Source: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20180601_R45185_9c92aeca98e8f0cebbd1352c80e9321b31c0914a.html
Timestamp: 2020-04-07 07:09:16
Document Index: 8567918

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4321', '§2282', '§2287', '§408', '§579', '§701', '§708', '§701', '§390', '§549', '§708']

Updated June 1, 2018 (R45185)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the Department of Defense undertakes water resources development activities. Its projects primarily are to maintain navigable channels, reduce flood and storm damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Congress directs USACE through authorizations and appropriations legislation. This report summarizes authorization legislation, the standard project delivery process, authorities for alternative water resource project delivery, and other USACE authorities.
Authorization Legislation. Congress generally authorizes USACE water resource activities in authorization legislation prior to funding them through appropriations legislation. USACE's ability to act on an authorization often is determined by funding. Congress typically authorizes numerous new USACE site-specific activities and provides policy direction in an omnibus USACE authorization bill, typically titled a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Most project-specific authorizations in WRDAs fall into three general categories: project studies, construction projects, and modifications to existing projects. A few provisions in WRDA bills have time-limited authorizations; therefore, some WRDA provisions may be reauthorizing expired or expiring authorities. In 2018, USACE identified a $96 billion backlog of authorized construction projects.
As part of the effort to address investment in the nation's infrastructure, the 115th Congress is considering two water authorization bills: H.R. 8, Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (WRDA 2018) and S. 2800, America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA 2018). H.R. 8 is focused on authorizing USACE water resource projects. S. 2800 includes not only USACE-related provisions but also provisions related to other agencies' water infrastructure programs and activities. For more information on H.R. 8 and S. 2800, see CRS Report R45212, Water Authorization Legislation in Brief: H.R. 8 and S. 2800, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
Standard and Alternative Project Delivery. The standard process for a USACE project requires two separate congressional authorizations—one for studying feasibility and a subsequent one for construction—as well as appropriations for both. Congressional authorization for project construction in recent years has been based on a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers (known as a Chief's Report) and an accompanying feasibility study. For most activities, Congress requires a nonfederal sponsor to share some portion of study and construction costs. For some project types (e.g., levees), nonfederal sponsors own the completed works after construction and are responsible for operation and maintenance.
WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2016 expanded the opportunities for interested nonfederal entities, including private entities, to have greater roles in project development, construction, and financing. WRRDA 2014 also authorized, through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA), a program to provide direct loans and loan guarantees for water projects, including those for navigation, flood risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration, among others. Although the portion of the WIFIA program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is operational, the USACE WIFIA program, which was focused more on water resource projects, has not been funded.
Other USACE Activities and Authorities. Congress has granted USACE general authorities to undertake some studies, small projects, technical assistance, and emergency actions related to flooding and drought without requiring additional congressional authorization. Additionally, under the National Response Framework, USACE may be tasked with performing activities in response to an emergency or disaster, such as emergency power restoration.
The civil works program is led by a civilian Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who reports to the Secretary of the Army. A military Chief of Engineers oversees the agency's civil and military operations and reports on civil works matters to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. A civilian Director of Civil Works reports to the Chief of Engineers. The agency's civil works responsibilities are organized under eight divisions, which are further divided into 38 districts.2 The districts and divisions perform both military and civil works activities and are led by Army officers. The specific officer typically is in a district or division leadership position for three years. Some Members of Congress have expressed renewed interest in the possibility of removing USACE from the Department of Defense.3
USACE water resource authorization legislation, typically titled as a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA);
Congress generally authorizes USACE activities in an authorization bill prior to funding those activities through appropriations legislation. The authorization can be project-specific, programmatic, or general. Authorizations by themselves usually are insufficient for USACE to proceed with a study or construction project; agency action on an authorization typically requires funding. Authorization provisions at times have appeared in appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations legislation.4
In recent decades, Congress has legislated on most USACE authorizations in WRDAs.5 Congress uses WRDA legislation to authorize USACE water resource studies, projects, and programs and to establish policies (e.g., nonfederal cost-share requirements). WRDAs generally authorize new activities that are added to the pool of existing authorized activities. Most project-specific authorizations in WRDAs fall into three general categories: project studies, construction projects, and modifications to existing projects. WRDAs also have deauthorized projects and established deauthorization processes. A limited set of USACE authorizations expire; WRDAs also may extend these authorizations.
The agency has identified a $96 billion backlog of authorized construction projects;6 for context, annual appropriations for construction funding in FY2017 and FY2018 were $1.9 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively. Given that USACE is starting only a few construction projects using discretionary appropriations in a fiscal year (e.g., five using FY2018 appropriations), numerous projects authorized for construction in previous WRDAs remain unfunded. For more on USACE appropriations, see CRS In Focus IF10864, Army Corps of Engineers: FY2019 Appropriations, by [author name scrubbed],7 and CRS In Focus IF10671, Army Corps of Engineers: FY2018 Appropriations, by [author name scrubbed].
Beginning with WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), Congress loosely followed a biennial WRDA cycle for a number of years. WRDAs were enacted in 1988 (P.L. 100-676), 1990 (P.L. 101-640), 1992 (P.L. 102-580), 1996 (P.L. 104-303), 1999 (P.L. 106-53), 2000 (P.L. 106-541), and 2007 (P.L. 110-114). The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121) was enacted in June 2014.8 WRDA 2016, which was Title I of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN; P.L. 114-322), was enacted in December 2016.9
The 115th Congress is considering two water authorization bills: H.R. 8, Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (WRDA 2018) and S. 2800, America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA 2018). H.R. 8 is focused on authorizing USACE water resource projects and activities; S. 2800 includes not only USACE-related provisions but also provisions related to water-related programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a few provisions on water-related activities and authorities of the Department of the Interior. For more information on H.R. 8 and S. 2800, see CRS Report R45212, Water Authorization Legislation in Brief: H.R. 8 and S. 2800, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
WRDA 1986 marked the end of a stalemate between Congress and the executive branch regarding USACE authorizations. It resolved long-standing disputes related to cost sharing, user fees, and environmental requirements. Prior to 1986, disputes over these and other matters had largely prevented enactment of major USACE civil works legislation since 1970.10 Biennial consideration of USACE authorization legislation resumed after WRDA 1986 in part to avoid long delays between the planning and execution of projects. Interest in authorizing new projects, increasing authorized funding levels, and modifying existing projects is often intense, thus prompting regular WRDA consideration.
WRDA enactment was less consistent for a period. Controversial project authorizations and disagreements over the need for and direction of change in how USACE plans, constructs, and operates projects contributed to WRDA bills not being enacted in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. The 110th Congress enacted WRDA 2007 in November 2007, overriding a presidential veto.11
WRRDA 2014, which was enacted on June 10, 2014, authorized 34 construction projects that had received agency review, had Chief of Engineers reports (also known as Chief's Reports),12 and had been the subject of a congressional hearing, thereby overcoming concerns related to congressionally directed spending (known as earmarks). These 34 construction projects represented $15.6 billion in federal authorization of appropriations. WRRDA 2014 also altered processes and authorizations for project delivery options, including expanded opportunities for nonfederal entities to lead projects and for innovative financing, such as public-private partnerships.13
WRRDA 2014 created a new process for identifying interest in and support for USACE studies and projects. In Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014, Congress called for the Secretary of the Army to submit an annual report to the congressional authorizing committees—the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee—of potential and publicly submitted study and project authorization proposals for Congress to consider for authorization.14 USACE delivered to Congress a Section 7001 annual report in February 2015, February 2016, March 2017, and February 2018.15 A notice requesting public submissions for consideration for the fifth Section 7001 annual report was published on April 20, 2018; proposals must be submitted to USACE by August 20, 2018;16 these submissions will be considered for inclusion in the annual report expected in February 2019.
WRDA 2016 authorized new USACE water resource studies (which were among those studies identified in the Section 7001 annual reports submitted in February 2015 and February 2016) and projects, as well as modifications to ongoing construction projects. Each of the construction authorizations for new projects had a Chief's Report. WRDA 2016 authorized 30 new construction projects at a federal cost of more than $10 billion. Various USACE provisions in WRDA 2016 related to how nonfederal sponsors may participate in the financing of water infrastructure activities.17 For more on WRDA 2016 and the other titles of WIIN, see CRS In Focus IF10536, Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN), by [author name scrubbed] et al.
Various reports have informed development and deliberations of H.R. 8 and S. 2800. Since enactment of WRDA 2016, the authorizing committees have received the March 2017 and February 2018 Section 7001 annual reports. The authorizing committees also have received Chief's Reports completed since WRDA 2016; these Chief's Reports will have been transmitted both individually once they are finalized and as part of the Section 7001 annual reports. In addition, the authorizing committees have received annually a report required by Section 1002 of WRRDA 2014. The Section 1002 report identifies when USACE feasibility studies are anticipated to reach various milestones; the process for this report keeps project sponsors and authorizing committees informed of study timelines.18 USACE currently has roughly 100 active feasibility studies. In addition to feasibility studies, Congress may be presented with other types of studies recommending actions that require congressional authorization. These studies include postauthorization change reports for modifying an authorized project prior to or during construction, reevaluation reports for a modification to a constructed project, and reports recommending deauthorization of constructed projects that no long serve their authorized purposes.
Congressional study authorization is obtained in a WRDA or similar authorization legislation.19
Congress authorizes construction in a WRDA or similar authorization legislation, and USACE constructs the project, if funds are appropriated.
A USACE water resource project starts with a feasibility study (sometimes referred to as an investigation) of the water resource issue and an evaluation of the alternatives to address the issue. The purpose of the USACE study process is to inform federal decisionmakers on whether there is a federal interest in authorizing a USACE construction project. USACE generally requires two types of congressional action to initiate a study—study authorization and then appropriations. Congress generally authorizes USACE studies in WRDA legislation.20
If a nonfederal sponsorship is secured and USACE recommends proceeding, a feasibility study begins. The cost of the feasibility study (including related environmental studies) is split equally between USACE and the nonfederal project sponsor, as shown in Table 1. The objective of the feasibility study is to formulate and recommend solutions to the identified water resource problem. During the first few months of a feasibility study, the local USACE district formulates alternative plans, investigates engineering feasibility, conducts benefit-cost analyses, and assesses environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §4321). (For more information on NEPA compliance and cost-benefit analyses, see the box "USACE Feasibility Studies: National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] Compliance and Economic Analyses.") The evaluation of USACE water resource projects is governed by the 1983 Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Implementation Studies and by policy direction provided in WRDA bills and other enacted legislation.21 An important outcome of the feasibility analysis is determination of whether the project warrants further federal investment (i.e., whether it has sufficient national economic development benefits).22
Once the final feasibility study is available, the Chief of Engineers signs a recommendation on the project, known as the Chief's Report. USACE submits the completed Chief's Reports to the congressional authorizing committees (33 U.S.C. §2282a) and transmits the reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Administration review. Since the mid-1990s, Congress has authorized many projects based on Chief's Reports prior to completion of the project review by the Assistant Secretary and OMB.23
USACE preconstruction engineering and design (PED) of a project may begin after the Chief's Report subject to the availability of appropriations (33 U.S.C. §2287).24 PED consists of finalizing the project's design, preparing construction plans and specifications, and drafting construction contracts for advertisement. USACE work on PED is subject to the availability of USACE appropriations. Once funded, the average duration of PED is two years, but the duration varies widely depending on the size and complexity of a project. PED costs are distributed between the federal and nonfederal sponsor in the same proportion as the cost-share arrangement for the construction phase; see Table 2 for information on the cost-share requirements for construction.
Once the project receives congressional construction authorization, federal funds for construction are sought in the annual appropriations process. Once construction funds are available, USACE typically functions as the project manager; that is, USACE staff, rather than the nonfederal project sponsor, usually is responsible for implementing construction. Although some construction may be performed by USACE personnel and equipment, the majority of work typically is contracted out to private engineering and construction contractors. When USACE leads the construction, the agency typically pursues reimbursement of the nonfederal cost share during project construction.25 Postconstruction ownership and operations responsibilities depend on the type of project. When construction is complete, USACE may own and operate the constructed project (e.g., navigation projects) or ownership and maintenance responsibilities may transfer to the nonfederal sponsor (e.g., most flood damage reduction projects).
The cost-share responsibilities for construction and O&M vary by project purpose, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 first provides the cost share for the primary project purposes of navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration; next, it provides the cost shares for additional project purposes, which can be added to a project that has at least one of the three primary purposes at its core. WRDA 1986 increased local cost-share requirements; some subsequent WRDAs further adjusted cost sharing. Deviation from the standard cost-sharing arrangements for individual projects is infrequent and typically requires specific authorization by Congress.26
If nonfederal entities are interested in altering USACE civil works projects after construction, the entity generally must obtain permission from USACE. The agency's authority to allow alterations to its projects derives from Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, also known as Section 408 based on its codification at 33 U.S.C. §408. This provision states that the Secretary of the Army may "grant permission for the alteration or permanent occupation or use of any of the aforementioned public works when in the judgment of the Secretary such occupation or use will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of such work." In 2015, USACE released new regulations for how the agency would process requests for Section 408 permissions—Engineer Circular (EC) 1165-2-216, Policy and Procedural Guidance for Processing Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 USC 408.27 Pursuant to the regulations, USACE conducts a technical review of the proposed alteration's effects on USACE projects. At the end of the Section 408 process, USACE chooses to approve or deny permission for the alteration; USACE may attach conditions to its Section 408 permission.
WRDA 2016 in Section 1301 created a one-time process to deauthorize projects with federal costs to complete of at least $10 billion that are "no longer viable for construction."28
The Secretary of the Army is directed to transmit to Congress annually a list of authorized projects and project elements that did not receive obligations of funding during the last five full fiscal years (33 U.S.C. §579a(b)(2)).29 The project deauthorization list is published in the Federal Register. If funds are not obligated for the planning, design, or construction of the project or element during the following fiscal year, the project or element is deauthorized.30
The bill-specific deauthorization processes and requirements and the general deauthorization process all exist in statute; USACE has not addressed uncertainties regarding how implementation of these authorities is to be coordinated.31
The deauthorization processes described are for unconstructed projects or project elements of congressionally authorized USACE construction activities. A separate divestiture process is used to dispose of constructed projects or project elements and other real property interests associated with civil works projects. Some divestitures also may require explicit congressional deauthorization. USACE divestitures historically either have been limited to projects or real property interests that no longer serve their authorized purposes (e.g., navigation channels that no longer have commercial navigation) or have been conducted pursuant to specific congressional direction. There currently is no formal authorized process for a nonfederal project sponsor to propose that an authorized project be deauthorized.32 Congress has deauthorized unconstructed and constructed projects and project elements in WRDA legislation.
For studies, there are two deauthorization processes
CRS has no data indicating that studies have been deauthorized through this process in recent years. USACE has indicated that the agency is reviewing its 5,600 study authorities to identify studies for deauthorization.33
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a 2013 report summarized its findings regarding cost growth at USACE flood control projects.34 GAO's detailed review of eight projects found that a factor contributing to cost increases at these USACE-led flood risk reduction projects was funding below the capability level; other factors included design changes, initial USACE cost estimates being lower than later cost estimates, and differences in contract estimates and actual contract costs. When testifying in 2013, USACE Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations Major General Michael J. Walsh noted that how much funding is put toward a project significantly impacts the duration of project delivery.35
Only a subset of authorized USACE construction activities is included in the President's budget request and funded annually by federal appropriations. Consequently, numerous authorized USACE projects or project elements have not received federal construction funding. Some $96 billion in authorized USACE construction projects and dam safety work are eligible for USACE construction appropriations,36 which have averaged $1.9 billion annually in recent years.
Competition for USACE discretionary appropriations has increased interest in alternative project delivery and innovative financing, including private financing and public-private partnerships (P3s). In a June 21, 2017, memorandum, the agency's Director of Civil Works announced the initiation of a comprehensive review to identify opportunities to enhance project delivery, organizational efficiency, and effectiveness.37 Congress, particularly in WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2016, has authorized alternative ways to advance and deliver USACE studies and projects. To expand delivery options, Congress has increased the flexibility in the nonfederal funding of USACE-led activities, nonfederal leadership of USACE studies and projects, and P3s. It also has authorized new financing mechanisms for water resource projects. Some of these expanded delivery and financed options are discussed below.
WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2016 expanded and consolidated the authorities for nonfederal entities to perform studies and construct projects (or elements of projects) that typically would have been undertaken by USACE. These statutes also provided that the costs of these nonfederal-led activities are shared by the federal government largely as if USACE had performed them. That is, nonfederal entities advancing water resource projects may be eligible to receive credit or reimbursement (without interest) subject to the availability of federal appropriations for their investments that exceed the required nonfederal share of project costs.38 These authorities typically require that the nonfederal entity leading the project comply with the same laws and regulations that would apply if the work were being performed by USACE.
Under these authorities, additional nonfederal investments may, in the near term, achieve progress on some water resource projects, thereby potentially making federal funding available for other authorized USACE projects. However, additional nonfederal investment may have potential trade-offs for the federal government, including reduced federal influence over the set of studies and construction projects receiving, expecting, and eligible for federal support. A concern from the nonfederal perspective is the challenge of obtaining federal reimbursement.39
Congress established WIFIA with roles for both USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).40 WIFIA authorized both agencies to provide assistance in the form of loans and loan guarantees, and it identified each agency to provide that assistance for certain types of water projects. Under the WIFIA program, USACE is authorized to provide WIFIA support for a number of different project types, such as flood damage reduction projects, hurricane and storm damage reduction projects, environmental restoration projects, coastal or inland harbor navigation improvement projects, inland and intracoastal waterways navigation projects, or a combination of these projects. WRRDA 2014 included a number of project selection criteria that would affect whether individual projects are eligible to receive USACE WIFIA funding.
Under WIFIA, EPA and USACE each are authorized for a total of $175 million in appropriations over five years (beginning with $20 million for each agency in FY2015 and increasing to $50 million in FY2019) to provide assistance. Implementation of WIFIA requires congressional appropriations for administrative expenses (i.e., "start-up" costs) as well as subsidy costs (i.e., the presumed default rate on loans) for that agency's WIFIA program. Each agency also must promulgate regulations for the implementation of its WIFIA program. As of early June 2018, USACE had yet to take the initial steps to implement its WIFIA authority; the Administration had not requested and Congress had not appropriated funds to USACE for its WIFIA start-up costs. EPA, by contrast, has had the Administration request funds and has received funding from Congress for implementing its WIFIA authority.41 For a discussion of issues related to USACE implementation of WIFIA, see CRS Testimony TE10023, America's Water Resources Infrastructure: Approaches to Enhanced Project Delivery, by [author name scrubbed].
The agency's authorities to undertake small projects are called Continuing Authorities Programs (CAPs). Projects under these authorities can be conducted without project-specific congressional study or construction authorization and without project-specific appropriations; these activities are performed at USACE's discretion. For most CAP authorities, Congress has limited the project size and scope as shown in Table 3.42 The CAPs typically are referred to by the section number in the bill in which the CAP was first authorized. WRRDA 2014 requires the Assistant Secretary of the Army to publish prioritization criteria for the CAPs and an annual CAP report.43
FY2018, FY2017, and
FY2018, FY2017, and FY2016
For assistance for presidentially declared disasters pursuant to the Stafford Act (P.L. 93-288), USACE may be tasked with performing various response and recovery activities. These activities are funded through the Disaster Relief Fund and performed at the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the President and at the request of the governor of a state or territory with an affected area. Under the National Response Framework, USACE coordinates emergency support for public works and engineering. This support includes technical assistance, engineering, and construction management as well as emergency contracting, power, and repair of public water and wastewater and solid waste facilities.44 USACE also assists in monitoring and stabilizing damaged structures and in demolishing structures designated as immediate hazards to public health and safety. In addition, the agency provides technical assistance in clearing, removing, and disposing of contaminated and uncontaminated debris from public property and in establishing ground and water routes into affected areas; contaminated debris management is coordinated with EPA.45
In addition to work performed as part of the National Response Framework, Congress has given USACE its own emergency response authority. This is commonly referred to as the agency's P.L. 84-99 authority, based on the act in which it was originally authorized, the Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act (P.L. 84-99, 33 U.S.C. §701n). The act authorizes USACE to perform emergency response and disaster assistance.46 It also authorizes disaster preparedness, advance measures, emergency operations (disaster response and postflood response), rehabilitation of certain damaged flood control works, protection or repair of certain federally authorized shore protection works threatened by coastal storms, emergency dredging, and flood-related rescue operations. These activities are limited to actions to save lives and protect improved property (public facilities/services and residential or commercial developments). USACE also has some authorities to assist with selected activities during drought.47
In P.L. 84-99, Congress authorized USACE to rehabilitate damaged flood control works (e.g., levees) and federally constructed hurricane or shore protection projects (e.g., federal beach nourishment projects) and to conduct related inspections. This authority is referred to as the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP). To be eligible for rehabilitation assistance, the project must be in active status at the time of damage by wind, wave, or water action other than ordinary nature.48 Active RIP status is maintained by proper project maintenance as determined during an annual or semiannual inspection and by the correction of deficiencies identified during periodic inspections.49 As of early 2018, RIP included around 14,000 miles of levees.
For locally constructed projects, 80% of the cost to repair the damage is paid using federal funds and 20% is paid by the levee owner. For federally constructed projects, the entire repair cost is a federal responsibility (except the nonfederal sponsor is responsible for the cost of obtaining the sand or other material used in the repair). For damage to be repaired, USACE must determine that repair has a favorable benefit-cost ratio.50 Local sponsors assume any rehabilitation cost for damage to an active project attributable to deficient maintenance. WRDA 2016 allows that in conducting repair or restoration work under RIP, an increase in the level of protection can be made if the nonfederal sponsor pays for the additional protection.
Although no Administration has included environmental infrastructure in a USACE budget request since the first congressional authorization in 1992,51 Congress regularly includes USACE environmental infrastructure funds in appropriations bills. Congress provided $44 million for USACE environmental infrastructure assistance in FY2014, $50 million for FY2015, $55 million for each of FY2016 and FY2017, and $70 million in FY2018. These funds are part of the "additional funding" provided by Congress in enacted appropriations bills. After enactment of an appropriations bill, the Administration follows guidance provided in the bill and accompanying reports to direct its use of these funds on authorized environmental infrastructure assistance activities. The selected environmental infrastructure assistance activities are identified in the agency's work plan for the fiscal year, which is typically available within two months after enactment of appropriations.52 Recent funds have been used to continue ongoing environmental infrastructure assistance; limitations on initiating new USACE activities in appropriations bills and accompanying reports appear to be curtailing initiation of USACE funding for the environmental infrastructure activities that do not have a broad geographic scope.
The agency's civil works mission developed in the 19th century. In 1824, Congress passed legislation charging military engineers with planning roads and canals to move goods and people. In 1850, Congress directed USACE to engage in its first planning exercise—flood control for the lower Mississippi River. In 1899, Congress directed the agency to regulate obstructions of navigable waters (see box titled "USACE Regulatory Activities: Permits and Their Authorities). During the 1920s, Congress expanded USACE's ability to incorporate hydropower into multipurpose projects and authorized the agency to undertake comprehensive surveys to establish river-basin development plans. The modern era of federal flood control emerged with the Flood Control Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), which declared flood control a "proper" federal activity in the national interest. The 1944 Flood Control Act (33 U.S.C. §708) significantly augmented the agency's involvement in large multipurpose projects and authorized agreements for the temporary use of surplus water. The Flood Control Act of 1950 (33 U.S.C. §701n) began the agency's emergency operations through authorization for flood preparedness and emergency operations.53 The Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. §390b) gave USACE authority to include some reservoir storage for municipal and industrial water supply in reservoir projects at 100% nonfederal cost.
For information on past efforts to reorganize USACE, including transferring USACE civil works responsibilities, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Army Corps of Engineers: Organizational Realignment Could Enhance Effectiveness, but Several Challenges Would Have to Be Overcome, GAO-10-819, September 2010, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-819.
If authorization provisions are included in an appropriations bill, they may be subject to a point of order on the floor for being nongermane. For more information on congressional process, see CRS Report 97-865, Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by [author name scrubbed].
Oral Testimony by General Ed Jackson at U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, America's Water Resources Infrastructure: Approaches to Enhanced Project Delivery, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., January 18, 2018. Comprehensive cost estimates are not available for reinvestment and major rehabilitation for maintaining performance and safety for the full portfolio of USACE-owned and USACE-constructed water resource infrastructure. In March 2018, USACE released A Summary of Risk and Benefits Associated with the USACE Levee Portfolio (https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/6922); the report states "The cost to address risk in the USACE levee portfolio ranges from $6.5 billion to $38 billion, with an expected cost of about $21 billion. The expected cost of $21 billion is broken down into approximately $13 billion for levee infrastructure improvements to mitigate risk drivers in levee performance before the levee overtops, approximately $8 billion in armoring of levees to mitigate risk drivers in levee performance when the levee overtops, and about $300 million to improve evacuation effectiveness within the leveed area." For information on levee safety, see CRS In Focus IF10788, Levee Safety and Risk: Status and Considerations, by [author name scrubbed].
The 115th Congress is considering FY2019 annual discretionary appropriations for USACE civil works in H.R. 5895 an S. 2975. For more information on these bills and their status, see http://www.crs.gov/appropriationsstatustable/index.
Although procedurally distinct from two WRDA 2016 bills considered earlier in the 114th Congress(i.e., S. 2848 and H.R. 5303),Title I of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN; P.L. 114-322) contained many provisions similar to the two bills. Although the scope of WIIN was broad (e.g., including titles and provisions related to drinking water and Bureau of Reclamation), Title I of the bill—WRDA 2016—focused specifically on USACE water resource authorizations. USACE has developed implementation guidance for most provisions in WRDA 2016. The implementation guidelines are published at USACE, "WRDA 2016 Implementation Guidance," at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/Legislative-Links/wrda2016/wrda2016_impguide/.
In addition to some restudies being approved through committee resolution (see footnote 19), some studies that review the operations of completed projects may proceed under general study authorizations without new project-specific congressional action, pursuant to Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611, 33 U.S.C. §549a).
For example, WRRDA 2014 authorized 34 new construction projects. Of these, 25 had been transmitted to Congress by the Assistant Secretary of the Army and 9 were awaiting transmittal to Congress by the Assistant Secretary when the bill was sent to the President; all 34 projects had a Chief of Engineers' report. At times Congress also has authorized construction of a small set of projects prior to the availability of informational copies of the report on the feasibility study; these construction authorizations generally are contingent on a favorable Chief's Report or a determination of feasibility by the Secretary of the Army.
For more on this document and subsequent implementation guidance, see https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Section408/.
For source, see footnote 6. For information on U.S. dam safety broadly, see CRS In Focus IF10606, Dam Safety: Federal Programs and Authorities, by [author name scrubbed] et al.
For information on a related GAO report, see footnote 38.
No Federal Register publication or annual report was available as of early June 2018.
USACE has authority to assist in the provision and transport of emergency water supplies when state resources have been exceeded and an imminent public health threat exists. Although USACE is authorized to assist political subdivisions, farmers, and ranchers with nonirrigation water, this authority largely has been used for assisting tribes with drinking water supplies. The agency can construct wells and transport water to provide emergency drinking water during drought conditions in the U.S. states and territories. USACE assistance is provided only to meet minimum public health and welfare requirements that cannot be met in the immediate future by state or local actions or through reasonable conservation measures. Transport expenses are nonreimbursable expenses (i.e., 100% federal); the purchase or acquisition of the water and the storage facility at the terminal point and permanent water facilities are reimbursable expenses. This authority cannot be used for the provision of water for livestock, irrigation, recreation, or commercial/industrial use. Eligible entities are limited to drought-distressed political subdivisions, farmers, and ranchers. A governor, his/her representative, or the governing body of a tribe must make a written request for USACE assistance. USACE makes the determination that an area has an inadequate water supply causing, or likely to cause, a substantial threat to the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the area. Funding is provided through the agency's Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account. USACE has authority to reprogram its civil works funds to accomplish work under this authority. The agency also has authority to participate in temporary contracts to provide limited quantities of water (if available) for municipal and industrial purposes (33 U.S.C. §708).