylor retired

June 26, 1926. He died January 27, 1930, in Washington, D.C. 

Major General Edgar Jadwin

Chief of Engineers (June 27, 1926–August 7, 1929)

Born August 7, 1865, in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, Edgar Jadwin graduated first in

the Military Academy Class of 1890 and was commissioned in the Corps of

Engineers. He served with engineer troops in 1891–1895 and was lieutenant colonel

of the 3d U.S. Volunteer Engineers in the Spanish-American War. After serving as

District Engineer at the expanding ports of Los Angeles and Galveston, he was

selected by General Goethals as an assistant in the construction of the Panama Canal.

Jadwin served in 1911–1916 in the Office of the Chief of Engineers, focusing on

bridge and road matters. Upon the United States’ entry into World War I in 1917, he

recruited the 15th Engineers, a railway construction regiment, and led it to France.

He directed American construction and forestry work there for a year and received

the Distinguished Service Medal. President Wilson appointed Jadwin to investigate

conditions in Poland in 1919. In 1922–1924, Jadwin headed the Corps’ Charleston

District and Southeast Division. He then served two years as Assistant Chief of

Engineers. As Chief of Engineers, he sponsored the plan for Mississippi River flood

control that was adopted by Congress in May 1928. Jadwin retired from the Army on

August 7, 1929, and was advanced to lieutenant general on the retired list. He died

in Gorgas Hospital in the Canal Zone on March 2, 1931. 

293

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Major General Lytle Brown

Chief of Engineers (October 1, 1929–October 1, 1933)

Born November 22, 1872, in Nashville, Tennessee, Lytle Brown graduated fourth in

the Military Academy Class of 1898 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers.

He served with engineer troops in Cuba in 1898 at the Battle of San Juan Hill and the

siege of Santiago, and in 1900–1902 he was Engineer of the Department of Northern

Luzon in the Philippine Islands. Brown oversaw river improvement projects in

1908–1912 as Louisville District Engineer. He commanded the 2d Battalion of

Engineers and served as Engineer of Pershing’s 1916 punitive expedition into Mexico.

Brown headed the War Plans Division of the War Department general staff from May

1918 to June 1919, addressing important U.S. Army policy issues during and immediately after World War I. He received a Distinguished Service Medal. Brown oversaw

construction work at the Wilson Dam Hydroelectric Project in 1919–1920. He was

assistant commandant of the Army War College and a brigade commander in the Canal

Zone before becoming Chief of Engineers. He concluded his military career as commander of the Panama Canal Department (1935–1936). Gen. Brown retired November

30, 1936. He died in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 3, 1951. 

Major General Edward Murphy Markham

Chief of Engineers (October 1, 1933–October 18, 1937)

Born July 6, 1877, in Troy, New York, Edward Markham graduated fifth in the Military

Academy Class of 1899 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He served

five years with the 2d Battalion of Engineers, including two years in the Philippines

and eight months in Cuba, engaging in military mapping and road and bridge construction. He was Memphis District Engineer (1912–1916) and professor of practical

military engineering at the Military Academy. During World War I, he served in France

as deputy director, Division of Light Railways and Roads (1918), and in Germany as

Chief Engineer, Third Army (1919). After returning to the United States, he was

Detroit District Engineer (1919–1925) and commandant of the Army Engineer School,

Fort Humphreys, Virginia. Markham then served as Great Lakes Division Engineer.

After serving as Chief of Engineers, he made a special military survey in the Hawaiian

Islands. Gen. Markham retired February 28, 1938. He was New York public works

commissioner in 1938 and president of the Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company in

Chicago from 1938 to 1945. He died in Albany, N.Y., on September 14, 1950. 

294

Appendix II
Major General Julian Larcombe Schley

Chief of Engineers (October 18, 1937–October 1, 1941)

Born February 23, 1880, in Savannah, Georgia, Julian Schley graduated from the

Military Academy in 1903 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He and

classmate Douglas MacArthur had their first service with the 3d Battalion of Engineers

in the Philippines (1903–1904). Schley later served with engineer troops in the United

States and Cuba; as an instructor at the Military Academy; as Assistant Engineer,

Washington, D.C.; and as New Orleans District Engineer. During World War I, he commanded the divisional 307th Engineers in the St. Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne offensives and was Engineer, 5th Army Corps, during the last two weeks of the latter drive.

He received a Distinguished Service Medal. He was Director of Purchase, General

Staff, and a member of the War Department Claims Board in 1919–1920. Schley later

served four-year tours as Galveston District Engineer; Engineer of Maintenance,

Panama Canal; and governor of the Canal Zone. In the last post, he was also military

advisor to the Republic of Panama. Schley was commandant of the Army Engineer

School in 1936–1937, before assuming the post of Chief of Engineers. He retired

September 30, 1941, but was recalled to active wartime duty in 1943 as director of

Transportation, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs. He died March 29,

1965, in Washington, D.C. 

Lieutenant General Eugene Reybold

Chief of Engineers (October 1, 1941–September 30, 1945)

Born February 13, 1884, in Delaware City, Delaware, Eugene Reybold was distinguished as the World War II Chief of Engineers who directed the largest Corps of

Engineers in the nation’s history. He graduated from Delaware College in 1903.

Commissioned in the Coast Artillery Corps in 1908, Reybold was assigned to military

housing and coastal defense construction work. Stationed at Fort Monroe throughout

World War I, he became commandant of the Coast Artillery School. He transferred to

the Corps of Engineers in 1926 and served as District Engineer in Buffalo, New York;

Wilmington, North Carolina; and Memphis, Tennessee. In the last assignment, he successfully battled record Mississippi River flood crests. He was Southwestern Division

Engineer (1937–1940) and War Department assistant chief of staff, G–4 (1940–1941).

Appointed Chief of Engineers shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack, Gen. Reybold

directed the Corps’ tremendous range of activities throughout the war and was the first

officer ever to rank as lieutenant general while Chief of Engineers. He was awarded a

Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. Reybold retired January 31, 1946,

and died November 21, 1961, in Washington, D.C. 

295

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Lieutenant General Raymond A. Wheeler

Chief of Engineers (October 4, 1945–February 28, 1949)

Born July 31, 1885, in Peoria, Illinois, Raymond Wheeler graduated fifth in the

Military Academy Class of 1911 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He

served with the Veracruz expedition in 1914 and went to France with the divisional

4th Engineers in 1918. He was awarded a Silver Star for actions in the Aisne-Marne

campaign, and by the end of World War I, he had assumed command of his regiment

with the rank of colonel. Between the two world wars, he served as District Engineer in

Newport, Rhode Island; Wilmington, North Carolina; and Rock Island, Illinois. In

September 1941, he was appointed chief of the U.S. Military Iranian Mission and in

February 1942 was transferred to the China-Burma-India Theater as commanding general of the Services of Supply. In October 1943, he was assigned to Lord Mountbatten’s

Southeast Asia command as principal administrative officer and deputy supreme commander. Before the end of World War II, he became commander of the India-Burma

Theater. He represented the United States at the Japanese surrender in Singapore. As

Chief of Engineers, Wheeler initiated construction of the Missouri River Dams projected

in the Pick-Sloan Plan. After his military retirement, he worked for the United Nations

and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on Asian and African

development projects. He oversaw the clearing of the Suez Canal in 1956–1957.

Wheeler’s U.S. Army decorations included the Distinguished Service Medal with two

Oak Leaf Clusters and the Legion of Merit. He was also made an honorary Knight of

the British Empire. He died February 8, 1974, in Washington, D.C.

Lieutenant General Lewis A. Pick

Chief of Engineers (March 1, 1949–January 26, 1953)

Born in Brookneal, Virginia, November 18, 1890, Lewis Pick graduated from Virginia

Polytechnic Institute in 1914. During World War I, he served with the 23d Engineers

in France. Pick received his Regular Army commission in the Corps of Engineers on

July 1, 1920. He served in the Philippines from 1921 until 1923 and helped organize

an engineer regiment composed of Filipino soldiers. He was District Engineer at New

Orleans during the great 1927 Mississippi River floods, and he helped coordinate

federal relief efforts. Pick was named Missouri River Division Engineer in 1942 and,

with W. Glenn Sloan of the Bureau of Reclamation, he cowrote the Pick-Sloan Plan 

for controlling the water resources of the Missouri River Basin. Pick was assigned 

to the China–Burma–India Theater of Operations in October 1943, and oversaw the

construction of the Ledo Road across northern Burma from India to China. After his

return to the United States in 1945, he served again as Missouri River Division

Engineer. On March 1, 1949, President Truman appointed him Chief of Engineers.

Pick was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. He died

December 2, 1956, in Washington, D.C.

296

Appendix II
Lieutenant General Samuel D. Sturgis, Jr.

Chief of Engineers (March 17, 1953–September 30, 1956)

Born July 16, 1897, in St. Paul, Minnesota, Samuel Sturgis, Jr., came from an illustrious

military family. Both his father and grandfather were Military Academy graduates and

major generals. Young Sturgis graduated from the Military Academy in 1918. As a junior

engineer officer, he taught mathematics at the Academy for four years. In 1926, he was

ordered to the Philippines, where he served as adjutant of the 14th Engineers. His

strategic studies of the islands over a three-year period developed knowledge he used

later when he returned to the Philippines in 1944 as Chief Engineer of General Walter

Krueger’s Sixth Army. Sturgis commanded a mounted engineer company at Fort Riley,

Kansas, in 1929–1933 and encouraged the adoption of heavy mechanical equipment.

He was District Engineer in 1939–1942 in Vicksburg, Mississippi, where he worked on

flood control and a large military construction program. In 1943–1945, Sturgis’s engineer troops built roads, airfields, ports, and bases from New Guinea to the Philippines.

Sturgis was senior engineer for the nation’s air forces in 1946–1948 and was Missouri

River Division Engineer in 1949–1951. In 1951, he became the commanding general of

the 6th Armored Division and Fort Leonard Wood. In 1952, he was appointed commanding general of the Communications Zone, supporting the United States Army in

Europe. He became Chief of Engineers on March 17, 1953. His military decorations

included the Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, Silver Star, Legion of

Merit, and Bronze Star. He died July 5, 1964, in Washington, D.C.

Lieutenant General Emerson C. Itschner

Chief of Engineers (October 1, 1956–March 27, 1961)

Born in Chicago, Illinois, July 1, 1903, Emerson Itschner graduated from the Military

Academy in 1924 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. He obtained a

degree in civil engineering from Cornell University in 1925. Itschner served with the

Alaska Road Commission in 1927–1929. He taught at the Missouri School of Mines and

served as assistant to the Upper Mississippi Valley Division Engineer and the St. Louis

District Engineer. He commanded a topographic survey company in 1940–1941. In

1942–1943, Itschner headed the office in Corps headquarters that supervised U.S.

Army airfield construction in the forty-eight states. In 1944–1945, he oversaw the

reconstruction of ports and the development of supply routes to U.S. forces in Europe

as the engineer for the Advance Section, Communications Zone. Itschner headed the

division in Corps headquarters responsible for military construction operations from

1946 to 1949. After a year as Seattle District Engineer, he went to Korea as Engineer

of I Corps and oversaw engineer troop operations in western Korea. He was North

Pacific Division Engineer in 1952–1953. From 1953 until being appointed Chief of

Engineers, he served as Assistant Chief of Engineers for Civil Works. He was awarded

the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Bronze

Star, and Purple Heart. Gen. Itschner retired in 1961 and died in Portland, Oregon, on

March 15, 1995. 

297

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Lieutenant General Walter K. Wilson, Jr.

Chief of Engineers (May 19, 1961–June 30, 1965)

The son of an artillery officer, Walter Wilson, Jr., was born at Fort Barrancas, Florida,

on August 26, 1906. He graduated from the Military Academy in 1929 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. Before 1942, he served with troops, continued

his military and engineering education, and was an instructor at the Military Academy.

During World War II, Wilson served as Deputy Engineer-in-Chief with the Southeast

Asia Command at New Delhi, India, and Kandy, Ceylon. He became commanding

general, Advance Section, U.S. Forces, India-Burma Theater, and chief of staff of the

Chinese Army in India. After the consolidation of Intermediate and Base Sections with

Advance Section, Wilson commanded all ground forces remaining in the theater. He

was District Engineer in St. Paul, Minnesota (1946–1949), and Mobile, Alabama

(1949–1952), and Mediterranean Division Engineer (1953–1955). He assumed command of the 18th Engineer Brigade at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, in 1955. He

served as Deputy Chief of Engineers for Construction from 1956 to 1960. Wilson was

Commanding General, the Army Engineer Center and Fort Belvoir, and Commandant,

the Army Engineer School in 1960–1961. He retired as Chief of Engineers on June 30,

1965. Wilson’s military honors included the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the

Soldier’s Medal, and membership in the French Legion of Honor. He died in Mobile,

Alabama, on December 6, 1985. 

Lieutenant General William F. Cassidy

Chief of Engineers (July 1, 1965–July 31, 1969)

Born on a U.S. Army post near Nome, Alaska, on August 28, 1908, William Cassidy

graduated from the Military Academy in 1931 and was commissioned in the Corps of

Engineers. He served as assistant to the District Engineer in Portland, Oregon, commanded an engineer company at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and oversaw military construction projects in Hawaii. During World War II, Cassidy commanded engineer troops

specializing in airfield construction in England, North Africa, and Italy. He was deputy

chief, then chief, of the War Plans (later Operations and Training) Division, Office of

the Chief of Engineers, in 1944–1947. At the outbreak of the Korean Conflict, he was

ordered to Japan, where he was responsible for engineer supply. He served as South

Pacific Division Engineer from 1955 to 1958 and was the senior logistics advisor to

the Republic of Korea Army in 1958–1959. Cassidy was the Corps’ Director of Civil

Works from September 1959 to March 1962 and was then appointed Deputy Chief of

Engineers. On March 1, 1963, he became the commanding general of the Army

Engineer Center and Fort Belvoir, and commandant of the Army Engineer School.

Cassidy became Chief of Engineers on July 1, 1965, and held that post for four years.

He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for his service as Chief of Engineers.

His other military decorations included the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the

Bronze Star, and the Republic of Korea Presidential Citation. He died in Longwood,

Florida, on March 31, 2002.

298

Appendix II
Lieutenant General Frederick J. Clarke

Chief of Engineers (August 1, 1969–July 31, 1973)

Born in Little Falls, New York, on March 1, 1915, Frederick Clarke was commissioned in

the Corps of Engineers in 1937 after graduating fourth in his Military Academy class.

Clarke received a master’s degree in civil engineering from Cornell University in 1940

and later attended the Advanced Management Program of the Graduate School of

Business, Harvard University. During World War II, he commanded a battalion that

helped construct a military airfield on Ascension Island in the South Atlantic, and he

served in Washington, D.C., at Headquarters, Army Service Forces. After the war, Clarke

worked in the atomic energy field for the Manhattan District and the Atomic Energy

Commission at Hanford, Washington, and at the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project

at Sandia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico. As the District Engineer of the Trans-East

District of the Corps in 1957–1959, he was responsible for U.S. military construction in

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and he initiated transportation surveys in East Pakistan and

Burma. In the decade before his appointment as Chief of Engineers, Clarke was Engineer

Commissioner of the District of Columbia (1960–1963); Commanding General, the Army

Engineer Center and Fort Belvoir, and Commandant, the Army Engineer School

(1965–1966); and Deputy Chief of Engineers (1966–1969). As Chief of Engineers, Clarke

guided the Corps as it devoted increased attention to the environmental impact of its work.

Gen. Clarke was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal and the Legion of Merit. He

died at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on February 4, 2002. 

Lieutenant General William C. Gribble, Jr.

Chief of Engineers (August 1, 1973–June 30, 1976)

Born in Ironwood, Michigan, on May 24, 1917, William Gribble, Jr., graduated from the

Military Academy in 1941 and was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers. During

World War II, he served on the staff of the 340th Engineer General Service Regiment as

it first built a section of the Alaska Highway in western Canada and later assisted

General MacArthur’s drive in New Guinea and the Philippines. At the end of the war, he

commanded the 118th Engineer Combat Battalion, 43d Infantry Division. Gribble then

worked in the Los Alamos laboratory and in the Reactor Development Division of the

Atomic Energy Commission. As Alaska District Engineer, he oversaw construction of a

nuclear power plant at Fort Greeley, Alaska. He headed the U.S. Army’s nuclear power

program in 1960–1961. In 1963, he was the Corps’ North Central Division Engineer.

Gribble’s scientific skills led to his service as director of research and development in

the Army Materiel Command in 1964–1966 and as the U.S. Army’s Chief of Research

and Development, 1971–1973. In 1969–1970, he commanded the Army Engineer Center

and Fort Belvoir, and was commandant of the Army Engineer School. He became Chief

of Engineers in 1973. Gribble received a master’s degree in physical science from the

University of Chicago in 1948 and an honorary doctorate in engineering from Michigan

Technological University. He was also an honorary member of the United Kingdom’s

Institute of Royal Engineers. His decorations included the Distinguished Service Medal

with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Brazilian

Order of Military Merit. Gen. Gribble died at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on June 2, 1979. 

299

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Lieutenant General John W. Morris

Chief of Engineers (July 1, 1976–September 30, 1980)

John Morris was born in Princess Anne, Maryland, on September 10, 1921. He graduated from the Military Academy in June 1943 and was commissioned in the Corps of

Engineers. During World War II, he commanded an airfield construction company in

the Western Pacific. After the war, he served in the Philippines and Japan, in the Corps’

Savannah District, and as area engineer at Goose Bay, Labrador. In 1960–1962, he

commanded the divisional 8th Engineer Battalion in Korea. Morris headed the Corps’

Tulsa District in 1962–1965 as it improved navigation on the Arkansas River. During

the peak years of the Vietnam War, he was the U.S. Army’s Deputy Chief of Legislative

Liaison (1967–1969), and he commanded the 18th Engineer Brigade in Vietnam

(1969–1970). He was then Missouri River Division Engineer for two years, the Corps’

Director of Civil Works for three years, and Deputy Chief of Engineers in 1975–1976.

As Chief of Engineers, Morris convinced the U.S. Army to include the Corps of

Engineers among the major commands. Morris obtained a master’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Iowa. His military awards include the Distinguished

Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star, and

the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. Gen. Morris was selected Construction’s Man of

the Year for 1977 by the Engineering-News Record.

Lieutenant General Joseph K. Bratton

Chief of Engineers (October 1, 1980–September 14, 1984)

Joseph Bratton was born on April 4, 1926, in St. Paul, Minnesota. He graduated third

in the Class of 1948 at the Military Academy and was commissioned in the Corps of

Engineers. He served with an engineer battalion in Austria in 1949–1952 and with the

divisional 13th Engineer Combat Battalion in Korea in 1953–1954, both before and

after the armistice. He later commanded the 24th Engineer Battalion, 4th Armored

Division, in Germany (1964–1965) and the 159th Engineer Group in Vietnam

(1969–1970). Bratton also held numerous staff assignments. He was a military assistant to Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor in 1967–1969 and secretary to the Joint

Chiefs of Staff in 1970–1972. Having received a master’s degree in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1959, Bratton served as chief of

Nuclear Activities at Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE), in

1972–1975 and Director of Military Applications at the U.S. Department of Energy in

1975–1979. His last assignments before becoming Chief of Engineers in October

1980, were as Division Engineer of the Corps’ South Atlantic Division (1979–1980) and

then briefly as Deputy Chief of Engineers. His military awards include the Defense

Distinguished Service Medal, the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of

Merit with two Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster.

300

Appendix II
Lieutenant General Elvin R. Heiberg III

Chief of Engineers (September 14, 1984–May 5, 1988)

Elvin Heiberg III was born at Schofield Barracks, Honolulu, Hawaii, on March 2,

1932. He became a third-generation West Pointer when he graduated fifth in the

Military Academy Class of 1953. He later obtained three masters’ degrees (civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and government and administration from George Washington University). Early in his military career, Heiberg

served as operations officer of the 3d Brigade, 3d Infantry Division in Germany and

taught in the Social Sciences Department at the Military Academy. In 1968–1969, he

commanded the divisional 4th Engineer Battalion in Vietnam and was awarded a

Silver Star. He then served as special assistant and executive assistant to the director

of the Office of Emergency Preparedness. Heiberg served for a year as executive to

Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway. He then headed the Corps’ New Orleans

District and, in 1975–1978, the Ohio River Division. He served as senior engineer on

the staff of U.S. Army, Europe, in 1978–1979. Heiberg was the Corps’ Director of Civil

Works in 1979–1982 and then Deputy Chief of Engineers. After managing the U.S.

Army’s Ballistic Missile Defense Program for a year, he became Chief of Engineers in

1984. Heiberg graduated from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. His military

awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with two Oak

Leaf Clusters, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Bronze Star. 

Lieutenant General Henry J. Hatch

Chief of Engineers (June 17, 1988–June 4, 1992)

The son of an artillery officer, Henry J. Hatch was born on August 31, 1935, in

Pensacola, Florida. After graduating from the U.S. Military Academy in 1957, he completed airborne and ranger training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and earned a master’s

degree in geodetic science at Ohio State University. Hatch held several leadership

positions in U.S. Army airborne and airmobile units early in his career. He commanded

a company of the 82d Airborne Division’s 307th Engineer Battalion at Fort Bragg,

North Carolina; served on the staff of the 2d Airborne Battle Group, 503d Infantry in

Okinawa; and commanded the 326th Engineer Battalion of the 101st Airborne

Division in Vietnam in 1968–1969. Hatch subsequently oversaw West Point construction work for the Corps’ New York District and in 1974 began a three-year tenure as

Nashville District Engineer. He then returned to the Far East to lead the 2d Infantry

Division Support Command in Korea and later directed U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force

construction in Korea, Japan, and the Pacific as Division Engineer of the Corps’

Pacific Ocean Division. Hatch was Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer, for U.S. Army,

Europe, in 1981–1984. He next returned to the Corps of Engineers, serving briefly as

Assistant Chief of Engineers and then for nearly four years as director of Civil Works.

President Reagan nominated him as Chief of Engineers in May 1988. Lt. Gen. Hatch

has been awarded the Legion of Merit, two Meritorious Service Medals, two Bronze

Stars, three Air Medals, and two Army Commendation Medals. 

301

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
Lieutenant General Arthur E. Williams

Chief of Engineers (August 24, 1992–June 30, 1996)

Born in Watertown, New York, on March 28, 1938, Arthur Williams obtained a commission as a U.S. Army engineer officer upon his graduation in 1960 from Saint

Lawrence University, where he majored in mathematics. He later obtained a bachelor’s

degree in civil engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a master’s

degree in civil engineering and economic planning from Stanford University. Williams

commanded an armored engineer company in Germany and an engineer construction

company in Vietnam. During a second tour in Vietnam, he served as operations officer

of the 577th Engineer Battalion. He later commanded the 44th Engineer Battalion in

Korea and was an assignment officer at the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center.

Williams headed the Corps’ Sacramento District in 1982–1985 and then served as

Chief of Staff, Corps headquarters. He subsequently headed the Pacific Ocean

Division and then the Lower Mississippi Valley Division. He was also president of the

Mississippi River Commission. He returned to Corps headquarters in July 1991 as

Director of Civil Works. Williams was nominated as Chief of Engineers by President

Bush in 1992. His military awards include two Bronze Stars, three Legion of Merit

Awards, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal. 

Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard

Chief of Engineers (September 18, 1996–August 31, 2000)

A native of Oakdale, Louisiana, Joe N. Ballard was born on March 27, 1942, and graduated in 1965 from Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,

with a degree in electrical engineering. After receiving a commission in the Corps of

Engineers, he served as a platoon leader during his first tour in South Vietnam and as

a company commander and chief of the lines of communication section of the 18th

Engineer Brigade during his second tour. Following assignments with Fifth Army and

the Recruitment Command, he was a staff officer in the 326th Engineer Battalion,

101st Airborne Division. Ballard served on the staff of the U.S. Forces, Korea,

Engineer, and later was the engineer in the Army Energy Office. In 1982 he went to

West Germany as commander of the 82d Engineer Battalion, and later he commanded

the 18th Engineer Brigade and served on the staff of the Deputy Chief of Staff,

Engineer, U.S. Army, Europe. In 1991 he became assistant commandant of the school

and deputy commanding general of the Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood. After

serving as Chief, Total Army Basing Study, Ballard returned to Missouri as

Commanding General of the Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood. When he was

nominated to be Chief of Engineers he was chief of staff of the Training and Doctrine

Command. Ballard earned a master’s degree in engineering management from the

University of Missouri. His military awards include the Distinguished Service Medal,

three Legion of Merit Awards, two Bronze Stars, the Defense Meritorious Service

Medal, four Meritorious Service Medals, and two Army Commendation Medals.

302

Appendix II
Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers

Chief of Engineers (October 23, 2000–July 1, 2004)

Born in Kane, Pennsylvania, on July 9, 1947, Robert B. Flowers was the son of a military officer. Following graduation from the Virginia Military Institute and commissioning in the Corps of Engineers in 1969, he completed Airborne and Ranger training. In

1976 he earned a master’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Virginia.

From 1970 to 1972 Flowers was a platoon commander, company commander, and

operations officer of the 94th Engineer Battalion in West Germany. He served in the

Army Support Command in Thailand and the Portland Engineer District. From 1980 to

1984 Flowers was on the staffs of the 20th Engineer Brigade and 307th Engineer

Battalion, 82d Airborne Division, and in 1985 he took command of the 307th. He

served on the Joint Staff before taking command of the 20th Engineer Brigade, XVIII

Airborne Corps, during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He was Unified

Task Force Engineer, United Nations Task Force, during Operation Restore Hope in

Somalia. After a tour as Deputy Assistant and then Assistant Commandant of the

Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, he went to South Korea in 1994 as Assistant

Division Commander of the 2nd Infantry Division. Flowers then became commander of

the Lower Mississippi Valley Engineer Division and deployed briefly in 1996 to

Bosnia. Prior to his selection as Chief of Engineers, he was Commanding General of

the Maneuver Support Center and Commandant of the Engineer School at Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri. He earned two Distinguished Service Medals, four Legion of Merit

awards, a Bronze Star, a Defense Meritorious Service Medal, two Meritorious Service

Medals, and four Army Commendation Medals.

Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock

Chief of Engineers (July 1, 2004–May 17, 2007)

Born at Fort Benning, Georgia, on July 20, 1948, Carl A. Strock grew up in an Army

family. He enlisted in the U.S. Army and received his commission in the Infantry from

Officer Candidate School in July 1972. He received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Virginia Military Institute in 1975. After receiving Ranger and

Special Forces training, he served primarily in infantry units until 1983 when he

transferred to the engineer branch. He was a staff officer in the 307th Engineer

Battalion, 82d Airborne Division. After teaching as an exchange officer at the Royal

School of Military Engineering, Chattenden, England, he became commander of the

307th Engineer Battalion, leading the unit in Operation Just Cause in Panama and

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He commanded the Engineer Brigade,

24th Infantry Division, at Fort Stewart, Georgia. In 1996 he became Chief of Staff of

the Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. A year later, he became commander of the Pacific Ocean Engineer Division in Hawaii and then the Northwestern

Engineer Division in Portland, Oregon. In the fall of 2001 he became Director of

Military Programs in Corps headquarters. In March 2003 he went to Iraq where he was

Deputy Director of Operations for the Coalition Provisional Authority for six months.

303

Profiles of the Chiefs of Engineers
He returned to headquarters as Director of Civil Works and became Chief of Engineers

in July 2004, retiring from the position in June 2007. Strock has a master’s degree in

civil engineering from Mississippi State University. His awards include a Defense

Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Legion of Merit

Awards, two Bronze Stars, three Meritorious Service Medals, and two Army

Commendation Medals.

Lieutenant General Robert L. “Van” Van Antwerp

Chief of Engineers (May 18, 2007–)

Robert L. Van Antwerp was born on January 27, 1950, in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1972 and completed Ranger,

Airborne, and Air Assault training. He served as a platoon leader in the 76th Engineer

Battalion (Construction) and executive officer and assistant division engineer of the

65th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division, in Hawaii before attending the

University of Michigan where he received a master of science degree in mechanical

engineering in 1981. Later he earned a master of business administration degree from

Long Island University. He taught in the Department of Mechanics at West Point for

three years. Van Antwerp was executive officer of the 84th Engineer Battalion and

chief of the engineering and construction division of the Western Command before

serving a year as executive officer, Office of the Chief of Engineers. He became commander of the 326th Engineer Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), in

April 1989 and led the battalion in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He

was commander of the Los Angeles Engineer District (1992 to 1994) during the

Northridge Earthquake. After a six-month tour as chief of staff, Headquarters, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, he became executive assistant to the vice chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1996 he went to Atlanta, Georgia, where he was commanding

general of the Corps’ South Atlantic Division. After a senior assignment in the Army

Secretariat, Van Antwerp was named assistant chief of staff for installation management. In July 2002 he became commanding general of the Maneuver Support Center

and Fort Leonard Wood. He followed this two-year tour with more than two years as

commanding general of the Army Accessions Command, Training and Doctrine

Command. In May 2007 Van Antwerp was confirmed as chief of engineers. His awards

include two Distinguished Service Medals, the Defense Superior Service Medal, two

Legion of Merit awards, the Bronze Star, and five Meritorious Service Medals.

304

Appendix II
I. GENERAL

American Public Works Association. History of Public Works in the

United States, 1776–1976. Edited by Ellis L. Armstrong 

(Chicago, Ill., 1976).

Baldwin, William C. “History of Peacetime Housing to the End of the

Cold War.” Occasional Papers 4. Society for History in the Federal

Government (2004): 1–30.

Crackel, Theodore J. West Point: A Bicentennial History

(Lawrence, Kan., 2002).

Crowley, Robert, editor. West Point: The First 200 Years

(New York, N.Y., 2002).

Dunne, David M. “The Engineer School—Past and Present.” 

The Military Engineer 41 (November–December 1949): 411–16.

Forman, Sidney. West Point: A History of the United States Military

Academy (New York, N.Y., 1950).

Harper, Michael W., Thomas R. Reinhardt, and Barry Sude.

Environmental Cleanup at Former and Current Military Sites: 

A Guide to Research (Alexandria, Va., 2001).

McCullough, David G. The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the

Panama Canal, 1870–1914 (New York, N.Y., 1977).

Morrison, James L., Jr. “The Best School”: West Point, 1833–1836

(Kent, Ohio, 1986). 

Scott, Pamela. Capital Engineers: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in

the Development of Washington, D.C., 1790–2004 (Alexandria, Va.,

2005). 

Wermiel, Sara. Army Engineers’ Contributions to the Development of Iron

Construction in the Nineteenth Century. Essays in Public Works

History, #21 (Kansas City, Mo., 2002). 

II. MILITARY

Browning, Robert S. Two If By Sea: The Development of American

Coastal Defense Policy (Westport, Conn., 1983).

Historical Papers Relating to the Corps of Engineers and to Engineer

Troops in the Army. Occasional Paper No. 16, United States Army

Engineer School (Washington, D.C., 1904).

Selected Bibliography

305
Lenney, John J. Caste System in the American Army: A Study of the

Corps of Engineers and the West Point System (New York, N.Y.,

1949).

Lewis, Emanuel Raymond. Seacoast Fortifications of the United States:

An Introductory History (Washington, D.C., 1970).

Ludlow, William. “An Army Engineer’s Journal of Custer’s Black Hills

Expedition, July 2, 1874–August 23, 1874.” Edited by Eugene

McAndrews. Journal of the West 13 (January 1974): 78–85.

Nelson, Harold L. “Military Roads for War and Peace, 1791–1836.”

Military Affairs 19 (Spring 1955): 1–14.

Robinson, Willard B. American Forts: Architectural Form and Function

(Urbana, Ill., 1977).

1. American Revolution to the Mexican War

Beauregard, Pierre G.T. With Beauregard in Mexico: Mexican War

Reminiscences. Edited by T. Harry Williams (Baton Rouge, La.,

1956).

Guthorn, Peter J. American Maps and Mapmakers of the Revolution

(Monmouth Beach, N.J., 1966).

Martin, Joseph Plumb. A Narrative of Some of the Adventures, Dangers

and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier. Edited by George F.

Scheer (Boston, Mass., 1962).

Palmer, Dave Richard. The River and the Rock: The History of Fortress

West Point, 1775–1783 (New York, N.Y., 1969).

Robinson, William M., Jr. “The Engineer Soldiers in the Mexican War.”

The Military Engineer 24 (January–February 1932): 1–8.

Smith, Gustavus Woodson. Company “A” Corps of Engineers,

1846–1848, in the Mexican War. Edited by Leonne M. Hudson 

(Kent, Ohio, 2001).

Traas, Adrian G. From the Golden Gate to Mexico City: The U.S. Army

Topographical Engineers in the Mexican War (Washington, D.C., 1993).

Walker, Charles E. “The Other Good Guys: Army Engineers in the 

War of 1812.” The Military Engineer 70 (May–June 1978): 178–183.

Walker, Paul K. “An Engineering Victory: The Siege of Yorktown, 1781.”

The Military Engineer 73 (September–October 1981): 334–37.

Walker, Paul K. Engineers of Independence: A Documentary History of

the Army Engineers in the American Revolution, 1775–1783

(Washington, D.C., 1981).

306

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A History
2. Civil War to World War I

Cooling, Benjamin F. Symbol, Sword, and Shield: Defending Washington

During the Civil War (Shippensburg, Pa., 1991). 

The Engineer Battalion in the Civil War. Occasional Paper No. 44,

United States Army Engineer School (Washington, D.C., 1910).

Floyd, Dale E., editor. Dear Friends At Home: The Letters and Diary of

Thomas James Owen, Fiftieth New York Volunteer Engineer

Regiment, During the Civil War (Fort Belvoir, Va., 1985).

Hendricks, Charles. Combat and Construction: U.S. Army Engineers in

World War I (Fort Belvoir, Va., 1993).

Hotchkiss, Jedediah. Make Me a Map of the Valley: The Civil War

Journal of Stonewall Jackson’s Topographer. Edited by Archie P.

McDonald (Dallas, Texas, 1973).

Knauff, Francis H. “Remember the Maine.” The Military Engineer 47

(May–June 1955): 211–13.

Nichols. James L. Confederate Engineers (Tuscaloosa, Ala., 1957).

Thienel, Phillip M. “Engineers in the Union Army, 1861–1865.” 

The Military Engineer 47 (January–February 1955): 36–41;

(March–April 1955): 110–15.

Thienel, Phillip M. Mr. Lincoln’s Bridge Builders: The Right Hand of

American Genius (Shippensburg, Pa., 2000).

3. World War II

Anders, Leslie. The Ledo Road (Norman, Okla., 1965).

Beck, Alfred M., Abe Bortz, Charles W. Lynch, Lida Mayo, and 

Ralph F. Weld. The Corps of Engineers: The War Against Germany.

United States Army in World War II: The Technical Services

(Washington, D.C., 1985).

Coll, Blanche D., Jean E. Keith, and Herbert H. Rosenthal. The Corps

of Engineers: Troops and Equipment. United States Army in 

World War II: The Technical Services (Washington, D.C., 1958).

Dod, Karl C. The Corps of Engineers: The War Against Japan.

United States Army in World War II: The Technical Services

(Washington, D.C., 1966).

Fine, Lenore, and Jesse A. Remington. The Corps of Engineers:

Construction in the United States. United States Army in 

World War II: The Technical Services (Washington, D.C., 1972).

Fowle, Barry W., editor, Builders and Fighters: U.S. Army Engineers in

World War II (Fort Belvoir, Va., 1992).

307

Selected Bibliography
Fowle, Barry W., and Floyd D. Wright. The 51st Again: An Engineer

Combat Battalion in World War II (Shippensburg, Pa., 1992).

Giles, Henry. The G.I. Journal of Sergeant Giles (Boston, Mass., 1965).

Giles, Janice Holt. The Damned Engineers. 2d ed. 

(Washington, D.C., 1985).

Heavey, William F. Down Ramp! The Story of the Army Amphibian

Engineers (Washington, D.C., 1947).

Jones, Vincent C. Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb.

United States Army in World War II: Special Studies

(Washington, D.C., 1985).

Office of the Chief Engineer, General Headquarters, Army Forces

Pacific. Engineers of the Southwest Pacific, 1941–1945 

(7 Volumes, Washington, D.C., 1947–1959).

Pergrin, Col. David E., with Eric Hammel. First Across the Rhine: 

The 291st Engineer Combat Battalion in France, Belgium, and

Germany (New York, N.Y., 1989).

Twichell, Heath. Northwest Epic: The Building of the Alaska Highway

(New York, N.Y., 1992).

Zarish, Joseph M. The Collapse of the Remagen Bridge 

(New York, N.Y., 1967).

4. Korean War and Vietnam Conflict

Dunn, Carroll H. Base Development in South Vietnam, 1965–1970

(Washington, D.C., 1972).

Farquhar, William R., Jr., and Henry A. Jeffers, Jr. Bridging the Imjin:

Construction of the Libby and Teal Bridges During the Korean War.

Edited by Charles Hendricks (Fort Belvoir, Va., 1989).

Fowle, Barry W., and John C. Lonnquest, editors. Remembering the

“Forgotten War”: U.S. Army Engineer Officers in Korea

(Alexandria, Va., 2005).

Ploger, Robert R. U.S. Army Engineers, 1965–1970

(Washington, D.C., 1974).

Stearns, Maj. Henry A., Maj. Rudolph E. Abbott, and Capt. James L.

Campbell. “LOC Highway Restoration, Vietnam.” The Military

Engineer 65 (March–April 1973): 84–86.

Strong, Paschal N. “Army Engineers in Korea.” The Military 

Engineer 44 (November–December 1952): 405–10.

Westover, John G. Combat Support in Korea: The United States Army in

the Korean Conflict (Washington, D.C., 1955).

308

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A History
Yens, 1st Lt. David P., and Capt. John P. Clement III. “Port Construction in

Vietnam.” The Military Engineer 59 (January–February 1967): 20–24.

5. Cold War and After

Grathwol, Robert P., and Donita M. Moorhus. American Forces in Berlin,

1945–1994: Cold War Outpost (Washington, D.C., 1994).

Grathwol, Robert P. and Donita M. Moorhus. Building For Peace: U.S.

Army Engineers in Europe, 1945–1991 (Washington, D.C., 2005).

Hatch, Lt. Gen. Henry J., and Janet A. McDonnell. “Corps of

Engineers: Laying the Groundwork for Theater Operations.”

Military Review 72 (March 1992): 2–13.

McDonnell, Janet A. After Desert Storm: The U.S. Army and the

Reconstruction of Kuwait (Washington, D.C., 1999).

McDonnell, Janet A. Supporting the Troops: The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers in the Persian Gulf War (Alexandria, Va., 1996).

Schubert, Frank N. Building Air Bases in the Negev: The U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers in Israel, 1979–1982 (Washington, D.C., 1992).

Schubert, Frank N. “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Afghanistan’s

Highways, 1960–1967.” Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management 117 (September 1991): 445–59.

Williams, Garland H. Engineering Peace: The Military Role in

Postconflict Reconstruction. (Washington, D.C., 2005).

Winkler, David F., and John C. Lonnquest. To Defend and Deter: 

The Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program

(Champaign, Ill., 1996).

III. CIVIL WORKS

Anfinson, John O. “Commerce and Conservation on the Upper

Mississippi River.” The Annals of Iowa 52 (Fall 1993): 385–417. 

Anfinson, John O. The River We Have Wrought: A History of the Upper

Mississippi (Minneapolis, Minn., 2003). 

Angevine, Robert G. The Railroad and the State: War, Politics, and

Technology in Nineteenth-Century America (Stanford, Calif., 2004).

Arnold, Joseph L. The Evolution of the Flood Control Act of 1936 

(Fort Belvoir, Va., 1986).

Becker, William H. From the Atlantic to the Great Lakes. A History of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the St. Lawrence Seaway

(Fort Belvoir, Va., 1984).

Camillo, Charles A., and Matthew T. Pearcy. Upon Their Shoulders: 

A History of the Mississippi River Commission From Its Inception

309

Selected Bibliography
Through the Advent of the Modern Mississippi River and Tributaries

Project (Vicksburg, Miss., 2004).

Cowdrey, Albert E. “Pioneering Environmental Law: The Army Corps of

Engineers and the Refuse Act.” Pacific Historical Review 46

(August 1975): 331–49.

Fatherree, Ben H. The First 75 Years: History of Hydraulics Engineering

at the Waterways Experiment Station (Vicksburg, Miss., 2004).

Ferejohn, John A. Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation,

1947–1968 (Stanford, Calif., 1974).

Ferrell, John R. Big Dam Era: A Legislative and Institutional History of

the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program (Omaha, Neb., 1993).

Graves, Gregory. Pursuing Excellence in Water Planning and Policy

Analysis: A History of the Institute for Water Resources, U. S. Army

Corps of Engineers (Alexandria, Va., 1995).

Hagwood, Joseph J., Jr. The California Debris Commission: A History of

the Hydraulic Mining Industry in the Western Sierra Nevada of

California, and the Governmental Agency Charged with Its

Regulation (Sacramento, Calif., 1981).

Hill, Forrest G. Roads, Rails, and Waterways: The Army Engineers and

Early Transportation (Norman, Okla., 1957).

Holland, Francis Ross, Jr. America’s Lighthouses: Their Illustrated

History Since 1716 (Brattleboro, Mass., 1972).

Holmes, Beatrice Hort. A History of Federal Water Resources Programs,

1800–1960 (Washington, D.C., 1972).

Holmes, Beatrice Hort. History of Federal Water Resources Programs

and Policies, 1961–70 (Washington, D.C., 1979).

Johnson, Leland R. “Army Engineers on the Cumberland and

Tennessee, 1842–1854.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 31 

(Summer 1972): 149–69.

Johnson, Leland R. “Waterways: The Fourth Pillar of Defense.” 

The Military Engineer 72 (November–December 1980): 404–08.

Maass, Arthur. Muddy Waters: The Army Engineers and the 

Nation’s Rivers (Cambridge, Mass., 1951).

Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Jeanne Nienaber. Can Organizations

Change: Environmental Protection, Citizen Participation and the

Corps of Engineers (Washington, D.C., 1979).

Merritt, Raymond H. The Corps, The Environment, and The Upper

Mississippi River Basin (Washington, D.C., 1981).

310

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A History
Moore, Jamie W., and Dorothy P. Moore. The Army Corps of Engineers

and the Evolution of Federal Flood Plain Management Policy

(Boulder, Colo., 1989).

Morgan, Arthur E. Dams and Other Disasters: A Century of the Army

Corps of Engineers in Civil Works (Boston, Mass., 1971).

Nichols, Roger L. “Army Contributions to River Transportation,

1818–1825.” Military Affairs 33 (April 1959): 242–49.

Pearcy, Matthew T. “After the Flood: A History of the 1928 Flood

Control Act.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 95

(Summer 2002): 172–201. 

Pearcy, Matthew T. “A History of the Ransdell-Humphreys Flood

Control Act of 1917.” Louisiana History 41 (Spring 2000): 133–59. 

Petersen, Keith C., and Mary E. Reed. Controversy, Conflict, and

Compromise: A History of the Lower Snake River Development

(Walla Walla, Wash., 1994).

Power, Garrett. “The Fox in the Chicken Coop: The Regulatory 

Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” Virginia Law Review

63 (1977): 503–59.

Reuss, Martin. “Andrew A. Humphreys and the Development of

Hydraulic Engineering: Politics and Technology in the Army Corps 

of Engineers, 1850–1950.” Technology and Culture 26 

(January 1985): 1–33.

Reuss, Martin. “The Army Corps of Engineers and Flood-Control

Politics on the Lower Mississippi.” Louisiana History 23 

(Spring 1982): 131–48.

Reuss, Martin. “Coping with Uncertainty: Social Scientists, Engineers,

and Federal Water Planning.” Natural Resources Journal 32 

(Winter 1992): 101–35.

Reuss, Martin. Designing the Bayous: The Control of Water in the

Atchafalaya Basin, 1800–1995 (Alexandria, Va., 1998).

Reuss Martin. “Reshaping National Water Politics: The Emergence of

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.” IWR Policy Study

91-PS-1 (Fort Belvoir, Va., 1991).

Reuss, Martin. Shaping Environmental Awareness: The United States

Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board, 1970–1980

(Washington, D.C., 1983).

Shallat, Todd A. “Building Waterways, 1802–1861: Science and the

United States Army in Early Public Works.” Technology and Culture

31 (January 1990): 18–50.

311

Selected Bibliography
Shallat, Todd A. Structures in the Stream: Water, Science, and the Rise of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Austin, Texas, 1994).

Shallat, Todd A. “Water and Bureaucracy: Origins of the Federal

Responsibility for Water Resources, 1787–1838.” National

Resources Journal 32 (Winter 1992): 5–25.

Stine, Jeffrey K. Mixing the Waters: Environment, Politics, and the

Building of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (Akron, Ohio, 1993).

Stine, Jeffrey K. “The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and the

Evolution of Cultural Resources Management.” The Public Historian

14 (Spring 1992): 6–30.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Waterways Roundtable Papers:

Proceedings on the History and Evolution of U.S. Waterways and

Ports (Fort Belvoir, Va., 1981).

Walker, Paul K. “Building American Canals.” Water Spectrum 12

(Winter 1979–80): 18–25; (Summer 1980): 12–23.

Willingham, William F. “Engineering the Cascades Canal and Locks,

1876–1896.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 88 (Fall 1987): 229–57.

Wood, Lance D., and John R. Hill, Jr. “Wetlands Protection: 

The Regulatory Role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” 

Coastal Zone Management Journal 4 (1978): 371–407.

IV. DISASTER RESPONSE

Burgess, Carter L. “The Armed Forces in Disaster Relief.” The Annals

of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 309 

(January 1957): 71–79.

Cooling, B. Franklin. “The Army and Flood and Disaster Relief.” 

The United States Army in Peacetime: Essays in Honor of the

Bicentennial, 1775–1975. Edited by Robin Higham and Carol

Brandt (Manhattan, Kan., 1978): 198–200.

Deakyne, Herbert. “Bridging Kaw River in the 1903 Flood.” 

The Military Engineer 20 (May–June 1928): 198–200.

Johnson, Leland R. “19th Century Engineering: The Johnstown Disaster.”

The Military Engineer 66 (January–February 1974): 42–45.

Johnson, Leland R., “No Work, No Rations: Army Engineers’ Work

Relief in Southern States.” Journal of Mississippi History 67

(Summer 2005): 107–33.

McCullough, David G. The Johnstown Flood (New York, N.Y., 1968).

McDonnell, Janet A. Response to the Loma Prieta Earthquake 

(Fort Belvoir, Va., 1993).

312

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A History
McDonnell, Janet A. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response to the

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (Fort Belvoir, Va., 1992).

Sieg, Kent G. “Lessons Learned in Response and Recovery: The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the World Trade Center.” 

Joint Center for Operational Analysis and Lessons Learned Bulletin

(December 2004): 36–43.

Walker, Paul K. The Corps Responds: A History of the Susquehanna

Engineer District and Tropical Storm Agnes (Baltimore, Md., 1976).

Willingham, William F. “The Army Corps of Engineers’ Short-Term

Response to the Eruption of Mount St. Helens.” Oregon Historical

Quarterly 106 (Summer 2005): 174–203.

V. SURVEYS AND EXPLORATIONS

Baldwin, Kenneth H. Enchanted Enclosure: The Army Engineers and

Yellowstone National Park: A Documentary History

(Washington, D.C., 1976).

Bartlett, Richard A. Great Surveys of the American West

(Norman, Okla., 1962).

Beers, Henry P. “History of the U.S. Topographical Engineers,

1813–1863.” The Military Engineer 34 (June 1942): 287–91; 

(July 1942): 348–52.

Fielding, Robert K. The Unsolicited Chronicler: An Account of the

Gunnison Massacre, Its Causes and Consequences (Brookline, Mass.,

1993).

Goetzmann, William H. Army Exploration in the American West

1803–1863 (New Haven, Conn., 1959).

Nichols, Roger L., and Patrick L. Haley. Stephen Long and American

Frontier Exploration (Norman, Okla., 1995).

Ronda, James P. Beyond Lewis and Clark: The Army Explores the West

(Tacoma, Wash., 2003).

Simpson, James H. Navaho Expedition: Journal of a Reconnaissance

from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the Navaho Country, Made in 1849.

Edited by Frank McNitt (Norman, Okla., 2003).

Schubert, Frank N. The Nation Builders: A Sesquicentennial 

History of the Corps of Topographical Engineers, 1838–1863

(Fort Belvoir, Va., 1988).

Schubert, Frank N. Vanguard of Expansion: Army Engineers in the

Trans-Mississippi West, 1819–1879 (Washington, D.C., 1980).

Wallace, Edward S. The Great Reconnaissance: Soldiers, Artists and

Scientists on the Frontier, 1848–1861 (Boston, Mass., 1955).

313

Selected Bibliography
VI. AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND BIOGRAPHY

Bishop, Joseph B., and Farnham Bishop. Goethals: Genius of the

Panama Canal, A Biography (New York, N.Y., 1930).

Brodhead, Michael J. “James W. Abert: Soldier, Explorer, and

Naturalist.” Journal of America’s Military Past 27 (Spring-Summer

2000): 65–75.

Chaffin, Tom. Pathfinder: John Charles Frémont and the Course of

Empire (New York, N.Y., 2002).

Clark, Edward B. William L. Sibert, The Army Engineer

(Philadelphia, Pa., 1930).

Dodds, Gordon B. Hiram Martin Chittenden: His Public Career

(Lexington, Ky., 1973).

Franzwa, Gregory M., and William J. Ely. Leif Sverdrup, Engineer

Soldier at His Best (Gerald, Mo., 1980).

Freeman, Douglas Southall. Lee (New York, N.Y., 1997). 

Gifford, Emerson. Gouverneur Kemble Warren: The Life and Letters of an

American Soldier, 1830–1882 (Boston, Mass., 1932).

Haiman, Miecislaus. Kosciuszko in the American Revolution 

(New York, N.Y., 1943).

Heusser, Albert H. George Washington’s Map Maker: A Biography 

of Robert Erskine. Edited by Hubert G. Schmidt (New Brunswick, 

N.J., 1966).

Humphreys, Henry H. Andrew Atkinson Humphreys, A Biography

(Philadelphia, Pa., 1924).

Jordan, David M. “Happiness Is Not My Companion”: The Life of

General G. K. Warren (Bloomington, Ind., 2001). 

Kite, Elizabeth S. Brigadier-General Louis Lebègue Duportail

(Baltimore, Md., 1933).

Lewis, Gene D. Charles Ellet, Jr.: The Engineer as Individualist,

1810–1862 (Urbana, Ill., 1968).

McAndrews, Eugene V. “Custer’s Engineer—William Ludlow.” 

The Military Engineer 61 (May–June 1969): 200–02.

Miller, David W. Second Only to Grant: Quartermaster General

Montgomery C. Meigs, A Biography (Shippensburg, Pa., 2000).

Mumey, Nolie. John Williams Gunnison (1812–1853): The Last of the

Western Explorers (Denver, Colo., 1955).

Nevins, Allan. Fremont: Pathmarker of the West (2 Volumes, 

New York, N.Y., 1961).

314

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A History
Nichols, Maj. Gen. K.D., U.S.A. (Ret.). The Road to Trinity: 

A Personal Account of How America’s Nuclear Policies Were Made

(New York, N.Y., 1987).

Norris, L. David, James C. Milligan, and Odie B. Faulk. William H.

Emory: Soldier-Scientist (Tucson, Ariz., 1998).

Norris, Robert S. Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the

Manhattan Project’s Indispensable Man (South Royalton, Vt., 2002).

Richards, Kent D. Isaac I. Stevens: Young Man in a Hurry (Provo, Utah,

1979). 

Sauers, Richard A. Meade: Victor of Gettysburg (Washington, D.C.,

2003). 

Sears, Stephen W. George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon

(New York, N.Y., 1988).

Smith, Jean Edward. Lucius D. Clay (New York, N.Y., 1990).

Snell, Mark A. From First to Last: The Life of Major General William B.

Franklin (New York, N.Y., 2002).

Weigley, Russell F. Quartermaster General of the Union Army: 

A Biography of M.C. Meigs (New York, N.Y., 1959).

Whaley, Elizabeth M. Forgotten Hero: General James B. McPherson: 

The Biography of a Civil War General (New York, N.Y., 1955).

Williams, Thomas Harry. P.G.T. Beauregard: Napoleon in Gray 

(Baton Rouge, La., 1955).

Wood, Richard G. Stephen Harriman Long, 1784–1864: Army Engineer,

Explorer, Inventor (Glendale, Calif., 1966).

VII. ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS

Colonel William W. Badger. Interviewed by Frank N. Schubert

(Washington, D.C., 1983).

Major General Hugh J. Casey. Interviewed by John T. Greenwood

(Washington, D.C., 1993).

Lieutenant General Frederick J. Clarke. Interviewed by Albert E. Cowdrey,

Suellen Hoy, and Michael C. Robinson (Washington, D.C., 1979).

Lieutenant General Carroll H. Dunn. Interviewed by Paul K. Walker

(Washington, D.C., 1998).

William R. Gianelli. Interviewed by Martin Reuss (Washington, D.C., 1985).

Lieutenant General Ernest Graves. Interviewed by Frank N. Schubert

(Washington, D.C., 1997).

General William M. Hoge. Interviewed by Maj. Gen. George Robertson

(Washington, D.C., 1993).

315

Selected Bibliography
Major General Richard S. Kem. Interviewed by William C. Baldwin,

Paul K. Walker, and John T. Greenwood (Alexandria, Va., 2002).

Arthur Maass. Interviewed by Martin Reuss (Washington, D.C., 1989).

Frederick McNeely. Interviewed by Frank N. Schubert 

(Washington, D.C., 1987).

Lieutenant General John W. Morris. Interviewed by William C. Baldwin

(Alexandria, Va., 2000).

Major General William E. Potter. Interviewed by Martin Reuss

(Washington, D.C., 1983).

Lieutenant General Edward O. Rowny. Interviewed by Barry W. Fowle

(Washington, D.C., 1995).

Lieutenant General Arthur G. Trudeau. Interviewed by Col. Calvin J.

Landau (Washington, D.C., 1986).

Gilbert F. White. Interviewed by Martin Reuss (Washington, D.C., 1993).

Lieutenant General Walter K. Wilson, Jr. Interviewed by Paul K. Walker

(Washington, D.C., 1984).

316

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A History
Index A

A Shau Valley, Vietnam, 170

Abbot, Henry L., 28, 58–61, 64

Fort Totten, NY, Engineer School

superintendent, 111

Abert, John J., 23–24, 26, 38, 57–58,

283

Abert, Sylvanus T., 87

AEF. See American Expeditionary

Forces

Afghan Area Office, 183

Afghan Engineer District, 183

Afghan National Army, 183

Afghanistan

Global War on Terrorism and, 202

reconstruction efforts, 213

road construction, 33

Taliban’s refusal to evict al Qaeda,

182

Africa. See also specific regions and

countries

infrastructure projects, 213

African-Americans

World War II role, 131–132

AID. See U.S. Agency for International

Development

Airfield runway pavement designs,

220–221, 222

Aisne-Marne campaign, 125

al Qaeda

Taliban’s refusal to evict, 182

Alaska, 221

ALCAN Highway, 192

earthquake, 266

Exxon Valdez oil spill, 267

ALCAN Highway, 192

Alexander, Barton S., 111

Alexander, Edward P., 110

Alexandria, VA

British occupation of, 13

Allegheny River

flood control, 74

Allen, Frank, 134–135

American Expeditionary Forces, 129

American Red Cross headquarters, 89

Amiens, Battle of, 125

An Khe, Vietnam, 171

Anacostia River

navigation improvements, 88

Apollo Program. See Space program

Appomattox, VA, 27

Ardennes Forest, Battle of, 136–137

Arkansas River

exploration of, 44

Arkansas Valley, 28

Arlington Memorial Amphitheater and

Chapel, 89–90

Arlington Memorial Bridge, 90

Armistead, Walker K., 103, 280

Artillerists and Engineers, Corps of, 7–8

Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. See

also specific office holders

creation of, 251–253

role of, 253–259

Atchafalaya River, 63

Atkinson, Henry W., 25–26, 44

Atomic Energy Commission, 219, 224

Atomic weapons. See Manhattan Project

Attu Island

World War II and, 142

B

Bache, Hartman, 35

Baker, Newton D., 244

Ballard, Joe N., 302

Ballistic Missile Construction Office,

Corps of Engineers, 195, 197

Baltimore District, 238

Bangladesh

disaster relief, 212

Barlow, John W., 288

Barnard, John G., 110

Base Realignment and Closure program,

199, 202, 237

Bastogne, Battle of, 138

Bataan Peninsula, Philippines, 132

Beach, Lansing H., 95, 292

Beach erosion studies, 81

Beal, Thaddeus, 252

317

Index
Beauregard, P. G. T.

Civil War role, 110

Mexican War role, 106

Belgium. See also specific battles and

sites

World War II and, 137–138

Belleau Woods, Battle of, 125, 129

Bendetsen, Karl, 250

Benton, Thomas Hart, 25

Benyaurd, William H. H., 110

Biak Island

World War II and, 141

Bicycle patrols, 67

Biddle, John, 113

Bingham, Theodore A., 95

Binh Duong Province, Vietnam,

165–166

Bixby, William H., 244, 290

Black, William M., 117, 292

Blalock, Charles, 231

Blumenfeld, Michael, 253–254

Board for Internal Improvements, 241

Bondsteel, James L., 238–239

Bonnet Carrè Spillway, LA, 63

Bonneville Dam, OR

fish ladders, 84

World War II and, 133

Bosnia, 234

Boston, MA

British siege, 3

BRAC program. See Base Realignment

and Closure program

Brandywine Shoal, DE, 35

Branigan, William, 124

Bratton, Joseph K., 163, 300

Brewerton, Henry, 110

British Columbia

ALCAN Highway, 192

Brooke, Mark, 117

Brooklyn, NY

fortification of, 13

Brown, John, 19

Brown, Lytle, 112, 114, 294

Brown, Melvin, 156

Brownlee, Les, 258

Budd, Ralph, 118

Buffalo herd protection, 75, 81

Bulger, Dennis, 232

Burbeck, Henry, 279

Bureau of the Budget, 248–249, 250

Bureau of Reclamation, 66

Burgoyne, John, 3

Burma

Ledo Road, 192–193

Burton, Theodore E., 243

Bush, Pres. George W., 258

Bush, Vannevar, 147, 148 C

Cabin John Bridge

Washington Aqueduct and, 87

Cabin John Creek

Washington Aqueduct and, 87

Calderwood, Matthew, 124

Calhoun, John C., 19

civil works projects and, 41, 241

California

earthquakes, 266

harbor improvements, 25

Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, 169

Cambodia

Vietnam conflict and, 166, 171

Camp Abbot, OR

Engineer Replacement Training

center, 133

Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo, 238–239

Camp David Agreement, 210–211

Canada, 221

ALCAN Highway, 192

Canals, 47–52

Canaveral District, space program and,

178–179

Canfield, Augustus, 49

Carter, Pres. Jimmy, 253

private-sector contracting, 231

Casey, Thomas L., 88, 286

Cassidy, William F., 167, 298

Changing military responsibilities and

relationships

Army facilities maintenance,

231–232

Army facilities programs, 227–228

Corps and Army restructuring,

236–237

318

Index
Corps as an Army major command,

232–234

engineer troop units, 226–227

environmental responsibilities,

228–230

research laboratories, 219–221

restructuring of installation support,

235–236

U.S. Army reorganization, 221–226

World War II, 217–219

Chanoine, Jacques

wicket dams, 47–48

Chapultepec, Mexico, 19

Charleston, SC, 2

Château Thierry, Battle of, 129

Chemical Demilitarization Program, 199

Cherbourg, France

Advance Section engineers’

reconstruction of, 145

China. See People’s Republic of China

Chipyong-ni, Korea, 158

Chittenden, Hiram S.

Preliminary Examination of Reservoir

Sites in Wyoming and Colorado,

61–62

Yellowstone Park road construction,

75–76

Ch’orwon Valley, Korea, 162

Circular A-47, 249

Civil defense, 203

Civil War, 107–111. See also specific

battles and sites

coastal fortifications, 100

Fort Washington and, 103

Civil works, Congress, and the Executive

Branch

Assistant Secretary for Civil Works,

251–259

budgetary oversight, 250

Calhoun’s recommendations, 41, 241

civil works in the Army Secretariat,

250–251

conservation movement and, 261

early civil works oversight, 241–243

multipurpose water management,

244–245

policy coordination efforts, 247–249

relationship with Congress, 245–247

Secretary of War’s role, 243–244

Clark, William, 21

Clarke, Bruce, 132

Clarke, Frederick J., 299

Clausen, Don, 252–253

Clean Water Act, 78, 257

Clearwater River, 21

Clinton, Pres. Bill, 257

Clinton Engineer Works, Oak Ridge, TN,

148–149, 150

Coast and Geodetic Survey, 60

Coastal defenses, 99–103

Coastal Engineering Research Program,

81

Coat of Arms, 273

Cold Harbor, Battle of, 110

Cold Regions Research and Engineering

Laboratory, Hanover, NH, 221, 224

Cold War

early warning facilities and airbases,

194–195

foreign aid, 206

Waterways Experiment Station and, 220

Colorado

reservoir sites, 61

Columbia River, 21

fish ladders for salmon, 84

John Day Dam, 72

Columbia River Basin, 248

Colyer, Wilbur E., 125–126

Combat Developments Command, 227

Communications Mark, 275

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration

Plan, 259

Comstock, Cyrus B., 111

Congress. See Civil works, Congress,

and the Executive Branch; specific

legislation

Connor, William D., 112

Conrad, Charles M., 57, 241

Continental Army Engineers, 1–5

coastal fortifications, 97

Contreras, Battle of, 106

Cooper, Kenneth, 228

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program,

212–213

319

Index
Corps Castle, 273

Cox, Charles, 189

Craighill, William P., 111, 287

Crawford, Robert, 126–127

Crozet, Claudius, 16

Cu Chi, Vietnam, 172

Culebra Cut, Panama Canal, 120

Cumberland, MD

National Road construction, 31–32

Cumberland Road Project, 32

D

Da Nang, Vietnam, 169–170

Dams, 45–48. See also Hydropower

development

Davis, Jefferson, 26, 28

civil works projects, 241–242

Davis Island Project, 48

Dawson, Robert K., 254

de Fleury, François, 5

de Fleury Medal, 275

de Lesseps, Ferdinand, 117

de Vauban, Sébastien, 4

Defense Appropriation Act of 1975, 227

Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, 203

Defense Environmental Restoration

Program, 229

Defense Mapping Agency, 224

Delafield, Richard, 32, 284

DeLong Corporation

pier construction, 169

Department of Natural Resources, 252

Derby, George H., 25

Derby, George M., 67

Dern, George H., 246

DEW system. See Distant Early Warning

Line Radar System

DeWitt, Simeon, 3

Dillard, John, 171

Direct reporting units, 236–237

Distant Early Warning Line Radar

System, 221

District of Columbia. See Washington, DC

Dorland, Eugene, 139

Dorn, Nancy P., 255, 257

Dredged Material Research Program, 80

DRUs. See Direct reporting units

Duane, James C., 286

Dunlap’s Creek, Brownsville, PA, 32

Dunn, Carroll, 170

Duportail, Louis L., 2, 3, 7, 278

E

Earthquakes, 266

Egypt

Peace Vector program and, 211

Einstein, Albert, 147

Eisenhower, Pres. Dwight D.

foreign aid programs, 205–206

Interagency Committee on Water

Resources and, 248, 249

Elbe River, 140

Electronics Research Center,

Cambridge, MA, 179

Ellet, Charles S., Jr., 57, 59, 60

Emergency operations, 263–271. See

also Flood control projects; specific

emergencies

Emory, William H., 24, 26

Endicott Board

coastal fortifications

recommendations, 100

Engineer Strategic Studies Group, 227

Engineer troop units, 226–227

2d Engineers

World War I role, 129

Environmental challenges, 75–84

Environmental Protection Agency,

229–230

Environmental responsibilities,

199–200, 228–230

ERDC. See U.S. Army Engineer

Research and Development Center

Erskine, Robert, 2–3

Essayons Button, 273

Europe

reduction in U.S. forces, 227

Ewell, Julian, 168

Executive Branch. See Civil works,

Congress, and the Executive Branch

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC, 88

Exxon Valdez oil spill, 267

320

Index
F

Facilities Engineering Support Agency,

228

Fallout shelters, 203

Federal Disaster Relief Act, 263–264

Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 265–266, 268, 270–271

Federal Interagency River Basin

Committee, 248

Federal Power Commission, 245

Federated States of Micronesia, 212

FEMA. See Federal Emergency

Management Agency

Ferguson, Harley B., 113

Fermi, Enrico, 149

FIARBC. See Federal Interagency River

Basin Committee

Fillmore, Pres. Millard, 57

“Firebrick.” See Federal Interagency

River Basin Committee

Fish and wildlife conservation projects,

81–84

Fitt, Alfred B., 251, 252

Five Forks, Battle of, 110

Flood Control Act, 60–61, 62–63, 66,

247, 253, 263

Flood control projects, 57–67, 263–264

Florida

ecosystem restoration efforts, 259

Hurricane Andrew and, 265,

270–271

Flowers, Robert B., 303

Foreign Assistance Act, 206, 209, 210

Foreign assistance programs, 205–215

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action

Program, 199–200

Fort Adams, RI, 100

Fort Belvoir, VA

Engineer Board, 132

Engineer Replacement Training

center, 133, 217

Engineer Research and Development

Laboratories, 219, 222, 223

Engineer Topographic Laboratories,

224

Nuclear Power Branch, 219

Topographic Engineering Center, 224

U.S. Army Engineering and Housing

Support Center, 233

Fort Carroll, Baltimore, MD, 19

Fort Delaware, DE, 100

Fort Drum, NY, 198–199

Fort Jay, NY, 8

Fort Johnson, Charleston, SC, 8

Fort Leonard Wood, MO

Engineer Replacement Training

center, 133, 217

Fort McHenry, Baltimore, MD, 8, 12

Fort Meigs, OH, 12

Fort Mifflin, Philadelphia, PA, 8, 9

Fort Monroe, VA, 19, 100

Fort Myer, VA

Engineer Activity, Capital Area, 231

Fort Point, CA, 100

Fort Pulaski, GA, 100

Fort Richmond, NY, 11

Fort Sumpter, SC, 100

Fort Totten, NY

Engineer School, 111

Fort Washington, MD, 100

design of, 103

Fort Whetstone, Baltimore, MD, 8

Fort Worth District, 176, 267

France

Korean War and, 158

Panama Canal and, 117, 119

post-war projects, 193

World War I and, 123–129

World War II and, 131, 135–137

Francis Scott Key Bridge, 90

Franklin, Benjamin, 16

Franklin, William B., 109

Free, Richard, 222

Freeman, Douglas Southall, 19

Frémont, John C., 24

FUSRAP. See Formerly Utilized Sites

Remedial Action Program

G

Gabon

port improvement, 212

Gadsden Purchase, 28

Gaillard, David D.

Panama Canal and, 117–120

321

Index
Gaillard Cut, Panama Canal, 120

Gallatin, Albert, 31

Garrison, Lindley M., 244

Gatun Hydroelectric Station, 122

Gatun Lake, 119

Gatun Locks, Panama Canal, 119

General Dam Act, 246

General Survey Act, 23, 24, 41, 241

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center,

Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL

transfer to NASA, 177

George Washington Memorial Parkway,

90

Georgia, Republic of 

border security, 213

Germany

atomic weapons research, 147

post-war projects, 193–194

World War II and, 131, 133–140

Gettysburg, Battle of, 109–110

Gianelli, William R., 254

Gillespie, George L., Jr., 110, 289

Global War on Terrorism, 202

expansion into Iraq, 183

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,

182, 267–269

Gnehm, Edward, 189

Goethals, George W.

Panama Canal and, 117–118, 120

Goldwater-Nichols Department of

Defense Reorganization Act, 232

Goodpaster, Andrew, 132

Government Printing Office, Washington,

DC, 90

Grand Canyon, 25

Grant, U. S., III, 91

Gratiot, Charles, 11, 281

Graves, Elizabeth Riddle, 153

GRD. See Gulf Region Division

Great Depression

public works projects and, 65, 245

Great Lakes, deep-water route through,

51

Great Salt Lake, 25

Greece

Corinth Canal, 207, 215

foreign aid to, 205, 207

Port of Piraeus, 207, 215

rehabilitation after World War II,

214–215

Green, Bernard, 88

Green River

wing dam, 45–46

Greene, Francis V., 111, 113

Greenland, 193, 194, 221

Gribble, William C., Jr., 222, 299

Gridley, Richard, 1, 277

Griffiths, David W., 215

Griswold, Dwight P., 214–215

Groves, Leslie R., 148–152, 153, 191

Gruber Wagon Works, Berks County, PA,

79

Gulf Region Division, 186–187

Gulf War, 181–182, 188–189, 233

Gump, Noah, 126–127

Gunnison, John, 28, 29

H

Hadir Steel Mill, 145

Halleck, Henry W.

Civil War role, 108–109

Mexican War role, 106

Hanford Engineer Works, Hanford, WA,

148, 150

Hardee, W. J., 67

Harlem River, 13

Harper’s Ferry, VA, 19

Harts, William W., 88–89

Hatch, Henry J., 188, 301

Hawaii

coastal batteries, 101

Heartbreak Ridge, Korea, 158

Heiberg, E. R., III, 232–233, 301

Helicopters

Vietnam conflict and, 166–167

Herat-Islam Qala highway, Afghanistan,

34

Heydorn, Jane, 153

Hilmes, Jerome, 232

Hindenburg Line, 125

Historic preservation efforts, 228

Hoge, William, Jr., 126, 138–139

Hoggle, John, 126–127

Homeland Security Office, 269

322

Index
Hood, John B., 19

Hoover Commissions, 248

Hoskins, Harry D., Jr., 162

House, Frances W., 153

Howard, O. O., 19

Howard Association, 55

Howell, Charles W., 54

Hudson Battery, NY, 11

Hudson River, 13

Hue, Vietnam, 170

Humphreys, Andrew A.

Civil War role, 109

Mississippi River survey, 57–61, 64

Ohio River canalization and, 47

Pacific Railroad Explorations and

Surveys oversight, 28

Potomac River improvements, 87

profile, 284

Hurricane Andrew, 265, 270–271

Hurricane Betsy, 264

Hurricane Camille, 264

Hurricane Isabel, 265

Hurricane Katrina, 265–266

Hurricane Rita, 265–266

Hutchins, Thomas, 3

Hydropower development, 69–74, 122

I

IACWR. See Interagency Committee on

Water Resources

ICBM program. See Intercontinental

Ballistic Missile program

Iceland, 193

“Icewater.” See Interagency Committee

on Water Resources

Imjin River, Korea, 158, 160

Inch’on, Korea, 156–157, 161–162

India

Ledo Road, 192–193

Innes, William P., 115

Installation Management Agency, 236

Installation Support Division, 235

Installation support restructuring,

235–236

Interagency Committee on Water

Resources, 248

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

program, 175, 195, 197

International Association of Game, Fish,

and Conservation Commissioners, 261

Iran

reimbursable programs, 210

Iraq

archeologists’ exhumation of Iraqi

bodies, 186

capture of hydroelectric facilities,

184

Global War on Terrorism and, 202

invasion of Kuwait, 181–182

reconstruction efforts, 213

Task Force Restore Iraqi Electricity,

185

Task Force Restore Iraqi Oil, 183

Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund,

185–186

Iron Triangle, Vietnam, 165–166

Israel

reimbursable programs, 210–211

Italy

World War II and, 133–135

Itschner, Emerson C., 145, 297

Ives, Joseph C., 25

J

Jacksonville District, space program

and, 178

Jadwin, Edgar, 63–64, 293

James River

ponton bridge across, 108

Japan

Manhattan Project and, 152

World War II and, 131, 132,

140–143, 194

Jarvis, John Wesley, 13

Jefferson, Thomas

election of, 8

Louisiana Purchase, 21

Ohio and Mississippi River

improvements, 31

Jefferson Memorial, Washington, DC, 88

John C. Stennis Space Center, 175–176

John Day Dam, 72

323

Index
John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL, 176,

178–179

launch complex, 178–179

Johnson, Harold K., 167

Johnson, Pres. Lyndon

Planning, Programming, Budgeting

System and, 251–252

Johnson Manned Spacecraft Center,

Houston, TX, 176, 177

Johnston, Joseph E., 110

Jones, William A.

Report on the Salmon Fisheries of the

Columbia River, 84

Jordan

reimbursable programs, 210

Jordan, Robert E., III, 252

K

Kabul-Kandahar highway, Afghanistan,

34

Kandahar-Spin Baldak highway,

Afghanistan, 34

Kasan, Korea, 156

KATUSA. See Korean Augmentation to

the United States Army

Kawamura, Terry, 171

Kennedy, Pres. John F., 175

civil defense measures, 203

civil functions of the Corps and, 251

Kennedy Space Center. See John F.

Kennedy Space Center, FL

Kentucky River

locks on, 52

Kenya

embassy bombings, 213

Kenyan Red Cross

HIV/AIDS and, 213

KERO. See Kuwait Emergency Recovery

Office

Kingman, Dan C., 75–76, 291

Klamath, Lake, 28

Knox, Henry, 7, 9

Korean Augmentation to the United

States Army, 163

Korean War, 155–163, 194. See also

South Korea; specific battles and sites

Kosciuszko, Thaddeus, 3

Kosovo, 234

Camp Bondsteel, 238–239

Kuwait

Iraq’s invasion of, 181–182

oil fire-fighting efforts, 182

rebuilding after Operation Desert

Storm, 182, 188–189

reimbursable programs, 210

Kuwait Emergency Recovery Office,

182, 188–189

L

Lancaster, H. Martin, 257

Lapsley, William, 222

Latin America

cartographic programs, 208

Latrobe, Benjamin, 45

Ledo Road, 192–193

Lee, G. W. Custis, 19

Lee, Robert E., 36

Civil War role, 110

engineering career, 19

Mexican War role, 106

L’Enfant, Pierre

design for the city of Washington, 9, 86

Fort Mifflin improvements, 9

Fort Washington design, 103

harbor fortification, 7

Lewis, Meriwether, 21

Leyte Island, Philippines

World War II and, 141

Libby, George, 155–156, 160

Libya, 195

reimbursable programs, 210

Lighthouse Board, 35, 37

Lighthouse construction, 35–39

Lincoln, Lawrence, 231

Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC, 88

Llano Estacado, 28

Lockwood Board, 48

Lockwood, Daniel W., 48

Locurcio, Ralph, 188

LOGCAP. See Logistics Civil

Augmentation Program

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program,

234

Loma Prieta, CA, earthquake, 266

324

Index
Long, Stephen H.

Mississippi River survey, 57

Missouri River exploration, 25

profile, 283

steamboat design, 44

wing dam construction, 45–46

Los Alamos, NM, 148, 150–151

Los Negros

World War II and, 141

Louisiana

Hurricane Katrina and, 265–266

Louisiana Purchase, 21

exploration of, 44

Love, Harold, 140

Ludlow, William, 75, 111, 113

Lunar maps, NASA space program and,

180

Luxembourg

World War II and, 138, 145

Luzon, Philippines, 132, 142–143

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,

Houston, TX. See Johnson Manned

Spacecraft Center, Houston, TX

M

MacArthur, Douglas, 156–157, 161

Mackenzie, Alexander, 48, 69, 289

Macomb, Alexander, 45, 281

Macomb, John N., 25

Mahan, Dennis Hart, 16

Malvern Hill, Battle of, 110

Manhattan, NY

fortification of, 13

Manhattan Engineer District, 153

Manhattan Project, 147–153

Margedant, William G., 110

Markham, Edward M., 294

Marne River, 125

Marshall, George C., 205

Marshall, James C., 148–149

Marshall, William L., 290

Marvin, George W., 215

Master Water Control Manual, 259

Mayer, Maria Goeppert, 153

McAdam, John, 31

McClellan, George B.

Civil War role, 19, 108–109

Mexican War role, 106

McHenry, James, 16, 18, 241

McIndoe, James F., 129

McNamara, Robert, 203, 221, 252

McPherson, Harry, 251

McPherson, James B., 19, 109

Meade, George G.

Civil War role, 108–109

Sombrero Key Lighthouse

construction, 36

Mears, Frederick, 118–119

Meigs, Montgomery C.

Civil War role, 109

Pension Building construction, 88

U.S. Capitol reconstruction, 87

Washington Aqueduct and, 86–87

Mekong Delta, Vietnam, 170

Merrill, William E., 111

Ohio River canalization and, 47, 48

Meuse-Argonne offensive, 126–127, 129

Meuse River, 126–127

Mexican Punitive Expedition, 114, 129

2d Engineers’ role, 129

Mexican War, 19, 105–107. See also

specific battles and sites

Mexico

boundary surveys, 26

Mexico, Gulf of, 63–64

Mexico City, Mexico, 19

Michie, Peter S., 111

Michigan Territory, 11

Michin, Bernard, 138

Michler, Nathaniel, 87, 95

Civil War role, 110

“Milcon Transformation,” 201

Military Assistance Program, 205,

207–208

Military construction, 191–203

Mindanao, Philippines, 132–133,

142–143

Minot’s Ledge Lighthouse, Boston, MA,

38

Miraflores, Lake, 119

Miraflores Locks, Panama Canal, 119

Mississippi

Hurricane Camille and, 264

Hurricane Katrina and, 265–266

325

Index
Mississippi River

bicycle patrols and, 67

Bonnet Carré Spillway, 63

exploration of, 19, 44, 45

flood control projects, 57–67, 254

navigation channels, 51

reservoirs and, 57–58, 61–62, 64–65

road and river improvement projects,

31, 41–43

Mississippi River Commission, 60, 63,

220

Mississippi Test Center, 175–176, 177

Missouri River, 21, 25–26

exploration of, 44

streambank erosion studies, 80–81

Missouri Valley Authority, 248

Mitchell, William A., 129

Mobile District, space program and,

177–178

Montgomery Point Lock, White River,

AK, 52

Moon, maps and models of, 180

Morocco, 194

Morotai Island

World War II and, 141

Morris, John W., 80, 231, 232, 300

Moss, Frank E., 252

Mott, Hugh, 139

Mount Porchia, Battle of, 134–135

Mud Island, PA, 9

Multi-National Brigade (East), 239

Mundung-ni, Korea, 158

Murfreesboro, Battle of, 115

Murmansk, Russia, 124

Murnane, Stanley, 126–127

Mutual Defense Assistance Act, 205

Mutual Security Act, 205

N

Napalm, 168

NASA. See National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, 175–180

National Building Museum, Washington,

DC, 88

National Defense Research Committee,

147, 148

National Fallout Shelter Survey, 203

National Historic Preservation Act, 79

National Park Service

Washington, DC, parks and

memorials and, 91

Yellowstone Park oversight, 75

National Resources Defense Council, 78

National Resources Planning Board,

247, 248

National Response Plan, 266

National Road, 31–33

National Space Technology Laboratories,

177

Natural disasters. See Emergency

operations

New Britain

World War II and, 141

New Deal, 246

New England Division, space program

and, 179

New Guinea

World War II and, 141–142

New Mexico. See also Los Alamos, NM

exploration of, 28

Pancho Villa’s raid on, 123

Pueblo civilization, 25

road network layout, 25

New Orleans, LA

British invasion of, 41

Hurricane Betsy and, 264

Hurricane Katrina and, 265–266

Michoud Assembly Facility, 177

New York District, 267–268

Newlands, Francis G., 244–245

Newton, John, 285

Nicaragua

canal study, 121

Niger River Basin, 212

Nike missile batteries, 195

Normandy invasion, 135–136

North Africa

post-war projects, 193

World War II and, 134

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 234,

238

326

Index
Northridge, CA, earthquake, 266

Northwest Passage, 21

Nuclear power

Panama Canal and, 122

Nuclear reactor program, 219

O

Oak Ridge, TN, 148–149, 150

Oakes, John C., 113

Office of Management and Budget, 248

Ohio River

canalization of, 47–48

dumping of garbage in, 76–77

exploration of, 44, 45

navigation channels, 51

road and river improvement projects,

31, 41

streambank erosion studies, 80–81

wing dams, 47

Ohio River Division

Construction Engineering Laboratory,

224–225

Oil Pollution Act, 78

Operation Desert Storm, 181–183

Operation Rolling Stone, 165–166

Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 150–151

Oudenaarde, Belgium, 124

P

Pacific Railroad Explorations and

Surveys, 28–29

Page, Robert W., 255, 257

Pakistan

Military Assistance Program and, 208

Panama

coastal batteries, 101

Panama Canal Commission, 117, 119

Panama Canal Company, 117, 120

Panama Canal construction, 117–122

Panama Canal Zone, 120

Parfitt, Harold R., 120

Parke, John G., 28

Parker, Mike, 258

Peace Vector program, 211

Pedro Miguel Locks, Panama Canal, 119

Peiper, Joachim, 137–138

Peneprime dust palliative, 167

Pension Building, Washington, DC, 88

Pentagon, 90

construction of, 133

renovation of, 200

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks

and, 267

People’s Republic of China

Korean War and, 157–158

water resources development, 212

Pershing, John, 123

Persian Gulf War. See Gulf War

Philadelphia, PA, 3–4

fortification of, 9

Philippine-American War, 113

Philippines

coastal batteries, 101

World War II and, 132–133, 142–143

Piccolo, Catherine, 153

Pick, Lewis, A., 296

Pickett, Evan S., 163

Pittsburgh, PA, Port of 

dumping of debris into, 76

Planning, Programming, Budgeting

System, 251–252

Plei Me, Vietnam, 166

Pleiku, Vietnam, 171

Pontchartrain, Lake, 63

Pope, John, 28

Potomac Park, Washington, DC, 88, 95

Potomac River, 31

navigation improvements, 87, 88, 95

Preliminary Examination of Reservoir

Sites in Wyoming and Colorado

(Chittenden), 61–62

Progressive Era, 244, 247

Putnam, Rufus, 1, 3, 277

R

Rappahannock River

ponton bridges across, 107–108

Reagan, Pres. Ronald, 231–232, 254

Red River

navigation improvements, 54–55

Regimental Distinctive Insignia, 274

Reimbursable programs, 210–211

Report on the Salmon Fisheries of the

Columbia River (Jones), 84

327

Index
Report Upon the Physics and Hydraulics

of the Mississippi River (Abbot and

Humphreys), 59

Research laboratories, 219–221

Reservoir Board, 64

Reservoirs, 57–58, 61–62, 64–65

Residential Communities Initiative,

200–201

Revolutionary War, 1–6. See also

specific battles and sites

harbor fortification, 7, 97

Reybold, Eugene, 295

Reynolds, John, 139

Rhine River

World War II and, 131, 138–140

Rivers and Harbors Act, 48, 77–78,

241, 243, 245–246

Roberdeau, Isaac, 22, 23, 86, 282

Robert, Henry M., 288

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act,

264–265

Roberts, W. Milnor

Ohio River canalization and, 47

Rochefontaine, Stephen

Corps commander, 8

Fort Mifflin improvements, 9

harbor fortification, 7

profile, 278

Rock Creek

Washington Aqueduct and, 87

Rock Creek Park, Washington, DC,

87–88

Roer River, 138

Rome plows, 168

Ronald Reagan Washington National

Airport, 90

Roosevelt, Pres. Franklin D., 147,

246–249

Roosevelt, Pres. Theodore, 117

Rosecrans, William S., 108–109

Ross, Robert, 135–136

Rossell, William T., 291

Roush, Maurice D., 162

Rousseau, Harry H., 118

Rowny, Edward, 161

Royall, Kenneth, 215

S

Saddam Hussein, 184

Safeguard antiballistic missile program,

197

Salmon

fish ladders for, 84

San Francisco earthquake, 266

Sapper Tab, 275

Sappers and Miners, 2, 4, 15

Saudi Arabia

construction projects, 210, 213

Operation Desert Storm and, 181

Sault St. Marie, MI

Soo Locks, 49

Savannah District, reconstruction of

Kuwait and, 188

Scheidenhelm, Arlene G., 153

Schley, Julian L., 295

Schroedel, Joseph, 238

SEA huts, 239

Secretary of the Army

civil works and, 250–251

Secretary of War

civil works projects role, 243–244

Sentinel antiballistic missile program,

197

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,

182, 267–269

Serbia, 238

Shannon, John, 235

Sheridan, Philip, 19

Shinseki, Eric, 201

Short, Dewey, 250–251

Shreve, Henry M., 42

Shreveport, LA

yellow fever epidemic, 54–55

Sibert, William L., 74, 113

Panama Canal and, 117–118

Sibley, Alden, 222

Sicily

World War II and, 134

Simpson, James H., 25

Six-foot Navigation Project, 48

Smith, Gustavus W., 106

Snagboats, 42–43

Snake River, 21

hydropower dam, 72

328

Index
Soissons, Battle of, 129

Somalia, 234

Sombrero Key Lighthouse, 36

Somervell, Brehon, 218

South Atlantic Division, 270

South Korea. See also Korean War

Military Assistance Program and, 208

Southeast Asia (SEA) huts, 239

Soviet Union

atomic bomb test, 195

collapse of, 212–213

Space Environment Simulation Chamber,

177

Space program, 175–180

Spanish-American War, 112–113, 129

2d Engineers’ role, 129

Specker, Joe, 135

Spillway construction, 63–64

St. Francis River, 65

St. Lawrence Seaway, 51

St. Lo, Battle of, 136

St. Mary’s Falls, 49

St. Mary’s River Channel, 49–51

St. Vith, Belgium, 137

Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard

Complex, North Dakota, 197

Stansbury, Howard, 25, 75, 81

State, War, and Navy Building,

Washington, DC, 88

Staten Island, NY, 11

Steamboats, 44

Stevens, Isaac, 28

Stevens, John F., 117

Stewart, John, 5

Stimson, Henry L., 148, 244

Stony Point, NY, 5

Streambank erosion studies, 80–81

Strock, Carl A., 303

Strong, Pashal N., Jr., 162

Stuart, Jeb, 19

Sturgis, Samuel D., Jr., 122, 261, 297

Styer, W. D., 147–148

Superfund Program, 229–230

Superior, Lake, 49, 51

Support for Others Program, 257

Susquehanna District, 264

Swift, Joseph G., 11, 13, 86, 103, 280

Swift, William H., 38, 280

Systems Analysis Group, 252

T

Tables of Organization and Equipment,

217

TAC. See Transatlantic Programs Center

Taejon, Korea, 155

Taft, Pres. William H., 244

Taiwan

Military Assistance Program and, 208

Tanzania

embassy bombings, 213

Task Force Falcon, 238

Task Force Freedom, 189

Task Force Restore Iraqi Electricity, 185

Task Force Restore Iraqi Oil, 183, 185

Taylor, Harry, 293

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, 79

Tennessee Valley Authority, 247

Tet Offensive, 169

Texas. See also Johnson Manned

Spacecraft Center, Houston, TX

exploration of, 28

Waco tornado, 266–267

TF RIE. See Task Force Restore Iraqi

Electricity

TF RIO. See Task Force Restore Iraqi

Oil

Thayer, Sylvanus, 16

“308 Reports,” 64–65, 245

Tidal Basin, Washington, DC, 95

Togwotee Pass, 84

Topographical engineers, 21–27, 108

Tornadoes, 266–267

Totten, Joseph G., 282

Tousard, Lewis, 9

Traditional Castle, 275

Trans-East District, 208

Trans-Mississippi West

exploration of, 21–27

Transatlantic Division, 234

Transatlantic Programs Center, 234

Trinity Site, atomic bomb explosion, 151

Trois Ponts, Belgium, 137–138

Tropical Storm Agnes, 264

329

Index
Truman, Pres. Harry S., 205, 214–215,

248

Tunisia

World War II and, 134

Tunnel clearing efforts, Vietnam conflict,

172–173

Turkey

foreign aid to, 205, 207

Military Assistance Program and, 208

U

Ukraine

construction program, 213

Union Pacific-Central Pacific Railroad,

29

U.S. Agency for International

Development, 206, 209–210

projects in Afghanistan, 183

U.S. Army

Center for Public Works, 235

facilities programs, 227–228,

231–232

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program

(LOGCAP), 234

reorganization, 221–226

restructuring, 236–237

Topographic Command, 224

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Distinctive Unit Insignia, 274

shoulder sleeve insignia, 274

U.S. Army Engineer Nuclear Cratering

Group, Livermore, CA, 224

U.S. Army Engineer Power Group, 224

renaming of, 228

U.S. Army Engineer Reactors Group,

219

renaming of, 224

U.S. Army Engineer Research and

Development Center, 226

U.S. Army Engineer School Distinctive

Unit Insignia, 274

U.S. Army Map Service

lunar maps and models, 180

World War II and, 133

U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous

Materials Agency, 230

U.S. Army War College, Fort McNair,

Washington, DC, 90

U.S. Capitol

burning of during the War of 1812,

13, 98

U.S. Constitution

Commerce Clause, 69

U.S. Geological Survey, 27

U.S. Military Academy, West Point

engineering school, 8, 15–18, 111

War of 1812 and, 11, 12

World War I and, 123

U.S.S. Sturgis, 122

V

Valley Forge, PA, 4

Van Antwerp, R. L., 304

Van Noy, Junior, 141–142

Vance, Cyrus, 251

Vandalia, IL

National Road construction, 31–32

Vauban, Sébastien Le Prestre, 98

Vera Cruz, Mexico, 19

Verplanck’s Point, NY, 5

Veysey, Victor V., 253

Viet Cong. See Vietnam conflict

Vietnam

foreign aid to, 209

Vietnam conflict, 165–173. See also

specific battles and sites

tunnel clearing efforts, 172–173

Villa, Pancho, 114, 123

Volpe National Transportation Systems

Center, Cambridge, MA, 179

Vosges Mountains, 124

W

WAC. See Women’s Army Corps

Walker, Eugene, 126–127

Wallace, John F., 117

War of 1812, 11–14. See also specific

battles and sites

coastal fortifications, 97–98

Warren, Gouverneur K., 27

Civil War role, 109–110

wing dams and, 47

330

Index
Washington, DC

burning of by the British, 13

Corps projects in, 85–95

L’Enfant’s design for, 9

Washington, George

appointment of engineers to direct the

fortification of key harbors, 7

Revolutionary War role, 1–2, 3–4, 5,

15

standing army recommendation, 9

Washington Aqueduct, 86–87, 91, 133

Washington Channel, 88

Washington Monument, 87–88

Water management, 244–245

Water Resources Development Act, 78,

254–255, 259

Waterway development, 45–55

Waterways Experiment Station, 220, 222

peneprime research, 167

Wayne, Anthony, 5

Webb, James, 179

Weinert, Donald, 231

Weitzel, Godfrey

Ohio River canalization and, 47

Weitzel Lock, 49–51

Wermeil, Sara E., 38

West Point, NY. See also U.S. Military

Academy, West Point

design for the network of defenses, 3

Western Samoa

Port of Asau improvements, 213

Westphal, Joseph W., 257–258

Wheeler, Joseph, 115

Wheeler, Raymond A., 296

Wheeling, WV, 31

Whipple, Amiel, 28

White House

burning of during the War of 1812,

13, 98

water pipes for, 86

White River, AK

Montgomery Point Lock, 52

Wicket dams, 47–48

Williams, Arthur E., 302

Williams, Jonathan, 11, 16, 279

Williamson, Robert S., 28

Williamson, Sydney B., 118

Will’s Creek, MD, 32

Wilson, Elizabeth, 153

Wilson, James H., 109

Wilson, John M., 110, 111, 287

Wilson, Walter K., Jr., 226–227, 298

Wilson, Pres. Woodrow, 244

Wind River Mountains, 84

Wing dams, 45–47

Winslow, Eben E., 112

Women’s Army Corps

Manhattan Project and, 153

Woodley, John Paul, Jr., 258–259

Woodruff, Eugene A., 54–55

Woodruff, George, 55

Woods, Leona, 153

World Trade Center. See September 11,

2001, terrorist attacks

World War I, 123–129. See also specific

battles and sites

2d Engineers’ role, 129

World War II, 131–145, 191–193,

217–219. See also specific battles

and sites

post-war construction projects,

192–194

Tables of Organization and

Equipment, 217

Wright, Horatio G., 285

Wu, Chien Shiung, 153

Wye River Memorandum, 211

Wyoming

reservoir sites, 61

Y

Yazoo River, 65

streambank erosion studies, 80–81

Yellowstone Expedition, 25–26, 44

Yellowstone Park

road and bridge maintenance, 75–76

Yorktown, VA, 4

331

Index