Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Congressional research reportJul 14, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Transportation Policy
(name redacted)
Analyst in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
July 14, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43298
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Summary
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014, P.L. 113-121)
became law on June 10, 2014. The conference report, H.Rept. 113-449, resolved differences
between H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 (WRRDA 2013),
and S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 (WRDA 2013). Both bills represented
omnibus authorization legislation for water resource activities, principally associated with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
Authorizing and Deauthorizing Projects. WRRDA 2014 authorized 34 construction projects
totaling $25.65 billion ($15.64 billion federal, $10.01 billion nonfederal). It established expedited
House and Senate procedures for bills authorizing construction projects meeting specified criteria.
It requires an annual report from the Administration identifying proposed new studies, completed
feasibility reports, and project modification reports. WRRDA 2014 also authorized a process to
deauthorize previously authorized projects with federal costs to complete totaling $18 billion; the
process will be led by the Administration, with opportunities for public input and congressional
disapproval.
Expediting Studies, Environmental Reviews, and Permits. The conference report, like H.R.
3080 and S. 601, aimed to expedite Corps studies and compliance with applicable environmental
laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It raised the project cost trigger
for independent peer review of feasibility studies from $45 million to $200 million.
Expanding Project Delivery and Financing Opportunities. The conference report, like H.R.
3080 and S. 601, encouraged nonfederal opportunities in delivering water resources projects. It
expanded opportunities for crediting for nonfederal work, financial, and study and project
management. Like S. 601, the conference report established a pilot program known as the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) to finance water infrastructure projects. The
Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for administering the
WIFIA pilot program.
Investing in Navigation. WRRDA 2014 encouraged increased spending from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). It modified prioritization of HMTF funding among different
types of harbors but retains similar provisions contained in H.R. 3080 and S. 601 reserving
certain portions of funds to harbors with less cargo. The conference report, like H.R. 3080 and S.
601, did not enact changes to inland waterway revenues in general but increased the threshold for
major rehabilitation efforts on inland waterways, authorized changes to waterway project
delivery, and altered the cost-share for one project (Olmsted Locks and Dam). These changes may
increase the likelihood of Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) monies being available for use
on other inland waterway construction projects.
Reducing Flood Risks. WRRDA 2014 authorized establishment of a levee safety initiative—a
scaled-down version of S. 601 provisions—expanding Corps technical assistance and training to
promote levee safety, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance in
establishing or improving state and tribal levee safety programs, and Corps levee rehabilitation
assistance. Like H.R. 3080 and S. 601, WRRDA 2014 required the Corps to develop national
levee safety guidelines and review.
Congressional Research Service
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Restoring and Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems. WRRDA 2014 provided congressional direction
on various efforts for regional river and coastal restoration (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, North Atlantic
coastal restoration) and authorized the construction of projects which have previously been
studied in the Everglades and Coastal Louisiana, among other places. It also added to Corps
authorities for the prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species.
Addressing Other Issues. WRRDA 2014 included provisions amending the applicability of the
scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s oil spill prevention, control, and countermeasure
regulations, by exempting certain farms from the requirements. It also included amendments to
certain water infrastructure provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These CWA provisions,
while representing the first amendments to CWA Title VI since 1987, did not address many of the
more long-standing or controversial CWA issues. WRRDA 2014 did not include the ocean-related
provisions of H.R. 3080 and S. 601. Instead, it authorized the Corps studies and limited
construction of Corps projects to enhance ocean and coastal ecosystem resiliency.
Congressional Research Service
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Contents
WRRDA Conference Report Developments ................................................................................... 1
Comparison of H.R. 3080, S. 601, and Conference Report ............................................................. 3
Expediting Studies, Environmental Reviews, and Permits .............................................................. 4
Corps Studies ............................................................................................................................. 6
Environmental Reviews............................................................................................................. 7
Corps Permitting...................................................................................................................... 10
Expanding Project Delivery and Finance Opportunities................................................................ 16
Nonfederal Work and Leadership on Studies and Projects ...................................................... 16
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)..................................................... 16
Authorizing Projects and Managing Subsequent Authorizations .................................................. 26
Project Authorizations and Authorized Project Purposes ........................................................ 26
Subsequent Authorization Processes ....................................................................................... 27
New Studies....................................................................................................................... 27
New Project Authorizations and Modifications of Project Scope ..................................... 27
Project Cost Modifications and Project Modifications ..................................................... 28
Investing in Navigation.................................................................................................................. 33
Harbors .................................................................................................................................... 33
Inland Waterways .................................................................................................................... 34
Reducing Flood Risks .................................................................................................................... 40
Restoring and Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems .............................................................................. 47
Ecosystem Restoration ............................................................................................................ 47
Invasive Species ...................................................................................................................... 48
Deauthorizing Projects and Managing the Backlog....................................................................... 51
Addressing Other Issues ................................................................................................................ 54
Oil Spill Prevention on Farms ................................................................................................. 54
Clean Water Act Amendments ................................................................................................. 54
Ocean Policy............................................................................................................................ 55
Tables
Table 1. Provisions Covered by CRS Report ................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Select Expediting Study and Permit Provisions ............................................................... 11
Table 3. Select Provisions Intended to Expedite Environmental Reviews .................................... 13
Table 4. Select Provisions to Expand Project Delivery and Financing Opportunities ................... 18
Table 5. Select WIFIA Provisions .................................................................................................. 23
Table 6. Select Project Authorization Provisions ........................................................................... 30
Table 7. Select Provisions on Subsequent Authorizations of Studies, Projects, and Project
Modifications .............................................................................................................................. 31
Table 8. Select HMTF Provisions .................................................................................................. 36
Table 9. Select Inland Waterways Provisions ................................................................................ 39
Congressional Research Service
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Table 10. Select Flood Safety Provisions ...................................................................................... 42
Table 11. Select Ecosystem Restoration and Invasive Species Provisions .................................... 49
Table 12. Select Provisions on Deauthorization and Managing the Backlog ................................ 52
Table 13. Select Ocean Policy, Oil Spill Prevention, and Clean Water Act Provisions ................. 56
Table A-1. Crosswalk of P.L. 113-121, H.R. 3080, and S. 601 Bill Titles ..................................... 59
Appendixes
Appendix. Crosswalk of Titles and Subtitles of P.L. 113-121, H.R. 3080, and S. 601 ................. 59
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 60
Congressional Research Service
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
WRRDA Conference Report Developments
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014, P.L. 113-121)
became law on June 10, 2014. Its conference report, H.Rept. 113-449, resolved differences
between the House-passed H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2013 (WRRDA 2013), and the Senate-passed S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of
2013 (WRDA 2013).1 The conference report adopted Water Resources Reform and Development
Act for the act’s title. Both H.R. 3080 and S. 601 represented omnibus authorization legislation
focused on water resource activities, principally of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and a few
other environmental issues. The bills addressed many similar issues, but often used different
means. During the House and Senate deliberations, some Members expressed frustration with
how long Corps projects take. Some Members also expressed interest in authorizing new projects
and deauthorizing older unconstructed projects. Some Members wanted more prominent
nonfederal roles. Others supported more funding for harbor maintenance and improved inland
waterway construction. The earmark debate and concerns about congressional roles also shaped
each bill’s approach. The Administration provided comments during congressional deliberations.
The two most recent communications consisted of a December 11, 2013, letter from the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), hereinafter referred to as the ASA, to the conference
managers;2 and Army Corps testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure (T&I), Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, on April 29, 2014.
Authorizing Projects. WRRDA 2014 authorized a fixed set of 34 new construction projects
totaling $25.65 billion ($15.64 billion in federal costs and $10.01 billion in nonfederal costs)3 and
increased the authorization of appropriations for eight previously authorized projects. It
established expedited House procedures for the remainder of the 113th Congress and expedited
Senate procedures through 2018 for bills authorizing construction projects that meet specified
criteria. It requires an “Annual Report” from the ASA to Congress identifying proposed new
studies (including studies proposed by nonfederal entities) and completed feasibility and project
modification reports. When the Senate passed S. 601 on May 15, 2013, there were an estimated
19 construction projects representing approximately $10.8 billion ($6.3 billion federal and $4.5
billion nonfederal) that appeared to meet the new project authorization criteria in S. 601. When
the House passed H.R. 3080 on October 23, 2013, it would have authorized a fixed set of 23 new
construction projects at a total cost of $13.0 billion ($7.7 billion in federal costs and $5.3 billion
in nonfederal costs). WRRDA 2014 included no comparable title to Title III of S. 601, Project
Modifications.
1
On October 31, 2013, the Senate considered H.R. 3080, and replaced the text passed by the House with the text of S.
601 as passed by the Senate. The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference. While the House and
Senate versions of H.R. 3080 were the basis for conference, this report compares H.R. 3080 as passed by the House and
S. 601 as passed by the Senate, which is identical to the Senate version of H.R. 3080.
2
Letter from Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, to Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator David
Vitter, Representative Bill Shuster, and Representative Nick J. Rahall, II, December 11, 2013, http://www.eenews.net/
assets/2013/12/12/document_daily_03.pdf; hereinafter ASA’s December 2013 letter to conference managers.
3
These amounts represent the project construction cost (including beach nourishment); they do not include operation
and maintenance. These amounts do not represent the same information as a CBO score of the potential budget impact
of authorizing these projects.
Congressional Research Service
1
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Expediting Studies, Environmental Reviews, and Permits. P.L. 113-121, like H.R. 3080 and S.
601, encouraged completion of Corps studies within three years, limited study costs, and
established new procedures intended to expedite Corps completion of environmental compliance
requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Independent peer review
was among the “reforms” adopted in WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114). WRRDA 2014’s conference
report raised the standard threshold for performing an independent peer review of a feasibility
study from $45 million total project costs to $200 million, and extend applicability of the review
requirement to studies initiated through 2019.
Expanding Project Delivery and Financing Opportunities. WRRDA 2014, like H.R. 3080 and
S. 601, encouraged nonfederal opportunities in delivering water resources projects through
provisions on crediting for nonfederal work and increasing opportunities for nonfederal
contributions and nonfederal study and project management. It required the ASA to establish a
five-year pilot program for nonfederal management of studies and a five-year pilot program of 15
projects for nonfederal management of project construction. It also consolidated various
authorities under which nonfederal entities can perform construction on water resources projects
and allow the federal share of construction costs to be reimbursed or credited (and credit
transferred to other projects). Like S. 601, WRRDA 2014 established a pilot program known as
the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) to finance water infrastructure
projects. The Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are responsible for
administering the pilot program.
Investing in Navigation. WRRDA 2014, like H.R. 3080 and S. 601, encouraged increased
spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). As in S. 601, the enacted legislation
eliminated the 50% nonfederal cost sharing requirement for harbor maintenance between 45 and
50 feet deep. It modified prioritization of HMTF funding among different types of harbors but
retained similar provisions contained in H.R. 3080 and S. 601 reserving certain portions of funds
to harbors with less cargo. The final legislation, like H.R. 3080 and S. 601, did not enact changes
to inland waterway revenues in general but increased the threshold for major rehabilitation efforts
on inland waterways, authorized changes to waterway project delivery, and altered the cost-share
for one project (Olmsted Locks and Dam). These changes may increase the likelihood of Inland
Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) monies being available for use on other inland waterway
construction projects.
Reducing Flood Risks. P.L. 113-121 authorized establishment of a levee safety initiative that
expanded Corps technical assistance and training to promote levee safety, expanded Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance in establishing or improving state and tribal
levee safety programs, and expanded Corps authority to provide levee rehabilitation assistance.
Elements of the enacted initiative are similar to provisions in S. 601, but with either no or lower
levels of authorizations of appropriations. Like H.R. 3080 and S. 601, the enacted legislation
required the ASA to develop national levee safety guidelines and review and update Corps
guidelines for vegetation on levees. Similar to S. 601, the conference report allowed the ASA to
repair a levee to the design level of protection (rather than to pre-storm conditions) or if needed
modify the project to address major deficiencies or implement nonstructural measures. WRRDA
2014 directed the ASA to ensure that part of its levee inspection program provides adequate
information for reaching a levee accreditation decision for purposes of floodplain mapping related
to FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) mapping.
Congressional Research Service
2
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Restoring and Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems. WRRDA 2014 provided congressional direction
related to various regional river and coastal restoration efforts (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, North
Atlantic coastal restoration) and authorized the construction of projects which have previously
been studied in the Everglades and in Coastal Louisiana, among other places. Similar to a
proposal in H.R. 3080, WRRDA 2014 also added to Corps authority to undertake activities for the
prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species at Corps projects.
Deauthorizing Projects and Managing the Backlog. WRRDA 2014 created a one-time process
aimed at deauthorizing previously authorized projects with federal costs to complete totaling $18
billion; the ASA is responsible for leading the process, and is required to provide opportunity for
public input and congressional disapproval. This one-time process and other backlog provisions
included in P.L. 113-121 combined elements of the deauthorization and backlog management
provisions of H.R. 3080 and S. 601.
Addressing Other Issues. The conference report included provisions, different from those in S.
601, amending the applicability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s oil spill prevention,
control, and countermeasure regulations. The enacted legislation also included certain water
infrastructure provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) that were not included in H.R. 3080 or S.
601. These CWA provisions, while representing the first amendments to CWA Title VI since
1987, did not address many of the more longstanding or controversial CWA issues. Most of the
CWA provisions included in WRRDA 2014 addressed CWA Title VI, which authorized grants to
states to capitalize state loan programs (State Revolving Funds, or SRFs) for wastewater
treatment facility projects.
P.L. 113-121 did not include the ocean-related provisions of the House and Senate bills. H.R.
3080 would have prohibited programs or actions authorized by H.R. 3080 to be used for
furthering implementation of Executive Order 13547 on coastal and marine spatial planning. S.
601 would have created a National Endowment for the Oceans. Instead, WRRDA 2014
authorized the ASA to undertake studies of Corps projects in coastal zones to enhance ocean and
coastal ecosystem resiliency; it also authorized the construction of smaller projects or inclusion of
recommendations for congressional authorization in the Annual Report.
Comparison of H.R. 3080, S. 601, and Conference
Report
The remainder of this report provides a side-by-side analysis of selected provisions of H.R. 3080,
S. 601, and the conference report which became WRRDA 2014. The selection of provisions
addressed herein was based on attention during congressional deliberations, significance for the
Corps and its activities, or policy differences between the bills. Many of the project-specific or
geographically specific provisions (e.g., provisions of Titles III and V of S. 601, Title IV of the
conference report) generally are not discussed. The Appendix identifies the comparable titles of
the two bills and conference report. The report is divided into the sections shown in Table 1.
Congressional Research Service
3
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Table 1. Provisions Covered by CRS Report
Sections
of H.R. 3080
CRS Report Section
Titles and Sections
of S. 601
Titles and Sections
of Conference Report of
WRRDA 2014
(P.L. 113-121)
“Expediting Studies,
Environmental Reviews,
and Permits”
101, 102, 103, 104
2033, 2034, 2042
1001, 1002, 1005, 1006,
1044
“Expanding Project
Delivery and Finance
Opportunities”
107, 108, 109, 112, 116,
117
2011, 2012, 2013, 2025,
2032, Title X, 11005
1007, 1014, 1015,1016,
1017, 1018, 1020, 1043,
5021-5035
“Authorizing Projects and
Managing Subsequent
Authorizations”
111, 118, 121, 133, 143,
401, 402
1002, 1003, 1004, 2003,
2004, 2014, 2055, 4002,
Title V
1023, 1030, 1036, 1045,
7001, 7002, 7003, 7004
“Investing in Navigation”
201, 202, 206, 212, 213,
214, 216
7003, 7004, 7005, 7006,
7007, 7008, 8003, 8004,
8005
2002, 2003, 2004, 2006,
2007, 2101, 2102, 2104,
2105, 2106, 2107
“Reducing Flood Risks”
122, 124, 126, 127, 147
2003, 2020, 2021, 2022,
2030, 2040, 6004, 6005,
6007, 6009, Title IX, 11004
1030, 1036, 1037, 3001,
3013, 3014, 3016, 3017,
3025, 3029,
“Restoring and Protecting
Aquatic Ecosystems”
137, 144, 145
2045, 2052, 3018, 5002,
5003, 5007
1011, 1039, 4009, 4010,
4011
“Deauthorizing Projects
and Managing the Backlog”
119, 301, 302, 303
2049
6001, 6002, 6003
“Addressing Other Issues”
146
Title XII, 13001
1049, 4014, 5001-5013
Expediting Studies, Environmental Reviews, and
Permits
Like both the House and Senate bills, the conference report for WRRDA 2014 included
provisions aimed at expediting water project delivery and permit processing. Most of these
provisions intended to expedite—
•
Corps studies by establishing deadlines, schedules, or funding limits for
feasibility studies and eliminating certain study requirements;
•
environmental compliance requirements, including primarily provisions intended
to expedite Corps compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
outside agency issuance of any permit, review, or other approval required under
any applicable federal law; and
•
Corps permitting.
During the House and Senate deliberations, some Members expressed frustration with the cost
and duration of Corps studies. Most Corps feasibility studies are cost-shared 50% federal and
50% nonfederal. The degree to which various factors and requirements contribute to the time it
takes to complete a Corps study is difficult to parse out and attribute to a single environmental
requirement. For example, activities performed to demonstrate compliance with applicable
Congressional Research Service
4
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
environmental requirements may occur concurrently to the Corps completing actions required by
other laws (e.g., preparing analyses necessary to determine a project’s economic costs and
benefits). The larger, more complex, and costly the project being studied, often the longer each
step in the study process may take to complete. Anecdotal evidence indicates that individual
studies may take longer due to disagreements with federal resource agencies or state permitting
agencies, but there are limited data available to determine whether such delays are systemic or
project-specific. The role that Congress plays in authorizing studies and project construction and
the timing of appropriations have been identified as factors having significant effect on the
duration of studies and ultimately project delivery.4 For example, in terms of the project
development process, years may pass between the following steps shown in each bullet:
•
approval to initiate a study, to appropriation of federal funds for the study,
•
complete reconnaissance study, to initiation of feasibility study,5 and
•
ASA transmission to Congress of the feasibility report, to congressional
construction authorization.
At an April 29, 2014, House T&I Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment hearing,
the Corps witness testified that, while the agency is committed to expediting the Corps planning
process:
certain elements of provisions in the proposed legislation regarding the elimination of
reconnaissance studies, fixed lengths for feasibility studies, project permitting and
environmental streamlining, study authority resolutions, and the application of Independent
External Peer Review, could actually become counterproductive. By constraining the Corps
from exercising the same initiative that led to Civil Works Transformation and Planning
Modernization, certain requirements could lead to a less flexible, overly restrictive program
that reduces efficiency, hinders project approval, and increases the probability of a project
being terminated.6
4
On June 5, 2013, Major General Michael Walsh, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations,
testified at the House T&I Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment’s hearing “A Review of the United
States Army Corps of Engineer’s Reports” (testimony available at http://transportation.house.gov/hearing/reviewunited-states-army-corps-engineers-chief%E2%80%99s-reports). In response to various questions from several
Members of Congress, the General discussed issues that may delay project delivery, as well as efforts being
implemented by the Corps to streamline project delivery. Processes or procedures related to meeting environmental
compliance requirements were not included among those that delayed projects or that were being changed to accelerate
delivery, he testified. The limited availability of funds necessary to continue the number of projects authorized for
construction was identified as the primary factor affecting the timing of project delivery. When asked specifically
whether or which environmental regulatory requirements implemented by outside agencies could be eliminated to
expedite project delivery, the General stated that he could not identify a single set of requirements established by
Congress that he would suggest eliminating to streamline the process.
5
A feasibility study cannot be begun for most projects until a feasibility cost-share agreement with the nonfederal
entity has been negotiated and signed. Also, beginning a feasibility report may be considered as starting a new study
phase during Administration budget development; ongoing studies, rather than studies entering new phases, have been
prioritized for appropriations in recent years.
6
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Army Corps of Engineers Chief’s Reports, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., April 29, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
5
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Findings and Responses to Independent Peer Review of Corps Studies
Whether independent peer review provisions of WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114) have improved Corps projects and
decision-making continues to be discussed. In a November 2013 Corps report on peer review, the Corps stated:
only one significant change to any project study recommended plan has resulted from IEPR. A review
comment on the Olmsted Lock and Dam exposed a flaw in the treatment of contingencies within the
cost estimate. Correcting the cost estimate revealed a significant underestimation of the costs and
necessitated revising the report supporting a reauthorization request required under section 902 of
WRDA 1986, as amended. Overall, most review comments have focused on the need for improved
documentation (e.g., assumptions, methods, and rationale) and additional or more rigorous analyses.
The report also stated that peer review panel reports covering “68 project studies have produced 1155 total
comments, with 353 considered high significance.” Average cost per review was $175,000. The Corps responds, but
does not always adopt a panel’s comments. For example, a 2013 panel made a high significance comment that the
“Federal interest has not been demonstrated ... because a multi-port analysis assessing competition among regional
ports is not provided.” In 2014, the Corps chose not to adopt this comment explaining that: “it makes the most sense
to assume the net effect this [regional competitor port] interplay would be equilibrium. As such it is valid to assume
that each seaport will continue to retain its historical share of regional cargo...shifting cargo benefits among regional
ports is excluded from the decision making process.”
In a 2010 Corps report on peer review, the Corps stated that a high significance comment “describes a fundamental
problem with the project that could affect the recommendation, justification, or success of the project.” The 2010
report included per project review costs and summarized Corps responses. At that time, the project with the highest
review cost was the Louisiana Coastal Protect and Restoration project at $586,000; changes made to the project in
response to panel findings included: additional analyses to address risk assessments of structural measures, additional
documentation of tradeoffs to inform plan selection and address tradeoffs, and actions to coordinate activities across
coastal Louisiana programs and business lines. The least costly review was $97,000. This 2010 Corps report found: “A
frequent comment provided to the [coastal storm damage reduction] was that the design analyses were deficient and
that a more refined analysis of design and build needed to be conducted” and “The reviewers of the [deep draft
navigation] reports commented that assumptions regarding future business (e.g., trucking costs, longshoreman
association fees, cement industry, transportation costs) and the benefits provided were not supported by analysis.”
A 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Corps’ peer review identified that in addition to direct
costs of peer reviews, Corps resources also are used to manage reviews; the GAO report also stated: “the addition
of peer review to the Corps study process has resulted in indirect costs by altering project study schedules to allow
for time needed to complete peer reviews.” GAO found: “By choosing to apply peer review late in the project study
process, the Corps has effectively chosen to not use the results of peer review to enhance its decision-making
process and ensure selection of the most effective project alternatives.” GAO recommended: “the Corps to, among
other actions, better track peer review studies, revise the criteria for determining which studies undergo peer review
and the timing of these reviews, and improve its process for ensuring contractor independence. “ The 2013 Corps
peer review report documents progress made on GAO’s recommendations.
Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report on the Implementation of Independent Peer Review, Nov. 2013, and
Summary of Independent External Peer Review Final Panel Comments, Nov. 5, 2010; and Memorandum from L.G. Thomas
P. Bostick, Chief of Engineers, to Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), on Jacksonville Harbor, Duval
County, Florida - Final USACE Response to Independent External Peer Review, April 16, 2014,
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectPlanning/CompletedPeerReviewReports.aspx; U.S. GAO, Peer
Review Process for Civil Works Project Studies Can Be Improved, GAO-12-352, March 8, 2012.
Corps Studies
The conference report for WRRDA 2014 required that the Corps complete feasibility studies
within certain time limits (with more flexibility provided for timing of study completion than in
H.R. 3080) and federal funding limits. Like §104 of the House bill, the conference report
eliminated the requirement to prepare a separate reconnaissance study and instead directed the
Corps to include analysis required for those studies (preliminary analysis of the federal interest
and the costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the project) in a feasibility report. Like
Congressional Research Service
6
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
§2034 of the Senate bill, the conference report required the Corps to develop a detailed project
schedule for certain milestones needed to complete feasibility studies. Selected provisions related
to study acceleration are shown in Table 2.
Independent peer review was among the “reforms” adopted in WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114).7 The
conference report raised the standard threshold for performing an independent peer review of a
feasibility study; it increased from $45 million total project costs to $200 million. Like S. 601, the
conference report extended the requirement for independent peer review from those studies
initiated between 2007 and 2014 to those initiated between 2007 and 2019, and amended the
congressional requirements on the reporting on decisions not to perform peer review and
distribution of the results of the peer review and the agency’s responses.
Environmental Reviews
Project acceleration provisions in WRRDA 2014 (§1005) are intended to expedite the Corps’
overall project development by expediting one element of the feasibility report process—
preparation of documents necessary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). To do so, WRRDA 2014 (§1005(a)) amended the project
streamlining requirements in Section 2045 of WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114, codified at 33 U.S.C.
2348).
The NEPA compliance process is sometimes referred to as the environmental review process.
Broadly, NEPA requires federal agencies to fully consider a project’s significant impacts on the
environment, and to inform the public of those impacts, before making a final decision about the
project.8 Provisions in the conference report (§1005(a)) expanded the definition of
“environmental review process” to include the “process for and completion of any environmental
permit, approval, review, or study required for a water resources project under any Federal law
other than NEPA.”9 Provisions in the conference report, however, apply primarily to actions taken
by the Corps within the context of demonstrating compliance with NEPA.
In accordance with its broader obligation to determine a project’s potential economic, social, and
environmental benefits and detriments, Corps planning is performed in accordance with its
“Environmental Evaluation and Compliance” process. That process is implemented by the Corps
to ensure that activities necessary to identify and demonstrate compliance with any applicable
environmental requirements are integrated into the Corps’ overall planning process. The
Environmental Evaluation and Compliance process includes steps necessary to ensure compliance
with environmental requirements that arise from local, tribal, state, or federal laws and
regulations that may apply as a result of project-specific impacts to protected resources. The
7
Another “reform” included in WRDA 2007 related to changes in how the Corps mitigates its project’s environmental
impacts. The conference report adopted provisions related to mitigation (§1044 and §1045), which were similar to
provisions in S. 601. The conference report also included language (§1028) authorizing the Corps to participate in costshared fish habitat measures at Corps projects with fish hatcheries that have been authorized to compensate for fish
losses.
8
Regulations implementing NEPA, applicable to all federal agencies, were promulgated by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) under 40 C.F.R. 1500-1508. Corps procedures to implement NEPA supplement the CEQ
regulations, at 33 C.F.R. 230, take into account issues specific to Corps projects, including requirements explicitly
applicable to the preparation of a feasibility study.
9
See also the definition of “project study,” in the conference report (§1005(a)), that refer to feasibility studies carried
out under 33 U.S.C. 2282.
Congressional Research Service
7
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
NEPA compliance process generally forms the framework that the Corps uses to identify
applicable project-specific requirements and to coordinate with outside agencies, if necessary, to
comply with those requirements. For projects that require a feasibility study, the Corps usually
must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS), pursuant to NEPA. Generally, it is Corps
practice to ensure that any outside agency consultations and decisions regarding any permits or
approvals are complete before a feasibility study/EIS is complete.
Many of the project acceleration provisions in the conference report (§1005(a)) pertained to
outside agency involvement in the NEPA process or in making decisions under other
environmental laws. Those provisions largely were intended to coordinate actions or input from
outside federal agencies which have some expertise regarding an affected resource or jurisdiction
by law to control the impacts to that resource (e.g., an agency authorized to issue a permit or
other approval associated with an impact to that resource).10
Prior to WRRDA 2014, Section 2045 of WRDA 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348) required that the Corps
establish a coordinated review process for any water resources project that requires the
preparation of a feasibility study and an EIS under NEPA. When implementing that process, the
Corps was authorized to establish a schedule for federal, state, or local government agencies or
Indian tribes to process, approve, or issue all reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and
approvals required for a water resources project (which is also allowed under existing regulations
implementing NEPA).11 Provisions included in the conference report similarly apply to project
studies that require the preparation of an EIS under NEPA, but may also be applied to other
projects as deemed appropriate by the ASA.
As in Section 2045 of WRDA 2007, many of the provisions in WRRDA 2014 codify
requirements that are largely similar to preexisting regulations implementing NEPA.12 However,
some provisions may add to or change preexisting Corps practices or requirements used to
demonstrate compliance with NEPA, or change outside agencies’ procedures for completing their
respective decision-making processes. Selected provisions that may result in such changes are
listed in Table 3. While the conference report may change certain procedures applicable to
environmental reviews, none appear to substantially affect the Corps’ obligation to comply with
existing environmental requirements (established under NEPA or any other environmental law)
that may apply to a project.
Until the Corps interprets the project acceleration provisions and integrates them with its current
Environmental Evaluation and Compliance process, it is difficult to determine whether the
procedural changes will expedite environmental reviews. Some of provisions could add time to
10
The Corps is obligated to coordinate its analysis of project impacts with other federal agencies that have jurisdiction
over any affected resource or that may have expertise necessary to assess the degree to which the project may have a
regulated impact. Those agencies would not necessarily be authorized to “approve” or “disapprove” a Corps project.
However, they may be required under federal law to specify conditions under which a project may proceed (e.g., in the
form of a permit or certification) or methods to mitigate impacts to a protected resource.
11
See CEQ requirements applicable to time limits, at 40 C.F.R. 1501.8.
12
Many provisions in the conference report (§1005) codified requirements largely similar to requirements established
by CEQ in its regulations implementing NEPA (see “NEPA and Agency Planning” requirements in 40 C.F.R. Part
1501, “Elimination of duplication with state and local procedures” at 40 C.F.R. 1506.2, and “Agency procedures” at 40
C.F.R. 1507.3). These included provisions in §1005 pertaining to the project review process, lead agency
responsibilities, participation of the lead and cooperating agencies, programmatic compliance, memoranda of
agreement for early coordination, and development of categorical exclusions. That is, the conference report codified
requirements similar to those already implemented by the Corps, in accordance with previous directives from CEQ.
Congressional Research Service
8
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
the Corps’ already complex planning process. For example under WRRDA 2014, the Corps is
required to prepare a coordination plan to coordinate and schedule outside agency participation in
the environmental review process (see Table 3). When preparing the plan, the Corps is required
to set deadlines for outside agencies to complete the environmental review process—something
the Corps could previously do on a project-by-project basis. Those deadlines may be extended for
“good cause.” Other than requiring the Corps to prepare an additional planning document, this
provision may not substantially alter the Corps’ procedures to coordinate outside agency actions.
The conference report (§1005(a)) also establishes unique requirements applicable to the NEPA
compliance process, in general, but may have limited impact on the Corps’ NEPA process, in
particular. Specifically, financial penalty provisions create a unique system of reprogramming a
federal agency’s funding if that agency does not reach a decision on a permit, license, or other
approval by a certain deadline (the later of 180 days after an application for the approval is
complete; and the Corps completes the NEPA process). As discussed above, the Corps generally
does not complete the NEPA process until permits and other required approvals are in place. Also,
approvals required for Corps projects, including those required under federal environmental laws,
are most often issued by state, tribal or local agencies, not federal agencies. Given the timing in
which the Corps generally has such approvals in place and the role that federal agencies generally
have in issuing such approvals for Corps projects, there may be limited circumstances in which
the financial penalty provisions may be invoked.
WRRDA 2014 also included a provision (§1005(b)) related to actions associated with the repair,
reconstruction or rehabilitation of a project in operation or under construction when damaged in
an event associated with a major disaster or emergency declared by the President pursuant to the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq.). Such actions would be processed as a categorical exclusion (CE), pursuant to CEQ
regulations (40 CFR 1508.4). According to those CEQ regulations, projects known by an agency
to have no significant impact on the environment may be categorically excluded from the
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or EIS, under NEPA. Those regulations also
provide for conditions under which an agency may be required to determine whether a given
project involves “extraordinary circumstances” that may result in significant impacts (e.g.,
circumstances that may require additional review under NEPA).
WRRDA 2014 (§1005(b)) may not substantially change Corps practices. In its procedures
implementing NEPA, the Corps explicitly identifies “activities at completed Corps projects” as
actions processed as CEs, regardless of whether those activities are undertaken in response to an
emergency.13 If the action is to address a project “under construction,” any additional NEPA
compliance may not be required, since the impacts of that project would presumably be evaluated
in an existing NEPA document. Also, the Stafford Act statutorily exempts certain disaster-related
activities from NEPA, including the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a
damaged public facility.14 As a result, some disaster–related repairs undertaken by the Corps
could potentially be waived from NEPA. Designating a project as a CE is not a waiver from
NEPA. Until the Corps interprets this directive, it is not clear whether it could result in a project
being subject to some, albeit limited, level of NEPA review when it otherwise may have been
subject to no review, pursuant to the Stafford Act.
13
See 33 C.F.R. § 230.9(b).
The NEPA exclusion is specified at 42 U.S.C. 5159; the actions potentially subject to that waiver involving the
repair, restoration, and replacement of existing facilities are specified at 42 U.S.C. 5172.
14
Congressional Research Service
9
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Corps Permitting
In addition to undertaking water resources projects, the Corps also has regulatory responsibilities
related to activities that may affect navigable waters and wetlands.
H.R. 3080 and S. 601 each included provisions that could be identified as accelerating or
streamlining the Corps’ regulatory program as shown in Table 2. Both bills proposed eliminating
the expiration of a Corps authority that allows the agency to accept funds from nonfederal public
entities to expedite the processing of Corps permits for projects serving a public purpose. The
authority was set to expire December 31, 2016. Additionally, H.R. 3080 would have expanded the
eligibility of entities that can provide funds to the Corps to expedite its processing of permits. The
current authority is limited to nonfederal public entities. H.R. 3080 would have added publicutility companies and natural gas companies. In December 2010, Congress clarified in P.L. 111315 that private entities were not eligible entities under this authority after concerns that a Corps
district was allowing limited use of the authority by private entities at the request of public
entities.15 S. 601 would not have expanded the eligible entities for this authority; instead, S. 601
would have required the Corps take steps to improve the transparency, reporting, and consistency
of how this authority is implemented.16
Ultimately WRRDA 2014 (§1006) altered and expanded the existing authority to allow publicutility companies and natural gas companies to provide funds to the Corps to expedite the
agency’s processing of permits related to a project or activity for a public purpose. It also
extended the existing authority indefinitely by eliminating its expiration, with the limitation that
the authority for public utility companies and natural gas companies expires seven years after
enactment.
For Further Reading
CRS Report R43209, Environmental Requirements Addressed During Corps Civil Works Project
Planning: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorizations, Appropriations,
and Activities, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
15
Although there were no congressional reports that accompanied the enacted bill, the text of the bill had been included
in a larger bill (H.R. 5892, Water Resources Development Act of 2010) and discussed in the accompanying report,
H.Rept. 111-654; the report stated: “the Committee has expressed concern that allowing a regulated entity to contribute
to the cost of its regulator has the potential to affect the objectivity of that regulatory.”
16
In a 2010 letter to the then-Chairman of House T&I, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that
the Corps had made some progress on GAO’s 2007 recommendations to improve implementation of the authority, but
that it had not fully developed an oversight effort for district implementation of this authority (GAO, Status of U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Effort to Implement GAO’s 2007 Recommendations Regarding Its Section 214 Authority,
GA)-10-385R, February 19, 2010, http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/96553.pdf).
Congressional Research Service
10
Table 2. Select Expediting Study and Permit Provisions
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Feasibility
Study Limits
and
Termination
§101 would have required feasibility studies
be completed within 3 years of initiation,
have a maximum federal cost of $3 million,
and be concurrently reviewed within the
Corps. The Corps could have extended the
study period to up to one year, but if not
complete after that extension, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) (ASA) would have to notify
nonfederal partner and Congress that
authorization for the feasibility study would
be terminated.
§2032 would have required that a feasibility
study be completed within 3 years of initiation
and at a maximum federal cost of $3 million. If
the ASA determined the study cannot be
conducted accordingly due to its complexity,
nonfederal entities would have been notified
and a new project and cost timeline provided.
No change to existing study deauthorization
process (33 U.S.C. 2264).
§1001required feasibility studies be completed within 3
years of initiation (unless the ASA determines a study is too
complex to comply with this requirement), have a
maximum federal cost of $3 million, and be concurrently
reviewed within the Corps. §1001 deauthorized any
feasibility study that is not completed 7 years after
initiation. §1001 required that the ASA, within 90 days of
initiating a feasibility study, begin the processes for
federally mandated reviews; convene a meeting of all
federal, tribal, and state agencies that may be required to
conduct a reviews and analyses for the study; and provide
the information for such reviews and analyses in a thorough
and timely manner. The ASA is required to report on
implementation 18 months and again four years after
enactment. The conference report made no changes to the
existing study deauthorization process in 33 U.S.C. 2264.
Expediting
Corps Permit
Processing
§102 would have expanded an existing
authority (33 U.S. 2201 note which had
been limited to nonfederal public entities)
to allow public-utility companies and
natural gas companies (as defined in 42
U.S.C. 16451) to provide funds to the
Corps to expedite the agency’s processing
of permits related to a project or activity
for a public purpose. §102 also would have
extended the authority indefinitely by
eliminating its expiration.
§2042 would have extended the authority
indefinitely by eliminating its expiration. It
would have clarified the Corps requirements
for public availability and consistency of
information regarding the use of this authority
and require the agency to produce an annual
report on its use.
§1006 expanded an existing authority (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)
which was limited to nonfederal public entities to allow
public-utility companies (as defined in 42 U.S.C. 16451) and
natural gas companies (as defined in 42 U.S.C. 16451 and
including a person engaged in the transportation of natural
gas in intrastate commerce) to provide funds to the Corps
to expedite the agency’s processing of permits related to a
project or activity for a public purpose. §1006 also
extended indefinitely the existing authority by eliminating
its expiration, with the limitation that the authority for
public utility companies and natural gas companies expires
7 years after enactment. §1006 required that GAO, within
4 years, study implementation of this authority for these
two types of companies. §1006 clarified the Corps
requirements for public availability and consistency of
information regarding the use of this authority and required
the agency to produce an annual report on its use.
CRS-11
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Feasibility
Report
Schedule
No comparable provision.
§2034 would have amended requirements
applicable to the preparation of Corps reports
(33 U.S.C. 2282) to require the preparation of
a “Detailed Project Schedule” to identify
milestones needed to complete a feasibility
report and establish deadlines to reach those
milestones. For any missed deadline, the Corps
would have been required to submit a report
to the nonfederal partner detailing why it was
missed.
§1002, among other things, amended requirements
applicable to the preparation of Corps reports (33 U.S.C.
2282) to require the preparation of a “Detailed Project
Schedule” identify milestones for study completion and
establish deadlines to reach those milestones. For any
missed deadline, §1002 required the Corps to submit a
report to the nonfederal partner detailing why it was
missed.
Consolidated
Reconnaissance and
Feasibility
Studies
§104 would have repealed existing directive
(33 U.S.C. 2282(b)) to the ASA to prepare
reconnaissance study before preparing a
feasibility study; and would have amended
requirements applicable to the contents of
feasibility reports to require the inclusion
of preliminary analysis previously required
for reconnaissance studies.
No comparable provision.
§1002, among other things, repealed an existing directive to
the ASA to prepare reconnaissance studies, like H.R. 3080.
No language was provided to clarify whether or not the
collection of preliminary analysis data is to be cost-shared
or 100% a federal expense.
Independent
Peer Review
Changes
No comparable provision.
§2007 would have amended the independent
peer review requirements for feasibility studies
from applying to studies initiated between
2007 and 2014 to those initiated between
2007 and 2019. It also would have provided
amended direction on reporting on reasons for
not initiating a peer review and distribution of
the results of the peer review and the agency’s
responses.
§1044 raised the standard trigger for independent peer
review of feasibility studies from projects estimated to cost
$45 million to $200 million, while extending the
requirement for such review for 12 years from 2007 (i.e.,
through 2019). §1044 also altered the peer review
requirements for reporting and distribution similar to S.
601.
Source: CRS.
CRS-12
Table 3. Select Provisions Intended to Expedite Environmental Reviews
Topics
H.R.3080
S.601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Project
Acceleration
§103(b) would have amended and replaced
Section 2045 of WRDA 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348,
Project Streamlining ) to create Streamlined
Project Delivery procedures that would have
applied to project studies, initiated after
enactment, that require the preparation of an
EIS under NEPA.
§2033 would have amended Section 2045 of
WRDA 2007 to establish new Project
Acceleration procedures. In addition to project
studies that require an EIS, the Secretary would
have been authorized to apply the procedures
to other projects, as the Secretary deemed
appropriate.
§1005(a) amended and replaced Project
Streamlining provisions in Section 2045 of
WRDA 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348) with new
Project Acceleration procedures intended to
expedite compliance with NEPA and other
environmental requirements. Similar to S. 601,
the procedures apply to project studies (i.e.,
projects that require the preparation of a
feasibility study) that require the preparation of
an EIS, but also may be applied to other
projects as the ASA deems appropriate.
(Selected amendments to Section 2045 are
discussed below.)
Coordination
Plan and
Deadlines
§103(b) would have included “Coordinated
Reviews” provisions, proposed under Section
2045(f), that would have required the Corps to
consult with relevant outside agencies to
establish a “Coordination Plan” and “Schedule”
to coordinate the timing of public and agency
participation in the environmental review
process.
§2033 would have included “Coordinated
Reviews” provisions, proposed under Section
2045(j), that would have required the
development of a Coordination Plan for
purposes similar the plan required in H.R.
3080, but with no separate provisions
applicable to a required schedule. Instead, the
Corps would have been required to
incorporate the plan into the project schedule
milestones established in the Detailed Project
Schedule, proposed in §2034 (see above).
§1005(a) included “Coordinated Reviews”
provisions, under Section 2045(g), that
required the Corps to consult with and with
the concurrence of the project sponsor and
each cooperating agency to establish a
Coordination Plan to coordinate public and
agency participation in the environmental
review process. Similar to provisions in S. 601,
the Corps is required to incorporate the plan
into the Detailed Project Schedule. The
Conference report specified factors to be
considered when establishing a schedule for
completion of the environmental review
process, largely similar to the proposed factors
that would have been considered in H.R. 3080,
with the exception that the schedule must be
completed as soon as practicable, but not later
than 45 days after the close of the public
comment period for a draft EIS. This directive
was largely similar to a requirement proposed
in S. 601 that was included among the Issue
Identification and Resolution provisions in
proposed Section 2045(k), discussed below.
Apart from potential timeframes established in
the schedule, the Corps would have been
required to establish “comment deadlines” for
outside agencies to comment on a draft EIS and
“other comment periods” that may have been
associated with the environmental review
process. Also, the proposed Section 2045(f)(4)
included “deadlines for decisions under other
laws.” The provision would have included
deadlines for outside federal or nonfederal
agencies to make a determination regarding or
to approve or disapprove a project study.
Separate statutory deadlines would have been
set for decisions required either before or after
the NEPA process is complete. If no action
CRS-13
Like H.R. 3080, deadlines would have been
established for comments on a draft EIS or
“other comments,” but also would have
specified conditions under which those
deadlines could be extended. Provisions
applicable to “deadlines for decisions under
other laws” would have been included, but
would have used deadlines established as part
of a Coordination Plan for an individual project,
not a statutory deadline applicable to all
projects. In contrast to H.R. 3080, if an agency
missed a deadline, the Corps would have been
Topics
H.R.3080
S.601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
was taken by the agency within the require
timeframe, the Corps would have been
authorized to close the record for the project
as it relates to that decision.
required to report missed deadline to
Congress, not close the record on the
decision.
Provisions applicable to the establishment of
deadlines for comments on a draft EIS, “other
comments,” and decisions under other laws are
largely similar to those in the S. 601.
Dispute
Resolution
Procedures
§103(b) would have included “Issue
Identification and Resolution” provisions,”
proposed under Section 2045(g), that would
have established procedures intended to
identify and resolve potential disputes that may
have arisen between the Corps and outside
federal and nonfederal agencies involved in the
project.
§2033 would have included “Issue Identification
and Resolution” provisions, proposed under
Section 2045(k); these would have established
procedures to resolve disputes between the
Corps and outside federal and nonfederal
agencies involved in the project. Unique to the
Senate proposal, S. 601 would have allowed the
Secretary, not later than 45 days after the close
of the public comment period for a draft EIS, to
convene a meeting with the project sponsor
and relevant outside agencies (federal and
nonfederal) to establish a schedule to complete
decisions on the project. Unlike H.R. 3080, S.
601 would have included requirements
applicable to a multi-tiered dispute resolution
process, that could have been initiated by the
Secretary, and that could potentially reach the
Council of Environmental Quality or the
President.
§1005(a) included “Issue Identification and
Resolution” provisions, under Section 2045(h),
that are, with a few exceptions, largely similar
to those proposed in S. 601. One exception
was that it did not include a multi-tiered
dispute resolution process. Instead, the
Secretary may resolve an issue with the heads
of other relevant federal agencies.
Financial
Penalty
Provisions
No comparable provisions.
§2033 would have included “Financial Penalty
Provisions,” in the “Issue Identification and
Resolution” provisions proposed under Section
2045(k)(5), that would have specified
conditions under which a federal agency could
have been fined if it failed to render a decision,
required under any federal law, within the later
of 180 days after—the Corps completed the
NEPA process; and an application for a
required permit, license, or approval was
completed. Among other provisions, S. 601
would have specified the dollar amount of
potential fines and the limit on such fines that
could be imposed on a single agency office for a
§1005(a) included “Financial Penalty
Provisions,” in the “Issue Identification and
Resolution” provisions under Section
2045(h)(5), that were largely similar to those
proposed in S. 601.
CRS-14
Topics
H.R.3080
S.601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
given project, the total amount assessed in a
single years on a single agency office, and
conditions under which an agency may not be
fined.
Statute of
Limitations
§103(b)would have included “Timing of Claims”
provisions, proposed under Section 2045(i),
that would have barred judicial review of a
permit, license, or other approval issued by a
federal agency for a project study unless it is
filed within 150 days publication of a notice in
the Federal Register announcing that the permit,
license, or other approval is final pursuant to
the law under which the agency action is taken,
unless a shorter time is specified in the Federal
law which allows judicial review.
No comparable provision.
§1005(a) included “Timing of Claims”
provisions, under Section 2045(k), that were
largely similar to those in H.R. 3080, with the
exception that judicial review of a permit,
license, or other approval issued by a federal
agency for a project study be barred unless it is
filed within three years after the publication of
a notice in the Federal Register announcing that
approval. The conference report specifies that
this provision creates no new right to judicial
review or limit a right of review if someone
was found to have violated a permit, license, or
other approval. A new statute of limitations
would apply if a supplemental EIS is prepared.
Categorical
Exclusions in
Emergencies
§103(c) would have specified that the repair,
reconstruction, or rehabilitation of a water
resources project, operating or under
construction when damaged by an event
related to a major disaster or emergency, as
declared by the President pursuant to the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, would have been
categorically excluded from the requirement to
prepare an environmental assessment or EIS
under NEPA, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 1508.4.
No comparable provision.
§1005(b) included provisions largely similar to
those proposed in H.R. 3080, with the
exception that the categorical exclusion applies
to such projects if commenced within two
years of the date of the disaster/emergency
declaration.
Source: CRS.
a. The provisions in §1005(a) are presented as amendments to Section 2045 of WRDA 2007 (i.e., not to 33 U.S.C. 2348). To more easily identify provisions being
discussed in this table, many of those provisions are additionally identified by their respective subsection in Section 2045.
CRS-15
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Expanding Project Delivery and Finance
Opportunities
Frustrations with the pace of Corps studies and construction, in part shaped by the pace of
congressional authorization and limitations on available federal appropriations, has fostered
interest in nonfederal entities, including private interests, having greater roles in project
development, construction, and financing. The challenge is whether nonfederal resources can be
leveraged while focusing current and future federal funds on those activities most in the national
interest.
Nonfederal Work and Leadership on Studies and Projects
Like H.R. 3080 and S. 601, WRRDA 2014 included multiple provisions to encourage and manage
nonfederal participation in project delivery. Table 4 identifies provisions for permitting, crediting,
and reimbursing for nonfederal work, and provisions that establish pilot programs for nonfederal
management and financing. The conference report consolidated most of the authorities for
nonfederal leadership for water resources studies and construction under two authorities, 33
U.S.C. 2231 and 33 U.S.C. 2232.17 WRRDA 2014 (§1014), like H.R. 3080, provided a
mechanism for nonfederal entities to initiate work on a project which has a completed feasibility
study, the milestone prior to a Chief’s Report. A Chief’s Report consists of the approval and
recommendations for a project by the Corps’ Chief of Engineers. The nonfederal entity would be
eligible to receive credit or reimbursement if Congress subsequently authorizes the project. The
conference report also required the ASA to establish a 5-year pilot program for nonfederal
management of studies and a 5-year pilot program of 15 projects for nonfederal management of
project construction.
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
Like S. 601, WRRDA 2014 included the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(WIFIA), which authorized a five-year pilot program for loans and loan guarantees for flood
damage reduction projects assisted by the Corps and public water supply and wastewater projects
assisted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The WIFIA concept is modeled after a
similar program that assists transportation projects, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act, or TIFIA, program. H.R. 3080 did not include comparable provisions. In a letter
to the conferee managers, the Administration had expressed concerns with the WIFIA proposal in
S. 601, “which would expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s and the Corps’ role in local
water infrastructure projects and not provide Federal assistance in the most efficient manner.”18
The conference report adopted the Senate’s WIFIA provisions with some additions and
modifications, as shown in Table 5. Notably, the conference report expanded the types of projects
17
The extent to which the annual use of these authorities may be limited is not addressed by the conference report; that
is, no changes were made to 33 U.S.C. 2221 stating that agreements proposed for execution by the ASA or the Corps
under various authorities, including 33 U.S.C. 2231 and 33 U.S.C. 2232, shall be limited to total credits and
reimbursements for all applicable projects not to exceed $100,000,000 in each fiscal year.
18
See footnote 2.
Congressional Research Service
16
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
that the Secretary of the Army may support with WIFIA assistance to include projects for flood
damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, environmental restoration, coastal or
inland harbor navigation improvement, or inland and intracoastal waterways navigation
improvement. Responding to concerns raised by some groups that WIFIA could impair and
diminish support for wastewater and drinking water State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs, the
conference report included language requiring EPA, when the agency receives applications for
WIFIA assistance, to give state infrastructure financing authorities a right of “first refusal” to
finance the project. Finally, the conference report reduced the authorized funding for the pilot
program from $250 million total for each agency ($50 million per year) to $175 million total for
each agency (beginning with $20 million for FY2015 and increasing to $50 million for FY2019).
For Further Reading
Congressional Distribution Memorandum, available from author: “Credit for Nonfederal Work on
Army Corps Projects” by (name redacted), April 12, 2013.
CRS Report R43315, Water Infrastructure Financing: Proposals to Create a Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
17
Table 4. Select Provisions to Expand Project Delivery and Financing Opportunities
Topic
H.R. 3080
Permits for
Nonfederal
Work at
Existing Corps
Projects
§107 would have established
benchmarks (e.g., approval of
complete applications in 45 days)
and processes to expedite permits
that would have approved
nonfederal modifications to Corps
projects, known as §14 applications.
No comparable provision.
§1007 included a provision similar to H.R. 3080.
Nonfederal
Study of
Projects
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
§1014 replaced an existing authority (33 U.S.C. 2231) for nonfederal studies of
harbor projects with a similarly structured authority that applies to all water
resources development projects.
Nonfederal
Construction
of Authorized
Projects
§108 would have expanded an
existing authority (33 U.S.C. 701b13) for nonfederal construction of
authorized projects to all type of
Corps projects and would have
required that work be performed
consistent with the laws and
regulations that apply to Corps
construction (e.g., Davis-Bacon Act
wage requirements would have
applied).
No comparable provision.
§1014 replaced an existing authority for nonfederal construction of harbor
projects (33 U.S.C. 2232) with a similarly structured authority that applies to
all water resources development projects. In addition to the existing limits in
33 U.S.C. 2232, §1014 allowed the ASA to establish conditions on the project.
Unlike the previous language in 33 U.S.C. 2232 which had required that the
ASA determine the project was “economically justified and environmentally
acceptable,” §1014 required the ASA to make a determination on whether the
“project is feasible.” Unlike the previous language in 33 U.S.C. 2232 which only
allowed for reimbursement for the federal share incurred by the nonfederal
entity without interest, §1014 allowed for reimbursement, credit, and transfer
of credit to a different project; however, it does not specify whether this is
with or without interest. §1014 added a requirement that the ASA notify
House T&I and Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committees
when a nonfederal entity notifies the ASA of its intent to construct a project
using this authority. §1014 conditions any credit or reimbursement for the
federal share of costs on the ASA determining that all “Federal laws and
regulations applicable to the construction of a water resources development
project, and any conditions identified” by the ASA were complied with during
construction.
§2013 would have allowed
nonfederal entities that construct
authorized flood damage reduction
projects to receive credit (in lieu of
the federal reimbursement) for the
federal share of project costs and
§1022 allowed a nonfederal entity undertaking construction under 33 U.S.C.
701b-13 before the date of enactment (§1014 repealed 33 U.S.C. 701b-13) to
receive credit or be reimbursed for the federal share of costs. The credit may
be transferred to other flood damage reduction studies or projects of the
nonfederal entity.
Credit in Lieu §108 would have allowed the
of Reimburse- nonfederal entity undertaking work
ment
under 33 U.S.C. 701b-13 to receive
credit or be reimbursed for the
federal share of costs. The credit
could have been transferred to any
CRS-18
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
other authorized study or project
of the nonfederal entity.
to transfer that credit to other
flood damage reduction projects or
studies.
Repeal of
Nonfederal
Study and
Construction
Authorities −
Consolidation
of Authorities
§108 would have repealed
provisions of existing law
authorizing the ASA to review
nonfederal studies and construction
of specific types of shore protection
and harbor projects (33 U.S.C.
2232, 33 U.S.C. 426i-1, 33 U.S.C.
2232 note)
No comparable provision.
§1014 repealed provisions of existing law authorizing the ASA to review
nonfederal studies and construction of specific types of shore protection and
flood protection projects (33 U.S.C. 426i-1, 33 U.S.C. 2232 note, 33 U.S.C.
701b-13. These project types (along with ecosystem restoration and other
Corps project purposes) appear to be encompassed within the definition of a
water resources development project used in §1014 for eligibility under the
new 33 U.S.C. 2232. §1014 included a savings provision stating that §1014 does
not affect existing agreements under these authorities or the existing authority
in 33 U.S.C. 2232.
Maintenance
of Navigation
Projects
Constructed
by Nonfederal
Entity
§108 would have required that the
ASA be responsible for operation
and maintenance (consistent with
standard cost-sharing requirements)
of an authorized harbor or inland
harbor project constructed by a
nonfederal entity if certain criteria
were met prior to construction,
including that the project was
economically justified and
environmentally acceptable.
§2032 would have allowed the ASA
to assume operation and
maintenance responsibilities of a
navigation channel deepened by a
nonfederal entity prior to Dec. 31,
2012, if certain criteria were met
(e.g., project had been authorized
by Congress and the project was
economically justified and
environmental acceptable).
§1014, largely similar to the existing authority in 33 U.S.C. 2232, required that
the ASA be responsible for operation and maintenance (consistent with
standard cost-sharing requirements) of a federally authorized harbor or inland
harbor constructed by a nonfederal entity if prior to construction certain
criteria are met, including that the project is feasible, and after construction
that the ASA finds that the project remains feasible and was constructed in
accordance with applicable permits and standards. §1014 added the condition
that the ASA is responsible for this operation and maintenance only if prior to
construction there is a written operation and maintenance agreement between
the ASA and the nonfederal entity.
§109 would have expanded the
authority for the ASA to accept
nonfederal monetary contributions;
allow any eligible nonfederal entity to
contribute (not only states and
political subdivisions); and would
have allowed contributions for inland
waterways and for post-disaster
project repair and restoration.
§11005 would have allowed the
ASA to accept and expend funds
contributed by nonfederal entities
for repairing, restoring, or replacing
water resources projects damaged
or destroyed by a major disaster or
other emergency if the ASA
determines it was in the public
interest.
Nonfederal
Monetary
Contributions
(no credit or
reimbursement allowed)
CRS-19
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
§1016 allowed the ASA to assume operation and maintenance responsibilities
of a federally authorized harbor or inland harbor constructed by a nonfederal
entity prior to Dec. 31, 2014, without requiring that the ASA after
construction find that the project remains economically justified and
environmentally acceptable (which is a requirement in 33 U.S.C. 2232).
§1015 expanded the authority (33 U.S.C. 701h) for the ASA to accept
nonfederal monetary contributions. §1015 allowed any eligible nonfederal
entity to contribute (not only states and political subdivisions) and allowed
contributions for inland waterways and for operations of hurricane barriers to
support recreation consistent with the authorized project purpose. §1015
required written notice to House T&I, Senate EPW, and both Appropriations
Committees before accepting funds under this authority.
§1017 authorized a 5-year pilot program for the ASA to accept nonfederal
monetary contributions to increase the hours of operation of waterway locks.
Topic
H.R. 3080
Authority for
Nonfederal
Construction
of Projects
Prior to
Congressional
Authorization
§112 would have created a new
authority for nonfederal entities to
initiate construction after a
completed feasibility report. §112
would have allowed for credit or
reimbursement if Congress
subsequently authorized the project
and if the construction was
consistent with the laws and
regulations that apply to Corps
construction.
No comparable provision.
§1014 authorized, subject to the specified conditions, nonfederal construction
of water resources development projects which was defined as including those
projects with “a project recommendation that results from” a Corps produced
feasibility report, a feasibility study completed by a nonfederal entity consistent
with 33 U.S.C. 2231, and a feasibility study authorized by Congress. §1014 did
not explicitly state whether a favorable recommendation by the ASA (or the
Chief of Engineers) is required for the Corps produced feasibility report or the
feasibility study completed by a nonfederal entity. §1014 allowed for
reimbursement, credit, and transfer of credit to a different project, and did not
specify whether this is with or without interest. §1014 conditioned any credit
or reimbursement on the ASA determining that all “Federal laws and
regulations applicable to the construction of a water resources development
project, and any conditions identified” by the ASA were complied with during
construction.
Projects
Eligible for
Work-inKind Credit
§116 would have defined “water
resources project.” Environmental
infrastructure activities (which
typically are municipal water supply
and wastewater projects) were
included.
§2012 would have expanded
crediting to include environmental
infrastructure assistance activities.
§1018 expanded crediting under (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) to include environmental
infrastructure assistance activities.
In-Kind Credit §116 would have provided credit for
for Design
design work performed prior to a
Work
crediting Memorandum of
Understanding.
§2012 would have authorized a
provision similar to H.R. 3080.
§1018 authorized a provision similar to H.R. 3080 and S. 601.
Excess In-Kind
Contributions
and Their
Reimbursement
§2012 would have required the ASA
to reimburse excess in-kind
contributions (i.e., any excess above
the nonfederal cost-share resulting
from work-in-kind credit and the
value of contributions of lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocation,
or improvements to enable disposal
of dredged materials (LERRDs)),
except for navigation projects.
§1018 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
CRS-20
No comparable provision; that is, as
specified in 42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b,
work-in-kind credit would have
remained limited to the nonfederal
cost-shares unless otherwise
specified.
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Topic
H.R. 3080
Transfer of
Excess In-Kind
Credit Across
Studies and
Projects
No comparable provision; 42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b would not allow excess
credit or its transfer. See §108 for
authority to transfer credit under
that authority.
§1020 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
§2011 would have allowed, for 10
years, the ASA to apply excess credit
from one project to another study or
project if the nonfederal entity
submitted a comprehensive crediting
plan.
Crediting
Guidance
Update
No comparable provision.
§2012 would have required an
update of the crediting guidance and
regulations and specifies an update
process and required elements.
§1018 required an update of the crediting guidance and regulations similar to S.
601.
Pilot of
Nonfederal
Construction
§117 would have required the ASA
to establish a pilot program for
nonfederal project management and
delivery of financing, design, or
construction of no more than 15
authorized navigation or flood
damage reduction projects.
Nonfederal government entities or
private entities could have
participated. Payment for work
upon completion could have been
made from unobligated federal
balance for the project or other
amounts appropriated to the Corps
not to exceed the federal share of
design and construction.
§2025 would have required the
ASA to establish a pilot program for
nonfederal construction
management of no more than 15
previously authorized projects.
Unobligated federal balance for the
project would have been
transferred to the nonfederal entity
after execution of a project
partnership agreement; additional
amounts could have been
transferred from the pilot
program’s appropriations. The
program would have been
authorized at $25 million for each
year from FY2014 to FY018. No
definition of eligible nonfederal
entity was provided.
§1043 required the ASA to establish a 5-year pilot program for nonfederal
construction management of not more than 15 qualifying projects authorized
prior to enactment. Hurricane, coastal and inland navigation, and ecosystem
restoration projects are eligible for participation in this pilot. §1043 allowed the
ASA to transfer unobligated federal monies for the project to the nonfederal
entity after execution of a project partnership agreement; additional amounts
could be transferred from the pilot program’s appropriations. The program is
authorized at $25 million for each year from FY2015 to FY019. No definition
of eligible nonfederal entity was provided. §1043 required that work be
performed consistent with the laws and regulations that apply to Corps
construction (e.g., Davis-Bacon Act wage requirements apply). §1043 allowed
the Corps to provide technical assistance, including assistance with processing
permits, to the nonfederal entity on a reimbursable basis. §1043 stated that
nothing in this subsection affects the cost-sharing requirements; it did not
explicitly mention credit or reimbursement for the federal construction share.
CRS-21
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Topic
Pilot of
Nonfederal
Studies
H.R. 3080
No comparable provision.
Source: CRS.
CRS-22
S. 601
No comparable provision.
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
§1043 required the ASA to establish a 5-year pilot program for nonfederal
entities to perform feasibility studies for flood, hurricane, coastal and inland
navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects; the program’s authorization of
appropriations is $25 million for each year from 2015 to 2019. §1043 allowed
the ASA to transfer any unobligated federal monies to the nonfederal entity
and to provide funds appropriated under this authority to nonfederal entities
to carry out the feasibility study (but not to exceed the federal share of the
feasibility study costs). If the ASA determines the study complies with federal
law once project construction is authorized, §1043 allowed the ASA to credit
the portion of study costs that would have been the federal responsibility
toward the nonfederal construction cost of the project. §1043 required that
work be performed consistent with the laws and regulations that apply to
Corps construction (e.g., Davis-Bacon Act wage requirements apply). §1043
allowed the Corps to provide technical assistance to the nonfederal entity on a
reimbursable basis.
Table 5. Select WIFIA Provisions
Topic
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Pilot of Innovative No comparable provision
Financing (Loans
and Loan
Guarantees) for
Flood Control,
Public Water
Supply, and
Wastewater
Projects (WIFIA)
Title X would have authorized a pilot
program for the Corps and the EPA to
provide direct loans and loan guarantees to
nonfederal entities for certain flood control,
public water supply, and wastewater
treatment projects through a Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(WIFIA) program.
Title V, Subtitle C (Sections 5021-5035) included provisions similar to
provisions in Title X of S. 601.
WIFIA short
title and
definitions
No comparable provision
Short title (§10001). Purposes (§10002).
Definitions of terms (§10003).
Short title, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014
(§5021). Conference report omits “Purposes.” §5022 defined terms same
as S. 601, but omitted “rural water infrastructure” definition.
WIFIA
Authority to
Provide
Assistance
No comparable provisions
§10006 would have authorized the Secretary §5023 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
of the Army and EPA Administrator to
provide financial assistance to carry out
water infrastructure pilot projects.
WIFIA Eligible
Entities
No comparable provision
§10004 would have included corporations,
§5025 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, federal,
state or local governments, tribal
governments or consortia, and state
infrastructure financing authorities as eligible.
WIFIA Projects
Eligible for
Assistance
No comparable provision
§10007 would have included flood control or
hurricane and storm damage reduction
projects as eligible for WIFIA assistance, plus
activities eligible for assistance under the
Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water
Act State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs,
energy efficiency projects at public water
supply or wastewater plants, repair or
replacement of public water supply or
wastewater plants, desalination or water
recycling project, acquisition of real
property, or a combination of projects.
CRS-23
H.R.3080
§5026 was same as S. 601, but added the following as eligible for Corps
assistance: environmental restoration, coastal or inland harbor
navigation improvement, and inland and intracoastal waterways
navigation improvement.
Topic
H.R.3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
WIFIA Activities
Eligible for
Assistance
No comparable provision
§10008 would have included developmentphase activities; construction; acquisition of
real property; capitalized interest and
reserve funds; and refinancing of interim
funding, long-term project obligations, or
WIFIA assistance as eligible.
§5027 authorized a provision similar to S. 601, but omitted refinancing.
WIFIA Project
Selection
No comparable provision
Under §10009, to be eligible for assistance, a
project would have to be creditworthy.
Eligible project costs shall be not less than
$20 million, except rural water
infrastructure projects serving up to 25,000
persons shall be not less than $5 million.
Projects must be publicly sponsored. WIFIA
projects may not also use financing with taxexempt municipal bonds. §10009 details
selection criteria, such as a project’s regional
or national significance and multiple others.
§5028 was generally the same as S. 601. Regarding public sponsorship
requirement, it allowed the obligor to demonstrate to the Corps or
EPA that the affected state, local, or tribal government has been
consulted and supports the proposed project. For projects seeking
assistance from EPA, the legislation required the Administrator to give
state infrastructure financing authorities a “right of first refusal” to
finance the project.
WIFIA Secured
Loans
No comparable provision
§10010 would have authorized the Corps
or EPA may make secured loans or loan
guarantees to finance or refinance eligible
project costs. Project assistance would
have required an investment-grade rating.
A secured loan would not have been
allowed to exceed the lesser of 49% of
eligible project costs and, if the secured
loan did not receive investment-grade
rating, the amount of the senior obligations
of the project. Maturity date would have
been no more than 35 years. Total amount
of federal assistance from all sources would
not have been more than 80% of total
costs, except for rural water projects.
§5029 was generally the same as S. 601, but provided that the maturity
date of a secured loan shall be the earlier of 35 years or the useful life
of a project. Secured and guaranteed loans may not be used for
refinancing. Retains 49% limit, but see §5033 below.
WIFIA State,
Tribal, and Local
Permits
No comparable provision
Under §10012, recipients of WIFIA
assistance would have been required to
obtain any required state, local, or tribal
permit or approval.
§5031 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
CRS-24
Topic
H.R.3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
WIFIA Funding
No comparable provision
§10014 would have authorized $50 million
annually to each the Corps and EPA for
FY2014-FY2018 ($250 million total for
each agency).
§5033 authorized to each the Corps and EPA $20 million for FY2015,
$25 million for FY2016, $35 million for FY2017, $45 million for FY2018,
$50 million for FY2019 ($175 million total for each agency). §5033
required the Corps and EPA to set aside not less than 15% of amounts
available for each fiscal year for small community water infrastructure
projects, but unused set-aside funds may be used for other projects if
unobligated on June 1 of the fiscal year. §5033 authorized the Corps and
EPA to make available up to 25% of available funds each year for loans
in excess of 49% of total project costs [see §5029].
WIFIA Reports
No comparable provision
§10015 would have required the Corps and
EPA to report to Congress 2 years after
enactment and every 2 years thereafter on
projects receiving WIFIA assistance
§5034 required the Corps and EPA to provide information on a public
Internet site on applications for WIFIA assistance and projects selected.
Also required the GAO to report to Congress in 4 years on the WIFIA
pilot programs, including recommendations for continuing, changing, or
terminating the WIFIA program. (§5034)
WIFIA “Buy
American”
No comparable provision
§10016 would have required projects
receiving WIFIA assistance use Americanmade iron and steel. A project could have
obtained a waiver if this requirement would
have been inconsistent with the public
interest, increased project costs by more
than 25%, or if U.S.-made products were not
produced in sufficient quantity or of
sufficient quality.
§5035 authorized a provision similar to S. 601. The provision codified
similar statutory provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014, that applies to wastewater and drinking water SRF capitalization
grants (P.L. 113-76).
Source: CRS.
CRS-25
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Authorizing Projects and
Managing Subsequent Authorizations
Project Authorizations and Authorized Project Purposes
Congressional authorization is required for most Corps new construction projects, and significant
post-authorization modifications to a project’s scope or cost. For new construction authorizations,
WRRDA 2014 authorized a fixed set of 34 new construction projects totaling $25.65 billion
($15.64 billion in federal costs and $10.01 billion in nonfederal costs), as shown in Table 6. All
of the authorized projects have completed Chief’s Reports; however, only 25 had been formally
submitted by the ASA to Congress at the time of the conference report. The other nine projects,
which represented $3.73 billion in projects, were awaiting a recommendation by the ASA and its
transmittal to Congress at the time of the conference report.19 For project modifications, the
conference report authorized eight project cost modifications.20 When the Senate passed S. 601 in
May 2013, there were an estimated 19 construction projects representing approximately $10.8
billion ($6.3 billion federal and $4.5 billion nonfederal) in construction costs that appeared to
meet the criteria in §1002 of the S. 601. When H.R. 3080 was passed by the House in October
2013, it would have authorized a fixed set of 23 new construction projects and project scope
modifications at a total cost of $13.0 billion ($7.7 billion in federal costs and $5.3 billion in
nonfederal costs), and two project cost modifications. CRS identified one project with a
completed Chief’s Report that is not included in the conference report. 21
H.R. 3080 as passed by the House included no construction authorization for projects that had
their Chief’s Reports completed after the House T&I Subcommittee on Water Resources and the
Environment hearing on Chief’s Reports held on June 5, 2013. On April 29, 2014, the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment held a
hearing on the Chief’s Reports completed subsequent to the June 2013 hearing. All 34 projects
included in the conference report have Chief’s Reports and were the subject of a hearing.
Regarding existing project authorizations, H.R. 3080 included a provision to clarify that the act
would not have expanded the authorized purposes of a dam or reservoir; S. 601 would have
allowed the ASA to carry out activities to improve the efficiency of dam operations and as
practicable meet other related benefits, including environment protection and restoration, water
supply storage, hydropower generation, and flood risk reduction. The ASA’s December 2013
letter to conference managers indicated that the Administration viewed that the provisions in both
19
These projects would not have qualified for authorization under S. 601 unless the ASA had transmitted the project’s
recommendation prior to enactment. One of the projects, the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, MD project had its Chief’s
Report in August 2009; however, it has not been transmitted by the ASA. The project is on hold pending an update of
the Dredge Material Management Plan anticipated in 2015.
20
Insufficient information is publicly available to determine the difference between total project construction cost and
present value of previous authorization of appropriations, which would represent the amount of the authorized increase.
21
The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) ecosystem restoration project has had difficulty securing a nonfederal
sponsor. The restoration’s report was transmitted to Congress in September 2013; that transmittal supported $1.3
billion ($0.86 billion federal/$0.46 billion nonfederal) of the project’s total cost of $3 billion, and deferred the ASA’s
determination on the remainder. As of December 2013, the project had no nonfederal cost-sharing sponsor; the Chief’s
Report from September 2012, stated “Because a non-federal sponsor willing to cost share in implementation of the
ecosystem restoration plan has not been identified, this report recommend no further action under Section 7013.”
Congressional Research Service
26
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
of the bills (§143 in H.R. 3080, §2014 in S. 601) would have hampered needed reform, giving
current uses of Corps projects priority over new uses.22 The Administration instead supported
legislation that would have added fish and wildlife protection as an authorized purpose for all
Corps dams and provide administrative flexibility to revise project operating guidelines. The
conference report (§1045) required the ASA to assess the management practice, priorities, and
authorized purposes of Corps reservoirs in arid regions to evaluate their impacts on water supply
during drought, and identify actions to be carried out within existing authorities to increase
project flexibility for mitigating drought impacts. The conference report stated that nothing in the
section changes the authorized purpose of a Corps dam or reservoir, and that the Secretary may
carry out any recommendations and activities under this subsection pursuant to existing law. The
conference report also required the ASA to update a report on authorized purpose of Corps
reservoirs, and include information on the most recent review of reservoir operations and a plan
for future reviews.
WRRDA 2014, like both H.R. 3080 and S. 601, also expanded many of the Corps existing
programmatic authorities known as Continuing Authorities Programs (CAPs). Under the CAPs,
the Corps studies and constructs projects of limited purpose and size without project specific
congressional authorization.
Subsequent Authorization Processes
New Studies
WRRDA 2014, like H.R. 3080 as shown in Table 7, required the Corps to solicit proposals from
nonfederal entities for new studies and transmit qualifying studies to Congress in the Annual
Report. Congressional authorization would be needed for the agency to proceed with the study. S.
601 (§4002) would have established a process for initiating new studies.
New Project Authorizations and Modifications of Project Scope
During House and Senate consideration, an ongoing topic of discussion was how to address
projects anticipated to have completed study milestones (e.g., a Chief’s Reports, ASA
transmission to Congress) in the next year or two. Both H.R. 3080 and S. 601 would have
addressed these projects but neither bill would have authorized them directly. The conference
report did not authorize projects without completed Chief’s Reports. Like H.R. 3080, the
conference report required the ASA to submit completed feasibility reports and reports for project
modifications to Congress in the Annual Report. Congressional authorization would be needed
for the agency to proceed with construction, as shown in Table 7. As described in Table 4, the
conference report (§1014), like H.R. 3080, may provide a mechanism for nonfederal entities to
initiate work on a project with a completed feasibility study prior to a Chief’s Report.
WRRDA 2014 (§7004) established expedited House procedures for the 113th Congress and
expedited Senate procedures through 2018 for bills authorizing construction projects that meet
specified criteria. A qualifying requirement for the expedited House procedure is a completed
Chief’s Report. The qualifying requirements for the expedited Senate procedure included a
completed Chief’s Report, the project to be carried out substantially in accordance with the plan
22
See footnote 2.
Congressional Research Service
27
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
identified in the Chief’s Report and subject to conditions in that report, and an ASA
recommendation to authorize construction transmitted to Congress.
Project Cost Modifications and Project Modifications
WRRDA 2014 authorized eight project cost modifications that had ASA recommendation letters
transmitted to Congress. The conference report required that subsequent proposed cost
modifications be submitted for congressional consideration through the Annual Report; they
would require subsequent congressional authorization. This is similar to how H.R. 3080 would
have addressed cost modifications; S. 601 would have established a process to allow, for three
years, the ASA to proceed with projects requiring cost modifications if a submission certifying
the need for the increase is submitted to Congress and if “amounts are appropriated to initiate or
continue construction of the project in an appropriation or other Act.” Whether the expedited
House and Senate procedures provided in the conference report (§7004) could be used for project
cost modifications is unclear; traditionally project cost modifications are documented in reports of
the Director of Civil Works, not Chief’s Reports. The reports of the Director of Civil Works are
then transmitted by an ASA letter to Congress. The conference report included no comparable
title to Title III of S. 601, Project Modifications.
Additional Corps Project Costs May Require Cost Modifications
The number of projects potentially requiring project cost modifications in the near future is unknown. No recent list
of projects nearing their cost limits is available. The most recent publicly available list of potential project cost issues
is from a Corps April 2012 memorandum which identified 32 projects with potential cost modifications that may or
may not entail project scope modifications. According to a May 29, 2013, Corps memo, “at least one quarter of
USACE Civil Works construction projects are not compliant with cost limits and schedule completions.” A May 30,
2013, Corps memo stated that “forty-four construction projects in the current Civil Works portfolio have
compliance issues with Section 902 cost limit requirements.” Section 902 refers to §902 of WRDA 1986, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 2280), which limits Corps project authorization of appropriations to the amount authorized in law
(adjusted for inflation in construction and real estate costs) plus 20% of the original authorization of appropriations.
Under current authorizations, the ASA must seek a congressional modification in a project’s authorization of
appropriations for projects anticipated to exceed the adjusted 120% authorization of appropriations. Many of the
factors contributing to project cost increases are persistent and apply broadly to many Corps projects. In May 2013,
the Engineer Inspector General completed a report on an inspection of Corps §902 compliance actions; it stated:
In some cases, poor decision, incomplete analysis or post authorization revisions to engineering standards
affected the project delivery and led to larger than expected cost projections. In other instances, external
pressures or influences forced changes to project scope. The cumulative effect of these internal and
external factors was to increase project costs significantly and often led to projects having insufficient
authority under 902. However, the factor with the greatest impact was the persistent funding shortfalls in
the Civil Works budget. Funding shortfalls have extended the project delivery process and increased costs
beyond anticipated levels for many USACE Civil Works projects
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memorandum for Record: Corps Section 902 Cost Limit Policy Clarification and Applicability
procedures - Notable Deficiency, Washington, DC, April 6, 2012, http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/library.cfm?Option=
Listing&Type=Memo&Search=Policy&Sort=Default.; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memorandum for MSC Commanders: Civil
Works Delegated Authority for Project Cost Management, Washington, DC, May 29, 2013, http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/
library.cfm?Option=Listing&Type=Memo&Search=Policy&Sort=Default; Army Corps of Engineers, Memorandum for SEE
Distribution: Engineer Inspector General (EIG) Section 902 Inspection Report Recommendations and Command Implementing
Instructions, Washington, DC, May 30, 2013,
http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/library.cfm?Option=Listing&Type=Memo&Search=Policy&Sort=Default; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineer Inspector General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Inspector General Inspection Report: Inspection of Section
902 Cost Limit Requirements for Civil Works Projects, Washington, DC, May 2013, p. ii.)
Congressional Research Service
28
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
For Further Reading
CRS Report R41961, Army Corps Fiscal Challenges: Frequently Asked Questions, by (name reda
cted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
29
Table 6. Select Project Authorization Provisions
Topic
H.R. 3080
Authorization
of New
Construction
or Project
Scope
Modification
with Chief’s
Reports
§401 would have authorized 23
specifically listed projects with a
total authorization of
appropriations of $13.0 billion ($7.7
billion federal/$5.3 billion
nonfederal).
§1002 would have authorized the
§7002 authorized 34 specifically listed projects with a total authorization of
ASA to carry out any project with a appropriations of $25.65 billion ($15.64 billion in federal costs and $10.01
Chief’s Report transmitted by the
billion in nonfederal costs).
ASA after WRDA 2007 with a
recommendation to construct. §1002
would have required projects be
carried out in accordance with the
project plan and subject to
conditions described in its report.
Authorization
of Project
Cost
Modifications
§402 would have authorized cost
modifications to two previously
authorized projects: Miami Harbor,
FL navigation; and Little Calumet
River, IN flood control.
No comparable provision. §1003,
which is discussed in Table 7,
would have allowed the ASA to
proceed with projects requiring
cost modifications.
§7003 authorized cost modifications to eight previously authorized projects.
Existing
Corps
Reservoir
Operations
§133 would have required the ASA,
within a year of enactment, assess
the management practice, priorities,
and authorized purposes of Corps
reservoirs in arid regions to
evaluate their effects on water
supply during drought. §143 would
have clarified that nothing in this act
would have allowed the ASA to
carry out any project for a purpose
at a dam or reservoir not otherwise
authorized as of the act’s date of
enactment.
§2014 would have authorized, with
limitations, the ASA to improve the
efficiency of dam operations and to
maximize to the extent practicable
both the authorized project purposes
and other related benefits, including
environmental protection and
restoration, most water supply
storage, hydropower generation, and
flood risk reduction. §2014 would
have restricted the activities to those
that do not adversely impact any
authorized purpose.
§1045 required the ASA, within a year of enactment, to assess the management
practice, priorities, and authorized purposes of Corps reservoirs in arid regions
to evaluate their impacts on water supply during drought, and identify actions
to be carried out within existing authorities to increase project flexibility for
mitigating drought impacts. §1045 required that within 2 years, the ASA update
a report on authorized purpose of Corps reservoirs, and include information
on the most recent review of reservoir operations and a plan for future
reviews. §1045 required GAO to audit previous Corps operations reviews,
evaluate the plan for future operations reviews, and make recommendations
for improving operations reviews. §1045 stated that nothing in the section
changes the authorized purpose of a Corps dam or reservoir, and that the
Secretary may carry out any recommendations and activities under this
subsection pursuant to existing law.
Continuing
Authorities
Program
(CAPs)
No comparable provision. H.R.
3080 had no provision focused on
changing the CAPs; however, other
provisions of the bill may have
applied policy changes to the CAPs.
§2003 would have increased project
cost and program cost limits for
certain CAPs. §2004 would have
required the ASA publish
prioritization criteria for CAPs and
an annual CAP report.
§1030 increased the project cost and/or program cost limits for the CAPs
identified in §2003 of S. 601 and the Emergency Streambank and Shoreline
Protection CAP (known as Section 14). §1030 required prioritization criteria
and reporting similar to §2004 of S. 601.
Source: CRS.
CRS-30
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Table 7. Select Provisions on Subsequent Authorizations of
Studies, Projects, and Project Modifications
Topic
H.R. 3080
Waiving
Need for
Project Cost
Modification
§111would have allowed for the
ASA to complete a construction
project using funds contributed by a
nonfederal entity (without
opportunity for reimbursement) for
projects that had exceeded 120% of
their congressional authorized
costs.
§2059 would have authorized a
provision similar to H.R. 3080.
§1023 authorized a provision similar to H.R. 3080 and S. 601.
New Project
Construction
§118 would have required that the
Annual Report include completed
feasibility reports (with the Chief’s
Report if appropriate) for new
Corps construction projects
requiring congressional
authorization.
§1004 would have authorized
procedures for expedited Senate
consideration of bills authorizing
projects that had been transmitted
by the ASA to Congress through
2018. Senate EPW would have been
required to report all such bills by
January 31st of the second session
of each Congress. If Senate EPW
failed to act, the bills would have
been discharged from the
Committee and placed on the
calendar of the Senate, with some
exceptions.
§7001 required an Annual Report similar to H.R. 3080. §7004 established
expedited House procedures for the 113th Congress and expedited Senate
procedures through 2018 for bills authorizing construction projects that meet
specified criteria. A qualifying requirement for the expedited House procedure
is a completed Chief’s Report. The qualifying requirements for the expedited
Senate procedure include: a completed Chief’s Report, the project to be
carried out substantially in accordance with the plan identified in the Chief’s
Report and subject to conditions in that report, and an ASA recommendation
to authorize construction transmitted to Congress after enactment.
Project Cost
Modifications
§118 would have required that the
Annual Report include proposed
cost modifications to authorized
Corps projects that had been
identified by the ASA for
congressional authorization.
§1003 would have allowed the ASA
for three years after enactment to
modify the authorized project costs
if (1) the ASA certified the necessity
for exceeding the current
authorization and submits the
certification to Congress and (2) if,
subsequent to the submission,
amounts were appropriated to
initiate or continue construction of
the project in an appropriations or
other Act.
§7001 authorized a provision similar to H.R. 3080.
CRS-31
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Project Scope
Modifications
§118 would have required that the
Annual Report include scope
modification studies identified by
the ASA for congressional
authorization.
§1004 would have provided for
expedited Senate consideration
through 2018 of a bill authorizing
projects transmitted by the ASA to
Congress.
§7001 authorized a provision similar to H.R. 3080. §7004 established expedited
House procedures for the 113th Congress and expedited Senate procedures
through 2018 for bills authorizing construction projects that meet specified
criteria.
Study
§118 would have required that the
Authorizations Annual Report include any new
Corps feasibility study proposed by
a nonfederal entity that would have
required congressional
authorization.
§4002 would have allowed the ASA
to initiate annually a limited number
of new studies (of the ASA’s
choosing consistent with criteria in
§4002) for 3 years after enactment
with an authorization of
appropriations of $25 million
annually. §4002 would have
prohibited funding a new study
unless “amounts are appropriated
to initiate a study in an
appropriations or other Act.”
§7001 authorized a provision similar to H.R. 3080.
Cost Share
for Locally
Preferred
Flood Risk
Management
Projects
§2055 would have authorized a
provision similar to H.R.3080, with
the exception that §2055 would
have required that the federal share
of the LPP be not less than the
share of the national economic
development plan.
§1036 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
§121 would have required the ASA
to build the locally preferred plan
(LPP) if requested by the nonfederal
entity if the LPP provided a higher
level of protection than the project
alternative authorized under this
act, and the ASA determined that
the LPP is technically feasible,
environmentally acceptable, and
benefits exceeded the cost. §121
would have required the additional
cost attributable to the higher
protection be paid by the
nonfederal entity.
Source: CRS.
CRS-32
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Investing in Navigation
Harbors
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) is used to cover the costs incurred by the Corps in
operating and maintaining federally authorized harbors, principally the dredging of channels. The
HMTF is supported by a tax on cargo moving through ports and cruise ship passengers (the
Harbor Maintenance Tax, HMT). In recent years, annual HMTF expenditures (which require
congressional appropriations typically as part of an Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act) have amounted to a little more than half of annual HMT collections and
interest. Like H.R. 3080 and S. 601, the conference report sought to increase HMTF spending,
but not at the expense of available funding for other Corps activities. Thus, increased HMTF
spending is predicated on the condition that the Corps total budget increases by at least the same
amount.
WRRDA 2014 expanded the eligible uses of HMTF monies to dredging activity that is now paid
by nonfederal sponsors (e.g., the dredging of berths by port authorities), but only at ports that
generate more HMT revenue than they have received from the HMTF. The conference report
adopted the provision in S. 601 that eliminated the 50% nonfederal cost share for the incremental
cost of maintaining harbors at depths between 45 and 50 feet.23 Thus, the conference report could
increase HMTF spending on harbors handling large volumes of cargo that in the past have made
relatively little use of HMTF funds. The Administration objected to expanding the federal role in
harbor maintenance to include activities that historically have not been a federal responsibility.24
An issue reflected in the legislation is how to prioritize harbor maintenance among ports that
handle large amounts of cargo and those that do not. The conference report reserved specified
portions of HMTF funding for harbors with less cargo or that have not been fully maintained in
prior years. The conference report modified a provision in H.R. 3080 that required the Corps to
provide a written response to a nonfederal interest seeking federal maintenance of a harbor.
In addition to the dredging of berths and certain legacy-contaminated sediments, the conference
report adopted language from S. 601 to allow “donor ports” and “energy transfer ports” to use
appropriated funds for rebating HMT payments to shippers or for other dredging-related activity
that otherwise is not a federal responsibility (see Table 8 for definitions). This could be especially
appealing to U.S. ports that contend shippers favor nearby foreign ports to avoid payment of
HMT. It appears that Seattle and Tacoma, WA, would qualify as “donor ports.”25 It appears that
fourteen ports may qualify as “energy transfer ports” (five ports in Louisiana; four ports in Texas;
23
For a listing of harbor depths, useful in identifying which ports may benefit from this provision, see the following
Army Corps report, http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/portswaterways/rpt/
June_20_U.S._Port_and_Inland_Waterways_Preparing_for_Post_Panamax_Vessels.pdf
24
Statement of Administration Policy, S. 601 – Water Resources Development Act of 2013, May 6, 2013; Statement of
Administration Policy, H.R. 3080 – Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, October 23, 2013. See
also ASA’s December 2013 letter to conference managers (footnote 2).
25
Other ports that may qualify are certain ports in California, New York/New Jersey, Georgia, and Florida. These are
additional states with at least two million twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEUs), which is a standard unit for cargo
carrying capacity, of containerized cargo in 2011. The Army Corps has not published annual HMTF expenditure
reports since FY2006, so the ratio of HMTF funding to HMT collections, a criterion for determining which ports are
“donor ports,” is not known.
Congressional Research Service
33
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
plus Mobile, AL; New York/New Jersey; Baltimore, MD; Norfolk, VA; and Long Beach, CA).26
To qualify as a donor port, a port must generate substantially more HMT than it receives, but this
is not the case for an energy transfer port. An energy transfer port is defined as a harbor handling
more than 40 million tons of cargo of any type and at which energy products comprised more
than 25% of this tonnage (the HMT is not assessed on export cargo).
Inland Waterways
Some waterways stakeholders have been frustrated with the pace of construction on inland
navigation infrastructure and cost overruns at key projects. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund
(IWTF), which is funded by user fees, pays for 50% of most of these activities (to match 50% of
costs provided from the General Fund of the Treasury). The IWTF has a declining balance that
appears to have limited waterway construction projects in recent years. One inland waterway
construction project, the Olmsted Locks and Dam project, has received the majority of the inland
waterways construction monies in recent years, while construction on other inland waterway
projects has been postponed. The Olmsted project was originally authorized at a cost of $775
million (plus inflationary increases) but recently required an increase to its authorization (i.e., an
increase to its appropriations ceiling). The FY2014 Continuing Appropriations Act, P.L. 113-46,
increased the project’s authorization from $775 million to $2.92 billion.
In an effort to expedite work on the Olmsted project and facilitate work on other inland
waterways projects funded by the IWTF, WRRDA 2014 altered the IWTF cost-share requirement
for the Olmsted project. Like S. 601 and H.R. 3080 the conference report decreased the required
IWTF share of the project costs compared to current law. The conference report decreased the
IWTF required portion of project costs from 50% to 15%. S. 601 would have eliminated the
IWTF required cost-share and would have funded the Olmsted project entirely from the General
Fund of the Treasury. H.R. 3080 would have reduced the IWTF cost-sharing requirement from
50% to 25%, as shown in Table 9. In a December 2013 ASA letter to the conferee managers, the
Administration objected to proposed alterations to the Olmsted project’s cost sharing formula;
however the Administration eventually agreed to this change in the enacted legislation.27
Some have argued that water resources development legislation should also decrease IWTF costshare requirements for major rehabilitation investments.28 Like S. 601, the conference report
raised the threshold for cost sharing for major rehabilitation investments on inland waterways
from $8 million to $20 million, thereby making the General Fund responsible for a larger share of
the expenditures. H.R. 3080 included no such change.
Like what S. 601 and H.R. 3080 would have done, WRRDA 2014 authorized changes to inland
waterways project delivery. These changes are generally consistent with an April 2010 report
published and endorsed by the Inland Waterways User Board (a federal advisory committee).29
Like the House and Senate Bills, the conference report also authorized several studies on inland
waterways project revenues. This includes a study by the Government Accountability Office
26
For port cargo statistics, see http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/wcsc.htm. Note that this data set does not
include foreign trade empty containers loaded or unloaded.
27
See footnote 2.
28
In addition to all construction projects on inland waterways, the IWTF must fund half of the costs for major
rehabilitation investments, defined as any inland waterways rehabilitation project costing more than $8 million.
29
The report is available at http://waterwayscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/IMTS_IWUB_Report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
34
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
(GAO) on inland waterways revenue collection and two reports by the ASA on revenue
alternatives.
For Further Reading
CRS Report R43222, Harbor Maintenance Finance and Funding, by (name redacted).
CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for Congress, by (name re
dacted).
Congressional Research Service
35
Table 8. Select HMTF Provisions
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
HMTF
Spending
Level
§201 would have set targeted
annual spending levels from the
HMTF beginning with 65% of HMT
received the previous year in
FY2014 to 80% in FY2020 and
thereafter.
§8003 would have set minimum annual spending
levels at the lesser of $1 billion in FY2014 to
$1.5 billion in FY2019, or total annual HMTF
receipts and interest. Beginning FY2020, annual
spending would have been set to equate to the
level of receipts and interest.
§2101 was similar to H.R. 3080 but modified the targeted annual
spending levels from the HMTF beginning with 67% of the HMT
received the previous year in FY2015 to 100% in FY2025 and
thereafter. If these targeted spending levels are realized, specified
percentages of these additional funds are directed to certain harbor
projects as described below.
Pre-condition
for Increased
HMTF
Spending
§201 would have established a
Sense of Congress that increases
in harbor maintenance spending
should not result in decreases in
spending for other Corps
activities.
§8003 would not have applied the specified
HMTF spending amounts discussed above if
providing the amounts would have reduced
funding available for other Corps activities
below amounts available for the previous fiscal
year.
§2101 essentially combined the language in H.R. 3080 and S. 601,
thus in order for harbor maintenance spending to increase to
targeted levels, Congress must increase the Corps budget by that
amount so as not to decrease spending on other Corps activities.
Expanded
Eligible Uses
of HMTF
Funds
§201 would have allowed up to 5%
of HMTF annual spending to be
used for dredging berths and
legacy-contaminated sediment, at
harbors that generate more HMT
than they receive, if HMTF
targeted spending levels are met.
§8004 would have allowed at harbors in states
that generate at least 2.5% of total annual HMT
collections and received less than 50% of the
HMT revenue they generated, to use HMTF
monies for dredging berths and legacycontaminated sediments, provided that all highuse deep draft harbors are maintained to their
constructed dimensions. Funds for this purpose
would have been limited to specified shares of
the HMTF. Funds could have also been used for
dredging berths and legacy-contaminated
sediments at “donor ports” and “energy
transfer ports” (see below).
§2102 defined expanded uses the same as H.R. 3080 and S. 601 –
that is, dredging berths and legacy-contaminated sediments. Harbors
eligible to spend HMT funds on these purposes is based on the level
of HMT collections and expenditures at these harbors over the
previous three fiscal years, similar to H.R. 3080. At least 10% of
additional funds from the increased targeting levels mentioned
above are to be spent on expanded uses, with priority of harbor
projects based on the greatest difference between collections and
expenditures among the eligible harbors.
Corps
reporting
requirement
§202 would have required the ASA
biennially to identify, for each
harbor, funding needed to restore
full authorized dimensions for each
channel including expanded uses,
amount requested in annual budget
request, the difference between the
two, and a five year budget outlook.
§8004 would have required annual reports from
the Corps on amount and share of funds spent
on high, moderate, and low use ports and any
additional amount needed to maintain these
harbors at their constructed dimensions.
§2102 required biennial report with similar content as in H.R. 3080,
but assessment based on constructed dimensions as in S. 601.
CRS-36
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Prioritization
of funding
§202 sought an equitable allocation
of HMTF funds among harbors
regardless of size or tonnage
handled. For determining the
equitable allocation of funds, §202
would have directed the ASA to
consider funding needs, national
and regional significance, and
national security and military
readiness, and not base allocations
solely on tonnage handled.
§8004 stated that the primary use of HMTF is
maintaining constructed dimensions of
commercial harbors. §8004 would have required
that the ASA prioritize funding made available in
excess of FY2012 spending levels for high-use,
deep draft harbors and Great Lakes harbors
that are not maintained at their constructed
dimensions.
§2102 authorized a provision similar to H.R. 3080 but also specified
that 90% of the additional funds from targeted spending levels (if
available) be directed to high and moderate use ports. This provision
reserved 5% of these additional funds for underserved harbors which
are defined as moderate-use or emerging harbors that have been
maintained at less than their constructed dimensions during each of
the prior six fiscal years. In prioritizing underserved harbors, ASA
was directed to consider the quantity of commerce at the harbors.
§2102 adopted S. 601 definitions of high-use harbors (handling 10
million tons or more of cargo annually) and moderate-use harbors
(handling more than one million but less than 10 million annually).
Set Aside for
Lower Use
Harbors
§202 would have required the
ASA to allocate at least 10% of
HMTF expenditures to harbors
handling less than one million tons
for FY2015 and FY2016.
§8004 would have directed the ASA to prioritize
10% of remaining funds from above prioritization,
if available, to be used for moderate- and low-use
harbors not receiving sufficient funding in six
prior fiscal years. If this funding is available, §8004
would have directed the ASA to equally divide it
among Corps districts with eligible projects.
§2102 required that the equivalent of at least 10% of HMTF funds
spent in FY2012 be spent on emerging harbors each fiscal year 2015
through 2022. It also required that 10% of the additional funds from
targeted spending levels be spent on emerging harbors. Emerging
harbors were defined as transiting less than one million tons of
cargo annually.
Great Lakes
Navigation
Funding
§202 would have directed the ASA
to fund the Great Lakes as an
interdependent navigation system.
§8004, as noted above, would have identified
Great Lakes harbors as a priority for HMTF
monies.
§2102 was essentially the same as H.R. 3080. Also, at least 10% of
additional funds from targeted funding levels were reserved for
Great Lakes projects.
Nonfederal
Cost Share
for O&M
No comparable provision.
§8004 would have eliminated the 50%
nonfederal cost sharing requirement for harbor
maintenance between 45 and 50 feet deep.
§2102 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
Donor and
Energy
Transfer
Ports
No comparable provision.
§8004 would have defined a donor port as
generating at least $15 million in annual HMT
collections but receiving less than 25% of that in
HMTF spending, and located in a state that
handled at least two million cargo containers at
ports in 2011. §8004 would have defined an
energy transfer port as a port at which energy
commodities comprised more than 25% of its
tonnage in 2011 and total tonnage handled
exceeded 40 million tons. At these two port
types, it would have allowed the ASA, subject to
appropriations, to provide HMTF funds to
qualifying ports for payments to shippers using
§2106 defined donor and energy transfer ports the same as S. 601
(but port data based on calendar year 2012 instead of 2011), and
allowed these ports to use the funds for the same purposes as
specified in S. 601. Unlike S. 601, §2106 required the Corps to
report, within 18 months of enactment, its assessment of the impact
of this provision, including any recommendations for amending or
reauthorizing this provision. §2106 authorized $50 million per year
for FY2015 - FY2018 to carry out this provision and another $50
million per year for FY2019 - FY2022 if the targeted funding levels
referenced above in §2101 are achieved for years FY2015-FY2018.
CRS-37
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
the port or for dredging berths and legacycontaminated sediments. §8004 would have
established criteria for determining the related
authorization of appropriations for FY2014
through FY2024.
Nonfederal
Justification
for Corps
Investment
§203, under the heading “preserving No comparable provision.
United States harbors,” would have
allowed a nonfederal interest to
submit justification to the Corps for
maintaining a harbor.
§2107 was similar to H.R. 3080 but required the Corps to respond
to the justification submitted by the nonfederal interest including an
assessment of the information submitted.
HMTF Study
§206 would have directed GAO to §8005 would have included the same provision
study HMTF expenditures on low- as H.R. 3080.
and moderate-use ports, and HMTF
expenditures related to
competitiveness of U.S. ports with
respect to Canadian and Mexican
ports.
No comparable provision.
Remote and
Subsistence
Harbors
No comparable provision.
§5017 would have added Alaska to an existing
provision specific to Hawaii and U.S. territories
concerning remote and subsistence harbors and
the Corps consideration of such harbor projects.
§2104 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
Arctic Deep
Draft Port
Partnerships
No comparable provision.
§5022 would have outlined criteria for the Corps
to provide technical expertise to nonfederal
public entities for Arctic Coast deep draft port
development.
§2105 authorized a provision similar to S. 601.
Source: CRS.
CRS-38
Table 9. Select Inland Waterways Provisions
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Inland
Waterways
Project Delivery
§212 would have authorized changes
to the inland waterways project
delivery process.
§7003 would have authorized
largely similar changes to project
delivery as H.R. 3080.
§2002 authorized changes that are largely similar to those previously
proposed in H.R. 3080 and S. 601.
Inland
Waterways
GAO Study
§213 would have directed GAO to
report on the efficiency of waterways
revenue collections.
§7006 would have authorized a
provision similar to H.R. 3080.
§2003 authorized a provision similar to that proposed in H.R. 3080 and S.
601.
Inland
Waterways
Revenue
Alternatives
§214 would have directed the ASA to
undertake certain revenue studies,
including 1) a study of feasibility of
construction bonds and 2) a study on
potential new user fees that could be
incorporated to achieve expenditure
levels of one-half of annual construction
expenditures of $380 million per year
($190 million per year from the IWTF).
§215 would have directed the Corps to
convene a stakeholder roundtable to
evaluate alternative policy approaches
for inland waterways.
No comparable provision. §7005
would have included a Sense of
Congress that existing revenues are
insufficient for waterway
construction and rehabilitation and
that the issue should be addressed.
§2004 authorized provisions that are similar to the revenue studies and
stakeholder roundtable that were proposed in H.R. 3080.
Olmsted Locks
and Dam
Project
§216 would have reduced the IWTF
§7008 would have made the
share for the Olmsted project from
Olmsted project fully funded by the
50% to 25% and increase monies from general fund of the Treasury and
the General Fund to 75%. §216 would
eliminate the IWTF cost-share
have required an ASA report on lessons requirement. §7007 would have
learned from the project, and would
directed GAO to conduct a study
have established a Sense of Congress
on cost overruns at the Olmsted
that appropriations for the project
project.
should not be less than $150 million
until project construction is completed.
§2006 reduced the IWTF cost share for the Olmsted project from 50% to
15%, thereby increasing monies required from the General Fund of the
Treasury from 50% to 85%. §2006 established a Sense of Congress similar
to that proposed in H.R. 3080. §2007 directed a GAO study similar to
that proposed in S. 601 and directed an ASA report similar to that
proposed in H.R. 3080.
Inland
Waterways
Rehabilitation
Cost Sharing
No comparable provision.
Similar to S. 601, §2006 required that all inland waterways major
rehabilitation costs less than $20 million (instead of $8 million) be funded
by the general fund.
Source: CRS.
CRS-39
§7004 would have required all inland
waterways major rehabilitation costs
less than $20 million (instead of $8
million) to be from the general fund.
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Reducing Flood Risks
H.R. 3080 and S. 601 would have taken significantly different approaches to the Corps’ flood risk
management activities; the House approach would have been limited, while the Senate approach
would have been more expansive. While the conference report included many levee safety
provisions similar to S. 601, the conference report was scaled back from S. 601 in terms of both
scope of new authorities and programs and the level of annual authorization of appropriations, as
shown in Table 10.
WRRDA 2014 established a levee safety initiative (§3016) that included authorizations for:
•
Corps technical assistance and training to promote levee safety,
•
Corps levee rehabilitation assistance at 65% federal cost share and maximum
federal project cost of $10 million per project (activities under the authority have
an authorization of appropriations of $30 million for FY2015 through 2019), and
•
FEMA to assist in establishing or improving state and tribal levee safety
programs.
Elements of the initiative are similar to many provisions in S. 601, but with either no or lower
levels of authorizations of appropriations. Like both H.R. 3080 and S. 601, WRRDA 2014
required the Corps develop national levee safety guidelines.
The conference report provided a more limited extension of federally cost-shared beach
nourishment (i.e., 3 years for certain projects) than the 15 years that S. 601 would have
authorized. The ASA’s December 2013 letter to conference managers included an objection to this
nourishment provision and recommended that projects be reevaluated rather than simply
extended.30 The conference report also provided for the ASA to review a 15-year extension
request and make a recommendation to Congress regarding authorization.
The ASA’s letter to conference managers also identified specific sections of S. 601 (§2022 and
§2040) related to the repair and rehabilitation of levees that the Administration did not support.
WRRDA 2014 included various related but altered authorizations for levee repair and
rehabilitation; it:
30
•
allowed Corps levee repair to be completed to the design level of protection
(rather than to pre-storm conditions) or if needed to modify the project to address
major deficiencies or implement nonstructural measures; and required reporting
every two years on repair spending and a review the Corps emergency response
authorities to be completed within eighteen months of enactment. (§3029)
•
authorized Corps rehabilitation of existing hurricane and storm damage levees
that meet specific criteria if they are providing reduced protection due to
consolidation, settlement, subsidence, sea level rise, or new datum; the ASA is
limited to using this authority for projects with project partnerships agreements
that state that the nonfederal entity is not required to perform restoration for
See footnote 2.
Congressional Research Service
40
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
subsidence and sea level rise as part of its operation and maintenance
responsibilities. (§3017)
WRRDA 2014 (§3014) directed the ASA to ensure that an activity under the Corps inspection of
completed works program provides adequate information to reach a levee accreditation decision
for purposes of floodplain mapping related to FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
mapping.
For Further Reading
CRS Report R41752, Locally Operated Levees: Issues and Federal Programs , by (name re
dacted) et al.
Congressional Research Service
41
Table 10. Select Flood Safety Provisions
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Post-Damage
Repair of
Storm and
Flood Control
Projects
§122 would have required the ASA
to review its emergency response
authorities to evaluate repairing to
pre-flood conditions or to project
design, using nonstructural
measures, and incorporating sealevel rise and extreme weather
event risks, and report on the
results to House T&I and Senate
EPW within a year of enactment.
§2040 would have expanded the
authority to allow the ASA to
repair to the design level of
protection (rather than to prestorm conditions) or if needed
modify the project to address major
deficiencies or implement
nonstructural measures. §2040
would have required the ASA to
report every five years on repair
spending.
§3029 expanded the authority to allow the ASA to repair to the design level of
protection (rather than to pre-storm conditions) or if needed to modify the
project to address major deficiencies or implement nonstructural measures.
§3029 required the ASA to report every two years on repair spending. §3029
required the ASA to review the Corps emergency response authorities to
evaluate repairing to pre-flood conditions or to project design, using
nonstructural measures, and incorporating sea-level rise and extreme weather
event risks, and report on the results to House T&I and Senate EPW
Committees within 18 months of enactment.
Post-Disaster
Watershed
Assessments
and Activities
No comparable provision.
§11004 would have authorized
watershed assessments of areas
with federally declared disasters,
and the performance of identified
projects under the Corps flood
control and ecosystem restoration
Continuing Authorities Programs
(CAPs). §11004 would have limited
the federal share of an assessment
to $1million and provide an
authorization of appropriation of
$25 million for each of FY2014
through FY2018.
§3025 authorized watershed assessments of areas with federally declared
disasters, performance of identified projects under the Corps flood control and
ecosystem restoration CAPs; §3025 included no authorization of appropriation
and no per project federal limit. The underlying CAP authorities have federal
per project cost limitations.
Floodplain
Management
Services
No comparable provision.
§2003 would have increased annual
authorization of appropriations
from $15 million to $50 million.
§1030 included a provision similar to S. 601.
CRS-42
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
National Dam
Safety
Program Reauthorization
§124 would have authorized
technical and clarifying changes to
Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA) National Dam
Safety Program (e.g., adding a public
awareness initiative); no change
would have been made to the most
recent authorization of
appropriations of $9.2 million for
FY2011.
Title IX would have authorized
technical and clarifying changes to
the National Dam Safety Program
(similar to §124 of H.R. 3080), and
would have provided for an annual
authorization of appropriations of
$9.2 million for FY2014 through
FY2018.
§3001authorized technical and clarifying changes to the National Dam Safety
Program similar to H.R. 3080 and S. 601, and provided for an annual
authorization of appropriations of $9.2 million for FY2015 through FY2019.
Federal
Levee Safety
Guidelines
§126 would have required the ASA
to establish federal levee safety
guidelines.
§6004 would have required the
ASA to establish federal levee safety
guidelines.
§3016 required the ASA to establish federal levee safety guidelines with many
elements similar to H.R. 3080 and S. 601, and directed that all federal agencies
consider the guidelines in carry out their levee maintenance activities to the
maximum extent practicable.
Federal
Support for
State Levee
Safety
Programs
§126 would have amended the
Corps Planning Assistance to States
program to allow the ASA to
provide technical assistance to
promote state and local levee safety
programs. To be eligible, a state
would have needed to have or be
establishing a state funded levee
safety program to carry out the
federal guidelines. No authorization
of appropriations was specified.
§6004 would have authorized a
national program to promote state
levee safety programs and would
have required multiple components
(e.g., levee inventory hazard
potential classification system,
national levee safety technical
assistance and training program).
§6004 would have established a
grant program to assist eligible
states and Indian tribes with state
levee safety programs. §6009 would
have included annual authorization
of appropriations of $300 million
for FY2014 through FY2023.
§3016 established a levee safety initiative. §3016 authorized the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator to provide assistance
to state and tribes in establishing or improving levee safety programs and
conducting levee inventories; this assistance is subjected to funding specified in
appropriations acts for FEMA. §3016 provided an authorization of
appropriations for this FEMA technical assistance of $25 million for each of
FY2015 through FY2019. §3016 authorized the ASA to provide technical
assistance and training to promote levee safety and assist levee owners in
reducing flood risks associated with levees and developing levee safety
programs.
CRS-43
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Vegetation
on Levees
§127 would have required the ASA
to review Corps national guidelines
for vegetation on levees and
consider amendments that would
allow for local variances; within a
year of enactment, the ASA would
have been required to revise the
existing guidelines.
§2020 would have required the
ASA to review the Corps 2009 and
2012 levee vegetation guidelines
and consider amendments that
would allow for local variances and
solicit input from the National
Academies. Within two years, the
ASA would have been required to
revise existing guidelines.
§3013 required the ASA to review the Corps 2009 and 2012 levee vegetation
guidelines, similar to S. 601, and consider amendments that allow for local
variances and solicit input from independent experts and consider
recommendations submitted by Corps region teams and state, tribal, regional,
and local entities. §3013 required that the ASA within 18 months of enactment
to revise existing levee vegetation guidelines. §3013 included no reference to
Corps 2014 levee vegetation guidance, which replaced the 2009 guidance.
Economic
Analysis of
Flood Damage
Reduction
Projects
§147 would have required
economic analyses for feasibility
studies to consider: reduction in
damage to infrastructure and public
and private property; direct and
indirect economic benefits including
national and regional economic
volatility, disruption, and losses; and
public safety benefits.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
NFIP Levee
Certification/
Accreditation
No comparable provision.
§2021 would have authorized the
ASA to carry out levee system
evaluations for FEMA Levee
Accreditation for the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for
federally authorized projects at a
65% federal/ 35% nonfederal costshare (subject to nonfederal abilityto-pay). No authorization of
appropriation was specified.
§3014 directed the ASA to ensure that an activity under the Corps’ inspection
of completed works program provide adequate information to reach a levee
accreditation decision under FEMA’s regulation for the mapping of areas
protected by levees, and to better align the timing of Corps inspections with
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) schedules. §3014 also authorized the
ASA to carry out certain levee system evaluations of federally authorized
levees for NFIP levee accreditation purposes at a 50% federal/ 50% nonfederal
cost-share and using amounts made available through the Corps’ Planning
Assistance to States authority (which is modified by §3015 of the conference
report).
CRS-44
Topic
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Repair and
No comparable provision
Restoration of
Federally
Authorized
Flood Damage
Reduction
Projects
§2022 would have authorized the
ASA to repair or restore federally
authorized flood damage reduction
projects to authorized levels
including for reasons of settlement,
subsidence, sea level rise, or new
datum at a 100% federal expense.
The authorization would have
sunset after 10 years, with a total
authorization of appropriations of
$250 million.
§3017 authorized the ASA for 10 years after enactment to perform cost-shared
restoration of already constructed, federally authorized hurricane and storm
damage reduction projects to authorized levels of protection resulting from
consolidation, settlement, subsidence, sea level rise, and new datum if the ASA
determines the work is technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified. The ASA is limited to using this authorization on
projects with project partnerships agreements that state that the nonfederal
entity is in not required to perform restoration for subsidence and sea level
rise as part of its operation and maintenance responsibilities.
Extension of
Periodic
Beach
Nourishment
No comparable provision.
§2030 would have created a
process by which the ASA can
determine whether to extend for
15 years federal participation in
periodic beach nourishment for
projects that had reached their 50
year construction authorizations.
§1037 authorized that nourishment could continue for three years beyond the
maximum period of nourishment (set at 50 years in 42 U.S.C. 1962d-5f) for
projects that had their federally cost-shared nourishment expiring within 5
years of enactment. §1037 allowed the ASA, at the request of the nonfederal
entity, to review the feasibility of extending nourishment for fifteen years and
make a recommendation on an extension of nourishment extension. The 15year extension of nourishment requires congressional authorization.
Levee
Rehabilitation
No comparable provision.
§6004 would have authorized a
program for levee rehabilitation
activities at 65% federal/35%
nonfederal cost-share and a
maximum federal share per project
of $10 million. §6009 would have
provided annual authorization of
appropriations of $300 million for
FY2014 through 2023.
§3016 authorized the ASA to establish a program for levee rehabilitation
assistance activities at 65% federal/35% nonfederal cost-share and a maximum
federal share per project of $10 million. §3016 provided an annual
authorization of appropriations of $30 million for FY2015 through 2019.
Levee Safety
Board/
Committee
No comparable provision.
§6005 would have established a
National Levee Safety Advisory
Board to provide advice on levee
safety and to monitor the
effectiveness of the national levee
safety program created in §6004.
§3016 amended an existing authority (33 U.S.C. 3302) for the national
committee on levee safety, including adding the ASA and FEMA Administrator
as nonvoting members and direction on committee duties and roles; the
committee is to report to the ASA and Congress on the effectiveness of the
levee safety initiative.
CRS-45
H.R. 3080
Topic
H.R. 3080
Levee Safety
No comparable provision.
Status and
Levee Liability
Reports
Source: CRS.
CRS-46
S. 601
§6007 would have required the
ASA to report every two years on
the nation’s levees, and once on
levee liability issues.
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
§3016 included a provision similar to S. 601.
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
Restoring and Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems
As part of its mission, the Corps undertakes projects and activities intended to restore the
structures, function and natural processes of aquatic ecosystems to a more natural condition. It
also has authorities related to control of invasive species at its projects. Congress directs and
facilitates these actions through project-specific provisions and programmatic provisions that
direct broader Corps authorities and efforts, among other things.
Ecosystem Restoration31
WRRDA 2014 authorized new construction projects that aim to restore aquatic resources. Projectspecific authorizations (discussed in an earlier section, “Authorizing Projects and
Managing Subsequent Authorizations”) include projects that are part of comprehensive efforts to
restore the Everglades and Coastal Louisiana. For the Everglades, the conference report
authorized four projects at a total cost of approximately $1.9 billion.32 For Coastal Louisiana, the
conference report authorized seven projects under the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) restoration
program at a total cost of $2.1 billion. Overall, the conference report authorized new restoration
projects at a total cost of $6.05 billion ($3.62 billion in federal costs and $2.43 billion in
nonfederal costs). It also authorized other multi-purpose projects with environmental restoration
elements.
WRRDA 2014, as shown in Table 11, directed new studies in specific geographic locations which
may result in new major ecosystem restoration construction efforts, including efforts in Coastal
Louisiana, the North Atlantic coast, and Chesapeake Bay, among other places. In most cases,
additional actions by Congress would be required to authorize new physical construction in these
areas. Similar to S. 601, WRRDA 2014 (§4011) authorized ten feasibility studies to be drawn
from a 2012 Louisiana state plan (i.e., Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan) and incorporated
into the existing Corps LCA program and reporting requirements. These studies are in addition to
the LCA projects authorized for construction referenced above.
Similar to S. 601, WRRDA 2014 (§4009) authorized a new feasibility study for coastal ecosystem
restoration projects in a large region of the Northeast. This North Atlantic coastal study could
result in a recommendation for authorization of new restoration efforts in coastal areas from
Virginia to Maine. WRRDA 2014 also authorized the Corps to carry out projects identified by the
North Atlantic coastal study using existing relevant authorizations for smaller projects (i.e.,
projects under the Corps Continuing Authorities Programs). Construction of new projects that are
not already authorized require additional authorization by Congress. WRRDA 2014 also
authorized an ocean and coastal ecosystem resiliency program, which is discussed in the
“Addressing Other Issues” section below.
WRRDA 2014 also authorized additional restoration studies and work in the Chesapeake Bay.
Similar to a proposal in H.R. 3080, WRRDA 2014 (§4010) converted an existing Corps
Chesapeake Bay watershed assistance authority from a pilot program to a “program.” Assistance
31
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 7-...., and (name redacted),
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 7-.....
32
For more information on progress toward Everglades restoration, see CRS Report R42007, Everglades Restoration:
Federal Funding and Implementation Progress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
47
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014: Comparison of Select Provisions
may be provided for a variety of projects and activities, ranging from sediment and erosion
control to ecosystem restoration. The projects and activities have to follow a comprehensive
restoration plan, which the ASA is directed to complete within two years of enactment in
cooperation with other federal agencies, state and local government officials and affected
stakeholders. The program’s authorization of appropriations remained unchanged at $10 million.
WRRDA 2014 also changed the authorization for appropriations from $50 million to $60 million
for carrying out oyster restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay.
Provisions in WRRDA 2014 also provided direction for environmental restoration work by the
Corps. Similar to S. 601, the conference report (§1011(b)) established general criteria for
prioritizing funding for environmental restoration projects. It specified that those projects which
address threats to public safety, restore ecosystems of national significance, and which are of
significance for federally protected species (including migratory birds) should be prioritized for
funding. It also specified that projects that contribute to other ongoing restoration efforts should
receive priority. It is unknown to what extent this may alter the Administration’s budget
development process for the Corps, which recently has reflected other priorities and criteria.
Invasive Species
WRRDA 2014 also contained provisions to address invasive species.33 Similar to S. 601,
WRRDA 2014 (§1039(b)) required an interagency review of federal invasive species
authorities.34 Similar to H.R. 3080 , WRRDA 2014 also required a GAO report on the adequacy
of federal invasive species activities, among other things.
WRRDA 2014 (§1039(c)) altered existing Corps invasive species authorities (33 U.S.C. 610). It
added to the existing Corps authority to control noxious aquatic plant growths at navigable
waters, tributary streams, connecting channels, and other waters of the United States. It also
authorized the Corps to conduct efforts to control “aquatic invasive species” in these areas and
added “prevention” to the existing authorized activities of control and eradication. It increased
Corps authorized appropriations for these activities from $15 million to $20 million annually for
aquatic plant control, $20 million annually for the new authority for aquatic invasive species.
WRRDA 2014 also directed invasive species work in specific basins and water bodies. The
conference report (§1039(b)) authorized an interagency effort to combat the spread of Asian carp
in the Upper Mississippi and Ohio River basins. This provision included authority for the federal
government to provide aid, including technical assistance, to state and local governments.35 In
addition to this effort, the conference report expanded reporting requirements associated with
Asian carp. The approach in the conference report in this respect was similar to both S. 601 and
H.R. 3080. In addition to these activities, the WRRDA 2014 (§1039(c)), similar to S. 601,
authorized the establishment of watercraft inspection stations in the Columbia River Basin, to
prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species at Corps reservoirs in this region.
33
For more on federal invasive species activities, see CRS Report R43258, Invasive Species: Major Laws and the Role
of Selected Federal Agencies, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
34
The review is to be carried out by the Corps, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
35
To date, the federal government has been involved in efforts to control Asian carp focused on the connection
between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River in the Chicago area, as well as control efforts and study of other
areas. For more, see CRS Report R41082, Asian Carp and the Great Lakes Region, by (name redacted), (name reda
cted), and Cynthia Brougher.
Congressional Research Service
48
Table 11. Select Ecosystem Restoration and Invasive Species Provisions
Topic
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
Invasive
Species
Control
§137 would have amended 33
U.S.C. 610(a) to expand Corps
authorities to control invasive
species beyond aquatic plants to
include aquatic invasive species on
all waters of the United States.
No comparable provision.
§1039(c) was similar to the proposed provision in H.R. 3080, but added
additional authority for the Corps to conduct “prevention” efforts related
to invasive species and increased the authorization of appropriations for
Corps invasive species activities.
Asian Carp
Control
§144 would have authorized an
interagency effort to combat the
spread of Asian carp in the Upper
Mississippi and Ohio River basins,
and require related reports.
§2052 contained a similar provision to
H.R. 3080.
§1039(b) authorized a provision similar to H.R. 3080 and S. 601.
Invasive
Species
Studies
§145 would have required GAO to
report on the adequacy of the
federal government’s investment in
invasive species activities, among
other things.
§2052 would have required an
interagency review of federal invasive
species authorities by the Corps, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
§1039(b) required the studies that were included in both the H.R. 3080
and S. 601.
Ecosystem
Restoration
Funding
Prioritization
No comparable provision.
§2045 would have directed that funding
be prioritized for ecosystem restoration
projects that address threats to public
safety, restore ecosystems of national
significance, and are significant for
federally protected species (e.g.,
migratory birds). It also would have
prioritized projects that contribute to
other ongoing Federal, state, or local
restoration efforts.
§1011 authorized a provision similar to S. 601
CRS-49
Topic
Louisiana
Coastal Area:
New
Feasibility
Studies
H.R. 3080
S. 601
Conference Report/P.L. 113-121
No comparable provision.
§3018 would have authorized 10
feasibility studies to be drawn from a
2012 Louisiana state plan (i.e., Louisiana
Comprehensive Master Plan) and
incorporated into the existing Corps
LCA program and reporting
requirements.
§4011 authorized a provision similar to the proposal in S. 601.
North Atlantic No comparable provision.
Coastal
Restoration
§5002 would have authorized a new
feasibility study for coastal ecosystem
restoration projects in the Northeast,
from Virginia to Maine, and would
require recommendations to Congress.
§4009 authorized a provision similar to the proposal in S. 601.
Chesapeake
No comparable provision.
Bay:
Restoration
Assistance and
Oyster
Restoration
§5003 would have changed an existing
authority for Corps financial assistance
for restoration in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed from a pilot program to a
“program.” Assistance w
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.