The Corps is the world’s largest public engineering, design, and construction management agency. Located within the Department of Defense (DOD), the Corps has both military and civilian responsibilities. The Military Program provides engineering, construction, and environmental management services to DOD, other U.S. government agencies, and foreign governments. Under its Civil Works Program, at the direction of Congress, the Corps plans, constructs, operates, and maintains a wide range of water resources projects. The Corps’ Civil Works Program is organized into three tiers: a national headquarters in Washington, D.C., eight regional divisions, and 38 local district offices (see fig. 1). In fiscal year 2010, the Civil Works Program employed approximately 25,000 civilian personnel in numerous occupational classifications, including civil engineers, biologists, economists, architects, lock operators, mechanics, and foresters. Corps headquarters primarily develops policies and plans the future direction of the organization. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, appointed by the President, establishes the policy direction for the Civil Works Program. The Chief of Engineers, a military officer, is responsible for execution of the civil works and military missions. The Chief of Engineers delegates day-to-day leadership and management of the Civil Works Program to the Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, who is a general officer, and the Director of Civil Works, who is a civilian employee. The primary role of the Corps’ eight civil works divisions, which were established generally according to watershed boundaries, is to coordinate their districts’ civil works projects. Each division office is headed by a division commander, who is a military officer. The role of the 38 civil works districts is to plan and execute projects. Each district office is headed by a district commander, who is also a military officer. Each district office performs the following seven functions that are relevant to executing its projects: (1) planning, (2) engineering, (3) construction, (4) operations, (5) program and project management, (6) resource management, and (7) regulatory functions. Furthermore, district offices are responsible for coordinating with project stakeholders such as state and local partners. The Civil Works Program operates 50 Centers of Expertise and seven research laboratories, which assist Corps division and district offices in the planning, design, and technical review of civil works projects. The Centers of Expertise are designated individuals or organizations—located either in district offices, division offices, or research laboratories—with capability or expertise in a specialized area. The Corps designates employees at various levels within the organization to oversee, manage, and coordinate the centers. The Corps established the centers to consolidate expertise, improve consistency, reduce redundancy, and enhance institutional knowledge, among other things. The Corps’ seven research laboratories support DOD and other agencies in military and civilian projects. For example, the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory performs ocean, estuarine, riverine, and watershed regional scale systems analyses research support work for the Corps and the DOD Task Force in support of the Ocean Commission. The Centers of Expertise program is comprised of 10 mandatory centers and 40 nonmandatory centers. The Corps requires that district and division offices consult the mandatory Centers of Expertise that are relevant to their projects during project planning, formulation, or execution. For example, if a district is implementing a hydropower project, it must consult the Hydropower Analysis Center, a mandatory Center of Expertise, on project analysis or economic benefit evaluations. The set of 40 nonmandatory centers are known collectively as a Directory of Expertise, and their use is discretionary. Divisions and districts may seek out the expertise of the centers in the directory as needed. The Centers of Expertise, both mandatory and nonmandatory, are typically funded out of project budgets, and according to the Corps, collectively these centers have unique and unparalleled expertise that is critical to the functions of district and division offices. The conference reports accompanying the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts generally lists individual projects and specific allocations of funding for each project. Through this report, the appropriations committees essentially outline their priorities for the Corps’ water resource projects. Congress directs funds for many individual projects in increments over the course of several years. For example, a construction project to reduce flood damage in the Greenbrier River Basin of West Virginia has an estimated total cost of $158 million. The conference reports directed $1.5 million to this project in fiscal year 2009 and $1.4 million in fiscal year 2010. Additional funding for this project will be contingent upon future congressional appropriations. In fiscal year 2010, funding for civil works projects included annual appropriations of over $5.4 billion through the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act provides funds for nine appropriation accounts, which support eight of the Civil Works Program’s nine major business lines. In addition to the funding received through annual appropriations acts, the Corps received supplemental appropriations in 6 of the past 8 fiscal years. Also, as outlined in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, the Corps typically receives funds, particularly for construction projects, from each project’s local sponsor, which may be a state, tribal, county, or local agency or government. The degree of cost sharing required varies by, among other things, project purpose. The Corps has faced significant changes in its mission, budget, staffing, and workload over the last several decades. As a result, the Corps has had mixed results in modifying certain aspects of its organizational alignment, such as the roles, responsibilities, and resources of its components in response to these changes. While the agency’s fundamental structure has remained the same since 1893, it has made efforts to realign its organization within its three-tiered structure—some of which have been implemented, but others were not. The Corps’ civil works mission started with navigation responsibilities in 1824 when Congress passed the General Survey Act, which authorized the President to use the Corps to survey road and canal routes of commercial or military importance. Since that time, the Corps’ civil works mission has expanded to include the following additional responsibilities: flood risk management, regulatory program, water supply, hydropower, recreation, environment, emergency management, and support for others (see fig. 2). Appendix III contains a more detailed timeline of key events and legislation related to the Corps’ civil works mission. Over time, the Corps has also seen fluctuations in its appropriations and obligations, staffing levels, and workload. For example, although the Corps had relatively stable appropriations and obligations for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, subsequent years have shown more variability in funding (see fig. 3 and fig. 4). In recent years, some of this variability is a result of supplemental funding that has been provided to the Corps for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. According to a senior Corps budget official, funding has also been directed to expenses related to the consequences of hurricanes Gustav and Ike (both 2008 hurricanes), as well as the 2008 Midwest floods. In fiscal year 2009, the agency received supplemental funding of about $5.8 billion for hurricane protection in Louisiana; and the Corps received $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. At the same time, Corps-wide allocations for staff, measured in FTEs, has declined from over 28,000 in 1980 to fewer than 22,000 in 2009 (see fig. 5). However, the extent of the decline in FTEs has also varied by divisions and districts, and some offices have seen a slight increase in FTEs. For example, from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2009, FTEs in the North Atlantic Division reduced by over 24 percent from 2,417 FTEs to 1,822 FTEs, while FTEs in the Northwestern Division reduced by about 7 percent from 3,840 FTEs to 3,557 during the same time period (see table 1). Similarly, while FTEs in the Seattle District increased by about 5 percent, from 539 FTEs in fiscal year 2000 to 567 FTEs in fiscal year 2009, FTEs in the Honolulu District reduced by about 57 percent, from 130 in fiscal year 2000 to 56 in fiscal year 2009. This variability has also been seen in the divisions’ and districts’ workload. For instance, between fiscal years 2000 and 2009, the Pacific Ocean Division’s construction and O&M project expenditures have ranged from a low of $18,756,845 to a high of $73,960,902, while the Mississippi Valley Division ranged from a low of $882,822,221 to a high of $957,991,516 (see table 2). Similarly, in some districts like Seattle, construction and O&M project expenditures have ranged from a low of $62,716,478 to a high of $78,650,927, while Honolulu’s has ranged from a low of $2,583,263 to a high of $13,884,393. Appendix IV contains detailed information on the Corps’ budget, staffing, and workload for each of the 38 districts. The Corps’ three-tiered structure—headquarters, divisions, and districts— has remained the same since 1893. However, in some instances, the number of divisions and districts and the roles and responsibilities have changed in response to changes in the agency’s mission, workload, funding mechanisms, staffing levels, and budget. Some past efforts to realign the agency include the following: Expanding mission. The Corps has realigned as a result of its expanding mission. For example, in 1824 the Corps’ primary mission was navigation, but as the Corps’ mission expanded and as a result of the increased responsibility given to the Corps, it realigned into eight divisions largely based on watershed boundaries.