An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

More than 88 programs administered by 16 different federal agencies target rural economic development. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the greatest number of rural development programs and has the highest average of program funds going directly to rural counties (approximately 50%). The Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 also designated USDA as the lead federal agency for rural development. The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agricultural Reorganization Act of 1994 created the Office of the Undersecretary for Rural Development and consolidated the rural development portfolio into four principal agencies responsible for USDA’s mission area: the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, the Rural Utilities Service, and the Office of Community Development.

In the 112th Congress, the Senate farm bill (S. 3240) would have restructured the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (ConAct), a principle statute authorizing many of the loan and grant programs administered by USDA Rural Development. Among other changes, the bill would have consolidated several business loan and grant programs into a single business support platform. The bill would also have eliminated the Rural Collaborative Investment Program, Historic Barn Preservation, Rural Telework, and the National Rural Development Partnership. The bill also would have prioritized projects that support strategic economic and community development, involve multijurisdictional planning, have investment from other federal agencies, and have strategic plans developed through broad-based community planning involving multiple stakeholders. The House farm bill (H.R. 6083) in the 112th Congress would have reauthorized most programs, making only minor changes to certain programs.

An extension of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) provides discretionary funding for rural development programs through the FY2013 fiscal year at FY2012 levels, minus sequestration and rescissions. Congress is likely to take up drafting a new farm bill in summer 2013.

This report provides an overview of the various programs administered by the four USDA agencies, their authorizing legislation, program objectives, eligibility criteria, and FY2005- FY2013 funding for each program. A continuing resolution for FY2013 was enacted in March 2013 and provides funding at the FY2012 level (minus sequestration and two rescissions). The report will be updated as new USDA Rural Development programs are implemented or amended.


Date of Report: May 3, 2013
Number of Pages: 42
Order Number: RL31837
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL31837.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for Congress

Charles V. Stern Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Inland waterways are a significant part of the nation’s transportation system. Because of the national economic benefits of maritime transport, the federal government has invested in navigation infrastructure for two centuries. Commercial barge shippers and other waterway users receive significant support through federal funding for operational costs, capital expenditures, and major rehabilitation on inland waterways. Since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, expenditures for construction and major rehabilitation projects on inland waterways have been cost-shared on a 50/50 basis between the federal government and commercial users through the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). Operations and maintenance costs for inland waterways (which typically exceed construction and major rehabilitation costs) are a 100% federal responsibility.

Future financing for the inland waterway system is uncertain. The IWTF is supported by a $0.20 per gallon tax on commercial barge fuel, but its balance has declined significantly since 2005 due to a combination of increased appropriations, cost overruns, and decreased revenues. Without changes to the current financing system, IWTF spending is likely to be limited.

The Obama Administration recommends replacing the fuel tax with user fees that would increase revenues and potentially allow for more spending on inland waterways projects. It submitted proposals to raise inland waterways user fees in budget requests and deficit reduction proposals in FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014. Congress and industry interests have rejected each of these proposals. In 2010, the Inland Waterways Users Board (IWUB), a federal advisory committee advising the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on inland waterways, endorsed an alternative proposal that is supported by many barge industry interests. The proposal would increase the fuel tax by $0.06-$0.09 per gallon, but would require the federal government to cover all project costs for dams and rehabilitation that are currently shared with the IWTF. To date, no major changes to the inland waterway financing system have been enacted.

The user industry (including the barge industry and agricultural groups) argues that its recommended changes are necessary to shore up the trust fund, improve deteriorating infrastructure, and distribute costs equitably among beneficiaries (e.g., more funding for dams by federal taxpayer beneficiaries). The Obama Administration agrees that infrastructure upgrades are needed, but argues against shifting these costs to the federal government and instead proposes higher user fees. Some taxpayer and environmental groups favor increasing nonfederal costs not just for construction, but also for operation and maintenance expenses that are not cost-shared.

In the 113th Congress, H.R. 1149 would enact most of the aforementioned user proposal, including a $0.06 increase to the fuel tax. S. 407 would enact many of the same components, but with a $0.09 increase to the tax and a lower threshold for cost-sharing triggers. S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of 2013, would authorize the project delivery recommendations of that proposal but would make no changes to the fuel tax or cost sharing. The Administration’s FY2014 budget also proposes a new, unspecified user fee expected for inland waterways. In considering inland waterways legislation, Congress may consider the appropriate cost share between the federal government and waterway users for various inland waterways costs, the appropriate type of user fee to fund the nonfederal share (fuel taxes, lockage fees, etc.), and the preferred planning process and funding levels for inland waterways.


Date of Report: May 3, 2013
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R41430
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41430.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations

Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers undertakes activities to maintain navigable channels, reduce flood and storm damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Congress directs the Corps through authorizations, appropriations, and oversight of its studies, construction projects, and other activities. This report summarizes congressional authorization and appropriations processes for the Corps. It also discusses agency activities under general authorities. 

Authorization of Water Resources Activities. Congress generally authorizes Corps activities and provides policy direction in Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs). The most recent WRDA was enacted in 2007 (P.L. 110-114). Pressure to authorize new projects and modify existing projects promotes fairly regular WRDA consideration. WRDAs historically have been omnibus bills including many provisions for site-specific activities; how to construct a WRDA bill that complies with House rules related to a moratorium on Member-requested earmarks complicated WRDA consideration in the 112th Congress. The 113th Congress began consideration of a WRDA with S. 601 in the Senate in March 2013. S. 601 would authorize Corps activities and modifications of existing authorizations that meet certain criteria; the bill includes numerous other provisions as it attempts to address issues with the duration and cost of Corps projects. The bill also would establish new procedures for using Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund monies, in an effort to expand spending above current levels. 

Agency Appropriations. Federal funding for most Corps civil works activities is provided in annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts or supplemental appropriations acts. At times these acts also have included Corps authorizations. In part because of competition for funds and because Corps authorizations outpace appropriations, many authorized activities have not received appropriations. There is a backlog of more than 1,000 authorized studies and construction projects. In recent years, few new studies and new construction activities have been in either the President’s budget request or enacted appropriations. 

Standard Project Development. The standard process for a Corps project requires two separate congressional authorizations—one for investigation and one for construction—as well as appropriations. The investigation phase starts with Congress authorizing a study; if it is funded, the Corps conducts an initial reconnaissance study followed by a more detailed feasibility study. Congressional authorization for construction is based on the feasibility study. For most activities, Congress requires a nonfederal sponsor to share some portion of study and construction costs. These cost-sharing requirements vary by the type of project. For many project types (e.g., levees), nonfederal sponsors are responsible for operation and maintenance once construction is complete. 

Other Corps Activities and Authorities. Although the project development process just described is standard, there are exceptions. Congress has granted the Corps some general authorities to undertake some studies, small projects, technical assistance, and emergency actions such as flood-fighting and repair of damaged levees. Additionally, the Corps conducts emergency response actions directed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.


Date of Report: May 6, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41243
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41243.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

National Park System: Establishing New Units

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The National Park System (System) includes 401 diverse units administered by the National Park Service (NPS) of the Department of the Interior. Units generally are added to the National Park System by acts of Congress, although the President may proclaim national monuments for inclusion in the System on land that is federally managed. An act of Congress creating a Park System unit may explain the unit’s purpose; set its boundaries; provide specific directions for land acquisition, planning, uses, and operations; and authorize appropriations for acquisition and development. Today, there are more than 20 different designations (i.e., titles) for units of the National Park System, reflecting the diversity of the areas. There is no statute that sets out and defines all the designations, and Congress has discretion in choosing the type of designation for a unit being established.

Before enacting a law to add a unit, Congress often first enacts a law requiring the NPS to study an area, typically to assess its national significance, suitability and feasibility, and other management options. When Congress directs the NPS to prepare a study, the agency must assess whether an area contains natural or cultural resources that are nationally significant, constitutes one of the most important examples of a type of resource, and is a suitable and feasible addition to the Park System. The agency also is to consider certain factors established in law (e.g., threats to resources) to promote the consistency and professionalism of the studies.

The Secretary of the Interior is required by law to recommend annually to Congress a list of areas for study for potential inclusion in the National Park System. The Secretary also must submit to Congress a list of areas previously studied that contain primarily historical resources, and a list of areas with natural resources. Previously studied areas are to be ranked in order of priority for consideration of addition to the Park System. For the first time during the Obama Administration, on August 28, 2012, the Department of the Interior submitted a list of 15 areas for potential study for addition to the Park System and a list of 7 previously studied areas that meet the criteria for inclusion in the Park System and for which supporting data are still accurate and current. The Obama Administration did not submit similar lists in previous years. Instead, during its first three years, the Administration focused on completing authorized studies and other responsibilities.

The addition of units to the National Park System sometimes has been controversial. Some discourage adding units, asserting that the System is “mature” or “complete,” while others assert that the System should evolve and grow to reflect current events, new information, and reinterpretations. A related issue is how to properly maintain existing and new units given limited fiscal and staffing resources. Differences exist on the relative importance of including areas reflecting our natural, cultural, and social history. The adequacy of standards and procedures for ensuring that the most outstanding areas are included in the Park System also has been debated.

It is generally regarded as difficult to meet the criteria and to secure congressional support and funding for expanding the National Park System. Thus, another issue has been whether particular resources are better protected outside the National Park System, and how to secure the best alternative protection. Certain areas that receive technical or financial aid from the NPS, but are neither federally owned nor directly administered by the NPS, include affiliated areas and national heritage areas. Some programs give places honorary recognition. The NPS also supports local and state governments in protecting resources through grants for projects and technical assistance.


Date of Report: April 25, 2013
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: RS20158
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS20158.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Administrative Process by Which Groups May Be Acknowledged as Indian Tribes by the Department of the Interior

Jane M. Smith
Legislative Attorney

In 1978, the Department of the Interior (Department) adopted a final rule setting forth the process by which a group may be recognized or acknowledged as an Indian tribe by the Department. Prior to that time, the Department made decisions on an ad hoc basis. However, in the wake of the treaty fishing rights case United States v. Washington and eastern land claims, more groups started seeking recognition as Indian tribes, and the Department could no longer manage the recognition requests on a case-by-case basis. The acknowledgement process, codified in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, sets forth a uniform process and uniform criteria for acknowledging that groups exist as Indian tribes.

The key to federal acknowledgment is continuous political existence of an Indian group from historical times to the present. The federal acknowledgment process does not create tribes, and it does not give groups sovereignty. Rather, it acknowledges a political entity that already exists. To do this, 25 C.F.R. Section 83.7 provides seven mandatory criteria that groups must satisfy in order to establish that they exist and have existed as an autonomous political entity. First, in order to be acknowledged, a group must establish that it has been identified as an Indian entity from 1900 to the present. Second, it must establish that it has existed as a community from historical times to the present. Third, it must establish that it has exercised political control over its members from historical times to the present. Fourth, the group must provide a copy of its governing document, including membership criteria. Fifth, the group must establish that its members descend from a historical Indian tribe or historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. Sixth, the membership must be composed principally of persons who are not members of a federally recognized tribe. Finally, the group must establish that it is not the subject of congressional legislation terminating or forbidding the federal-tribal relationship.

Acknowledgment as an Indian tribe means that the group becomes a federally recognized tribe with which the United States has a government-to-government relationship. This relationship makes the tribe and its members eligible for certain benefits, as well as subject to certain protections. It also means that the tribe may exercise jurisdiction over its territory and members generally free from state law, subject to limitations of federal law.


Date of Report: April 26, 2013
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R43051
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43051.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.