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.
Omnibus Authorization Legislation. Congress generally authorizes numerous
Corps activities and provides policy direction in an omnibus Corps
authorization bill, typically called the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA). The most recent WRDA was enacted in 2007 (P.L. 110- 114). WRDAs
historically are omnibus bills including many provisions for site-specific
activities. How to construct a WRDA bill that complied with House rules
related to a moratorium on earmarks complicated WRDA consideration in the
112th Congress.
The House is set to consider the omnibus Corps authorization and policy
bill, H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA).
The Senate passed WRDA 2013, S. 601, on May 15, 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 Corps civil works activities is
provided in annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts or
supplemental appropriations acts. Annual Corps civil works appropriations
have ranged from $4.5 billion to $5.5 billion in the last decade. An
increasing share of the agency’s appropriations is used for operations and
maintenance. Another trend has been increasing emergency supplemental
appropriations. From 1987 to 2013, Congress appropriated $32.2 billion in
Corps supplemental funding. Of this funding, $30.8 billion came through
acts passed between 2003 and 2013. This funding was more than half of the Corps’ regular
appropriations from 2003 through 2013 ($55 billion). 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: October 18, 2013
Number of Pages: 25
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.
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. Similar to prior administrations, the Obama
Administration has regularly submitted proposals to Congress to raise inland
waterways user fees. Congress and industry interests have rejected 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.
Changes to inland waterways financing are proposed in the 113th Congress. S. 601, as passed
by the Senate, would authorize changes to the project delivery process,
alter the cost-sharing requirements for some projects, and exempt from
cost-sharing requirements a project (the Olmsted Locks and Dam) that has
required the majority of IWTF appropriations in recent years. It would not
alter the fuel tax. H.R. 3080, as proposed in the House, would make project
delivery changes, authorize studies on potential new revenue sources for
the IWTF, and reduce the cost sharing for the Olmsted project. It would
not alter cost-sharing requirements for other projects or make changes to
the fuel tax. Two other bills, S. 407 and H.R. 1149, would enact much of the aforementioned
user proposal, including fuel tax increases of $0.09 and $0.06 per gallon, respectively.
In considering legislation related to inland waterways, Congress may consider
the appropriate cost share between the federal government and users, the
appropriate type of user fee to fund the nonfederal share, preferred
funding levels, and other related questions.
Date of Report: October 18, 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.
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
The Great Lakes ecosystem is recognized by many as an international natural
resource that has been altered by human activities and climate
variability. These alterations have led to degraded water quality,
diminished habitat, lower native fish and wildlife populations, and an altered ecosystem.
In response, the federal governments of the United States and Canada and the
state and provincial governments in the Great Lakes basin are implementing
several restoration activities. These activities range from mitigating the
harmful effects of toxic substances in lake waters to restoring fish
habitat.
Most laws and efforts in the past addressed specific issues in the Great Lakes;
a few addressed issues at the ecosystem level. This caused the Government
Accountability Office and others to express the need for initiating and
implementing a comprehensive approach for restoring the Great Lakes
ecosystem. In 2010, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was proposed
and implemented by the Obama Administration. The aim of GLRI is to restore
the Great Lakes ecosystem under one initiative. Specifically, the GLRI is
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem by directing activities to address five focus
areas: (1) toxic substances and Areas of Concern (these are areas in the Great Lakes
that are environmentally degraded); (2) invasive species; (3) nearshore health
and nonpoint source pollution; (4) habitat and wildlife protection and
restoration; and (5) accountability, monitoring, evaluation,
communication, and partnerships.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency for
implementing and administering GLRI. The EPA has received authority to
distribute appropriated funds to several federal agencies, which then
undertake restoration activities and projects. The EPA also administers
grant programs to fund nonfederal projects and activities related to
restoration. An interagency Great Lakes Task Force oversees the
implementation of GLRI and created a strategy to guide restoration. The
strategy (referred to as the Action Plan) provides a framework for restoring
the Great Lakes ecosystem under GLRI from 2010 through 2014. For each focus
area under the GLRI, the Action Plan provides a problem statement, a set
of goals, interim objectives, progress measures, final targets, and principal
activities for restoring the ecosystem. Restoration activities are being done
under existing federal authorities. The GLRI has received approximately $1.37
billion in appropriated funds since FY2010.
The scope and scale of this restoration initiative have led some to question
its direction and duration. The GLRI does not specify what a restored
ecosystem might look like, nor does it estimate how long restoration
activities will need to be conducted, and how much restoration might cost.
Some other questions surrounding this initiative include how the GLRI is
governed and how federal and state restoration efforts are coordinated.
Furthermore, GLRI remains an administrative initiative; there is no law
that specifically authorizes GLRI, though Congress has appropriated funds
to implement the program. Congress might consider these questions in oversight
hearings or in legislation during the 113th Congress. Companion bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress to address GLRI.
S. 1232 and H.R. 2773 would establish an administrative and management
structure for restoration activities in the Great Lakes, authorize GLRI
and appropriations for its implementation, specify the scope and function of
GLRI, and authorize the coordinating role of the Great Lakes Interagency
Task Force.
Date of Report: September 30, 2013
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R43249
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43249 .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.
Posts
