Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Congressional research reportSep 9, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Updated September 9, 2026
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R47162
SUMMARY
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance for the design and construction of certain
infrastructure in specified municipalities, counties, and states. This assistance supports different
projects at publicly owned and operated facilities. Projects include construction of water
distribution works, stormwater management, surface water protection, and environmental
restoration, among others. EI assistance authorities generally fall into one of three categories:
R47162
September 9, 2026
Anna E. Normand
Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy
•
Section 219 EI. Assistance at specific geographic locations (e.g., city, county, multiple counties)
authorized under Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 1992; P.L. 102580), as amended.
• Non-Section 219 EI Projects. Projects authorized in provisions other than Section 219 of WRDA 1992.
• EI Programs. EI programs authorized for broader geographic areas (e.g., states or regions of states), with
various eligible types of assistance.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has reviewed enacted legislation since WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662) that was likely
to include EI assistance authorities and deauthorization lists. CRS has identified more than 600 EI assistance authorities with
cumulative authorizations of appropriations totaling approximately $18.1 billion. In the 118th Congress, WRDA 2024
(Division A of P.L. 118-272) amended existing EI assistance authorities and enacted new EI assistance authorities, which
provided a combined increase in authorization of appropriations of $5.4 billion. Individual authorizations of appropriations
for EI assistance authorities vary widely, from $100,000 for a water monitoring station to $1.1 billion for a seven-state EI
program. CRS has identified authorized EI assistance in at least 46 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. CRS has not identified authorities for EI assistance in Iowa, Maine,
Nebraska, Rhode Island, or the remaining territories.
USACE evaluates an activity’s eligibility for assistance by identifying whether an EI assistance authorization exists for the
project’s geographic area, and whether the proposed work is an eligible type of assistance provided for in the authorization.
Individual authorizations typically specify the nature of USACE’s involvement and the nonfederal cost share. USACE is
authorized to perform design and/or construction work with USACE funds and, for certain programmatic authorities, may use
appropriated funds to reimburse nonfederal sponsors for work they perform. Most USACE EI assistance requires cost sharing
at 75% federal and 25% nonfederal. The nonfederal sponsor—the owner of constructed facilities—is responsible for
operations and maintenance. WRDA 2024 authorized a 90% federal cost share under some authorities for projects benefitting
economically disadvantaged communities. Unlike traditional USACE water resource projects, EI assistance is not subject to
the USACE planning process (e.g., it does not require a feasibility study); however, other federal laws apply to EI assistance,
including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq).
Congress typically funds EI assistance through USACE’s Construction account in Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies annual appropriations acts. Presidential budget requests typically do not include funding for EI assistance,
with an exception for FY2024. For example, President Trump’s FY2027 budget request did not include funding for EI
assistance. For FY2026, P.L. 119-74 provided $360 million for EI assistance, primarily for Member-requested projects. At
times, supplemental appropriations acts have provided funding for EI assistance. For example, the Disaster Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of P.L. 118-158), provided emergency supplemental appropriations of
$300 million in FY2025 to fund EI assistance; as directed, USACE allocated the funding in a work plan.
Congress may examine whether USACE’s EI assistance activities are meeting expectations. In addition, Congress may
consider whether to amend, add, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities, such as in a WRDA. In the 119th Congress, H.R.
9497 would add 193 EI assistance authorities and amend 87 authorities, increasing authorization of appropriations by $6.6
billion; S. 4949 would increase EI assistance authorization of appropriations by nearly $1.0 billion with 78 new authorities
and 37 amended authorities. S. 4949 also includes two provisions for EI assistance implementation: (1) designating projects
less than $50 million in federal costs as an action categorically excluded from certain NEPA requirements and (2) allowing
for Section 219 EI assistance reimbursements to nonfederal sponsors. Congress also may consider whether to deauthorize EI
assistance authorities, such as the 180 authorities in USACE’s draft list of authorities for deauthorization announced in the
Federal Register on May 21, 2026. The level of funding for EI assistance activities relative to other priorities is also a
potential consideration, including how funding is allocated among EI assistance authorities.
Congressional Research Service
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities ...................................................................... 1
Evolution of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities ........................................... 4
Authority Modifications from 2014 to 2020 ....................................................................... 4
New and Modified Authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024 ..................................... 5
Deauthorization Processes .................................................................................................. 6
EI Assistance Authority Proposals in WRDA 2026 Bills .......................................................... 7
Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance ..................................................................... 9
FY2021 Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 10
FY2022 Through FY2024 Appropriations .............................................................................. 10
FY2025 Appropriations ............................................................................................................ 11
FY2026 Appropriations ........................................................................................................... 12
Analysis of Funding from FY2021 Through FY2026............................................................. 12
Considerations for Congress.......................................................................................................... 14
Adding, Amending, or Deauthorizing EI Assistance Authorities ............................................ 14
Funding EI Assistance Authorities .......................................................................................... 16
Evaluating EI Assistance Activities......................................................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1. Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Funding by State ........................................... 13
Tables
Table 1. Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance, FY2021-FY2026.......................... 9
Table B-1. Summary of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities ............................. 28
Appendixes
Appendix A. Examples of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities .......................... 19
Appendix B. Summary of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities .......................... 28
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 47
Congressional Research Service
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Introduction
Congress has authorized and funded the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to assist with
the design and construction of certain water-related infrastructure in specified municipalities,
counties, and states. This assistance supports projects at publicly owned and operated facilities,
such as design and construction of water supply and treatment facilities, water distribution works,
wastewater and sanitation systems, stormwater collection efforts, surface water protection
projects, and environmental restoration projects, among others.1 This USACE assistance is
broadly referred to as environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance. Aside from EI assistance,
USACE has water resources development authorities for navigation, flood risk reduction, and
aquatic ecosystem restoration activities.2
This report describes EI assistance authorities and their implementation, and provides background
on how these authorities have been enacted since 1992. (Appendixes provide example authorities
and a list of current authorities.) The report also presents information on EI assistance
appropriations from FY2021 through FY2026. The report concludes with issues Congress may
consider in regard to authorities, funding, and oversight of EI assistance.
Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
Congress first authorized USACE to perform EI assistance in 1992. Congress typically authorizes
USACE activities in omnibus authorization laws, often titled Water Resources Development Acts
(WRDAs).3 WRDA 1992 contained the first EI assistance authorities.4 Following WRDA 1992,
Congress has authorized new or amended EI assistance authorities in subsequent WRDAs and in
some appropriations acts (i.e., in acts aside from WRDAs), as described in “Evolution of
Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities.” Appendix A provides the legislative text of
example EI assistance authorities.
EI assistance authorities generally fall into one of three categories:
•
•
Section 219 EI. Assistance at specific geographic locations (e.g., city, county,
multiple counties) authorized under Section 219 of WRDA 1992, as amended.5
Non-Section 219 EI Projects. Projects authorized in provisions other than
Section 219 of WRDA 1992.6
1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), “Environmental Infrastructure,”
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Environmental-Infrastructure/.
2 For more information on USACE civil works activities, see CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand.
3
For more information on Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), see CRS In Focus IF13112, Water
Resources Development Acts: Primer and Action in the 119th Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand.
4 P.L. 102-580.
5 These authorities range from covering single municipalities to covering multiple counties in a state to covering a state
or territory.
6 One USACE non-Section 219 environmental infrastructure (EI) project authority has statutory roots that precede
WRDA 1992 (P.L. 102-580). In Section 1113 of WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662), as amended, Congress authorized
USACE to “carry out, without regard to economic analysis, such measures as are necessary to protect and restore the
river diversion structures and associated channels attendant to the operations of the community ditch and Acequia
systems in New Mexico that—(1) are declared to be a political subdivision of the State; or (2) belong to an Indian Tribe
(as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).” USACE
has allocated funds that Congress appropriated for EI assistance to activities authorized by Section 1113. No other nonSection 219 EI project authority has received funding in recent fiscal years.
Congressional Research Service
1
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
•
EI Programs. EI programs authorized for broader geographic areas (e.g., states
or regions of states), generally with multiple types of assistance authorized.7
Some EI programs focus more on restoration than on other types of assistance.
Based on a review of enacted legislation since WRDA 1986 likely to include EI assistance
authorities, and a review of deauthorization lists,8 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has
identified over 600 EI assistance authorities with cumulative authorizations of appropriations
totaling approximately $18.1 billion (see Appendix B).9 The authorizations for these activities
vary widely, from $100,000 for a water monitoring station to $1.1 billion for a seven-state EI
program. These authorizations are at fixed levels (i.e., not indexed for inflation).10 CRS has
identified EI assistance authorities in at least 46 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. CRS has not identified
authorities for EI assistance in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, or the remaining territories.
Individual authorizations determine the nature of USACE’s involvement and applicable
nonfederal cost share. A project’s eligibility for assistance is based on whether an EI assistance
authorization exists for the project’s geographic area and whether the proposed work is an eligible
type of assistance provided for in the authorization. USACE is authorized to perform design
and/or construction work with appropriated funds and, generally for programmatic authorities,
may use appropriated funds to reimburse nonfederal sponsors for work they perform.11 Most
USACE EI assistance requires cost sharing at 75% federal and 25% nonfederal,12 with WRDA
7 EI assistance program authorities state that the authority is for a program, with criteria defining what types of projects
or types of assistance are eligible for assistance under the authority. These programmatic authorities also include
direction on how to operate the authority as a program (e.g., provisions on credit toward the nonfederal cost share) and
most include the ability for USACE to reimburse the nonfederal sponsor for work performed by the sponsor. By
contrast, EI assistance authorities for projects (i.e., projects under Section 219 EI assistance authorities) generally may
be for more specific projects, may provide less direction on executing the authority, and do not allow for
reimbursement to the nonfederal sponsor.
8 USACE published lists in the Federal Register to deauthorize certain USACE authorities pursuant to direction in
WRDA 1986 (P.L. 99-662) and in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L.
113-121). For more information, see the report section on “Deauthorization Processes.”
9 Neither Congress nor USACE has defined environmental infrastructure, but authorities that receive appropriations for
EI assistance have some characteristic authorizing language. This report and its tables may refer to authorities that
some may not consider to be EI assistance and may not refer to authorities that some consider to be EI assistance. See
Appendix B for further information on CRS methodology to identify EI assistance authorities.
10 Section 584 of WRDA 1996 (P.L. 104-303), as amended, authorized the water monitoring station. Section 595 of
WRDA 1999 (P.L. 106-53), as amended, authorized the Western Rural Water seven-state EI program.
11 Based on USACE model agreements for nonfederal design and/or construction work under most programmatic
authorities, the nonfederal sponsor is to provide USACE invoices for reimbursement of eligible project costs performed
after finalizing the agreement, with the possibility for the nonfederal sponsor to include pre-agreement design work in
the initial invoice. Press releases and fact sheets pertaining to the South Central Pennsylvania Environment
Improvement Program (Section 313 of WRDA 1992, as amended) state that the nonfederal sponsor may receive credit
for design and construction work performed up to six years prior to execution of a project partnership agreement.
USACE, “Section 313 South Central Pennsylvania Environment Improvement Program,” March 1, 2025,
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll11/id/617; USACE, “Pittsburgh’s Got Grit, but Army
Corps Signs Partnership Agreement to Help Filter Out the Muck,” January 12, 2023,
https://www.lrd.usace.army.mil/News/News-Releases/Article/3638833/pittsburghs-got-grit-but-army-corps-signspartnership-agreement-to-help-filter/. Model agreements are located at USACE, “Model Agreements and Templates,”
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Partnership-Agreements/#Environmental%20Infrastructure.
12 The nonfederal sponsor must provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRDs)
necessary for construction, operation and maintenance of a project; these may credit toward the value of the nonfederal
sponsor’s cost share. For Section 219 EI assistance authorities, the statute states that the nonfederal sponsor cost share
“shall be no less than 25%,” while most programmatic authorities direct that the federal share “shall be 75%.” Section
8149 of WRDA 2022 (Division H, Title LXXXI; P.L. 117-263) amended 33 U.S.C. §2222, an authority regarding the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
2024 providing a 90% federal cost share under some authorities for projects benefitting
economically disadvantaged communities.13 The nonfederal public sponsor is generally the owner
of constructed facilities and is responsible for 100% of operations and maintenance costs.14
To initiate a request for assistance, a nonfederal project sponsor submits a letter of intent to the
local USACE district.15 Once appropriations are provided to a project under an EI assistance
authority, USACE and nonfederal sponsors sign an agreement before USACE provides
assistance.16 Unlike traditional USACE water resource projects, EI assistance is not subject to the
USACE planning process (e.g., it does not require a feasibility study), and the anticipated benefits
of a project are determined by its nonfederal sponsor. However, projects that receive EI assistance
are required to comply with other federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA).17 Among other things, NEPA requires federal agencies to identify and evaluate the
impacts of “major [f]ederal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”
(i.e., through an environmental review) prior to finalizing certain decisions.18 The depth of
analysis and type of documentation required by NEPA largely depend on the extent to which
anticipated impacts are expected to be “significant.”19 Generally, this process results in USACE
use of other federal funds for nonfederal cost shares for USACE studies or projects. The amendment expanded the
provision to include “a study or project under an environmental infrastructure assistance program.” Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works (ASACW), “Implementation Guidance for Section 8149 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2022, Use of Other Federal Funds,” November 8, 2024, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/
getfile/collection/p16021coll5/id/38398.
13 Sections 1304, 1305, 1330, 1332, 1344, 1347, 1352, and 1353 of Division A, P.L. 118-272. An economically
disadvantaged community in these provisions is defined pursuant to Section 160 of WRDA 2020. USACE published a
memorandum on Implementation Guidance for Section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020,
Definition of Economically Disadvantaged Community, on March 14, 2023, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/
getfile/collection/p16021coll5/id/36002. For more information on this cost-share modification, see section “New and
Modified Authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024.”
14 USACE states that public sponsors may include local and state governments, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and
nonprofit organizations (with consent from the affected local government). USACE, “Environmental Infrastructure,”
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Environmental-Infrastructure/.
15 See the “FAQ” section at USACE, “Environmental Infrastructure,” https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Environmental-Infrastructure/.
16 The cost share agreement outlines the financial responsibilities of both parties, including the specific cost-sharing
ratio, milestones, and payment terms. USACE budget policy states that USACE districts should execute cost sharing
agreements only for “useful increments of work” of EI assistance projects. The policy states that “useful increments of
work” might be a “separable element” as defined in 33 §U.S.C. 2213(f) or a “discrete segment” as defined in 33 U.S.C.
§2232(d)(5)(D). USACE, FY2026 Civil Works Directorate Program Execution Guidance, June 4, 2026,
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll9/id/3299. Model agreements are located at USACE,
“Model Agreements and Templates,” https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-PartnershipAgreements/#Environmental%20Infrastructure.
17 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq. For instance, USACE has developed Program Implementation Guidance for the Northern
West Virginia EI program, authorized by Section 571 of WRDA 1999, as amended (originally the Central West
Virginia EI program until WRDA 2022). The guidance states that the nonfederal sponsor is responsible for obtaining
all necessary permits and licenses. USACE, Central West Virginia Environmental Infrastructure and Resource
Protection and Development Program, Program Implementation Guidance, December 20, 2020,
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p16021coll11/id/4822/download.
18 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C). Further, 42 U.S.C. §4336e(10) defines a major federal action as an action that an agency
“determines is subject to substantial Federal control and responsibility,” subject to certain exclusions. For an overview
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), see CRS In Focus IF12560, National Environmental Policy
Act: An Overview, by Kristen Hite and Heather McPherron.
19 42 U.S.C. §4336(b) requires that an agency issue an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed agency
action that has a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment or an environmental
assessment (EA) for a proposed agency action where the effects are unknown or where reasonably foreseeable effects
are not significant. An agency is not required to prepare an EIS or EA for a proposed agency action if the action is
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for its actions related to the project and ultimately
signing a finding of no significant impact if USACE determines that the proposed action or
project will not have significant effects to the quality of the human environment before
proceeding with the project.20
Evolution of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
Since 1992, Congress has authorized EI assistance for specific geographic areas, amended
existing EI authorities, and established processes that deauthorized some EI authorities. Section
219 of WRDA 1992 authorized design assistance for 18 projects. Other sections of WRDA 1992
authorized EI design and construction assistance for projects and programs in selected geographic
areas.21 WRDA 1996 added construction assistance for certain Section 219 authorities.22 WRDA
1999 added authorities under Section 219(f) for both design and construction assistance.23 Both of
these WRDAs also included new programmatic EI assistance authorities. In subsequent WRDAs
through WRDA 2007, and in selected appropriations laws,24 Congress continued to authorize new
and amend existing USACE EI assistance authorities. For example, WRDA 2007 added
approximately $2.7 billion in authorization of appropriations for EI assistance.25
Authority Modifications from 2014 to 2020
From 2014 through 2020, WRDAs modified certain EI authorities, but they did not authorize new
EI assistance. Among other reasons, Congress did not establish new authorities during this time
due to policies restricting congressionally directed authorization and appropriations (i.e.,
earmarks) in the 112th-116th Congresses.
Congress provided a process for nonfederal sponsors to propose modifications to EI assistance
authorities when WRDA 2016 expanded Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014).26 Through the Section 7001 proposal process,
nonfederal sponsors may propose modifications to existing EI assistance authorizations (e.g.,
expand the location, amend eligible project types, or adjust the authorization of appropriations).27
This process requires USACE to submit an annual report to Congress identifying proposals by
covered by one of the agency’s categorical exclusions (CEs) or if another agency’s CE is applied consistent with 42
U.S.C. §4336c. Categorical exclusions (CEs) are categories of actions that a federal agency has previously determined
normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
20 USACE follows Department of Defense (currently using the secondary title Department of War) NEPA
implementing procedures, which require the preparation of an EA for proposed agency actions that do not have a
reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment or if the significance of the effects is
unknown. If USACE determines, based on the EA, that the proposed action will not have significant effects, it prepares
a finding of no significant impact; if the EA finds that significant impacts are likely, USACE must prepare an EIS. See
guidance in Department of War, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, April 30, 2026, p. 10,
https://www.denix.osd.mil/nepa/denix-files/sites/55/2026/05/DOW-Procedures-Combined_05252026_V1.2.pdf.
21 For example, Section 340 of WRDA 1992, Southern West Virginia.
22 Section 504 of P.L. 104-303.
23 Section 502 of P.L. 106-53.
24 Such as in Appendix D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-554).
25 Various sections of P.L. 110-114.
26 See 33 U.S.C. §2282d.
27 For more information on the Section 7001 proposal process, see CRS Insight IN11118, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers: Section 7001 Report on Future Studies and Projects, by Anna E. Normand. Section 7001 reports are
available at USACE, “Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development,”
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/WRRDA-7001-Proposals/.
Congressional Research Service
4
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
nonfederal interests that meet certain criteria. Congress may consider these proposals as part of
WRDA deliberations. For example, in WRDA 2020, Congress amended 14 EI assistance
authorities to increase their authorizations of appropriations based on the 7001 proposal process.28
For four of the EI authorities, WRDA 2020 expanded the authorized geographic scope or types of
eligible activities.
New and Modified Authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024
The 117th and 118th Congresses amended existing EI assistance authorities and established new
authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024. Due to changes in policies that previously restricted
congressionally directed authorizations, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
(EPW) and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) both considered
Member proposals to add or amend EI assistance authorities and proposals transmitted by the
Administration (e.g., nonfederal proposals to amend EI assistance authorities included in a
Section 7001 report) when developing WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024. In total, WRDA 2022
increased the authorization of appropriations for EI by $6.6 billion. WRDA 2024 increased the
authorization of appropriations by an additional $5.4 billion.
EI provisions in these enacted WRDAs varied by the type of infrastructure eligible for assistance,
the geographic area covered, and the authorization of appropriations. New EI assistance
authorities in the WRDAs included authorities pertaining to a specific water district, cities,
counties, and states. In particular, WRDA 2022 expanded the geographic scope of EI assistance
authorities to include all or some parts of Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and
Washington state, which previously did not have EI authorities. New authorizations of
appropriations for EI assistance authorities in the WRDAs ranged from $170,000 to $270.0
million. EI assistance amendments included increasing authorizations of appropriations for EI
assistance authorities and ranged from $1.4 million to $184.0 million. Most provisions in the
WRDAs authorized eligible activities that were similar to previous EI authorities. Additional
specified activities included groundwater recharge, water recycling, water reclamation, natural
and nature-based infrastructure, water quality enhancement, and resilience measures for such
infrastructure regarding drought, coastal flooding, and earthquakes. WRDA 2024 also included
cost-share adjustments for some authorities and projects benefitting economically disadvantaged
communities.29
WRDA 2022 included the following sections related to EI assistance authorities:
•
•
Section 8311 amended the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority;30
Sections 8319, 8353, and 8359 authorized new programmatic EI assistance
authorities for Los Angeles County; northern Missouri; and southwestern
Oregon, respectively;
28 Section 352 of P.L. 116-260, Division AA.
29 Generally, these provisions increased the federal cost share to 90% for projects benefitting economically
disadvantaged communities. WRDA 2024 did not authorize this cost-share adjustment for all authorities (i.e., some
programmatic authorities do not include this provision). The provision relating to Section 219 authorities is a pilot
program with an annual limit on the increased federal costs. An economically disadvantaged community in these
provisions is defined pursuant to Section 160 of WRDA 2020. USACE published a memorandum on “Implementation
Guidance for Section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, Definition of Economically
Disadvantaged Community,” on March 14, 2023, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll5/
id/36002.
30 Section 113 of WRDA 1986, as amended.
Congressional Research Service
5
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
•
•
•
Sections 8373 and 8374 amended two programmatic EI assistance authorities for
West Virginia;
Section 8375 amended 24 Section 219 EI assistance authorities, including 2 that
were reauthorized, and added 132 new Section 219 assistance authorities; and
Section 8376 amended 12 programmatic EI assistance authorities.
WRDA 2024 included the following sections related to EI assistance authorities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 1304(a) authorized 193 new Section 219 EI assistance authorities;
Section 1304(b)(2) amended 53 Section 219 EI assistance authorities, including 1
that was reauthorized, and 11 programmatic EI assistance authorities;31
Section 1305 created a seven-year pilot program to allow an increased federal
cost share (up to 90%) for Section 219 EI assistance projects that benefit
economically disadvantaged communities;32
Sections 1332, 1340, 1344, 1348, and 1349 authorized new programmatic EI
assistance authorities for Lake Champlain Watershed, western Washington state;
Kentucky and West Virginia; southeastern North Carolina; Oregon; and
Pennsylvania, respectively;33
Sections 1330, 1347, 1352, and 1353 amended four programmatic EI assistance
authorities;34 and
Section 1355 amended the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority.35
Deauthorization Processes
In WRDAs, Congress has established various processes to deauthorize existing authorities
meeting certain criteria.36 These processes have twice resulted in the deauthorization of EI
assistance authorities.37
•
In WRDA 1986, as amended, Congress established a deauthorization process that
USACE used in 2009 to deauthorize certain EI assistance authorities.38
31 Section 1304(b)(2) included amendments to the Los Angeles County and Northern Missouri programmatic
authorities to provide for a federal cost share of 90% for projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities;
other amendments to programmatic authorities in Section 1304(b)(2) did not include this cost-share adjustment.
32 The authorization also limits the total increase in the federal share for all projects in a fiscal year to $10 million.
33 Sections 1332 and 1344 provide for a federal cost share of 90% for projects benefiting economically disadvantaged
communities. Section 1332 also repealed Section 219(f)(404) of WRDA 1992, as amended.
34 Amendments to these authorities included providing for a federal cost share of 90% for projects that benefit
economically disadvantaged communities.
35 The Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance authority already included a 90% federal cost share for projects
benefitting economically disadvantaged communities. The amendment to the authority provided that reconnaissance
studies are to be 100% federally funded. The authority does not include a definition for a reconnaissance study;
generally, USACE conducts reconnaissance studies to make a preliminary determination whether there is federal
interest in further studying and addressing a water resources issue.
36 For more information on processes to deauthorize USACE authorities, see section on “Deauthorization and
Divestiture” in CRS Report R47946, Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects, by Nicole T. Carter
and Anna E. Normand.
37 CRS has not identified any enacted provisions in which Congress has deauthorized individual EI assistance
authorities.
38 33 U.S.C. §579a(b)(2). See the deauthorization list published in 74 Federal Register 31713-31715, July 2, 2009,
which deauthorized six authorities.
Congressional Research Service
6
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
•
In WRRDA 2014, Congress established a one-time deauthorization process that
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASACW) used in 2016 to
deauthorize certain EI assistance authorities.39
Congress amended the ASACW’s authority to deauthorize USACE projects multiple times
between enactment of WRRDA 2014 and WRDA 2024, but the ASACW did not use these
authorities. Although some prior USACE deauthorization process authorities excluded EI
assistance authorities, the current deauthorization process as established by WRDA 2024 does not
explicitly exclude EI authorities from the deauthorization process.40 The current process applies
to project authorities enacted before June 10, 2014 (i.e., authorities in acts prior to WRRDA
2014), that (1) have not been initiated as of WRDA 2024 enactment or (2) have not had federal or
nonfederal funding for the 10 preceding fiscal years.
The first step in the deauthorization process is for the ASACW to produce a list of projects it
proposes to deauthorize, referred to as a preliminary deauthorization list. On May 21, 2026, as
directed by the ASACW, USACE published a Federal Register notice to solicit comments from
the public on a draft deauthorization list.41 The draft list includes 180 EI assistance authorities
totaling over $1.8 billion in authorization of appropriations (see italicized authorities in Table B1).42 Taking account of public comments, the ASACW is to publish a final deauthorization list.
However, under the current process, authorities on a final deauthorization list are not
automatically deauthorized. Pursuant to WRDA 2024, ASACW’s role in deauthorization
concludes with submission of a final deauthorization list to Congress for review.43
EI Assistance Authority Proposals in WRDA 2026 Bills
In the 119th Congress, the House T&I and Senate EPW committees approved WRDA 2026 bills—
H.R. 9497 and S. 4949—respectively.44 Both bills contain provisions to add and amend EI
assistance authorities. S. 4949 also includes provisions related to EI assistance implementation.
As with WRDA 2024 development, the House T&I and Senate EPW committees both considered
Member proposals to add or amend EI assistance authorities and proposals transmitted by the
39 Section 6001 of P.L. 113-121. The authority was for developing one list. See the deauthorization list published in 81
Federal Register 16147-16153, March 25, 2016, which proposed deauthorizing 59 EI assistance authorities. WRDA
2022 reauthorized two authorities for Louisiana parishes. WRDA 2024 reauthorized one authority for Chester County,
PA.
40 33 U.S.C. §579d–2.
41 The Federal Register notice provided a 90 calendar day comment period. USACE, “Proposed Deauthorization of
Water Resources Projects,” 91 Federal Register 29946, May 21, 2026. USACE, “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Publishes Notice of Proposed Deauthorization List of Water Resources Projects in the Federal Register,” press release,
May 22, 2026, https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-Article-View/Article/4499507/usarmy-corps-of-engineers-publishes-notice-of-proposed-deauthorization-list-of/.
42 This list states that only three of the EI assistance authorities recommended for deauthorization received funding:
North Valley Region, Lancaster, CA; Richmond County, NC; and Lynchburg, VA. The list includes Section 219 EI
assistance authority for Epping, NH, that was in the 2009 final deauthorization list. USACE, Proposed List for
Deauthorization, Federal Register Docket ID No. COE-2026-0034,
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll5/id/38480.
43 No other step to deauthorize authorities in the final list is specified in the current amended authority.
44 On July 14, 2026, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ordered H.R. 9497 to be reported; the bill
was reported, as amended, on September 3, 2026. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)
reported S. 4949, without a written report, on July 15, 2026.
Congressional Research Service
7
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Administration (e.g., nonfederal proposals to amend EI assistance authorities included in a
Section 7001 report) when developing their respective bills.45
H.R. 9497 contains the following EI assistance provisions:
•
•
•
•
Section 302(i) would amend the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance
authorities;
Section 307(b) would authorize 195 new Section 219 EI assistance authorities;
Section 307(c) would amend 77 Section 219 EI assistance authorities and 7
programmatic EI authorities; and
Section 307(d) would allow the federal share of Section 219 EI project costs to
be “provided in the form of reimbursement of project costs incurred by the
nonfederal interest.”
S. 4949 contains the following EI assistance provisions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 1109 would direct the ASACW to designate EI assistance projects that do
not exceed $50 million in federal costs as an action categorically excluded from
the requirements to prepare an EA or environmental impact statement (EIS)
under NEPA;46
Section 1301(a) would amend Section 219(c) of WRDA 1992 to allow assistance
“in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs” for Section 219 EI;
Section 1301(b) would authorize 77 new Section 219 EI assistance authorities;
Section 1301(c) would amend 29 Section 219 EI assistance authorities;
Section 1302 would amend 2 Section 219 EI assistance authorities to decrease
the nonfederal cost share to 10% projects benefitting economically disadvantaged
communities;
Sections 1307, 1328, 1342, 1343, 1347, 1352, and 1362 would amend 7
programmatic EI assistance authorities;47 and
Section 1337 would amend the Acequias Irrigation Systems EI assistance
authority.
In addition, H.R. 9497 and S. 4949 would increase authorization of appropriations for EI
assistance by $6.6 billion and $932 million, respectively. New authorizations of appropriations for
EI assistance authorities in the bills range from $60,000 to $155.0 million. Amendments to EI
assistance authorizations in the bills include adding authorized eligible activities, expanding
geographic eligibility, and increasing authorization of appropriations in the range of $1.0 million
to $291.6 million, among other changes.
45 For example, see Senate EPW, “Water Resources Development Act of 2026 Congressionally Directed Spending
Requests,” July 13, 2026, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-republican. Section 7001
reports are available at USACE, “Reportsce to Congress on Future Water Resources Development,”
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/WRRDA-7001-Proposals/.
46 The provision states that the ASACW is to make the designation no later than 180 days after enactment.
47 In particular, Section 1328 would add Colorado and South Dokota to the Western Rural Water authority and specify
a 90% federal cost share for projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities.
Congressional Research Service
8
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Funding for Environmental Infrastructure
Assistance
USACE’s involvement with projects under an EI assistance authority is contingent upon available
appropriations and ends once those funds are exhausted.48 Federal funding mechanisms have
varied over fiscal years. Congress has typically funded EI assistance through USACE’s
Construction account in Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies annual
appropriations acts. At times, Congress has provided EI assistance funding as additional funding
for USACE to allocate in a work plan and/or based on Member requests (i.e., earmarks).49
Congress also has funded EI assistance through supplemental appropriations. Presidents’ budget
requests typically do not include funding for EI assistance.50 The Trump Administration did not
request such funding for FY2027.51 Table 1 summarizes EI assistance funding information from
FY2021 through FY2026.52 The sections below provide further details and analysis of the funding
in these fiscal years.
Table 1. Funding for Environmental Infrastructure Assistance, FY2021-FY2026
($ in millions, not adjusted for inflation)
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
FY2024a
FY2025
FY2026
$100.0
$299.5
$168.5
$197.7
$300.0
$360.0
NA
$86.5
$130.5
$179.8
—
$345.9
$100.0
$13.0
$18.0c
$17.9
—
$14.1
Supplemental Funding
—
$200.0
$20.0
—
$300.0
—
Number of Funded EI Authorities
21
46
34
44
26
57
Number of CPF/CDS Itemsd
NA
25
33
48
—
69
Total EI Funding
CPF/CDS Fundingb
Work Plan Additional Funding
48 USACE notes that “there is no assurance of continued funding for EI projects.” USACE, “Environmental
Infrastructure,” https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Environmental-Infrastructure/. USACE budget
policy states that “no [cost sharing] agreements should be signed that contemplate future, unfunded increments of
work.” USACE, FY2026 Civil Works Directorate Program Execution Guidance, June 4, 2026,
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll9/id/3299.
49 Since FY2012, Congress has directed USACE to produce an annual work plan describing how additional funds are to
be allocated at the project level. Generally, Congress directs USACE, within 60 days after enactment of the annual
appropriations bill, to issue a work plan that includes the specific amount of additional funding to be allocated to each
project, including EI assistance projects. USACE develops the work plan, which typically consists of tables that list the
projects, the amount of additional funding that each project is to receive, and a one- or two-sentence description of
what USACE plans to accomplish with the funds for the project.
50 For example, USACE FY2026 Civil Works Directorate Program Execution Guidance states: “Environmental
Infrastructure programs and projects are inconsistent with Executive Branch policy for Civil Works.” The FY2024
President’s budget request included $5.0 million for EI assistance, which was the only time an Administration
requested such funding. USACE, FY2024 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Press Book, March
2023, https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2317.
51 USACE, FY2027 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Press Book, April 2026,
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2574.
52 Work plans, spend plans, and explanatory statements provide limited information on the types of projects and work
to be accomplished under these authorities from the appropriations provided by the acts. The documents may include
multiple line items of funding that are under one EI authority. These line items may be for different projects pursuant to
one authority or for work in different states pursuant to a multistate authority. Some line items may fund multiple
projects under that line item.
Congressional Research Service
9
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Sources: CRS, compiled from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Construction Work Plans (FY2021FY2024; FY2026), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), USACE’s IIJA FY2022 spend plan,
P.L. 117-180, and Division B of P.L. 118-158 and its environmental infrastructure assistance work plan.
Notes: CPF/CDS = community project funding/congressionally directed spending. EI = environmental
infrastructure. NA = not applicable. Work plans may list multiple line items and projects, including CPF/CDS
items, under one EI assistance authority.
a. All EI funding for FY2024, including both CPF/CDS items and allocations in the work plan, was funded using
IIJA appropriations.
b. Otherwise known as earmarks.
c. Division N, Title IV of P.L. 117-328 provided $18.0 million in emergency appropriations for USACE to
allocate to EI assistance authorities in a work plan.
d. Multiple CPF/CDS items may be funded under a single EI authority.
FY2021 Appropriations
Prior to the 112th Congress, Congress generally funded specific EI assistance authorities through
direction in report language accompanying appropriations acts. During the 112th-116th
Congresses, when moratorium policies limited earmarks, Congress specified a funding amount
for all EI assistance as part of the “additional funding” provided by appropriations acts. Reports
and explanatory statements accompanying appropriations acts directed USACE to develop a work
plan allocating additional funding, including the EI assistance funding, to projects within a certain
timeframe (e.g., 60 days).53 In addition, Congress provided guidance on how the Administration
was to use the EI assistance funds. For FY2021, Congress provided $100.0 million in additional
funding that USACE allocated among EI assistance authorities in the work plan. In FY2021,
Congress did not provide supplemental or emergency appropriations for EI assistance.
FY2022 Through FY2024 Appropriations
In the 117th and 118th Congresses, annual appropriations processes allowed Members to request
funding for geographically specific projects, referred to as community project funding (CPF) in
the House and congressionally directed spending (CDS) in the Senate. In FY2022 through
FY2024, Congress funded CPF/CDS requests for EI assistance and directed USACE to allocate
“additional funding” for EI assistance in work plans. During these fiscal years, supplemental
appropriations also funded EI assistance, as described below.
For FY2022, the explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), directed $99.5 million in annual appropriations to fund
EI assistance, including (1) $86.5 million to fund 25 CPF/CDS items and (2) $13.0 million that
USACE allocated to five EI authorities in its FY2022 Construction work plan.54 Division J, Title
III, of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) also provided $200.0 million
in FY2022 Construction appropriations for EI assistance authorities, which USACE allocated in
its FY2022 IIJA spend plan as required by that act.55
In FY2023, Congress provided $168.5 million for USACE EI assistance authorities. The
explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023
53 USACE work plans are available at USACE, “Civil Works and Budget Performance,” https://www.usace.army.mil/
Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/#Work-Plans.
54 The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103),
is available at https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20-pt1-PgS7819-2.pdf.
55 Congress provided no direction in the act on which EI assistance authorities to fund. See CRS Insight IN11723,
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Civil Works, by Anna E.
Normand and Nicole T. Carter, for more information on USACE IIJA funding and required reporting.
Congressional Research Service
10
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
(P.L. 117-328), included recommendations to fund 32 CPF/CDS items for EI assistance that
totaled $130.5 million.56 In addition, Division N, Title IV, of P.L. 117-328 provided $18.0 million
in emergency appropriations for USACE to allocate to EI assistance authorities in a work plan;
USACE allocated this funding to 13 authorities in its FY2023 Construction work plan.57 Further,
for FY2023, Division A of the Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-180), provided $20.0 million in emergency appropriations for
EI assistance, which USACE allocated to Section 219(f)(167) of WRDA 1992, as amended, for
water and wastewater infrastructure in Jackson, MS.58
The FY2024 President’s budget request included $5.0 million for EI assistance. This was the first
time an Administration had requested EI assistance funding.59 Congress funded $197.7 million for
EI assistance in enacted FY2024 appropriations (P.L. 118-42) through use of prior-year IIJA
appropriations, including (1) $179.8 million to fund 48 CPF/CDS requests and (2) $17.9 million
that USACE allocated to 8 EI authorities in its FY2024 Construction work plan.60
FY2025 Appropriations
For FY2025, Congress passed annual appropriations for USACE civil works activities as part of a
full-year continuing appropriations act (commonly known as a continuing resolution, or CR). The
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4), provided the same
appropriations amounts for USACE accounts as FY2024 appropriations and directed USACE to
allocate in a work plan funding for certain USACE accounts, including the Construction
account.61 USACE’s FY2025 work plan, however, did not allocate Construction funding to EI
assistance projects.62
The Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of P.L. 118-158), enacted
on December 21, 2024, appropriated $700.0 million in emergency funding for USACE’s
Construction account, including $300.0 million for USACE EI assistance.63 The act further
directed USACE to allocate Construction funds in a work plan. On January 24, 2025, USACE
published a work plan allocating EI funding to 26 authorities for projects in 19 states.64 Individual
56 The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328),
is available at https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/12/20/168/198/CREC-2022-12-20.pdf.
57 See USACE, Army Civil Works Program, “FY2023 Work Plan—Construction,” https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/
utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2303.
58 Correspondence between CRS and USACE on January 4, 2023.
59 Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, “USACE 2024 Civil Works Budget Press Conference,” March 9,
2023; USACE, FY2024 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Press Book, March 2023,
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2317.
60 The act directed USACE to allocate $1.43 billion from unobligated and unallocated prior-year IIJA Construction
appropriations to fund projects listed in the Construction table of the explanatory statement. In its FY2024 Construction
spend plan, USACE identified prior-year IIJA Construction appropriations as funding all line items labeled as EI
assistance, including ones receiving “additional funding.”
61 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF12648, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: FY2025 Appropriations, by Anna
E. Normand and Nicole T. Carter.
62 See USACE, Army Civil Works Program, “FY2025 Work Plan—Construction,” https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/
utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2548.
63 The Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of P.L. 118-158) directed USACE to use the
funds “to complete, or initiate and complete, without regard to new start or new investment decision considerations, a
useful increment of work for water-related environmental infrastructure assistance in States and insular areas that were
impacted by disasters occurring in or prior to calendar year 2024.”
64 Construction—Environmental Infrastructure Work Plan, available at USACE, “Disaster Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 2025,” https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Supplemental-Work/DRSAA25/.
Congressional Research Service
11
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
project allocations ranged from $250,000 to $40.8 million, with the work plan specifying the
estimated obligations from FY2025 through future fiscal years.65
FY2026 Appropriations
For FY2026, the explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 119-74 recommended $360.0 million
in annual appropriations to fund EI assistance, including (1) $345.9 million to fund 69 CPF/CDS
items and (2) $14.1 million that USACE allocated to 8 EI authorities in its FY2026 Construction
work plan.66
Analysis of Funding from FY2021 Through FY2026
Annual EI assistance funding for individual authorities varies widely in the amount provided per
authority. From FY2021 through FY2026, funding in a fiscal year for individual Section 219 EI
assistance authorities ranged from $20,000 to $40.8 million. For programmatic EI assistance
authorities, funding in a fiscal year ranged from $100,000 to $46.6 million. During this time
period, thirty-seven states with EI assistance authorizations received funding from annual
appropriations and supplemental appropriations (Figure 1). Mississippi, South Carolina, and
West Virgina each received funding over these fiscal years that totaled more than $140 million
per state, while some other states received funding in two fiscal years or less, generally totaling
$20 million or less over this time period. Nine states, four territories, and the District of Columbia
all had at least one EI assistance authorization but did not receive funding from FY2021 through
FY2026.
65 Estimated obligations included fiscal years beyond FY2025 for some projects, including through FY2028 for some.
66 USACE, Army Civil Works Program, “FY2026 Work Plan—Construction,”
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll6/id/2575.
Congressional Research Service
12
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Figure 1. Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Funding by State
(FY2021-FY2026; nominal dollars)
Source: CRS, using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) work plans (FY2020-FY2024; FY2026);
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58); FY2022 IIJA Construction spend plan (February 16,
2022) and FY2024 Construction spend plan addendum (January 25, 2025); P.L. 117-180; and Division B of P.L.
118-158 and its environmental infrastructure assistance work plan.
Note: Includes both annual and supplemental appropriations for these fiscal years.
Congressional Research Service
13
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Considerations for Congress
Adding, Amending, or Deauthorizing EI Assistance Authorities
Congress may consider whether to add, amend, or deauthorize EI assistance authorities and, if so,
the process to legislate such changes. During the earmark moratorium in the 112th-116th
Congresses, Congress only amended existing EI assistance authorities, including adding counties
and states to some authorities. In contrast, WRDAs in the 117th and 118th Congresses included
both new and amended EI assistance authorities. Most of the EI assistance provisions in these
latest WRDAs were proposed through Member submissions to the authorizing committees.67
Future Congresses may debate whether and how to further address EI assistance requests. Options
may include amending existing EI assistance authorities, providing new authorities, and
authorizing a nationwide program, among others. Congress may also consider whether to solicit
such proposals through requests from Member offices or by an alternative process. The House
T&I and Senate EPW committees developed EI assistance provisions in their WRDA 2026 bills
(H.R. 9497 and S. 4949, respectively) from Member WRDA requests. The bills would authorize
new authorities under Section 219 but would not authorize new programmatic authorities. The
bills would amend existing programmatic and Section 219 authorities and amend the existing
authority for Acequias Irrigation Systems.
When determining whether to amend or add new EI assistance authorities, Congress may
consider various aspects, such as geographic area covered, authorization of appropriations,
purposes, and cost sharing. For instance, EI assistance provisions in recent WRDAs, including the
2026 bills, vary widely in the authorization of appropriations and eligible geographic areas, and
both bills include new eligible purposes for EI assistance.68 Congress may consider the
distribution of EI assistance authorities across states and regions. While multiple authorities cover
large areas of some states, and some authorities cover entire states, EI assistance authorities are
limited in many other states (e.g., covering only a certain city, county, or region of the state).
Also, Congress has not authorized such assistance in Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, or
American Samoa.
The WRDA 2026 bills include new Section 219 authorities for various geographic areas,
including Rhode Island, and would expand states eligible under the Western Rural Water
authority. Further, WRDA 2024 authorized increased federal cost shares for Section 219 projects
under a pilot program and for projects under some programmatic authorities, if the projects are
expected to benefit economically disadvantaged communities.69 S. 4949 includes provisions for
such cost share modifications for two Section 219 authorities and the Western Rural Water
authority. Most programmatic authorities do not include a cost-share modification for such
projects. The Section 219 pilot program includes an annual funding cap and expiration date.
67 For example, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s instructions for Member proposals for
WRDA 2022 stated, “Members may submit up to a total of five (5) requests for the authorization of new, projectspecific environmental infrastructure authorities, or the modification of existing environmental infrastructure
authorities.” Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Instructions: Member Electronic Submissions to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for Consideration in the Water Resource Development Act of 2022,
January 2022.
68 See above section “New and Modified Authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024” for examples of the range of
provisions in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024.
69 The programmatic authorities section in Table B-1 designates which authorities may provide a reduced cost share for
projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities.
Congressional Research Service
14
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Congress also may consider deauthorizing EI assistance authorities. Multiple EI authorities exist
for some locations. For example, multiple authorities apply to all or portions of Los Angeles
County. In addition, at least 10 occurrences of multiple Section 219 authorities have the same
location in the name. Some EI assistance authorities have not received funding in recent years,
and many EI assistance authorities have never received funding. Some of these unfunded
authorities may no longer reflect a current EI assistance need or may no longer have a nonfederal
entity interested in sponsoring a project’s nonfederal responsibilities (e.g., cost share, operation
and maintenance). Congress may consider whether to deauthorize some or all of the 180 EI
assistance authorities in USACE’s draft list of authorities for deauthorization announced in the
Federal Register on May 21, 2026. These 180 EI assistance authorities account for over $1.8
billion in authorization of appropriations. A potential benefit of maintaining EI assistance
authorities could be their application for other future EI projects in the authorized areas (i.e.,
without having to authorize new assistance). Notably, Congress reauthorized some EI assistance
authorities in WRDA 2022 and WRDA 2024 that were previously deauthorized through the
deauthorization process enacted in WRRDA 2014.
Congress also may consider provisions related to the execution of EI assistance. For instance, S.
4949 would direct the ASACW to designate EI assistance projects with up to $50 million in
federal costs as categorically excluded from NEPA requirements to prepare an EA or EIS.
Whether enactment of this provision would result in a statutory categorical exclusion (CE), or
whether USACE would formally establish the CE through an administrative process that would
require consideration of extraordinary circumstances under which a CE cannot be applied or
requires additional environmental analyses, is uncertain.70 A CE exempting USACE’s
environmental documentation requirements for an EI assistance project may shorten review
timelines.71 Alternatively, without consideration of extraordinary circumstances, the CE could
allow for its application in situations where there could be significant site-specific effects on the
environment. The Community Water Project Acceleration Act (S. 4120) contains a similar
provision as S. 4949, but would explicitly direct the ASACW to promulgate regulations to
establish the CE and allow for consideration of extraordinary circumstances. S. 4120 would tailor
the CE to apply only to projects conducted under programmatic EI authorities and at a lower
federal cost.
H.R. 9497 would allow USACE to provide reimbursements for the federal share of Section 219
project costs. S. 4949 also would authorize USACE to provide assistance in the form of grants
and reimbursements for the federal costs of Section 219. Implementation of such amendments to
the Section 219 authority may allow nonfederal sponsors to perform the contracting for their
projects and receive EI assistance from USACE in the form of reimbursements, as can be done
under programmatic EI assistance authorities. Such assistance might result in expedited
completion of project design and construction if the nonfederal sponsor were more efficient than
USACE at performing the contracting work. If provided with this option, USACE and nonfederal
sponsors may consider their respective capabilities for executing the project work.
70 Extraordinary circumstances are situations or site-specific conditions that are more likely than typical circumstances
to result in significant impacts to the human environment and therefore may require an otherwise categorically
excludable action to be further analyzed in an EA or an EIS. The presence of extraordinary circumstances indicates
that, despite the typical lack of significant environmental impact associated with the action, the specific context or
nature of the proposal may lead to potentially significant impacts. For more information, see CRS Report R48595,
Legislative Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act, by Heather McPherron.
71 Other statutory mandates still apply, such as the Endangered Species Act and other permitting obligations under the
Clean Water Act.
Congressional Research Service
15
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Funding EI Assistance Authorities
Although Congress regularly funds USACE EI assistance, some in Congress have questioned
whether EI assistance activities belong in USACE. For example, a proposed amendment in the
Senate to the FY2017 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill would have eliminated
funding for EI assistance. Those in favor of the amendment argued that these activities were
primarily nonfederal responsibilities, supported by other federal programs, and were outside of
USACE’s traditional missions.72 (The amendment did not pass.)73
Other federal programs may provide assistance to similar water projects on a competitive basis
using established criteria (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency’s state revolving funds, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s small watershed loans).74 Unlike EI assistance, some of these
programs do not restrict assistance to specific geographic areas. These programs may also differ
from EI authorities by leveraging funding to provide financial assistance mainly as loans, while
USACE EI assistance is cost shared (mostly at a federal share of 75%). In addition to funding,
USACE EI assistance includes design and construction assistance from USACE staff. Congress
may consider how much funding to provide USACE for EI assistance relative to other programs
that may address similar water infrastructure needs.
The amount of appropriated EI funding differs significantly relative to the amount of authorized
appropriations. Congress approved $5.4 billion in additional authorizations of appropriations for
EI assistance authorities in WRDA 2024, resulting in $18.1 billion in total authorized
appropriations for USACE EI assistance. WRDA 2026 bills would increase the total—H.R. 9497
by $6.6 billion and S. 4949 by $932 million. In contrast to the total EI assistance authorizations,
relatively few authorities receive appropriations for projects. In addition, projects generally
receive appropriations in increments across various fiscal years, which may dictate the amount
and speed of work accomplished to complete a project.
From FY2021 to FY2026, appropriations for EI assistance ranged from $100.0 million to $360.0
million. For FY2023, 77% of EI funding was for CPF/CDS requests, and in FY2026, the
percentage was 96%.75 In contrast, the enacted full-year CR for FY2025 annual appropriations
did not provide funding for CPF/CDS items.76 In future appropriations bills, Congress may
consider what proportion of EI assistance should be appropriated based on Member requests (i.e.,
CPF/CDS requests) versus what proportion should be at the discretion of USACE to allocate.
These options involve policy trade-offs. Congress has more influence and control over projects
receiving EI assistance if it directly specifies the projects in appropriations acts. For example, in
annual appropriations acts for FY2022 through FY2024 and for FY2026, Congress directed the
majority of EI assistance funding through CPF/CDS requests. Providing EI assistance funding
through USACE allocation cedes funding decisions to the Administration developing the work
plan, and an Administration may prioritize projects differently than Congress. Congress applied
this approach of providing broad discretion in the American Relief Act, 2025, which provided
72 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, Congressional Record, vol. 162.
No. 64 (April 26, 2016), p. S2429.
73 Chamber Action, Congressional Record, vol. 162. No. 64 (April 26, 2016), p. D428.
74 See CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water, and Water
Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
75 CRS analysis using FY2023 and FY2026 work plans available at USACE, “Civil Works Budget and Performance,”
https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/.
76 Congress did not produce an explanatory document to accompany P.L. 119-4 to further direct USACE on how to
allocate Construction account funding. Following directions in the act to produce a Construction work plan, USACE
chose not to allocate Construction account funding to EI assistance.
Congressional Research Service
16
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
$300.0 million for EI assistance for USACE to allocate in a work plan, and directed the majority
of additional funding for EI assistance to support multistate authorities.77
Evaluating EI Assistance Activities
Another consideration for Congress may be how to evaluate the effectiveness of providing EI
assistance to benefit nonfederal projects via hearings and other oversight activities.78 To aid in
evaluating EI assistance procedures, for example, Congress could require reporting information
on EI assistance policies and execution of those policies. For instance, Congress could request
more information on implementation of ASACW Telle’s Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork
initiative, which directs USACE to utilize contractors for executing EI assistance “unless a
compelling reason exists to complete the work in-house.”79
USACE budget justifications provide information on USACE studies and projects included in the
budget request, but public information on USACE’s EI assistance activities is limited. As USACE
usually does not request EI assistance funding, budget justifications usually do not include
information on these authorities. In 2025, however, USACE headquarters created a website
providing an overview of EI assistance. Some USACE district webpages provide further
information on USACE EI assistance authorities, including through factsheets, initiation
guidelines, EAs, and press releases.80 Also, USACE publishes model project partnership
agreements that cover many EI assistance authorities.81 CRS could not identify further overall
policy guidance for USACE’s EI assistance.
A House Appropriations Committee report for FY2026 directs USACE to conduct outreach to
public utilities in southern West Virginia about EI assistance, including providing technical
assistance on project applications; however, some communities may not know about EI assistance
opportunities and the process to receive assistance.82 Congress may consider assessing if USACE
actions implementing this outreach directive are effective, and if so, whether to expand this type
of outreach to include a wider geographic scope.
77 The explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42), is
available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-118HPRT56550/pdf/CPRT-118HPRT56550.pdf.
78 For more information on potential oversight mechanisms, see CRS Report RL30240, Congressional Oversight
Manual, coordinated by Ben Wilhelm, Todd Garvey, and Christopher M. Davis.
79 USACE, “Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works announces ‘Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork’
initiative for the Army’s Civil Works program,” press release, February 23, 2026,
https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/News-Release-Article-View/Article/4412430/assistant-secretaryof-the-army-for-civil-works-announces-building-infrastructu/; ASACW, Prioritization of Effort in Planning, Design
and Construction of Infrastructure Across the Army Civil Works Program memorandum, February 23, 2026,
https://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/CG%2C%20USACE%20%20Prioritization%20of%20Effort%20in%20Planning%2C%20Design%20and%20Construction%20of%20Infrastruct
ure%20Across%20the%20Army%20Civil%20Works%20Program%20-%2023%20Feb%202026.pdf.
80 For example, see USACE Philadelphia District & Marine Design Center, “Southeastern PA Environmental
Improvements Program,” https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/SE-PA-Environmental-ImprovementProgram/; USACE Digital Library, “Section 219 Northeast Pennsylvania Environmental Infrastructure Program, PA,”
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16021coll11/id/615/; USACE Los Angeles District, “Arizona and
Rural Nevada 595 Program, Steps for Project Initiation,” https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/595-Program/595Program-Steps-for-Project-Initiation/; and USACE Walla Walla District, Environmental Assessment, City of Dayton
Water System Improvements Project, Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Dayton, Idaho,
April 2024, https://www.nww.usace.army.mil/Portals/28/Final_Dayton_595_EA_042424.pdf.
81 Model agreements are located under the “Environmental Infrastructure” heading at USACE, “Model Agreements and
Templates,” https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Partnership-Agreements/.
82 H.Rept. 119-667.
Congressional Research Service
17
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Congress may also consider criteria for prioritizing funding for EI assistance projects. In a 2019
report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found USACE was not following any
national criteria or policy in funding Section 219 projects, despite congressional guidance in
explanatory statements and conference reports accompanying appropriations acts to do so.83
Following GAO’s report, Section 137 of WRDA 2020 directed the ASACW to develop specific
criteria for evaluating and ranking individual EI assistance projects, while specifying certain
considerations that should be included in the criteria. In addition, the section directed the
ASACW to submit with USACE’s FY2022 budget request, and with every other subsequent
budget request, a report that identifies the ASACW’s ranking of individual EI assistance projects.
Subsequent budget requests have not included this information. As of July 2026, CRS did not
identify any USACE criteria or reports pursuant to the provision. However, GAO reported that in
March 2021, USACE developed a database to capture data and metrics associated with criteria
for Section 219 projects, and incorporated the criteria into a program development manual for the
allocation of Section 219 project funding.84 USACE stated it uses the manual to rank and
prioritize Section 219 projects for funding.85 The information in the manual might also assist
Members who submit CPF or CDS requests for EI assistance projects. Congress may direct
USACE to make the manual available to help inform funding decisions for policymakers during
the CPF/CDS process.
The timeliness of executing EI assistance following enactment of appropriations may be of
interest to Congress. A 2025 GAO analysis of CPF/CDS items provided some timeliness
information,86 showing that USACE had obligated 30% of FY2022 CPF/CDS funding and 15%
of FY2023 CPF/CDS funding for EI assistance at that time (the most recent analysis on CPF/CDS
funding by GAO). Congress could consider tasking GAO to update this analysis to include recent
fiscal years as well as funding outside of the CPF/CDS process (i.e., EI assistance supported
through additional funding).
83 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Army Corps of Engineers: Process for Selecting Section 219 Projects for
Funding Could Be Strengthened, GAO-19-487, June 13, 2019, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-487 (hereinafter
GAO, Section 219).
84 GAO, Section 219.
85 GAO, Section 219.
86 GAO, “Tracking the Funds: Update on Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending,”
https://files.gao.gov/multimedia/gao-25-107274/interactive/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
18
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Appendix A. Examples of Environmental
Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
Congress has authorized and amended U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) environmental
infrastructure (EI) assistance in omnibus authorization laws, often titled Water Resources
Development Acts (WRDAs), and in appropriations acts. Below are examples of EI assistance
authorities that have been enacted into law. More EI authorities, as amended, may be in the
statute compilations maintained by the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of
Representatives.87 Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 1992;
P.L. 102-580), as amended, includes most EI assistance authorities. The excerpt below of Section
219 is abridged for brevity. Other examples include the following:
•
•
a non-Section 219 EI project authority—Acequias Irrigation System (Section
1113 of WRDA 1986 [P.L. 99-662] as amended), and
EI programmatic authorities—
• for a restoration example, Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration (Section
108, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005
[Division C of P.L. 108-447]),
• for an example of regions within a state, Southern and Eastern
Kentucky (Section 531, WRDA 1996 [P.L. 104-303], as amended),
and
• for a multistate example, Western Rural Water (Section 595 of
WRDA 1999 [P.L. 106-53], as amended).
Section 219, WRDA 1992, as Amended88
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to non-Federal
interests for carrying out water-related environmental infrastructure and resource
protection and development projects described in subsection (c), including waste water
treatment and related facilities and water supply, storage, treatment, and distribution
facilities. Such assistance may be in the form of technical and planning and design
assistance. If the Secretary is to provide any design or engineering assistance to carry out
a project under this section, the Secretary shall obtain by procurement from private sources
all services necessary for the Secretary to provide such assistance, unless the Secretary
finds that—
(1) the service would require the use of a new technology unavailable in the private
sector, or
(2) a solicitation or request for proposal has failed to attract 2 or more bids or
proposals.
(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost of projects for which
assistance is provided under this section shall not be less than 25 percent, except that such
share shall be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay, including the
87 The Office of the Legislative Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives, “Statute Compilations,”
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/comps/.
88 In this section, CRS has included the main provisions of this authority but has omitted most geographic specific
provisions for brevity. See Appendix B for a list of all Section 219 geographic provisions. For the full Section 219
authority, as amended, see the statute compilation for WRDA 1992 at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS2982/pdf/COMPS-2982.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
procedures and regulations relating to ability to pay established under section 103(m) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
(c) PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS.—The projects for which the Secretary is authorized to
provide assistance under subsection (a) are as follows:
(2) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—A combined sewer overflow treatment facility for the
city of Atlanta, Georgia.
(3) HAZARD, KENTUCKY.—A water system (including a 13,000,000 gallon per
day water treatment plant), intake structures, raw water pipelines and pumps,
distribution lines, and pumps and storage tanks for Hazard, Kentucky.
(4) ROUGE RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Completion of a comprehensive streamflow
enhancement project for the Western Townships Utility Authority, Rouge River,
Wayne County, Michigan.
(5) JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—Provision of an alternative water supply
and a project for the elimination or control of combined sewer overflows projects for
the design, installation, enhancement, or repair of sewer systems for Jackson County,
Mississippi.
....
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated
for providing assistance under this section $30,000,000. Such sums shall remain available
until expended.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
ASSISTANCE.—There are authorized to be appropriated for providing construction
assistance under this section—
(1) $57,500,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(5);
(5) $100,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(2);
...
(f) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide assistance under
subsection (a) and assistance for construction for the following:
(1) ATLANTA, GEORGIA.—The project described in subsection (c)(2), modified to
include watershed restoration and development in the regional Atlanta watershed,
including Big Creek and Rock Creek.
(10) EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—$52,000,000 for water supply, wastewater infrastructure,
and environmental restoration projects in the counties of Accomack,
Northampton, Lee, Norton, Wise, Scott, Russell, Dickenson, Buchanan, and
Tazewell, Virginia.
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), towards the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal
interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.
(11) NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.—$70,000,000 for water and wastewater
infrastructure, including water supply in the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming,
Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, and Monroe,
Pennsylvania, including assistance for the Montoursville Regional Sewer Authority,
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
(12) CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.—
Congressional Research Service
20
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
(A) IN GENERAL.—$120,000,000 for water related infrastructure projects in the
counties of Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter, Indiana.
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), towards the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the
non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement
for the project.
(13) CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$2,000,000 for water related
infrastructure in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.
(21) BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.—$100,000,000 for water related infrastructure
for the parishes of East Baton Rouge, Ascension, and Livingston, Louisiana.
...
(598) OTHELLO, WASHINGTON.—$14,000,000 for environmental infrastructure,
including water and wastewater infrastructure (including water supply, storage, and
treatment, and aquifer storage and recovery), in the city of Othello, Washington.
Section 1113, WRDA 1986, as Amended89
ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
(a)(1) The Congress finds that the irrigation ditch systems in New Mexico, known as the
Acequia systems, date from the eighteenth century, and that these early engineering works
have significance in the settlement and development of the western portion of the United
States.
(2) The Congress, therefore, declares that the restoration and preservation of the
Acequia systems has cultural and historic values to the region.
(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary shall carry out, without regard to economic
analysis, such measures as are necessary to protect and restore the river diversion structures
and associated channels attendant to the operations of the community ditch and Acequia
systems in New Mexico that—
(1) are declared to be a political subdivision of the State; or
(2) belong to an Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).
(c) INCLUSIONS.—The measures described in subsection (b) shall, to the maximum
extent practicable—
(1) ensure greater resiliency of diversion structures, including to flow variations,
prolonged drought conditions, invasive plant species, and threats from changing
hydrological and climatic conditions; or
(2) support research, development, and training for innovative management solutions,
including those for controlling invasive aquatic plants that affect acequias.
(d) COST SHARING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of carrying out the measures
described in subsection (b), including study costs, shall be 25 percent, except that in
the case of a measure benefitting an economically disadvantaged community (as
89 Although Section 1113 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986; P.L. 99-662), as amended,
was enacted before other environmental infrastructure (EI) assistance provisions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has provided funding for the authority using appropriations Congress has specified for EI assistance.
Congressional Research Service
21
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
defined by the Secretary under section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note)), including economically disadvantaged communities
located in urban and rural areas, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out such
measure shall be 90 percent.
(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Federal
share of a reconnaissance study carried out by the Secretary under this section shall be
100 percent.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out the measures described in subsection (b) $90,000,000.
(f) PUBLIC ENTITY STATUS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall consider the historic Acequia systems
(community ditches) of the southwestern United States as public entities, if these
systems are chartered by the respective State laws as political subdivisions of that State
or belong to an Indian Tribe within the State of New Mexico.
(2) EFFECT.—The public entity status provided under paragraph (1) shall allow the
officials of the Acequia systems described in such paragraph to enter into agreements
and serve as local sponsors of water-related projects of the Secretary.
Section 108, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
2005, as Amended90
LAKE TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA.
(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term “Lake Tahoe Basin” means the entire
watershed drainage of Lake Tahoe including that portion of the Truckee River 1,000 feet
downstream from the United States Bureau of Reclamation dam in Tahoe City, California.
(b) Establishment of Program.—The Secretary may establish a program for providing
environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Lake Tahoe Basin.
(c) Form of Assistance.—Assistance under this section may be in the form of planning,
design, and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and
resource protection and development projects in Lake Tahoe Basin—
(1) urban stormwater conveyance, treatment and related facilities;
(2) watershed planning, science and research;
(3) environmental restoration; and
(4) surface water resource protection and development.
(d) Public Ownership Requirement.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project
under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
(e) Local Cooperation Agreement.—
(1) In general.—Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall
enter into a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for
design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance.
(2) Requirements.—Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this
subsection shall provide for the following:
90 Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration is an example of an EI assistance authority with an environmental restoration focus,
but USACE has provided funding for the authority using appropriations Congress has specified for EI assistance.
Congressional Research Service
22
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
(A) Plan.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate
Federal and State and Regional officials, of appropriate environmental
documentation, engineering plans and specifications.
(B) Legal and institutional structures.—Establishment of such legal and
institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation
of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(3) Cost sharing.—
(A) In general.—The Federal share of project costs under each local cooperation
agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal
share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
(B) Credit for design work.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the
reasonable costs of planning and design work completed by the non-Federal
interest before entering into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for
a project.
(C) Land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations.—The non-Federal interest
shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided
by the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of project costs
(including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or
controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total project costs.
(D) Operation and maintenance.—The non-Federal share of operation and
maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this
section shall be 100 percent.
(f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.—Nothing in this section waives, limits,
or otherwise affects the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that would
otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this section for the period beginning with fiscal year 2005, $50,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
Section 531, WRDA 1996, as Amended
SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish a program for
providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in southern and eastern
Kentucky.
(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance under this section may be in the form of design
and construction assistance for water related environmental infrastructure, environmental
restoration, and resource protection and development projects in southern and eastern
Kentucky, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply
and related facilities, surface water resource protection and development, and small stream
flooding, local storm water drainage, and related problems.
(c) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for
a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
(d) PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary
shall enter into a project cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide
for design and construction of the project to be carried out with such assistance.
Congressional Research Service
23
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–
5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section, with the consent of the affected
local government, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity.
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each agreement entered into under this subsection shall
provide for the following:
(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate
Federal and State officials, of a facilities development plan or resource protection
plan, including appropriate plans and specifications.
(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such
legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term
operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(3) COST SHARING.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Total project costs under each agreement entered into under
this subsection shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal.
The Federal share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for the reasonable costs of design work completed by such interest before
entering into the agreement with the Secretary.
(C) CREDIT FOR CERTAIN FINANCING COSTS.—In the event of a delay in
the reimbursement of the non-Federal share of a project, the non-Federal interest
shall receive credit for reasonable interest and other associated financing costs
necessary for such non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal share of the
project’s cost.
(D) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The non-Federal
interest shall receive credit for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations
provided by the non-Federal interest toward its share of project costs (including
costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the placement of such
project on publicly owned or controlled lands), but not to exceed 25 percent of
total project costs.
(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation
and maintenance costs for projects constructed under an agreement entered into
under this subsection shall be 100 percent.
(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this
section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or otherwise affecting the applicability of
any provision of Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried
out with assistance provided under this section.
(f) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 1999, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress
a report on the results of the program carried out under this section, together with
recommendations concerning whether or not such program should be implemented on a
national basis.
(g) SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY DEFINED.—In this section, the term
‘‘southern and eastern Kentucky’’ means Morgan, Floyd, Pulaski, Wayne, Laurel, Knox,
Pike, Menifee, Perry, Harlan, Breathitt, Martin, Jackson, Wolfe, Clay, Magoffin, Owsley,
Johnson, Leslie, Lawrence, Knott, Bell, McCreary, Rockcastle, Whitley, Lee, Boyd,
Carter, Elliott, Lincoln, Bath, Rowan, and Letcher Counties, Kentucky.
(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section $100,000,000.
Congressional Research Service
24
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices
to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.
Section 595, WRDA 1999, as Amended
WESTERN RURAL WATER
(a) DEFINITION.—ln this section:
(1) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The term ‘non-Federal interest’ includes an entity
declared to be a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico
(2) RURAL NEVADA.—The term ‘rural Nevada’ means—
(A) the counties of Lincoln, White Pine, Nye, Eureka, Elko, Humboldt, Pershing,
Churchill, Storey, Lyon, Carson, Douglas, Mineral, Esmeralda, and Lander,
Nevada;
(B) the portions of Washoe County,· Nevada, that are located outside the cities of
Reno and Sparks; and
(C) the portions of Clark County, Nevada, that are located outside the cities of Las
Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson and the unincorporated portion of the
county in the Las Vegas Valley.
(3) RURAL UTAH.—The term ‘rural Utah’ means(A) the counties of Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Tooele, Morgan, Summit, Daggett,
Wasatch, Duchesne, Uintah, Juab, Sanpete, Carbon, Millard, Sevier, Emery,
Grand, Beaver, Piute, Wayne, Iron, Garfield, San Juan, and Kane, Utah; and
(B) the portions of Washington County, Utah, that are located outside the city of
St. George, Utah.
(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish a program for
providing environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Arizona, Idaho, Montana,
rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming.
(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.-Assistance under this section may be in the form of—
(1) design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure,
including natural and nature-based infrastructure and resource protection and
development in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and
Wyoming, including projects for—
(A) wastewater treatment and related facilities;
(B) water supply and related facilities;
(C) environmental restoration;
(D) surface water resource protection and development; and
(E) drought resilience measures; and
(2) technical assistance to small and rural communities for water planning and issues
relating to access to water resources.
(d) PUBLIC OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for
a project under this section only if the project is publicly owned.
(e) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT.—-
Congressional Research Service
25
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
(1) IN GENERAL—Before providing assistance under this section, the Secretary shall
enter into a local cooperation agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for
design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance.
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this
subsection shall provide for the following:
(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate
Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development
plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such
legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term
operation of the project by the non-Federal interest.
(3) COST SHARING.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of project costs under each local
cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall be 75 percent. The
Federal share may be in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
(B) CREDIT FOR DESIGN WORK.—The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for the reasonable costs of design work completed by the non-Federal
interest before entering into a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for
a project.
(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—ln case of a delay in the funding of the nonFederal share of the costs of a project that is the subject of an agreement under
this section, the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest
incurred in providing the non-Federal share of the project costs.
(D) LAND, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND RELOCATIONS.—The
non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations provided by the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal share of
project costs (including all reasonable costs associated with obtaining permits
necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on
publicly owned or controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total project
costs.
(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of operation
and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this
section shall be 100 percent.
(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this
section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the applicability of any provision of Federal or
State law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance provided
under this section.
(g) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on the results of the program carried out under this section, including
recommendations concerning whether the program should be implemented on a national
basis.
(h) ELIGIBILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Assistance under this section shall be made available to all
eligible States and locales described in subsection (b) consistent with program
priorities determined by the Secretary in accordance with criteria developed by the
Secretary to establish the program priorities.
Congressional Research Service
26
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
(2) SELECTION OF PROJECTS.—ln selecting projects for assistance under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to a project located in an eligible State or local
entity for which the project sponsor is prepared to—
(A) execute a new or amended project cooperation agreement; and
(B) commence promptly after the date of enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016.
(3) RURAL PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall consider a project authorized under
this section and an environmental infrastructure project authorized under section 219
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580; 106 Stat. 4835) for
new starts on the same basis as any other similarly funded project.
(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section, to remain available until expended—
(1) for the period beginning with fiscal year 2001, $850,000,000 for Idaho, Montana,
rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming; and
(2) $250,000,000 for Arizona.
Congressional Research Service
27
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Appendix B. Summary of Environmental
Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has included authorities in Table B-1 that direct the
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to provide assistance to nonfederal interests and that
include environmental infrastructure in the authority or name of the authority. A “Corps of
Engineers Environmental Infrastructure Projects” spreadsheet that USACE provided to CRS in
2012 identified many authorities that provided a basis for inclusion in the list. Some of these
authorities are related to environmental restoration activities; some of these are included in this
table, while others are not. 91 CRS also has included assistance authorities that do not explicitly
include the phrase environmental infrastructure but describe similar activities (e.g., water supply,
wastewater or sewage treatment, stormwater management) and have similar characteristics (e.g.,
25% nonfederal cost share for assistance and 100% nonfederal operation and maintenance
responsibilities) to assistance authorities with the phrase environmental infrastructure. These
inclusions are generally for some non-Section 219 project authorities.
Table B-1 also italicizes authorities in the proposed deauthorization list of water resources
projects announced in the Federal Register on May 21, 2026. For more information about this list
and the established deauthorization process, see “Deauthorization Processes.”92
Table B-1. Summary of Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Authorities
(Authorities as of WRDA 2024 enactment)
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Section 219 Project Authorities
Colonias Along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Section 219(c)(18) as modified by (e)(9), WRDA
1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Lake Tahoe Basin
Section 219(f)(433), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Alabama
Section 219(f)(274), WRDA 1992, as amended
$85,000,000
St. Clair, Blount, and Cullman Counties, AL
Section 219(f)(78), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Crawford County, AR
Section 219(f)(79), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Eastern Arkansas Enterprise Community,
AR
Section 219(c)(20) as modified by (e)(11), WRDA
1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Buckeye, AZ
Section 219(f)(406), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,000,000
Chandler, AZ
Section 219(f)(275), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,750,000
91 For example, Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program (Section 510 of WRDA 1996
[P.L. 104-303], as amended) was included in the USACE spreadsheet, but USACE allocated funding for aquatic
ecosystem restoration to the authority, thus CRS has not labeled it as an EI assistance authority. Although Section 542
of WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-541), as amended, for Lake Champlain, VT and NY, was not included in the USACE
spreadsheet, USACE has allocated EI funding in work plans to the program; for this reason, CRS has included that
authority as EI assistance.
92 USACE, “Proposed Deauthorization of Water Resources Projects,” 91 Federal Register 29946, May 21, 2026.
USACE, “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Publishes Notice of Proposed Deauthorization List of Water Resources
Projects in the Federal Register,” press release, May 22, 2026, https://www.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsReleases/News-Release-Article-View/Article/4499507/us-army-corps-of-engineers-publishes-notice-of-proposeddeauthorization-list-of/.
Congressional Research Service
28
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Flagstaff, AZ
Section 219(f)(407), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Glendale, AZ
Section 219(f)(408), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,200,000
Marana, AZ
Section 219(c)(19) as modified by (e)(10), WRDA
1992, as amended
$27,000,000
Page, AZ
Section 219(f)(409), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Pinal County, AZ
Section 219(f)(276), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Sahuarita, AZ
Section 219(f)(410), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,800,000
Tempe, AZ
Section 219(f)(277), WRDA 1992, as amended
$37,500,000
Tohono O’odham Nation, AZ
Section 219(f)(411), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Tucson, AZ
Section 219(f)(412), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Winslow, AZ
Section 219(f)(413), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Adelanto, CA
Section 219(f)(414), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
CA
Section 219(f)(80), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
Alameda County, CA
Section 219(f)(278), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Aliso Creek, Orange County, CA
Section 219(f)(81), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Alpine, CA
Section 219(f)(77), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Amador County, CA
Section 219(f)(82), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Aptos, CA
Section 219(f)(415), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Arcadia, Sierra Madre, and Upland, CA
Section 219(f)(83), WRDA 1992, as amended
$33,000,000
Bell Gardens, CA
Section 219(f)(279), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,500,000
Big Bear Area Region Wastewater Agency,
CA
Section 219(f)(84), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Bishop, CA
Section 219(f)(417), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,500,000
Bloomington, CA
Section 219(f)(418), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Brawley Colonia, Imperial County, CA
Section 219(f)(85), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,400,000
Butte County, CA
Section 219(f)(419), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Calaveras County, CA
Section 219(f)(86), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,300,000
California City, CA
Section 219(f)(420), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,902,808
Calimesa, CA
Section 219(f)(280), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,500,000
Cambria, CA
Section 219(f)(48), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,300,000
Carson, CA
Section 219(f)(421), WRDA 1992, as amended
$11,000,000
Cedar Glen, CA
Section 219(f)(422), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Colton, CA
Section 219(f)(424), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Compton Creek, CA
Section 219(f)(281), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,165,000
Contra Costa Water District, CA
Section 219(f)(87), WRDA 1992, as amended
$80,000,000
Coronado, CA
Section 219(f)(71), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Culver City, CA
Section 219(f)(423), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Congressional Research Service
29
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Desert Hot Springs, CA
Section 219(c)(23) as modified by (e)(12),
WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Downey, CA
Section 219(f)(282), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara
Areas, CA
Section 219(f)(88), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
East County, San Diego County, CA
Section 219(f)(283), WRDA 1992, as amended
$70,000,000
East Palo Alto, CA
Section 219(f)(89), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
East San Fernando Valley, CA
Section 219(f)(425), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
East San Joaquin County, CA
Section 219(f)(22), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Eastern Los Angeles County, CA
Section 219(f)(284), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Escondido Creek, CA
Section 219(f)(285), WRDA 1992, as amended
$34,000,000
Fontana, CA
Section 219(f)(286), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Fresno County, CA
Section 219(f)(426), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Georgetown Divide Public Utility
District, CA
Section 219(f)(427), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,500,000
Grand Terrace, CA
Section 219(f)(428), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Harbor/South Bay, CA
Section 219(f)(43), WRDA 1992, as amended
$70,000,000
Hayward, CA
Section 219(f)(429), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Healdsburg, CA
Section 219(f)(287), WRDA 1992, as amended
$23,500,000
Hollister, CA
Section 219(f)(430), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Huntington Beach, CA
Section 219(c)(25) as modified by (e)(13), WRDA
1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Imperial County, CA
Section 219(f)(90), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Inglewood, CA
Section 219(c)(26) as modified by (e)(14),
WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Inland Empire, CA
Section 219(f)(288), WRDA 1992, as amended
$60,000,000
Kern County, CA
Section 219(f)(431), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
La Habra, CA
Section 219(f)(91), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
La Mirada, CA
Section 219(f)(92), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
La Quinta, CA
Section 219(f)(434), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Lake County, CA
Section 219(f)(432), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Lakewood, CA
Section 219(f)(435), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Lancaster, CA
Section 219(f)(41), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada
Counties, CA
Section 219(f)(74), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Lawndale, CA
Section 219(f)(436), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Lomita, CA
Section 219(f)(289), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,716,600
Lomita, CA
Section 219(f)(438), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,500,000
Lone Pine, CA
Section 219(f)(437), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Congressional Research Service
30
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Los Angeles County, CA
Section 219(f)(93), WRDA 1992, as amended
$128,000,000
Los Angeles County, CA
Section 219(f)(94), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Los Banos, CA
Section 219(f)(439), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Los Olivos, CA
Section 219(f)(440), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Los Osos, CA
Section 219(c)(27) as modified by (e)(15), WRDA
1992, as amended
$43,000,000
Lynwood, CA
Section 219(f)(441), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,000,000
Madera County, CA
Section 219(f)(442), WRDA 1992, as amended
$27,500,000
Malibu, CA
Section 219(f)(95), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Marin County, CA
Section 219(f)(290), WRDA 1992, as amended
$28,000,000
Maywood, CA
Section 219(f)(291), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Milpitas, CA
Section 219(f)(443), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Montebello, CA
Section 219(f)(96), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Montecito, CA
Section 219(f)(444), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,250,000
Monterey Peninsula, CA
Section 219(f)(292), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
New River, CA
Section 219(f)(97), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
North Richmond, CA
Section 219(f)(293), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
North Valley Region, Lancaster, CA
Section 219(f)(50), WRDA 1992, as amended
$24,500,000
Norwalk, CA
Section 219(c)(28) as modified by (e)(16),
WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Oakland-Alameda Estuary, CA
Section 219(f)(445), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Ontario, CA
Section 219(f)(294), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,700,000
Orange County, CA
Section 219(f)(98), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Oxnard, CA
Section 219(f)(446), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Paramount, CA
Section 219(f)(295), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Patterson, CA
Section 219(f)(447), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Perris, CA
Section 219(f)(100), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Petaluma, CA
Section 219(f)(296), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,700,000
Placer and El Dorado Counties, CA
Section 219(f)(73), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Placer County, CA
Section 219(f)(297), WRDA 1992, as amended
$21,000,000
Pomona, CA
Section 219(f)(448), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Port of Stockton, Stockton, CA
Section 219(f)(99), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Rialto, CA
Section 219(f)(298), WRDA 1992, as amended
$27,500,000
Rincon Reservation, CA
Section 219(f)(299), WRDA 1992, as amended
$38,000,000
Rohnert Park, CA
Section 219(f)(449), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers,
Bay-Delta, CA
Section 219(f)(416), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Sacramento Area, CA
Section 219(f)(23), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
Congressional Research Service
31
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CA
Section 219(f)(300), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Salinas, CA
Section 219(f)(450), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
San Benito County, CA
Section 219(f)(451), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
San Bernardino County, CA
Section 219(f)(101), WRDA 1992, as amended
$24,000,000
San Buenaventura, CA
Section 219(f)(452), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,250,000
San Diego County, CA
Section 219(f)(453), WRDA 1992, as amended
$200,000,000
San Joaquin and Stanislaus, CA
Section 219(f)(301), WRDA 1992, as amended
$200,000,000
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Section 219(f)(455), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
San Ramon Valley, CA
Section 219(f)(42), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Santa Clara County, CA
Section 219(f)(102), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,500,000
Santa Monica, CA
Section 219(f)(103), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Santa Rosa, CA
Section 219(f)(302), WRDA 1992, as amended
$19,400,000
Sierra Madre, CA
Section 219(f)(303), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Smith River, CA
Section 219(f)(304), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
South Gate, CA
Section 219(f)(454), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Southern Los Angeles County, CA
Section 219(f)(104), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
South Perris, CA
Section 219(f)(52), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
South San Francisco, CA
Section 219(f)(305), WRDA 1992, as amended
$270,000,000
Stanislaus County, CA
Section 219(f)(456), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Stockton, CA
Section 219(f)(105), WRDA 1992, as amended
$33,000,000
Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County,
CA
Section 219(f)(106), WRDA 1992, as amended
$375,000
Temecula, CA
Section 219(f)(306), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,000,000
Tijuana River Valley Watershed, CA
Section 219(f)(457), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Torrance, CA
Section 219(f)(307), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Tulare County, CA
Section 219(f)(458), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Watsonville, CA
Section 219(f)(459), WRDA 1992, as amended
$28,000,000
Western Contra Costa County, CA
Section 219(f)(308), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Whittier, CA
Section 219(f)(107), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Yolo County, CA
Section 219(f)(309), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Yolo County, CA
Section 219(f)(460), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Yorba Linda Water District, CA
Section 219(f)(461), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,500,000
Arkansas Valley Conduit, CO
Section 219(f)(108), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Boulder County, CO
Section 219(f)(109), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
El Paso County, CO
Section 219(f)(462), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Fremont County, CO
Section 219(f)(463), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Montezuma and La Plata Counties, CO
Section 219(f)(110), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Congressional Research Service
32
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and
Prowers Counties, CO
Section 219(f)(111), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Pueblo and Otero Counties, CO
Section 219(f)(112), WRDA 1992, as amended
$34,000,000
East Hampton, CT
Section 219(f)(464), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
East Lyme, CT
Section 219(f)(465), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Enfield, CT
Section 219(f)(113), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Hebron, CT
Section 219(f)(310), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,700,000
Ledyard and Montville, CT
Section 219(f)(114), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,113,000
New Haven, CT
Section 219(f)(115), WRDA 1992, as amended
$300,000
New London, CT
Section 219(f)(311), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Norwalk, CT
Section 219(f)(116), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Plainville, CT
Section 219(f)(117), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,280,000
Southington, CT
Section 219(f)(118), WRDA 1992, as amended
$9,420,000
Windham, CT
Section 219(f)(312), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,000,000
District of Columbia
Section 219(f)(120), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Anacostia River, DC and MD
Section 219(f)(119), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Washington, DC
Section 219(f)(316), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Kent, DE
Section 219(f)(313), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
New Castle, DE
Section 219(f)(314), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Pickering Beach, Kitts Hummock,
Bowers Beach, South Bowers Beach,
Slaughter Beach, Prime Hook Beach,
Milton, Milford, DE
Section 219(f)(468), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Rehoboth Beach, Lewes, Dewey,
Bethany, South Bethany, Fenwick Island,
DE
Section 219(f)(466), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Sussex, DE
Section 219(f)(315), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Wilmington, DE
Section 219(f)(467), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Broward County, FL
Section 219(f)(469), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Central Florida, FL
Section 219(f)(475), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
Charlotte County, FL
Section 219(f)(121), WRDA 1992, as amended
$33,000,000
Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, FL
Section 219(f)(122), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Collier County, FL
Section 219(f)(123), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Deltona, FL
Section 219(f)(470), WRDA 1992, as amended
$31,200,000
Hillsborough County, FL
Section 219(f)(124), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,250,000
Jacksonville, FL
Section 219(f)(125), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Longboat Key, FL
Section 219(f)(317), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,750,000
Longboat Key, FL
Section 219(f)(471), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Marion County, FL
Section 219(f)(472), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Congressional Research Service
33
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Martin, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach
Counties, FL
Section 219(f)(318), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Miami-Dade County, FL
Section 219(f)(128), WRDA 1992, as amended
$190,250,000
Palm Beach County, FL
Section 219(f)(129), WRDA 1992, as amended
$57,500,000
Polk County, FL
Section 219(f)(319), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Okeechobee County, FL
Section 219(f)(320), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Orange County, FL
Section 219(f)(321), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Osceola County, FL
Section 219(f)(474), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Oviedo, FL
Section 219(f)(473), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Sarasota County, FL
Section 219(f)(126), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
South Seminole and North Orange County,
FL
Section 219(f)(127), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Georgia (subset of counties)
Section 219(f)(322), WRDA 1992, as amended
$75,000,000
Albany, GA
Section 219(f)(130), WRDA 1992, as amended
$109,000,000
Atlanta, GA
Section 219(c)(2) as modified by (e)(5) and
(f)(1), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Banks County, GA
Section 219(f)(131), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Berrien County, GA
Section 219(f)(132), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Chattooga County, GA
Section 219(f)(133), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon, Walker, and
Whitfield Counties, GA
Section 219(f)(134), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Coastal Georgia, GA
Section 219(f)(476), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Cobb County, GA
Section 219(f)(478), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Dahlonega, GA
Section 219(f)(135), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Dekalb County, GA
Section 219(f)(479), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
East Point, GA
Section 219(f)(136), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Fayetteville, Grantville, Lagrange, Pine
Mountain (Harris County), Douglasville,
and Carrollton, GA
Section 219(f)(137), WRDA 1992, as amended
$24,500,000
Meriwether and Spalding Counties, GA
Section 219(f)(138), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Moultrie, GA
Section 219(f)(139), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Muscogee, Henry, and Clayton
Counties, GA
Section 219(f)(477), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Porterdale, GA
Section 219(f)(480), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Stephens County/City of Toccoa, GA
Section 219(f)(140), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Guam
Section 219(f)(323), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
State of Hawaii
Section 219(f)(324), WRDA 1992, as amended
$75,000,000
County of Hawaii, HI
Section 219(f)(325), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Honolulu, HI
Section 219(f)(326), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Congressional Research Service
34
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Kaua´i, HI
Section 219(f)(327), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Maui, HI
Section 219(f)(328), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Burley, ID
Section 219(f)(481), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Belvidere, IL
Section 219(f)(482), WRDA 1992, as amended
$17,000,000
Calumet City, IL
Section 219(f)(483), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Cook County and Lake County, IL
Section 219(f)(54), WRDA 1992, as amended
$149,000,000
Dixmoor, IL
Section 219(f)(329), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Dupage County, IL
Section 219(f)(484), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Forest Park, IL
Section 219(f)(330), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Fox River, IL
Section 219(f)(485), WRDA 1992, as amended
$9,500,000
German Valley, IL
Section 219(f)(486), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
LaSalle, IL
Section 219(f)(487), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Lemont, IL
Section 219(f)(331), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,135,000
Lockport, IL
Section 219(f)(332), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,550,000
Madison and St. Clair Counties, IL
Section 219(f)(55), WRDA 1992, as amended
$150,000,000
Rockford, IL
Section 219(f)(488), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Savanna, IL
Section 219(f)(489), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Sherrard, IL
Section 219(f)(490), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
South Central Illinois, IL
Section 219(f)(333), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Will County, IL
Section 219(f)(334), WRDA 1992, as amended
$36,000,000
Calumet Region, IN
Section 219(f)(12), WRDA 1992, as amended
$125,000,000
Indianapolis, IN
Section 219(f)(75), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,430,000
North Vernon and Butlerville, IN
Section 219(f)(141), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,700,000
Salem, Washington County, IN
Section 219(f)(142), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,200,000
Atchison, KS
Section 219(f)(143), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Wyandotte County and Kansas City,
KS
Section 219(f)(491), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Brownsville, KY
Section 219(f)(492), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,000,000
Central Kentucky, KY
Section 219(f)(144), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Hazard, KY
Section 219(c)(3), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Winchester, KY
Section 219(c)(41), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Baton Rouge, LA
Section 219(f)(21), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Iberia Parish, LA
Section 219(f)(56), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Lafayette, LA
Section 219(f)(145), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,200,000
Lafourche Parish, LA
Section 219(f)(146), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,300,000
Lake Charles, LA
Section 219(f)(147), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Monroe, LA
Section 219(f)(493), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Congressional Research Service
35
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Northwest Louisiana Council of
Governments, LA
Section 219(f)(148), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Orleans Parish, LA
Section 219(f)(335), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Ouachita Parish, LA
Section 219(f)(149), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Plaquemine, LA
Section 219(f)(150), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Point Celeste, LA
Section 219(f)(494), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Rapides Area Planning Commission, LA
Section 219(f)(151), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Shreveport, LA
Section 219(f)(152), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
South Central Planning and
Development Commission, LA
Section 219(f)(153), WRDA 1992, as amended
$17,500,000
St. Charles, St. Bernard, and
Plaquemines Parishes, LA
Section 219(c)(33) and (e)(18), WRDA 1992,
as amended
$70,000,000
St. John the Baptist, St. James, and
Assumption Parishes, LA
Section 219(c)(34) and (e)(19), WRDA 1992,
as amended
$36,000,000
Union-Lincoln Regional Water Supply
Project, LA
Section 219(f)(154), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Easthampton, MA
Section 219(f)(495), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Fitchburg, MA
Section 219(f)(336), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Franklin, MA
Section 219(f)(496), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Haverhill, MA
Section 219(f)(337), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Lawrence, MA
Section 219(f)(338), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Lowell, MA
Section 219(f)(339), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Methuen, MA
Section 219(f)(340), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Northampton, MA
Section 219(f)(497), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Winthrop, MA
Section 219(f)(498), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Maryland
Section 219(f)(341), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Boonsboro, MD
Section 219(f)(342), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Brunswick, MD
Section 219(f)(343), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Chesapeake Bay Improvements, MD, VA,
and DC
Section 219(f)(155), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Chesapeake Bay Region, MD and VA
Section 219(f)(156), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Michigan
Section 219(f)(157), WRDA 1992, as amended
$160,000,000
Cascade Charter Township, MI
Section 219(f)(344), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,200,000
Genesee County, MI
Section 219(f)(59), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,700,000
Macomb County, MI
Section 219(f)(345), WRDA 1992, as amended
$90,000,000
Milan, MI
Section 219(f)(499), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Negaunee, MI
Section 219(f)(60), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Oakland County, MI
Section 219(f)(29), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Rouge River, MI
Section 219(c)(4), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Congressional Research Service
36
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Southeast Michigan, MI
Section 219(f)(500), WRDA 1992, as amended
$58,000,000
Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District,
MN
Section 219(f)(158), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,000,000
Central Lake Region Sanitary District, MN
Section 219(f)(159), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Elysian, MN
Section 219(f)(501), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Garrison, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs
County, Mille Lacs Indian Reservation, and
Kathio Township, MN
Section 219(f)(61), WRDA 1992, as amended
$17,000,000
Goodview, MN
Section 219(f)(160), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Grand Rapids, MN
Section 219(f)(161), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Le Sueur, MN
Section 219(f)(502), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,200,000
Northfield, MN
Section 219(f)(346), WRDA 1992, as amended
$33,450,000
Willmar, MN
Section 219(f)(162), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Centertown, MO
Section 219(f)(347), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,900,000
St. Louis, MO
Section 219(f)(32), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
St. Louis, MO
Section 219(f)(348), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
St. Louis County, MO
Section 219(f)(349), WRDA 1992, as amended
$45,000,000
Saipan, MP
Section 219(f)(203), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Biloxi, MS
Section 219(f)(163), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Byram, MS
Section 219(f)(503), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Clinton, MS
Section 219(f)(350), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,600,000
Columbia, MS
Section 219(f)(504), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Corinth, MS
Section 219(f)(164), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Desoto County, MS
Section 219(f)(30), WRDA 1992, as amended
$170,000,000
Diamondhead, MS
Section 219(f)(505), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Gulfport, MS
Section 219(f)(165), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Hancock County, MS
Section 219(f)(506), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Harrison County, MS
Section 219(f)(166), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Jackson, MS
Section 219(f)(167), WRDA 1992, as amended
$139,000,000
Jackson County, MS
Section 219(c)(5) as modified by (e)(1), WRDA
1992, as amended
$57,500,000
Laurel, MS
Section 219(f)(507), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Madison, MS
Section 219(f)(508), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Madison County, MS
Section 219(f)(351), WRDA 1992, as amended
$24,000,000
Meridian, MS
Section 219(f)(352), WRDA 1992, as amended
$26,000,000
Moss Point, MS
Section 219(f)(509), WRDA 1992, as amended
$11,000,000
Olive Branch, MS
Section 219(f)(510), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Oxford, MS
Section 219(f)(353), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Congressional Research Service
37
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Pearl, MS
Section 219(f)(511), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Picayune, MS
Section 219(f)(512), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Rankin County, MS
Section 219(f)(354), WRDA 1992, as amended
$24,000,000
Starkville, MS
Section 219(f)(513), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Cabarrus County, NC
Section 219(f)(191), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,500,000
Canton, NC
Section 219(f)(543), WRDA 1992, as amended
$41,025,650
Cary, Wake County, NC
Section 219(f)(192), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Charlotte, NC
Section 219(f)(193), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,000,000
Fairmont, NC
Section 219(f)(544), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,137,500
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, NC
Section 219(f)(194), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Mooresville, NC
Section 219(f)(195), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Murphy, NC
Section 219(f)(545), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Neuse Regional Water and Sewer
Authority, NC
Section 219(f)(196), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Richmond County, NC
Section 219(f)(197), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,500,000
Robbinsville, NC
Section 219(f)(546), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,474,350
Stanly County, NC
Section 219(f)(64), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,900,000
Union County, NC
Section 219(f)(198), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Washington County, NC
Section 219(f)(199), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Weaverville, NC
Section 219(f)(547), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Winston-Salem, NC
Section 219(f)(200), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
North Dakota
Section 219(f)(201), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Devils Lake, ND
Section 219(f)(202), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
New Hampshire
Section 219(f)(518), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Lebanon, NH
Section 219(f)(37), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,000,000
Manchester, NH
Section 219(f)(355), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Bayonne, NJ
Section 219(f)(356), WRDA 1992, as amended
$825,000
Belmar, NJ
Section 219(f)(519), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Camden, NJ
Section 219(f)(357), WRDA 1992, as amended
$143,800,000
Cape May, NJ
Section 219(f)(520), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Colesville, NJ
Section 219(f)(521), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Cranford Township, NJ
Section 219(f)(175), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Deptford Township, NJ
Section 219(f)(522), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Essex and Sussex Counties, NJ
Section 219(f)(358), WRDA 1992, as amended
$60,000,000
Flemington, NJ
Section 219(f)(359), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,500,000
Jefferson, NJ
Section 219(f)(360), WRDA 1992, as amended
$90,000,000
Kearny, NJ
Section 219(f)(361), WRDA 1992, as amended
$69,900,000
Congressional Research Service
38
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Lacey Township, NJ
Section 219(f)(523), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Long Hill, NJ
Section 219(f)(362), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Merchantville, NJ
Section 219(f)(524), WRDA 1992, as amended
$18,000,000
Middletown Township, NJ
Section 219(f)(176), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,100,000
Morris County, NJ
Section 219(f)(363), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Park Ridge, NJ
Section 219(f)(525), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Passaic, NJ
Section 219(f)(364), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Paterson, NJ
Section 219(f)(177), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Phillipsburg, NJ
Section 219(f)(365), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,600,000
Rahway, NJ
Section 219(f)(366), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,250,000
Rahway Valley, NJ
Section 219(f)(178), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Roselle, NJ
Section 219(f)(367), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
South Orange Village, NJ
Section 219(f)(368), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Summit, NJ
Section 219(f)(369), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Warren, NJ
Section 219(f)(370), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,550,000
Washington Township, NJ
Section 219(f)(526), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,200,000
Bernalillo, NM
Section 219(f)(527), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Bosque Farms, NM
Section 219(f)(528), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Espanola, NM
Section 219(f)(371), WRDA 1992, as amended
$21,995,000
Farmington, NM
Section 219(f)(372), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,500,000
Mora County, NM
Section 219(f)(373), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,874,000
Santa Fe, NM
Section 219(f)(374), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,700,000
Clark County, NV
Section 219(f)(168), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Clean Water Coalition, NV
Section 219(f)(169), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Glendale Dam Diversion Structure, NV
Section 219(f)(170), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Henderson, NV
Section 219(f)(171), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,000,000
Indian Springs, NV
Section 219(f)(172), WRDA 1992, as amended
$12,000,000
Laughlin, NV
Section 219(f)(514), WRDA 1992, as amended
$29,000,000
Nye County, NV
Section 219(f)(515), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Pahrump, NV
Section 219(f)(516), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Reno, NV
Section 219(f)(173), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,000,000
Storey County, NV
Section 219(f)(517), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Washoe County, NV
Section 219(f)(174), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,000,000
Babylon, NY
Section 219(f)(179), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Carmel, NY
Section 219(f)(529), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,450,000
Chenango County, NY
Section 219(c)(14), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Congressional Research Service
39
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Clarkstown, NY
Section 219(f)(375), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,600,000
Dutchess County, NY
Section 219(f)(530), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Ellicottville, NY
Section 219(f)(180), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Elmira, NY
Section 219(f)(181), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Essex Hamlet, NY
Section 219(f)(182), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Fleming, NY
Section 219(f)(183), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Genesee, NY
Section 219(f)(376), WRDA 1992, as amended
$85,000,000
Kings County, NY
Section 219(f)(531), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Kiryas Joel, NY
Section 219(f)(184), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Mohawk River and Tributaries, NY
Section 219(f)(532), WRDA 1992, as amended
$100,000,000
Mount Pleasant, NY
Section 219(f)(533), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Niagara Falls, NY
Section 219(f)(185), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
New Rochelle, NY
Section 219(f)(534), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Newtown Creek, NY
Section 219(f)(535), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
New York County, NY
Section 219(f)(536), WRDA 1992, as amended
$60,000,000
Orange County, NY
Section 219(f)(537), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Otsego County, NY
Section 219(c)(13), WRDA 1992, as amended
—
Patchogue, NY
Section 219(f)(186), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Queens, NY
Section 219(f)(377), WRDA 1992, as amended
$190,000,000
Ramapo, NY
Section 219(f)(540), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Rikers Island, NY
Section 219(f)(541), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Sennett, NY
Section 219(f)(187), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Sleepy Hollow, NY
Section 219(f)(538), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Springport and Fleming, NY
Section 219(f)(188), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Ulster County, NY
Section 219(f)(539), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Wellsville, NY
Section 219(f)(189), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Yates County, NY
Section 219(f)(190), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Yorktown, NY
Section 219(f)(378), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Yorktown, NY
Section 219(f)(542), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Akron, OH
Section 219(f)(204), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Akron, OH
Section 219(f)(548), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,500,000
Apple Creek, OH
Section 219(f)(549), WRDA 1992, as amended
$350,000
Ashtabula County, OH
Section 219(f)(550), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Bloomingburg, OH
Section 219(f)(551), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,500,000
Brooklyn Heights, OH
Section 219(f)(552), WRDA 1992, as amended
$170,000
Brunswick, OH
Section 219(f)(379), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,510,000
Congressional Research Service
40
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Burr Oak Regional Water District, OH
Section 219(f)(205), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Chagrin Falls Regional Water System,
OH
Section 219(f)(553), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,500,000
Cincinnati, OH
Section 219(f)(206), WRDA 1992, as amended
$31,000,000
Cleveland, OH
Section 219(f)(207), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,500,000
Columbus, OH
Section 219(f)(208), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,500,000
Cuyahoga County, OH
Section 219(f)(554), WRDA 1992, as amended
$11,500,000
Dayton, OH
Section 219(f)(209), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Defiance County, OH
Section 219(f)(210), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
East Cleveland, OH
Section 219(f)(555), WRDA 1992, as amended
$13,000,000
Erie County, OH
Section 219(f)(556), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Fostoria, OH
Section 219(f)(211), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Fremont, OH
Section 219(f)(212), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Huron, OH
Section 219(f)(557), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,100,000
Kelleys Island, OH
Section 219(f)(558), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Lake County, OH
Section 219(f)(213), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Lawrence County, OH
Section 219(f)(214), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Meigs County, OH
Section 219(f)(215), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Mentor-on-Lake, OH
Section 219(f)(216), WRDA 1992, as amended
$625,000
North Olmsted, OH
Section 219(f)(559), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,175,165
Painesville, OH
Section 219(f)(560), WRDA 1992, as amended
$11,800,000
Solon, OH
Section 219(f)(561), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,137,341
Stark County, OH
Section 219(f)(563), WRDA 1992, as amended
$24,000,000
Struthers, OH
Section 219(f)(564), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Summit County, OH
Section 219(f)(562), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Toledo and Oregon, OH
Section 219(f)(565), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,500,000
Vermilion, OH
Section 219(f)(566), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,400,000
Vinton County, OH
Section 219(f)(217), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Westlake, OH
Section 219(f)(567), WRDA 1992, as amended
$750,000
Willowick, OH
Section 219(f)(218), WRDA 1992, as amended
$665,000
Ada, OK
Section 219(f)(219), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,700,000
Alva, OK
Section 219(f)(220), WRDA 1992, as amended
$250,000
Ardmore, OK
Section 219(f)(221), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,900,000
Bartlesville, OK
Section 219(f)(222), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,500,000
Bethany, OK
Section 219(f)(223), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,500,000
Chickasha, OK
Section 219(f)(224), WRDA 1992, as amended
$650,000
Disney and Langley, OK
Section 219(f)(225), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,500,000
Congressional Research Service
41
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Durant, OK
Section 219(f)(226), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,300,000
Eastern Oklahoma State University,
Wilberton, OK
Section 219(f)(227), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Guymon, OK
Section 219(f)(228), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Konawa, OK
Section 219(f)(229), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Lawton, OK
Section 219(f)(40), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Lugert-Altus Irrigation District, Altus,
OK
Section 219(f)(230), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Midwest City, OK
Section 219(f)(231), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Mustang, OK
Section 219(f)(232), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,325,000
Norman, OK
Section 219(f)(233), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Oklahoma Panhandle State University,
Guymon, OK
Section 219(f)(234), WRDA 1992, as amended
$275,000
Stillwater, OK
Section 219(f)(568), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Weatherford, OK
Section 219(f)(235), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Woodward, OK
Section 219(f)(236), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Yukon, OK
Section 219(f)(65), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,500,000
Albany, OR
Section 219(f)(237), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Beaverton, OR
Section 219(f)(569), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Brookings, OR
Section 219(f)(380), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Clackamas County, OR
Section 219(f)(570), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Lane County, OR
Section 219(f)(383), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Monroe, OR
Section 219(f)(381), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Newport, OR
Section 219(f)(382), WRDA 1992, as amended
$60,000,000
Washington County, OR
Section 219(f)(571), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Pennsylvania
Section 219(f)(572), WRDA 1992, as amended
$38,600,000
Allegheny County, PA
Section 219(f)(66), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Beaver Creek Reservoir, PA
Section 219(f)(238), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Berks County, PA
Section 219(f)(573), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Chester County, PA
Section 219(f)(574), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Clinton County, PA
Section 219(f)(13), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Franklin Township, PA
Section 219(f)(575), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Hatfield Borough, PA
Section 219(f)(239), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Indian Creek, PA
Section 219(f)(576), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Lehigh County, PA
Section 219(f)(240), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
North Wales Borough, PA
Section 219(f)(241), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,516,584
Northeast Pennsylvania
Section 219(f)(11), WRDA 1992, as amended
$70,000,000
Palmyra, PA
Section 219(f)(384), WRDA 1992, as amended
$36,300,000
Congressional Research Service
42
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Pen Argyl, PA
Section 219(f)(242), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,250,000
Pen Argyl, PA
Section 219(f)(577), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Philadelphia, PA
Section 219(f)(243), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Phoenixville Borough, Chester County,
PA
Section 219(f)(68), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Pike County, PA
Section 219(f)(385), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Pittsburgh, PA
Section 219(f)(386), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Pocono, PA
Section 219(f)(387), WRDA 1992, as amended
$22,000,000
Stockerton Borough, Tatamy Borough, and
Palmer Township, PA
Section 219(f)(244), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,000,000
Vera Cruz, PA
Section 219(f)(245), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,500,000
Westfall, PA
Section 219(f)(388), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,880,000
Whitehall, PA
Section 219(f)(389), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Section 219(f)(246), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Beaufort, SC
Section 219(f)(390), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,462,000
Charleston, SC
Section 219(f)(247), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Charleston, SC
Section 219(f)(391), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,583,000
Charleston and West Ashley, SC
Section 219(f)(248), WRDA 1992, as amended
$6,000,000
Cheraw, SC
Section 219(f)(579), WRDA 1992, as amended
$8,800,000
Chesterfield County, SC
Section 219(f)(578), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, SC
Section 219(f)(249), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Florence County, SC
Section 219(f)(580), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Horry County, SC
Section 219(f)(392), WRDA 1992, as amended
$19,000,000
Lake City, SC
Section 219(f)(581), WRDA 1992, as amended
$15,000,000
Lakes Marion and Moultrie, SC
Section 219(f)(25), WRDA 1992, as amended
$235,000,000
Mount Pleasant, SC
Section 219(f)(393), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Myrtle Beach and Vicinity, SC
Section 219(f)(250), WRDA 1992, as amended
$31,000,000
North Myrtle Beach and Vicinity, SC
Section 219(f)(251), WRDA 1992, as amended
$74,000,000
Surfside, SC
Section 219(f)(252), WRDA 1992, as amended
$11,000,000
Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation (Dewey
and Ziebach Counties) and Perkins and
Meade Counties, SD
Section 219(f)(253), WRDA 1992, as amended
$65,000,000
Athens, TN
Section 219(f)(254), WRDA 1992, as amended
$16,000,000
Blaine, TN
Section 219(f)(255), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Claiborne County, TN
Section 219(f)(256), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,250,000
Cumberland County, TN
Section 219(f)(24), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Giles County, TN
Section 219(f)(257), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Grainger County, TN
Section 219(f)(258), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,250,000
Congressional Research Service
43
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Hamilton County, TN
Section 219(f)(259), WRDA 1992, as amended
$500,000
Harrogate, TN
Section 219(f)(260), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Johnson County, TN
Section 219(f)(261), WRDA 1992, as amended
$600,000
Knoxville, TN
Section 219(f)(262), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, TN
Section 219(f)(264), WRDA 1992, as amended
$2,000,000
Nashville, TN
Section 219(f)(263), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Oak Ridge, TN
Section 219(f)(265), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Plateau Utility District, Morgan County, TN
Section 219(f)(266), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Portland, TN
Section 219(f)(394), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,850,000
Shelby County, TN
Section 219(f)(267), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Smith County, TN
Section 219(f)(395), WRDA 1992, as amended
$69,500,000
Tipton County, TN
Section 219(f)(582), WRDA 1992, as amended
$35,000,000
Tipton, Haywood, and Fayette
Counties, TN
Section 219(f)(583), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Trousdale, Macon, and Sumner
Counties, TN
Section 219(f)(396), WRDA 1992, as amended
$178,000,000
Amarillo, TX
Section 219(f)(585), WRDA 1992, as amended
$38,000,000
Austin, TX
Section 219(f)(584), WRDA 1992, as amended
$50,000,000
Brownsville, TX
Section 219(f)(586), WRDA 1992, as amended
$40,000,000
Central Texas, TX
Section 219(f)(268), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Clarendon, TX
Section 219(f)(587), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
El Paso County, TX
Section 219(f)(269), WRDA 1992, as amended
$75,000,000
Ft. Bend County, TX
Section 219(f)(270), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Quinlan, TX
Section 219(f)(588), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,250,000
Runaway Bay, TX
Section 219(f)(589), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,000,000
Webb County, TX
Section 219(f)(590), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Zapata County, TX
Section 219(f)(591), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Duchesne, Iron, and Uintah Counties, UT
Section 219(f)(271), WRDA 1992, as amended
$10,800,000
Park City, UT
Section 219(c)(40) as modified by (e)(17), WRDA
1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia,
VA
Section 219(f)(10), WRDA 1992, as amended
$52,000,000
King William County, VA
Section 219(f)(592), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,300,000
Lynchburg, VA
Section 219(c)(16) as modified by (e)(7), WRDA
1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Potomac River, VA
Section 219(f)(593), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,000,000
Richmond, VA
Section 219(c)(17) as modified by (e)(8),
WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
U.S. Virgin Islands
Section 219(f)(273), WRDA 1992, as amended
$25,000,000
Congressional Research Service
44
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
U.S. Virgin Islands
Section 219(f)(397), WRDA 1992, as amended
$1,584,000
Bonney Lake, WA
Section 219(f)(398), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Burien, WA
Section 219(f)(399), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Chelan, WA
Section 219(f)(594), WRDA 1992, as amended
$9,000,000
College Place, WA
Section 219(f)(595), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Ellensburg, WA
Section 219(f)(400), WRDA 1992, as amended
$3,000,000
Ferndale, WA
Section 219(f)(596), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
Lynden, WA
Section 219(f)(597), WRDA 1992, as amended
$4,000,000
North Bend, WA
Section 219(f)(401), WRDA 1992, as amended
$30,000,000
Othello, WA
Section 219(f)(598), WRDA 1992, as amended
$14,000,000
Port Angeles, WA
Section 219(f)(402), WRDA 1992, as amended
$7,500,000
Snohomish County, WA
Section 219(f)(403), WRDA 1992, as amended
$56,000,000
Milwaukee, WI
Section 219(f)(405), WRDA 1992, as amended
$11,000,000
St. Croix Falls, WI
Section 219(f)(76), WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Northern West Virginia, WV
Section 219(f)(272), WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Jackson County, AL
Section 522, WRDA 1996
$3,000,000
Environmental Infrastructure Assistance
for Benton and Washington Counties,
AR
Section 220, WRDA 1992, as amended
$5,000,000
Demonstration of Waste Water
Technology, Santa Clara Valley Water
District and San Jose, CA
Section 218, WRDA 1992
$10,000,000
Reuse of Waste Water in Santa Rosa,
CA and Monterey County, CA
Section 217, WRDA 1992
$5,000,000
Water Monitoring Station, MT
Section 584, WRDA 1996, as amended
$100,000
Hackensack Meadowlands Area, NJ
Section 324, WRDA 1992, as amended
$20,000,000
Acequia Irrigation System, NM
Section 1113, WRDA 1986, as amended
$90,000,000
Western Rural Water for Arizona,
Idaho, Montana, Rural Nevada, New
Mexico, Rural Utah, and Wyoming
Section 595, WRDA 1999, as amended
$1,100,000,000
Kentucky and West Virginia
Section 1340, WRDA 2024
$75,000,000
Lake Tahoe Basin Restoration, NV and
CA
Section 108, Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2005, as amended
$50,000,000
Ohio and North Dakotaa
Section 594, WRDA 1999, as amended
$550,000,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania and Lower
Delaware Basin, PA, NJ, and DE
Section 566, WRDA 1996, as amended
$70,000,000
Lake Champlain Watershed, VT and
NYa
Section 542, WRDA 2000, as amended
$100,000,000
Non-Section 219 Project Authorities
Programmatic Authorities
Congressional Research Service
45
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Name
Authority
Authorization of
Appropriations
Alaska
Section 570, WRDA 1999, as amended
$45,000,000
California
Section 5039, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Los Angeles County, CAa
Section 8319, WRDA 2022
$100,000,000
Placer and El Dorado Counties, CA
Section 130, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2004
$40,000,000
Upper Klamath Basin, CA
Section 132, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2004
$25,000,000
East Central and Northeast Florida, FL
Section 5061, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvements, FL
Section 109, Division B of Appendix D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, as
amended
$200,000,000
Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District, GA
Section 5065, WRDA 2007
$20,000,000
Southwest Illinois, IL
Section 5074, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, KY
Section 531, WRDA 1996, as amended
$100,000,000
East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite River
Basin Region, LA
Section 5082, WRDA 2007, as amended
$45,000,000
Southeast Louisiana Region, LA
Section 5085, WRDA 2007, as amended
$22,000,000
Northeastern Minnesota, MN
Section 569, WRDA 1999, as amended
$80,000,000
Northern Missouri, MOa
Section 8353, WRDA 2022, as amended
$50,000,000
Mississippi
Section 592, WRDA 1999, as amended
$300,000,000
Coastal Mississippi Wetlands
Restoration Projects, MS
Section 528, WRDA 2000
$10,000,000
North Carolina
Section 5113, WRDA 2007, as amended
$50,000,000
Southeastern North Carolina, NCa
Section 1344, WRDA 2024
$50,000,000
Central New Mexico, NM
Section 593, WRDA 1999, as amended
$150,000,000
Onondaga Lake, NY
Section 573, WRDA 1999, as amended
$30,000,000
New York City Watershed, NY
Section 552, WRDA 1996, as amended
$42,500,000
Oregon
Section 1348, WRDA 2024
$40,000,000
Southwestern Oregon, OR
Section 8359, WRDA 2022, as amended
$100,000,000
Pennsylvania
Section 1349, WRDA 2024
$25,000,000
South Central Pennsylvania, PA
Section 313, WRDA 1992, as amended
$410,000,000
East Tennessee, TN
Section 5130, WRDA 2007
$40,000,000
Texas
Section 5138, WRDA 2007, as amended
$200,000,000
Dallas County Region, TX
Section 5140, WRDA 2007, as amended
$100,000,000
Western Washington State, WAa
Section 1332, WRDA 2024
$242,000,000
Northern Wisconsin, WI
Section 154, Division B of Appendix D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, as
amended
$60,000,000
Northern West Virginia, WVa
Section 571, WRDA 1999, as amended
$150,000,000
Congressional Research Service
46
Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance
Southern West Virginia, WVa
Section 340, WRDA 1992, as amended
$170,000,000
Source: CRS, using public laws and deauthorization lists (see lists published in 74 Federal Register 31713-31715,
July 2, 2009, and in 81 Federal Register 16147-16153, March 25, 2016).
Notes: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 = P.L. 106-554; Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2004 = P.L. 108-137; Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 = Division C of P.L. 108447; WRDA = Water Resources Development Act; WRDA 1992 = P.L. 102-580; WRDA 1996 = P.L. 104-303;
WRDA 1999 = P.L. 106-53; WRDA 2000 = P.L. 106-541; WRDA 2007 = P.L. 110-114; WRDA 2022 = Division
H, Title LXXXI of P.L. 117-263; WRDA 2024 = Division A of P.L. 118-272. Authorities in italics are included in
USACE’s May 21, 2026, Proposed List for Deauthorization, Federal Register Docket ID No. COE-2026-0034. Congress
provided no specific authorization of appropriations for assistance for Section 219(c) of WRDA 1992 authorities,
but provided $30 million total authorization of appropriations for design assistance for projects under Section
219(c). Congress amended some of the 219(c) provisions to provide specific authorization of appropriations for
construction assistance. Thus, some of the 219(c) authorities in the table have a dash (—) under the
Authorization of Appropriations column. The table also does not include or reflect the amount of appropriations
that have funded EI assistance authorities in the table.
a. These programmatic authorities provide for a federal cost share of 90% for projects benefiting economically
disadvantaged communities.
Author Information
Anna E. Normand
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use co
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.