[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026:
STAKEHOLDER PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
(119-34)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 17, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
62-963 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas,
Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman
John Garamendi, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaomas Massie, Kentucky
Andre Carson, Indiana Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Dina Titus, Nevada Brian Babin, Texas
Jared Huffman, California David Rouzer, North Carolina
Julia Brownley, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Doug LaMalfa, California
Mark DeSaulnier, California Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Salud O. Carbajal, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Greg Stanton, Arizona Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Sharice Davids, Kansas Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Tracey Mann, Kansas
Patrick Ryan, New York Burgess Owens, Utah
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Collins, Georgia
Vice Ranking Member Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Kevin Kiley, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Vince Fong, California
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Robert Garcia, California Tom Barrett, Michigan
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Laura Friedman, California Pennsylvania
Laura Gillen, New York Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Shomari Figures, Alabama Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Maxwell Frost, Florida Addison P. McDowell, North
Carolina
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
Mike Collins, Georgia, Chairman
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, Ranking Member
John Garamendi, California Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Jared Huffman, California Arkansas
Patrick Ryan, New York Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Brian Babin, Texas
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Mike Bost, Illinois
Laura Friedman, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Shomari Figures, Alabama Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Julia Brownley, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Mark DeSaulnier, California Tracey Mann, Kansas
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Eric Burlison, Missouri
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan, Kevin Kiley, California
Vice Ranking Member Vince Fong, California
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Laura Gillen, New York Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Eleanor Holmes Norton, David J. Taylor, Ohio, Vice
District of Columbia Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Brad Knott, North Carolina
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, opening statement................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
WITNESSES
Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Waterways Conference, Inc., oral statement..................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Charles Camillo, Executive Vice President, Midwest Flood Control
Association, oral statement.................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Bryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division, HNTB Corporation,
oral statement................................................. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Noel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer and Incoming Chief
Executive Officer, Port of Long Beach, California, oral
statement...................................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins:
Statement of Dan Ginolfi, Executive Director, American
Coastal Coalition.......................................... 8
Statement of Chett Chiasson, Chairman of the Board of
Directors, American Association of Port Authorities........ 9
Statement of Andrew Kimball, President, New York City
Economic Development Corporation........................... 10
Letter of December 11, 2025, from Beth Callaway, Executive
Director, Interstate Council on Water Policy, to Hon. Mike
Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.... 85
Statement of Sunny Simpkins, Executive Director, National
Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies.... 86
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson:
Letter of December 17, 2025, from Vic Bianes, PE, President,
and Scott D. Grayson, CAE, Chief Executive Officer,
American Public Works Association, to Hon. Mike Collins,
Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment............ 44
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers......... 45
Letter of December 17, 2025, from Michele Stanley, President
and Chief Executive Officer, National Stone, Sand & Gravel
Association, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon.
Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment.................................. 48
Statement of Melissa Samet, Legal Director, Water Resources
and Coasts, National Wildlife Federation................... 49
Statement of Paul Anderson, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Port Tampa Bay.................................... 58
APPENDIX
Questions to Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Waterways Conference, Inc., from:
Hon. Brian Babin............................................. 93
Hon. Jeff Hurd............................................... 104
Questions to Charles Camillo, Executive Vice President, Midwest
Flood Control Association, from:
Hon. Brian Babin............................................. 106
Hon. Jeff Hurd............................................... 107
Questions to Bryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division, HNTB
Corporation, from:
Hon. Brian Babin............................................. 108
Hon. Jeff Hurd............................................... 108
Question to Noel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer and Incoming
Chief Executive Officer, Port of Long Beach, California, from
Hon. Brian Babin............................................... 109
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 12, 2025
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Water Resources
Development Act of 2026: Stakeholder Priorities''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on
Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. EST in 2167 of the
Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing
entitled, ``Water Resources Development Act of 2026:
Stakeholder Priorities.'' The hearing will allow Members to
receive testimony from water resources stakeholders, such as
local officials, levee district managers, and others to discuss
priorities related to primary mission areas of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2026.
II. BACKGROUND
THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS_CIVIL WORKS
The Corps is the Federal Government's lead water resource
development and management agency.\1\ Its mission is to deliver
``vital engineering solutions, in collaboration with [their]
partners, to secure our Nation, energize our economy, and
reduce disaster risk.'' \2\ The Corps water resource program
dates back to 1824 when it was established for the purpose of
improving river navigation.\3\ The role of the Corps has
evolved and expanded since then to include other main water
resource responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Corps, About Corps Water Resources Planning, (last accessed
Nov. 25, 2025), available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/
guidance.cfm?Id=0&Option=Planning%20Fundamentals
&Type=About#: :text=The%20U.%20S.%20Army%20Corps%20of.
\2\ Corps, Mission and Vision, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),
available at https://www.usace.army.mil/About/Mission-and-Vision/.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Corps' primary civil works responsibilities are
to support coastal and river navigation, address flood risk
management and storm damage, and protect and restore aquatic
ecosystems.\4\ Specifically, through its eight divisions and 38
district offices, the Corps manages over 14,000 miles of
levees, 740 dams, 12,000 miles of inland and intercoastal
waterways, and 218 lock chambers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See generally Anna Normand & Nicole Carter, Cong. Rsch. Serv.
(IF13112), Water Resources Development Acts: Primer and Action in the
119th Congress (Sept. 25, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/
crs-product/IF13112 [hereinafter CRS Report IF13112].
\5\ Corps, Value to the Nation, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),
available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-
Nation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps also provides outdoor recreation opportunities,
offers water supply storage to state and local partners,
assists in emergency response, and is a leading producer of
hydropower in the United States.\6\ Many Corps projects are
multipurpose, incorporating navigation, flood risk management,
and/or ecosystem restoration in conjunction with water supply
and conservation, recreation, and/or hydropower into their
design, construction, and operation.\7\ The Corps, at its
sites, sees 269 million recreational visitors a year, provides
25 percent of the country's hydropower output, and manages 135
reservoirs with municipal and industrial water supply.\8\ The
Corps also provides support in responding to natural disasters
by supporting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
when requested or through the Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies program (often referred to as ``P.L. 84-99'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4.
\8\ Corps, Value to the Nation, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),
available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-
Nation/.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps' infrastructure portfolio is currently valued at
$227 billion.\10\ This valuation is referred to as its
``capital stock'' and includes all water resources
infrastructure built by the Corps since 1928.\11\ The estimated
capital stock value increased $7.1 billion on average each year
until 1982 when it peaked at $393 billion.\12\ The Corps has
reported that deterioration, general wear and tear of
infrastructure needs, and asset retirements have contributed to
a decline in the value of the capital stock.\13\ Furthermore,
the Corps has a growing construction backlog in addition to
various authorized but unfunded studies and operation and
maintenance activities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Corps, Capital Stock: Summary, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),
available at https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Value-to-the-
Nation/Fast-Facts/Capital-Stock/Summary/.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
\14\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve its civil works mission, the Corps plans,
designs, and constructs water resources development projects,
typically in partnership with, and utilizing the financial
support of, non-Federal interests, commonly referred to as
project sponsors. The Corps' planning process requires that
Federal water resources investments reflect national
priorities, encourage economic development, and protect the
environment, and that the Corps seek to maximize net public
benefits to society.
WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ACTS
Congress generally authorizes Corps studies, projects, and
programs and makes changes to agency policies through
legislation referred to as Water Resources Development Acts
(WRDAs). Congress has developed and enacted WRDAs
intermittently since the 1980s and has biennially enacted a
WRDA since 2014.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizing provisions in WRDAs can be project-specific,
programmatic, or general directives for the Corps. Project-
specific authorizations most often fall into one of three broad
categories: project studies, construction projects, or
modifications to existing projects. Furthermore, water resource
projects typically require two types of Congressional
authorization: (1) authority to study the feasibility of the
project and (2) authority to construct (and operate and
maintain, as applicable) the project.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, WRDA 2024 was signed into law as Division A
of the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024
(P.L. 118-272) in January 2025.\17\ WRDA 2024 authorized 17 new
construction projects, four project modifications, one project
for construction based on a feasibility study carried out by a
non-Federal interest, and over 200 new or modified feasibility
studies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. 118-272, 138 Stat. 2996.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRDA 2024 made policy reforms to empower the non-Federal
sponsors of projects, increase transparency, and improve
project delivery. For example, WRDA 2024 facilitated the
creation of Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), a new pilot
program for alternative project delivery. Additionally, the
legislation amended sections 203 and 204 of WRDA 1986 to
clarify and enhance the responsibilities of non-Federal
interests in conducting studies and construction activities for
authorized projects.\19\ WRDA 2024 also improved transparency
and consistency to assist non-Federal entities achieve
compliance with the P.L. 84-99 program and the process to
modify existing projects under Section 408.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id., at Sec. 1107(a), 1109, 1110.
\20\ Id., at Sec. 1105, 1146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, WRDA 2024 included the Grace F. Napolitano
Priority for Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought
Resiliency Act, which emphasizes the Corps' role in water
supply and water resiliency efforts.\21\ WRDA 2024 instructed
the Corps to prioritize and maximize water supply, water
conservation, and drought resiliency efforts that are in
alignment with the authorized purposes of water resources
development projects.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Subtitle B, Title I, Division A of WRDA 2024, supra note
14.
\22\ Id., at Sec. 1161, 1162, 1108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDENTIFYING WATER RESOURCE NEEDS
Generally, the first step in developing a project through
the Corps is to study the feasibility of the proposed project,
which typically requires Congressional authorization. Once
authorized, the Corps enters into a cost-sharing agreement with
a non-Federal project sponsor to initiate the feasibility
process. The cost of a feasibility study is usually split
evenly between the Federal Government, which is subject to
appropriations, and the non-Federal project sponsor.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ CRS Report IF13112, supra note 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under current law, the feasibility reports should generally
be produced within four years with a Federal cost of no more
than $5 million.\24\ Waivers of the feasibility criteria for
project studies are available under section 1001 of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ WRDA 2024, Pub. L. 118-272, 138 Stat. 2996.
\25\ 33 U.S.C. 2282c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During a feasibility study phase, the Corps' district
office prepares a draft study report containing a detailed
analysis on the economic costs and benefits of carrying out the
project and identifies any associated environmental, social, or
cultural impacts. The feasibility study typically describes,
with reasonable certainty, the economic, social, and
environmental benefits and detriments of project alternatives
being considered, and identifies the engineering features,
public acceptability, and the purpose, scope, and scale of
each.\26\ It also contains the views of other Federal and non-
Federal agencies on project alternatives, a description of non-
structural alternatives to the recommended plans, and a
description of the anticipated Federal and non-Federal
participation in the project.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a full feasibility study is completed, the results
and recommendations of the study are submitted to Congress in
the form of a Report of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Chief of Engineers (more commonly referred to as a
Chief's Report).\28\ If the results and recommendations on the
proposed project are favorable, then the next step is
Congressional authorization for construction of the project,
which is typically given in a WRDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Corps, Planner's Library, (last accessed Nov. 25, 2025),
available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/
library.cfm?Option=Direct&Group=Main&Item=Chief%20Report
&Sub=None&Sort=Default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 902 of WRDA 1986, as amended, generally allows for
increases in total project costs of up to 20 percent (after
accounting for inflation of construction costs) without
additional Congressional authorization.\29\ A Post-
Authorization Change Report (PACR) is developed when an
authorized project encounters a cost increase greater than 20
percent of the authorized amount, changes in scope of the
project, location, or design modifications.\30\ Typically,
Congress will then consider the PACR for inclusion in a WRDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Anna Normand & Nicole Carter, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47946),
Process for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects (Aug. 29, 2025),
available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47946.
\30\ Wes Coleman & Jeremy LaDart, Post Authorization Change Reports
(PACRS)--Myths, Mysteries, and Legends, United States Army Corps of
Engineers, (May 20, 2021), available at https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/
toolbox/webinars/20May21-PACRs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL CORPS AUTHORITIES
The CAP program enables the Corps to undertake small-scale
projects with limited scope and cost without requiring project-
specific Congressional authorization.\31\ These projects
typically require a cost-share with a non-Federal project
sponsor.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See generally Anna Normand, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (IF12635),
Continuing Authorities Programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
(updated Aug. 6, 2025), available at https://www.congress.gov/crs-
product/IF12635.
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently nine CAP categories:
LStreambank erosion and shoreline protection; \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See the Flood Control Act of 1946, 33 U.S.C. 701r Sec. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LBeach erosion control; \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See the Act of August 13, 1946, 33 U.S.C. 426g Sec. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNavigation improvement; \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See the River and Harbor Act of 1960, 33 U.S.C. 577 Sec. 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LMitigation of shore damage by Federal navigation
projects; \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See the River and Harbor Act of 1968, 33 U.S.C. 426(i) Sec.
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRegional sediment management/beneficial use of
dredged material; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See the WRDA 1992, 33 U.S.C. 2326 Sec. 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LFlood control; \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See the Flood Control Act of 1948, 33 U.S.C. 701s Sec. 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAquatic ecosystem restoration; \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See the WRDA 1996, 33 U.S.C. 2330 Sec. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRemoval of obstructions and clearing channels for
flood control; \40\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See the Act of August 28, 1937, 33 U.S.C. 701g Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LProject modifications for improvement of the
environment or drought resiliency; \41\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See the WRDA 1986, 33 U.S.C. 2309a Sec. 1135
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LStormwater management projects.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See section 1108 of the WRDA 2024, 33 U.S.C. 2289b.
Congress has also provided authority for the Corps to
assist with the planning, de sign, and construction of drinking
water and wastewater projects in specified areas, known broadly
as Environmental Infrastructure (EI) assistance.\43\ The EI
programs support publicly owned and operated facilities, such
as distribution and collection works, stormwater collection and
recycled water distribution, and surface water protection and
development projects.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ WRDA of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-580, 106 Stat. 4835, Sec. 219.;
WRDA of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-53, 113 Stat. 352, Sec. 552.; WRDA of
2022, Pub. L. No. 117-263, 136 Stat. 3819, Sec. 8376.
\44\ Corps, Environmental Infrastructure, (last accessed Nov. 25,
2025), available at https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works/Environmental-Infrastructure/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. OUTLOOK FOR WRDA 2026
PENDING CHIEF'S REPORTS
Currently, the Committee is in possession of two Chief's
Reports for possible inclusion in WRDA 2026: Surf City, Onslow
and Pender Counties, NC (coastal storm risk management) and
Columbia River Turning Basin (navigation). The Committee
maintains a list of all Chief's Reports submitted by the
Secretary of the Army possible for WRDA 2026 consideration on
its website at https://transportation.house.gov/wrda-2026/.
ANNUAL 7001 REPORTS
Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014 (P.L. 113-121) required the
Corps to transmit an annual report to the authorizing
committees that identifies, for potential Congressional
authorization, completed feasibility reports, proposed
feasibility studies submitted by non-Federal interests through
a public comment period, proposed modifications to authorized
water resources development projects or feasibility studies,
and proposed modifications to environmental infrastructure
program authorities. This report is entitled ``Report to
Congress on Future Water Resources Development'' and is due by
February 1st of each year. The Committee has not officially
received the 2025 Section 7001 report. The non-Federal proposal
submission period for the 2026 Section 7001 report was open
from April 17, 2025, through August 15, 2025.\45\ The Committee
maintains a list of all existing Section 7001 Reports on its
website at https://transportation.house.gov/wrda-2026/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Proposals by Non-Federal Interests for Inclusion in the Annual
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development, 90 Fed. Reg
16114 (Apr. 17, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. WITNESSES
LJulie Ufner, President and Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), National Waterways Conference
LCharles Camillo, Executive Vice President,
Midwest Flood Control Association
LBryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division,
HNTB Corporation
LNoel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer, Port of
Long Beach, California
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2026: STAKEHOLDER PRIORITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Collins
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COLLINS OF GEORGIA, CHAIRMAN,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Collins. Today's hearing is the first of a series that
this subcommittee will hold before drafting a Water Resources
Development Act, WRDA, for 2026. To kick off the WRDA 2026
process, today we have the opportunity to hear from
stakeholders from across the Nation about the importance of
Army Corps Civil Works programs and maintaining a consistent 2-
year WRDA schedule.
WRDA is one of the most important pieces of legislation
that we work to draft and pass here at the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and we are proud to do so regularly.
Every 2 years since 2014, Congress has passed a bipartisan,
consensus WRDA bill into law, helping communities across this
country. I look forward to working once again with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue this
important tradition.
WRDA is a critical vehicle to meet the water resources
needs in the communities nationwide. Reliable water navigation
systems allow for the safe and efficient shipping of cargo that
is fueling our economy. Levees protect homes and businesses
from flooding. Dams and reservoirs, like Lake Lanier in Georgia
where I grew up visiting with my family, also provide flood
control for communities, electricity, and opportunities for
recreation.
WRDA 2024 included several important provisions for water
needs in the State of Georgia and the country as a whole.
Specifically, WRDA 2024 authorized a feasibility study for
Tybee Island ecosystem restoration and storm damage risk
reduction and modified the feasibility studies for Savannah
Harbor and New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, updating these
prior authorizations to effectively and efficiently meet
changing needs.
In Georgia, 2025 was the busiest year on record for the
Port of Savannah, and the Port of Brunswick became America's
number one port for automobiles. A consistent 2-year WRDA
process is essential in helping our ports keep up with growing
demand and grow our Nation's economy.
An important part of the WRDA process is the partnership
between the Federal Government and non-Federal partners and
stakeholders who come together to solve local water resources
needs. It is great to see a panel of witnesses today
representing diverse interests and geographic areas, but who
are brought together not only by water resources issues, but
also by the solutions that WRDAs can provide.
I look forward to hearing from each of you today on the
importance of WRDA in assisting with flood control, inland
waterway navigation, coastal restoration, beach renourishment,
and ensuring safe movement of goods through maritime
transportation.
[Mr. Collins' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Collins, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
Today's hearing is the first of a series that this subcommittee
will hold before drafting a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for
2026. To kick off the WRDA 2026 process, today we have the opportunity
to hear from stakeholders from across the nation about the importance
of Army Corps Civil Works programs and maintaining a consistent two-
year WRDA schedule.
WRDA is one of the most important pieces of legislation we work to
draft and pass here at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
and we are proud to do so regularly. Every two years since 2014,
Congress has passed a bipartisan, consensus WRDA bill into law, helping
communities across the country. I look forward to working once again
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue this
important tradition.
WRDA is a critical vehicle to meet the water resources needs in
communities nationwide. Reliable water navigation systems allow for the
safe and efficient shipping of cargo, fueling our economy. Levees
protect homes and businesses from flooding. Dams and reservoirs, like
Lake Lanier in Georgia--where I grew up visiting with my family--also
provide flood control for communities, electricity, and opportunities
for recreation.
WRDA 2024 included several important provisions for water needs in
the State of Georgia and the country as a whole. Specifically, WRDA
2024 authorized a feasibility study for Tybee Island ecosystem
restoration and storm damage risk reduction and modified the
feasibility studies for Savannah Harbor and New Savannah Bluff Lock and
Dam, updating these prior authorizations to effectively and efficiently
meet changing needs.
In Georgia, 2025 was the busiest year on record for the Port of
Savannah, and the Port of Brunswick became America's number one port
for automobiles. A consistent two-year WRDA process is essential in
helping our ports keep up with growing demand and grow our nation's
economy.
An important part of the WRDA process is the partnership between
the federal government, non-federal partners, and stakeholders, who
come together to solve local water resources needs. It is great to see
a panel of witnesses today representing diverse interests and
geographic areas, but who are brought together not only by water
resources issues, but also by the solutions that WRDAs can provide.
I look forward to hearing from each of you today on the importance
of WRDA in assisting with flood control, inland waterway navigation,
coastal restoration, beach renourishment, and ensuring safe movement of
goods through maritime transportation.
Mr. Collins. I now recognize Ranking Member Wilson for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON OF FLORIDA,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
today's hearing.
Through biennial enactment of Water Resources Development
Acts, this committee is addressing the water-related needs of
our States and local communities. WRDAs are a shining example
of how Congress can efficiently and effectively meet the
bipartisan needs of our communities when we decide it is better
to work together than apart. Again, I look forward to
continuing my partnership with you, with Chairman Graves, and
with Ranking Member Larsen to get this done.
Mr. Chairman, each of our communities experience unique
water resources challenges. We seek to address these challenges
through predictable enactment of WRDAs, providing the Corps
with the tools necessary to address community needs. As
stressors or local priorities change over time, this committee
has stayed vigilant to ensure that the Corps has the authority
and resources necessary to address local needs.
The history of the Corps bears this out. The Corps' Civil
Works responsibility was initially focused primarily on
navigation, developing the coastal and inland harbors necessary
for the efficient movement of goods to our young Nation. That
responsibility was later expanded to incorporate large-scale
flood control, in part, due to widespread flooding along the
Mississippi River that devastated communities and livelihoods.
More recently, as more communities realized the economic,
environmental, and public health benefits from restoring their
environment, Congress expanded the Corps' responsibility to
include watershed and ecosystem restoration, the benefits that
can be seen in the Florida Everglades, coastal Louisiana, and
in the Great Lakes.
In fact, just last week, we celebrated the 25th anniversary
of enactment of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
through WRDA 2000. This decades-long partnership between the
Corps, the State, and other non-Federal partners shows how
large-scale environmental restoration projects can have a
tangible, dramatic, and lasting benefit to our communities, our
economies, our human and environmental health, and our quality
of life.
Lastly, in WRDA 2024, the Congress gave the Corps new
direction to work with communities to support local efforts to
enhance water supply, water conservation, and drought
resiliency needs.
Mr. Chairman, as we develop a new WRDA bill for 2026, we
need to build on the successes of the last few WRDA bills and
the enhanced direction for the Corps to partner with
communities of all types--large and small; urban, rural, and
Tribal; economically well-off and communities that struggle to
make ends meet--to address their local water resources
challenges.
It is my hope that WRDA 2026 will continue to ensure that
the next generation of flood control, navigation, environmental
restoration, and water supply and conservation projects and
studies are authorized and allowed to proceed.
We must continue to promote community resilience to the
challenges faced by extreme weather events and changes to
climate conditions on the ground, whether there is too much
water, including coastal and inland flooding events, or too
little water, such as areas facing increased frequencies of
drought conditions.
And we must ensure that all communities are given the
opportunity to work with the Corps to resolve their water
resources challenges.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have started to hear concerns
from Members on both sides of the aisle that recent changes in
the communication policies of the Corps have led to delays and
denials of sharing even the most basic information about Corps
projects in Members' districts. As the chairman knows, seamless
communication between the Corps and Members' offices is
essential for successful development and implementation of WRDA
laws and projects. I hope that these bureaucratic holdups can
be quickly dispensed with, lest they cause challenges in this
committee completing its critical work to develop a new WRDA.
I look forward to working with you on this proposal and on
our continued partnership to develop another successful WRDA
this Congress. So, let's get to work.
And I yield back.
[Ms. Wilson of Florida's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing.
Through biennial enactment of Water Resources Development Acts,
this committee is addressing the water related needs of our states and
local communities.
WRDAs are a shining example of how Congress can efficiently and
effectively meet the bipartisan needs of our communities when we decide
it is better to work together than apart.
Again, I look forward to continuing my partnership with you, with
Chairman Graves and with Ranking Member Larsen to get this done.
Mr. Chairman, each of our communities experience unique water
resources challenges. We seek to address these challenges through
predictable enactment of WRDAs--providing the Corps with the tools
necessary to address community needs.
As stressors or local priorities change over time, this Committee
has stayed vigilant to ensure that the Corps has the authority and
resources necessary to address local needs.
The history of the Corps bears this out. The Corps' civil works
responsibility was initially focused primarily on navigation--
developing the coastal and inland harbors necessary for the efficient
movement of goods to our young nation.
That responsibility was later expanded to incorporate large-scale
flood control, in part, due to widespread flooding along the
Mississippi River that devastated communities and livelihoods.
More recently, as more communities realized the economic,
environmental and public health benefits from restoring their
environment, Congress expanded the Corps' responsibility to include
watershed and ecosystem restoration--the benefits that can be seen in
the Florida Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, and the Great Lakes.
In fact, just last week, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of
enactment of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan through WRDA
2000.
This decades-long partnership between the Corps, the state, and
other non-federal partners shows how large-scale environmental
restoration projects can have a tangible, dramatic, and lasting benefit
to our communities, our economies, our human and environmental health,
and our quality of life.
Lastly, in WRDA 2024, the Congress gave the Corps new direction to
work with communities to support local efforts to enhance water supply,
water conservation, and drought resiliency needs.
Mr. Chairman, as we develop a new WRDA bill for 2026, we need to
build on the successes of the last few WRDA bills and the enhanced
direction for the Corps to partner with communities of all types--large
and small; urban, rural, and tribal; economically-well-off and
communities that struggle to make ends meet--to address their local
water resources challenges.
It is my hope that WRDA 2026 will continue to ensure that the next
generation of flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and
water supply and conservation projects and studies are authorized and
allowed to proceed.
We must continue to promote community resilience to the challenges
faced by extreme weather events and changes to climatic conditions on
the ground--whether there is too much water, including coastal and
inland flooding events, or too little water, such as areas facing
increased frequency of drought conditions.
And we must ensure that all communities are given the opportunity
to work with the Corps to resolve their water resources challenges.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have started to hear concern from
members, on both sides of the aisle, that recent changes in the
communication policies of the Corps have led to delays and denials of
sharing even the most basic information about Corps projects in
members' districts.
As the Chairman knows, seamless communication between the Corps and
members' offices is essential for successful development and
implementation of WRDA laws and projects.
I hope that these bureaucratic holdups can be quickly dispensed
with, lest they cause challenges in this Committee completing its
critical work to develop a new WRDA.
I look forward to working with you on this proposal, and on our
continued partnership to develop another successful WRDA this Congress.
Let's get to work, and I yield back.
Mr. Collins. I now recognize the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the interest of time, we are voting around 10:30, I am
going to ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the
record.
But I do want to reiterate a point that the ranking member
made. I too have heard concerns on both sides of the aisle
about changes in the communication policies of the Corps that
are actually driven out of the Department of Defense, and it
seems that this is a ridiculous policy. It is a shortsighted
policy.
My district this past weekend has been the victim of major
flooding where the Corps is on the ground working side by side
with the local emergency operations center folks. My staff is
on the ground working side by side with the emergency
operations center folks in order to birddog problems, and those
include problems with the Corps.
Are the Corps of Engineers folks supposed to run, scurrying
away like rats, when my staff approaches them in a room to ask
for help in order to get culverts cleared out, in order to get
dikes inspected, in order do get levees inspected? We have to
go ask the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, for permission
to save lives in my district?
This is the practical impact of a ridiculous, shortsighted
policy that is being applied to the Corps of Engineers. How the
rest of the DoD wants to handle it is up to them, but we are in
flood season where I am from, and we can't have delays waiting
for the DoD to sign off on my staff talking to the local Corps
of Engineers folks about the problems we are facing. I wanted
to be sure to get that across.
Other than that, I really do look forward to the testimony
we have here today, and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. I thank Mr. Larsen. And as to your unanimous
consent request, without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. I appreciate that.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Collins, for starting the development of a new
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).
In the Pacific Northwest and across the country, businesses and
communities understand the critical importance of ports, harbors and
inland waterways to keep the goods we rely on moving.
These critical investments are needed not only to sustain our
current businesses, communities, and local economies, but also to
prepare our region for anticipated growth in populations over the next
few decades.
A recent Association of Washington Businesses report forecasts that
the population of the state of Washington will grow to 10 million
people by 2050, from about eight million today.
While recent federal and state efforts have helped address some of
the critical infrastructure backlog, robust investment is needed to
keep pace with forecast growth, to embrace emerging industries and to
maintain the region's quality of life.
The report identifies an estimated need for over $9 billion in
critical port investment, $4 billion for fish habitat, and over $70
billion in water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure investments
for just the State of Washington--showing the magnitude of the
investment challenges ahead.
Since 2014, this Committee has addressed local water resource
challenges through regular enactment of bipartisan WRDAs.
WRDAs support projects that address local water resource needs--
such as maintaining levees and expanding port capacity--to create jobs
in construction and support industries and businesses that benefit
directly from Corps projects.
Regular, predictable enactment of WRDA bills also allows for the
implementation of critical and timely policy reforms that improve the
function and flexibility of the Corps to respond to local water
resources challenges.
WRDAs are a great example of the strong bipartisan work this
Committee can produce.
In WRDA 2024, this Committee successfully authorized the
construction of 21 new projects covering every facet of the Corps'
missions, as well as 162 new feasibility studies for future water
resource development projects.
WRDA 2024 also authorized or modified more than $5 billion in
environmental infrastructure assistance for community driven projects,
including $242 million for locally supported water and wastewater
infrastructure projects in western Washington state.
These federal, state and local partnerships are critical to help
address the growing water and wastewater infrastructure needs
throughout the country.
WRDA 2026 is an opportunity to build on the bipartisan successes of
the last few bills.
We can continue to advance efforts to expand America's navigational
capacity and strengthen its supply chains through port, harbor and
inland waterways development.
We can continue to work on job-creating investments that address
the water resources challenges facing communities and support national,
regional and local economies.
We can continue to help communities prepare to face the challenges
posed by climate change, including extreme weather events and drought.
We can continue to give all communities access to the Corps'
technical and planning expertise, including Tribal, minority and
disadvantaged communities.
Beyond the regular enactment of WRDAs, Congress also provides
funding to the Corps for project planning, construction, operation and
maintenance so communities can quickly benefit from water resources
improvements.
The $17 billion downpayment made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law was a great start, but Congress and the administration need to
continue robust investment in our water infrastructure in the future.
Lastly, I have started to hear concerns from members on both sides
of the aisle that recent changes to the communication policies of the
Corps have led to delays and denials of sharing even the most basic
information about Corps projects in members' districts.
As the Chairman knows, seamless communication between the Corps and
members offices is essential for successful development and
implementation of WRDA laws and projects.
I hope that these concerns can be quickly addressed.
I look forward to the continued partnership with Chairman Graves,
Chairman Collins, and Ranking Member Wilson in developing a bipartisan
WRDA 2026.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. I was trying to remember what I was supposed
to say.
I would like to now welcome our witnesses, and thank them
for being here today. You probably know, but I am going to just
briefly go over and explain the lighting system. There are
three lights in front of you. The green means go, yellow means
you are running out of time, and when it turns red, please
conclude your remarks.
I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
letter from the American Coastal Coalition dated December 15,
2025; a letter from the American Association of Port
Authorities dated December 15, 2025; and a letter from the New
York City Economic Development Corporation dated December 16,
2025. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Dan Ginolfi, Executive Director, American Coastal
Coalition, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wilson, thank you for this
opportunity to provide the Committee with the views of the American
Coastal Coalition on priorities for the Water Resources Development Act
of 2026.
The American Coastal Coalition represents America's coastal
communities with federal beach nourishment projects and other coastal
sustainability needs. Along America's developed coasts, beach
nourishment is the most effective means for protecting against coastal
storms and flooding. Many of the provisions in WRDA have impacts on our
members and their coastal projects, and we are pleased to offer this
testimony to help the committee craft water resources policy to better
serve our nation's coastal communities.
3x3x3 Process
In WRDA 2014, the 3x3x3 ``SMART Planning'' process was established
in law, meaning that all Corps studies should require 3 years, cost a
maximum of $3 million, and involve all 3 levels of the Corps. When it
comes to beach nourishment projects, some are complex while some are
quite simple to plan and implement. However, $3 million dollars and 3
years of time quickly became the baseline for all types of studies and
modifications, including Limited and General Revaluation Reports,
regardless of their complexity.
Prior to WRDA 2024, the Corps already had a process to allow
studies to exceed the 3x3x3 framework when necessary. Nonetheless,
Section 1103 of WRDA 2024 expanded studies to allow them to take up to
4 years and cost $5 million. This expansion was driven by demands from
higher levels of the Corps to achieve a design level closer to 100%
before moving into Pre-construction Engineering and Design (PED) and
Construction.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Committee has previously received testimony from both the
Assistant Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers which has
tangentially dealt with the time and cost issue. Secretary Telle wants
to assure that studies get completed more quickly, and the Chief has
expressed his desire that the level of planning design of feasibility
studies be increased so that Congress and non-Federal interests can
have a more accurate idea of the final cost of projects. Those two
goals are inherently at odds since it will take more time and money to
get to a higher level of design. Once again, proper study management by
all three levels of the Corps is the best answer to managing both study
duration and cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite that WRDA provision, current Corps policy still adheres to
the 3x3x3 baseline. The American Coastal Coalition's position is that
the duration and cost of a study should not be dictated by legislation.
The true solution is proper study management by all three levels of
the Corps. While we acknowledge that some Corps studies are justly long
and expensive, legislating their cost and duration, though well-
intentioned, has proven to be an error. We urge the Committee to
correct this in WRDA 2026 by simply deleting the previous legislative
provisions.
Funding for District Staff
District staff salaries are paid primarily through study funding.
Relying on project studies to fund Corps personnel is neither good
policy nor an effective strategy. We urge the appropriators to provide
for a dedicated funding stream for District Corps personnel to enable
the agency to deliver its services at the highest level possible.
Planning Centers of Expertise
The ACC and its members often rely on the expertise provided by the
Corps' Coastal Planning Center of Expertise (PCX). Many years ago, the
Corps created PCXs for its various Business Lines. Coastal storm risk
management projects are currently categorized under the flood control
business line, but a separate Coastal PCX was created and has
successfully overseen much of the coastal project portfolio.
Unfortunately, it has now been determined that each PCX must be
moved from its Division home to a District. The ACC believes this is a
bad idea, at least for the Coastal PCX, which is proposed to be moved
to the New York District from the North Atlantic Division.
The PCX performs essential planning, engineering, and project
management functions and cannot effectively maintain a national
capacity when relocated to the district level. The Coastal PCX should
function as an arm of Corps Headquarters with a national scope, rather
than inheriting the limited vision of a single district whose staff
salaries are tied primarily to specific local projects.
We respectfully urge this Committee to adopt an amendment to
Section 2033(e) of WRRDA 2007 which will enable at least the Coastal
Planning Center of Expertise to perform its advocacy and oversight
roles for all coastal studies nationally as a part of Corps
Headquarters.
Thank you for your attention to our testimony.
Statement of Chett Chiasson, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
American Association of Port Authorities, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Mike Collins
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
on the development of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
2026 and the needs of the United States maritime transportation system.
The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) represents the
public port authorities that handle the vast majority of the nation's
overseas trade. America relies on its ports to move essential goods,
support local and regional economies, and provide the infrastructure
that sustains twenty six percent of the nation's gross domestic
product. The partnership between ports and the federal government, and
particularly the United States Army Corps of Engineers, is fundamental
to maintaining safe, efficient, and globally competitive navigation
channels.
AAPA appreciates the Committee's commitment to regular, biennial
WRDA legislation. Consistent authorization cycles allow ports, states,
and the Corps to plan, finance, and deliver projects that strengthen
economic competitiveness and national security. The federal government
must remain a strong partner in these efforts so our nation's waterways
can continue to serve as reliable gateways for commerce and community
resilience.
Even with the significant investments made through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, there remain billions of
dollars needed across the nation's waterways. The demand for modern,
resilient, and efficient maritime infrastructure continues to grow as
vessel sizes increase, global supply chains evolve, and coastal
communities face more frequent extreme weather events. AAPA urges
Congress to enact a robust WRDA that makes the best use of federal and
non-federal investments and advances practical policy reforms that
accelerate project delivery.
AAPA recommends several measures for inclusion in WRDA 2026 that
would improve federal navigation. First, Congress should examine the
requirement under WRDA 1986 that non-federal sponsors repay an
additional ten percent of navigation construction costs at the end of
construction. This charge was originally intended to cover
administrative expenses, yet non-federal partners have no role in
overseeing those costs. Other Corps mission areas do not require such
repayment. Eliminating this outdated provision would reduce unnecessary
burdens on local sponsors and support the advancement of critical
navigation improvements.
Second, Congress should ensure predictable and sustainable Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund allocations for Donor and Energy Transfer Ports.
Donor ports collectively generate more than half of total Harbor
Maintenance Tax collections and Energy ports play a central role in
America's energy independence and strategy. While WRDA 2020 set a goal
that at least twelve percent of annual Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
appropriations should support these ports, qualifiers in the law have
led to inconsistent implementation. Removing these qualifiers and
directing the Secretary to follow congressional intent would provide
stability and ensure that these critical hubs receive the support
needed to maintain safe and efficient operations.
Third, AAPA encourages Congress to authorize expedited contributed
funds authority for small navigation projects. Many smaller projects
encounter delays when bids slightly exceed the authorized cost, often
due to routine inflation and market fluctuations. Allowing a non-
federal sponsor, with Corps concurrence, to contribute up to five
million dollars within the partnership agreement would provide the
flexibility needed to award contracts and advance projects without
requiring additional legislative action. This approach would reduce the
growing backlog of modification requests and help more communities
benefit from timely completion of needed improvements.
Fourth, AAPA recommends additional flexibility within the statutory
902 cost limit for small navigation projects. Raising the allowable
contract award threshold from twenty percent to thirty percent above
the government estimate for projects under fifty million dollars would
address inflation pressures and give the Corps practical tools to award
contracts without repeated statutory adjustments. This reform would
provide local sponsors and the Corps with flexibility that reflects
real world project delivery conditions.
AAPA supports a WRDA that builds on past successes and strengthens
the ability of ports and the Corps to partner effectively. The federal
government plays an indispensable role in sustaining the nation's
navigation system, and continued investment in this infrastructure is
critical for economic growth, supply chain stability, and community
protection. Strong, predictable WRDA legislation ensures that ports can
plan responsibly, address emerging needs, and maintain the safe
movement of goods that Americans rely on every day.
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to
share the views of the American port industry. AAPA looks forward to
working with you throughout the WRDA process and to supporting policies
that keep our nation's maritime gateways strong, secure, and globally
competitive.
Thank you.
Statement of Andrew Kimball, President, New York City Economic
Development Corporation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike Collins
Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). This biennial, bipartisan
legislation is essential to advancing our nation's economic growth and
infrastructure while safeguarding the environment. A strong federal
partnership is critical to ensuring America's maritime competitiveness,
reinforcing transportation systems, and fostering the industries that
drive our economy.
I serve as President of the New York City Economic Development
Corporation (NYCEDC), a mission-driven nonprofit dedicated to building
a vibrant, inclusive, and globally competitive economy for all New
Yorkers. As part of this work, NYCEDC manages the Manhattan Cruise
Terminal on the Hudson River and supports the development of New York
City's greenways, including the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway. I submit
this testimony to underscore the importance of the WRDA process and to
request two specific actions in WRDA 2026: first, the deauthorization
of a portion of the Hudson River federal navigation channel to enable
modernization of the Manhattan Cruise Terminal; and second, the
deauthorization of a portion of the Harlem River to advance the North
Harlem Waterfront Greenway, closing a critical gap in a low-income
community currently cut off from waterfront access, thereby impeding
long-term economic growth through a continuous greenway. These projects
advance WRDA's core purpose: modernizing waterfront infrastructure that
serves both economic and strategic national interests. The 2026 cycle
offers a unique opportunity to deliver on that vision.
The cruise industry is a key component of the nation's economic and
strategic advantage. As the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports, the
travel and tourism industry accounted for 3.03% of US GDP in 2023,
contributing more than $585 billion in tax revenue annually and
accounting for almost 7% of all government income. In the US alone, the
cruise industry supported over $65 billion in total economic impact in
2023, nearly 300,000 jobs and $25 billion in wages. This growth
reflects the continued recovery and expansion of the cruise sector
post-COVID, helping to channel spending into lodging, dining,
entertainment, retail, and local transportation in port communities.
The Manhattan Cruise Terminal (MCT) plays a large part in this
economic generation, serving as the country's oldest municipal cruise
terminal and 5th largest cruising homeport. From its days at the turn
of the 20th century receiving ocean liners, to the modern-day cruise
vessels that connect Americans and international visitors from the
Caribbean to Canada and across the Atlantic, the Manhattan Cruise
Terminal is a key port that is uniquely positioned to drive economic
impact across the Eastern Seaboard. In 2024, MCT handled approximately
1.15 million passengers and served as a vital economic engine for New
York City, contributing $500 million in economic impact, and supporting
3,000 jobs across the maritime, hospitality, and transportation
sectors.
Beyond its economic and historical significance, MCT is a strategic
national asset. Situated in the heart of the Port of New York, a
deepdraft gateway with direct access to major road, rail, and air
corridors, the terminal offers unmatched connectivity to nearly 30
million people within 100 miles. Its location positions it to support
commerce, defense, and emergency response. Each year, the Navy and
Coast Guard berth at MCT during Fleet Week, bringing combatant,
auxiliary, and amphibious ships alongside Piers 88 and 90 for public
tours and demonstrations, underscoring its ability to host modern
military vessels. More broadly, the Port of New York and New Jersey
ranks among the nation's largest deepwater hubs, with maintained
channels for oceangoing ships and extensive intermodal links to inland
destinations. In contingencies, the Department of Transportation and
Maritime Administration hold priority authority over civil
transportation facilities for national defense, making accessible,
well-equipped berths like MCT critical for rapid surge and humanitarian
response. As recently as March 2020, the USNS Comfort berthed at MCT to
support New York's hospital system during COVID-19, and after Hurricane
Sandy, it was evaluated as a staging point for military response
vessels.
For this asset to continue serving the City, region, and country,
modernization is imperative. MCT's 90+ year-old infrastructure is
undersized, outdated, and nearing the end of its useful life. In its
current state, the terminal cannot meet the needs of the cruise
industry or the surrounding community. The existing piers are unable to
accommodate modern cruise vessels, fully implement shore power,
integrate with the transportation network, or provide meaningful
waterfront access. Without decisive action, New York risks losing its
competitive edge as a homeport, forfeiting jobs, tax revenue, and
tourism dollars to other cities domestically and abroad. NYCEDC's WRDA
deauthorization request is essential to enable modernization of MCT and
unlock significant investment to strengthen cruise infrastructure.
To address these needs, NYCEDC's Manhattan Cruise Terminal Master
Plan lays out a bold vision to transform MCT into a next-generation
global maritime hub. Developed after a year of engagement with
community and industry stakeholders as well as a navigation and safety
risk assessment, the plan focuses on four priorities:
Modernize and Electrify: Replace three aging piers with
two consolidated piers capable of hosting two 8,000-passenger ships and
one 6,000-passenger vessel simultaneously. Implement full shore power
and integrate renewable energy systems such as solar and thermal
exchange cooling.
Enhance Public Access: Expand waterfront open space,
improve pedestrian and bike connectivity, and activate the Hudson River
waterfront as a year-round public realm.
Advance Environmental and Economic Goals: Reduce
emissions, meet FEMA flood elevation standards, and strengthen New
York's maritime economy while creating thousands of jobs and sustaining
tourism growth.
Improve Transportation Efficiency: Relocate passenger
loading and unloading off the West Side Highway to reduce congestion
and conflicts with the Greenway and Route 9A.
To realize this vision, the project will construct a consolidated
passenger terminal and transportation hub, supported by a new electric
substation capable of powering three berths, the terminal building,
operational equipment, and harbor craft. It will also create a public
plaza for waterfront access while accommodating the most modern cruise
ships, preserving and expanding the industry's economic impact. To
build the terminal and 1,125-foot-long piers with 350-foot mooring
dolphins, WRDA deauthorization of 647 feet of the federal navigation
channel is required.
Deauthorizing the portion of the federal navigation channel around
the Manhattan Cruise Terminal enables the City to continue planning,
designing, and permitting a project that roots the maritime industry's
positive economic impact in New York City. Without deauthorization, the
City will not be able to build a terminal that can accommodate the
ships the cruise industry is building. Financing a project of this
scale will be dependent on public-private partnerships ensuring the
industry can invest in a terminal that meets its needs and the City can
invest in a terminal whose infrastructure will last and serve the
community for years to come. Without investment, the country risks
losing the New York-based cruise industry, costing hundreds of millions
in annual economic impact and thousands of jobs. Securing
deauthorization in 2026 is therefore critical to avoid jeopardizing
private investment and long-term planning for a project that has the
potential to deliver enormous benefits to the community and the City at
large.
Further supporting the continuity of modern waterfront
infrastructure, NYCEDC's second request to deauthorize a portion of the
Harlem River would unlock transformative infrastructure investments
that connect people to the waterfront and drive long-term economic
growth through a continuous greenway.
For nearly a decade, NYCEDC has worked closely with the NYC
Department of Transportation and the NYC Department of Parks and
Recreation to connect Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, a continuous 32-
mile path for pedestrians and cyclists along the entire waterfront of
Manhattan. This vision, first conceived in the 1990s, activates over
1,000 acres of continuous open space, larger than Central Park, keeping
New York competitive with global waterfronts. Already, the Hudson River
Greenway is the busiest bike path in the United States with nearly
7,000 users daily.
Today, over 85% of the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway is complete,
but persistent gaps remain. The North Harlem gap is one of the most
challenging, where limited waterfront land and the narrowness of the
Harlem River in this section complicate greenway development.
Deauthorizing just 80-feet wide and one mile long from the channel's
western side would allow the City to advance the greenway's
development. The proposed greenway structure would be an outboard
facility up to 40-feet-wide and would be similar to the East Midtown
Greenway, which NYCEDC completed in 2023.
This project is the product of extensive stakeholder engagement and
a rigorous Navigational Safety Risk Assessment, ensuring no impact to
maritime navigation or commerce. When complete, the North Harlem
segment will connect residents to an inaccessible waterfront, add
nearly 2,000 linear feet of walking and biking paths, and close one of
the last gaps in a network decades in the making. More than a local
improvement, this milestone will demonstrate America's ability to
deliver transformative infrastructure: strengthening communities,
catalyzing economic development, and reaffirming our commitment to
public access.
The modernization of the Manhattan Cruise Terminal and the build
out of the North Harlem Greenway are commitments to the City, region
and country's economic vitality and community well-being. NYCEDC urges
Congress to support this WRDA action and help secure the future of New
York City's working waterfront.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Collins. As your written testimony has been made part
of the record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral
remarks to 5 minutes.
With that, Ms. Ufner, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF JULIE A. UFNER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL WATERWAYS CONFERENCE, INC.; CHARLES CAMILLO,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MIDWEST FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION;
BRYAN JONES, PRESIDENT, MID-ATLANTIC DIVISION, HNTB
CORPORATION; AND NOEL HACEGABA, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND
INCOMING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PORT OF LONG BEACH,
CALIFORNIA
TESTIMONY OF JULIE A. UFNER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL WATERWAYS CONFERENCE, INC.
Ms. Ufner. Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Larsen, Ranking
Member Wilson, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on priorities for the Water
Resources Development Act of 2026.
My name is Julie Ufner, National Waterways Conference, and
I am president and CEO. NWC is the only national organization
that represents, under one umbrella, all U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Civil Works business lines, from navigation, flood
control, water supply, hydropower, ecosystem restoration, and
recreation, before Congress and the administration.
Many of our members work directly with the Corps across the
entire Civil Works arena, and many of our members are non-
Federal sponsors of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies and
projects. They are States, local, Tribal governments, as well
as special purpose public districts, like ports, flood control,
levee districts, water agencies. These sponsors share project
costs and often assume long-term operation and maintenance
responsibilities after the project is completed.
At its core, WRDA exists because there are many water
resource challenges that are too complex and too costly for
local communities to handle. WRDA relies on a partnership of
the Congress, Corps, and non-Federal sponsors. Congress
provides projects, sets policy, and appropriates Federal
funding. The Corps provides technical expertise, conducts
studies, develops guidance, and delivers projects. And non-
Federal sponsors bring local funding, knowledge, and long-term
responsibility. WRDA works best when all three are aligned.
This brings me to the first major theme we are hearing from
our members, and that is communication; the importance of
clear, consistent communication.
Sponsors continue to experience gaps in engagement during
feasibility studies, project delivery, and permitting. In our
experience, early communication often prevents issues that
later become too costly or difficult to resolve.
Second, sponsors are concerned about keeping projects on
track and within authorized estimates. Extended feasibility
timelines, evolving design assumptions, and gaps between
authorization and appropriation can compound over time.
For example, projects that are authorized may not be funded
immediately, or may be funded incrementally over multiple
appropriation cycles, during which costs rise even when scope
doesn't change. This misalignment creates uncertainty for both
the Federal and non-Federal partners.
Finally, non-Federal sponsors emphasize the importance of
predictability in Corps reviews and decisions across all
policies and programs. How and when determinations are made,
including reviews, eligibility, real estate, and internal
reviews, directly impact local planning, financial commitments,
and the ability to move forward. Greater certainty equals more
durable partnerships and better projects.
NWC is working through a member-driven process to develop
specific recommendations for WRDA 2026. We do recognize that
not every challenge requires legislation. Some issues may be
more appropriately addressed through implementation, guidance,
or congressional oversight.
In closing, I want to emphasize how important it is to our
local communities that WRDA stay on a biennial basis.
Predictability matters. When the project is consistent,
communities benefit, partners can plan with confidence, and
projects are better positioned to move from one WRDA cycle to
another. Quite simply, WRDA is a partnership that works, and it
benefits us all.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify, and I am
happy to take any questions.
[Ms. Ufner's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive
Officer, National Waterways Conference, Inc.
Thank you, Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson, and members
of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2026: Stakeholder Priorities.''
My name is Julie Ufner. I am President of the National Waterways
Conference, Inc. (NWC). Prior to coming to NWC in 2019, I served as the
Associate Legislative Director for Environment, Energy and Land Use at
the National Association of Counties (NACo) for 17 years.
By way of an overview, my testimony addresses multiple policy and
implementation issues relevant to the development of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2026 (WRDA 2026), including but not
limited to communication and coordination among Congress, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps), and non-Federal sponsors;
challenges related to project delivery, cost growth, and timelines; and
the importance of predictable, reliable investment across the full
range of Corps mission areas. These issues reflect concerns raised by
NWC members nationwide, and the testimony is organized by topic so
readers may refer directly to sections of interest.
NWC appreciates the leadership of this Subcommittee and its long
tradition of cooperation and collaboration in addressing the nation's
water resources needs. On behalf of our members, we welcome the
opportunity to share perspectives that may be helpful as Congress
considers WRDA 2026.
While this testimony outlines a range of member-identified issues,
NWC is currently engaged in a member-driven process to develop formal
WRDA policy recommendations. We appreciate the Committee's openness to
exploring both legislative and non-legislative options to ensure the
Civil Works program continues to deliver effectively across Corps
mission areas and across the country, and we look forward to continued
engagement as that process moves forward.
About NWC
Established in 1960, NWC is the only national organization to
advocate in favor of national policy and laws that recognize the vital
importance of America's water resources infrastructure to our nation's
well-being and quality of life. Supporting a sound balance between
economic and human needs and environmental and ecological
considerations, our mission is to effect common sense policies and
programs, recognizing the public value of our nation's water resources
and their contribution to public safety, a competitive economy,
national security, environmental quality and energy conservation.
NWC membership is comprised of the full spectrum of water and
waterways resource infrastructure stakeholders, including port
authorities, flood control associations, levee boards, water supply
districts, waterways shippers and carriers, national and regional
associations, port authorities, agriculture, dredging contractors,
hydropower producers, engineering consultants and state and local
governments. We proudly say we represent all of the Corps Civil Works
business lines. Many of our members are non-Federal sponsors of Corps
Civil Works projects, and responsible for significant financial
commitments for the construction and maintenance of these projects. We
work diligently and collaboratively with our Federal partners to ensure
the nation can reap the multiple benefits provided by these
investments. To that end, our membership is keenly interested in the
enactment of comprehensive water resources legislation, and we look
forward to working with the Committee as it moves forward in this
process.
In support of that collaborative partnership, NWC maintains a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Corps that establishes a framework
for engagement, information exchange, and coordination, and recognizes
the respective roles and responsibilities of each organization in
advancing the Corps Civil Works program and related water resources
infrastructure activities.
Why WRDA Matters
WRDA is the statute through which Congress authorizes the Civil
Works missions of the Corps. It establishes the authorities for
studies, projects, and policy updates that support navigation, flood
risk management, ecosystem restoration, water supply, hydropower, and
recreation. WRDA provides the authority, and the annual Energy and
Water Appropriations Acts provides the funding. Both are required for
work to advance.
WRDA ensures that the nation's water resources infrastructure keeps
pace with changing economic, environmental, and community needs. Ports
depend on navigation reliability. Communities depend on levee and flood
control programs that protect lives and property. States and local
governments rely on clear authorities for water supply, restoration,
and coastal protection. Without a regular WRDA, planning becomes
uncertain, project delivery slows, and communities face greater risks
and higher costs.
WRDA also connects Federal policy with local reality. Communities
and the Corps work together to identify risks, develop solutions, and
ensure that projects reflect both national purpose and local needs.
WRDA gives Congress the opportunity to review and authorize this work
in a transparent and deliberative way.
We appreciate the committee's leadership in maintaining a
dependable two-year WRDA cycle. Since the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014), this consistency has allowed
partners to plan budgets, advance feasibility studies, make informed
business decisions, and respond to emerging risks with greater
confidence. A missed WRDA cycle delays new authorizations, increases
cost escalation, and undermines navigation and flood risk management
decisions that depend on timely Federal action. The nation is better
served when WRDA remains regular, reliable, and aligned with community
needs.
Who Non-Federal Sponsors Are and How the Partnership Works
Non-Federal sponsors are generally state, local, or tribal
governments, as well as special districts that function as extensions
of state or local government and are funded directly by the communities
they serve. Special districts are established under state law, governed
by public boards, and carry out responsibilities delegated by the
state. Examples include port authorities, levee districts, and water
and flood control districts, along with regional agencies that manage
navigation, water supply, or flood protection. Together, these
governmental entities bring statutory authority, local funding, and
long-term stewardship to the WRDA partnership.
Most Corps projects require a shared investment between the Federal
government and non-Federal sponsors. Sponsors contribute funding,
acquire and provide real estate, coordinate locally, and assume long
term operation and maintenance responsibilities once construction is
complete. These commitments ensure that Federally authorized projects
reflect both national purpose and community needs, and they also
represent substantial public investments at the state and local levels.
Non-Federal sponsors work closely with the Corps before
construction ever begins. They help define risks, supply essential
data, shape feasibility studies, and determine whether solutions are
appropriate for consideration in WRDA. They also coordinate with their
Congressional delegations to ensure that WRDA proposals align with
local priorities and national objectives. This early and continuous
engagement is central to ensuring that projects are technically sound,
economically justified, environmentally responsible, and grounded in
the realities of the communities that will carry them forward.
The WRDA process depends on this partnership. When Congress, the
Corps, and non-Federal sponsors communicate clearly, consistently, and
freely, projects advance more efficiently and with greater certainty.
This alignment helps keep Federal water resources policy responsive,
balanced, and connected to the communities responsible for long term
implementation.
The WRDA Partnership Model and Why It Works When All Three Points
Communicate
WRDA is built on a partnership among Congress, the Corps, and non-
Federal sponsors. Each carries responsibilities that are distinct but
interdependent, and the effectiveness of the WRDA process depends on
open communication among all three. Congress provides the authorities
for studies and projects, establishes national policy direction, and
conducts oversight of how Civil Works missions are carried out. The
Corps provides the technical foundation for these decisions, evaluating
feasibility, engineering, environmental considerations, and economic
justification. Non-Federal sponsors provide the local context, cost-
sharing, and long-term stewardship that allow authorized projects to
move from planning to construction and operation.
This model works because each partner depends on the others to
supply information that only they can provide. Congressional staff rely
on the Corps for accurate technical details, and on non-Federal
sponsors for the community perspective that informs whether a potential
WRDA provision is workable or needed. The Corps relies on sponsors to
identify risks, provide local data, and carry out responsibilities that
cannot be fulfilled at the Federal level. Sponsors, in turn, rely on
both Congress and the Corps for clear authorities, transparent
processes, and predictable guidance so they can plan budgets, acquire
real estate, coordinate utilities, and meet their contractual and long-
term obligations.
When these channels of communication function as intended, the WRDA
process produces projects and policies that are technically sound and
grounded in community needs. Studies advance more efficiently, project
delivery is more predictable, and communities can plan responsibly for
long term investment. When communication is restricted, delayed, or
inconsistent, key information may not reach Congress, sponsors cannot
plan effectively, and the alignment that WRDA depends on becomes
strained. Uncertainty increases, timelines slip, and the quality of
potential WRDA submissions may suffer because partners lack access to
the information needed to shape proposals.
Maintaining consistent and open communication among Congress, the
Corps, and non-Federal sponsors is therefore essential. It ensures that
Federal water resources policy reflects both national priorities and
the realities on the ground, and it preserves the integrity of a
partnership model that has supported infrastructure, navigation, flood
protection, and ecosystem restoration efforts for decades.
Challenges Identified by Non-Federal Sponsors in Preparing for WRDA
2026
As Congress prepares for WRDA 2026, NWC has been gathering input
from non-Federal sponsors across every region of the country. These
sponsors include state and local governments, levee districts, water
agencies, navigation districts, and port authorities who partner
directly with the Corps to plan, fund, and deliver Federally authorized
water resources projects. Their experience provides an essential
perspective on how Federal policies and implementation practices affect
the ability of communities to participate in and benefit from the WRDA
process.
The purpose of this section is to share the challenges that non-
Federal sponsors are currently encountering as they work with the Corps
to advance feasibility studies, navigate real estate requirements,
comply with program rules, and deliver authorized projects. Some of
these challenges arise from long-standing policies that predate recent
WRDA reforms. Others relate to newer provisions in WRDA 2024 that are
still awaiting implementation by the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works (ASACW). In still other cases, sponsors are responding
to evolving Federal practices or administrative directives that are
creating uncertainty in planning and project delivery.
Not every issue highlighted here will require legislation. Some may
be addressed through implementation guidance, administrative actions,
or focused Congressional oversight. However, each issue represents a
real-world barrier encountered by the partners who carry significant
financial responsibility and legal obligations under Federally
authorized projects. The WRDA partnership model depends on
transparency, predictability, and shared understanding among Congress,
the Corps, and non-Federal sponsors. Identifying these challenges early
in the WRDA 2026 process helps ensure that all three points of the
partnership can work together to maintain a responsive and effective
national water resources program.
1. Minimum Necessary Real Estate Interests and LERRDs Practices
Non-Federal sponsors must provide land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and disposal areas for Corps projects, collectively known
as ``LERRDs.'' These requirements are governed by long-standing USACE
real estate regulations and standard estates, many of which predate
recent WRDA reforms. Sponsors have repeatedly expressed concern that
these requirements often mandate fee title or perpetual easements even
when a lesser estate would fully support project construction, access,
and long-term function.
In WRDA 2024, Congress included a provision (Section 1104)
directing the Corps to obtain only the minimum real estate interest
necessary for a project. The ASACW identified this provision as
requiring policy development before it can be implemented--the guidance
has not been issued yet. Until it is released, districts must continue
relying on existing requirements, including templates that often
require more expansive or permanent interests than a project may truly
need. Implementing this section should be fairly straightforward for
the Corps, as it is noted that the Corps has already required, in its
own guidance, that minimum interests in real property necessary to
support various types of projects be identified, and that if a non-
standard estate or real estate policy deviation is needed, it needs to
be coordinated with the Corps division and headquarters Real Estate
offices, with the aim of ensuring that the justification is sound, the
proposed action is within the law, and project authority will serve the
project's purposes. (See, e.g., USACE, Real Estate Policy Guidance
Letter No. 31--Real Estate Support to Civil Works Planning.)
As a result, non-Federal sponsors remain concerned about higher
acquisition costs, reduced landowner cooperation, and delays associated
with larger or more burdensome real estate requirements. Some districts
also prohibit real estate acquisitions until late-stage design, which
compresses schedules and increases local risk. Sponsors stress that
these challenges will persist until the WRDA 2024 provision is
implemented.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
WRDA 2024's minimum interest provision has not yet been
implemented, and Corps districts continue to require fee title or
perpetual easements where lesser interests may be sufficient.
Larger-than-necessary easements raise costs and reduce
landowner participation.
Some districts delay authorization for acquisition until
late-stage design.
Continuing variation in real estate practices across
districts.
Members request stronger alignment between WRDA 2024 and district
practice, including:
Clear guidance reinforcing the use of easements when they
provide adequate access and long-term project performance, with fee
title reserved for cases where it is truly necessary.
Flexibility for sponsors to select nonperpetual or
smaller area easements for time limited projects such as beach
renourishment.
Reconsideration of district policies that categorically
require fee title for dredged material placement sites.
Updated crediting approaches for very large or Mega
Projects, including valuation of land at the time of real estate
certification for each construction package, within defined criteria.
2. Streambank Stabilization and Restoration Easements
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act authorizes small projects
to stabilize streambanks and protect infrastructure such as roads,
bridges, utilities, and agricultural lands. Many non-Federal sponsors
rely on this authority because it allows rapid, targeted intervention
at locations vulnerable to erosion. Sponsors report, however, that
current real estate requirements for certain stream or habitat
restoration projects may require fee title above the ordinary high-
water mark even when a stabilization or conservation easement would
support long-term project access and durability.
This creates obstacles for projects in rural, agricultural, or
privately owned corridors where landowners are unwilling to convey full
ownership. Sponsors emphasize that streambank stabilization often
succeeds when landowners trust that the government will take only what
is necessary. Requirements that exceed project needs can discourage
participation, raise costs, and delay projects intended to prevent
infrastructure failure.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Fee title required above the ordinary high-water mark
even for limited stabilization features.
Higher acquisition costs and reduced landowner
willingness to participate in projects.
Delays that increase erosion risk or force local
governments and special districts to self-fund interim measures.
A need to clarify when habitat or restoration components
do and do not trigger different real estate interest requirements above
the ordinary high-water mark.
Encourage use of stabilization or conservation easements
as the default interest unless a documented engineering need requires
fee title.
Allow sponsors to propose corridor tailored easement
templates for multi-landowner reaches where fee title is impractical.
Provide flexibility for phased real estate acquisition in
areas with accelerating erosion so sponsors are not delayed by late-
stage design requirements.
Improve coordination between real estate and engineering
teams to ensure real estate requirements match the project's actual
stabilization footprint.
Encourage alignment between Corps real estate
requirements and existing state conservation or agricultural easement
programs.
Allow the Corps to accept pre-existing easements or state
held interests when they offer equivalent access and long term
protection needed for project maintenance.
3. Section 408 Review Requirements and Delays
Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires Corps
approval before any entity alters or affects Federal Civil Works
infrastructure. This applies not only to large projects but also to
local improvements such as bridge replacements, levee tie-ins,
municipal utility crossings, and highway construction. Non-Federal
sponsors acknowledge the importance of protecting Federal assets but
report significant variation across districts in how Section 408 is
applied and how long reviews take.
Because sponsors must coordinate 408 approvals with local
contracting, state permitting, and regulatory deadlines, inconsistent
or prolonged reviews create cost and schedule risks. Some sponsors
report uncertainty about whether 408 applies when a Federal project has
been deauthorized or substantially modified, or how fees and cost
recovery are calculated. These uncertainties complicate planning and
can delay essential local improvements.
WRDA 2024 Section 1105 (Section 408 Program Review Process)
addresses Section 408. It aims to standardize and streamline the review
process by directing USACE to establish clear, concise, and specific
guidance to ensure consistency across districts; provide pre-
application meetings upon request by non-Federal entities to discuss
design standards, recommend design package submissions, and identify
potential conflicts and authorize use of contributed funds. However,
this provision has not yet been implemented.
Additionally, WRDA 2024 Section 1244(c) requires the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a thorough review of the Section
408 program. GAO is beginning this study. Separately, USACE has
undertaken rulemaking on Section 408; a proposed rule was issued and
comments received, but a final rule has not been released.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Major variation in Section 408 expectations across
districts; 408 reviews continue to be a major source of delay and
inconsistency for many NWC members.
A need for clear, concise, and specific guidelines on
when and how Section 408 applies, to ensure consistency across
districts.
A need to clarify whether, when, and how Section 408
applies after project deauthorization or modification, or to legacy
footprints.
Unpredictable timelines that disrupt local contracting.
Uncertainty about applicable fees or cost recovery
procedures.
Consider whether non-Federal sponsors could play a
greater role in 408 reviews, for example, whether a certified engineer
could perform a 408-certified analysis on behalf of the non-Federal
sponsor, under USACE standards, to improve timeliness while maintaining
safety.
4. P.L. 84-99 Emergency Levee Repair and Dual Levee Systems
P.L. 84-99 authorizes the Corps to provide emergency assistance for
the repair and rehabilitation of eligible levees and flood control
works following floods and coastal storms. For non-Federal sponsors,
this program is a core Federal safety net that helps restore damaged
infrastructure quickly, reducing local financial burdens and
maintaining protection for communities, agriculture, and critical
infrastructure.
Established in 1976, the P.L. 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection
Program has operated for nearly 50 years with a clear emergency
response purpose: to repair flood-damaged levees as efficiently as
possible so communities are not left exposed for extended periods of
time.
In recent years, NWC members report that the program has
increasingly shifted away from its Congressionally intended emergency
response mission and toward a more prospective planning and compliance
framework. Sponsors describe heightened documentation demands, expanded
eligibility reviews, stricter expectations related to systemwide
improvement frameworks, and longer pre-approval processes before
repairs can begin. NWC has consistently stressed the need to keep P.L.
84-99 aligned with its original purpose and to avoid layering on
requirements that Congress did not authorize.
Rather than focusing on rapid rehabilitation after flood events,
districts are increasingly applying requirements more typical of long-
term construction programs. As a result, sponsors report that it can
take 2 to 3 flood seasons to complete repairs that were intended to be
addressed on an emergency basis.
For communities with limited budgets and narrow construction
windows, these delays increase financial risk, prolong exposure to
flood hazards, and raise local costs. Sponsors also report uncertainty
regarding reimbursement timing and whether emergency or interim repairs
can be undertaken with confidence while awaiting Federal action.
One example of how eligibility has been narrowed through policy
rather than statute involves dual levee configurations. In some river
systems, non-Federal sponsors design flood protection using two levees
based on topography, existing land uses, or the need to protect
critical infrastructure, agricultural assets, or developed areas.
Under current P.L. 84-99 policy, when a Federally constructed levee
is located landward of a non-Federal levee, the Federal levee is
designated as the primary levee. The non-Federal levee is designated as
secondary unless it is the levee that directly protects life safety.
Once designated as secondary, the non-Federal levee loses eligibility
for P.L. 84-99 rehabilitation assistance.
NWC members report that this policy can discourage appropriate dual
levee designs and create inequities for sponsors that construct and
maintain levees to Corps standards but are excluded from emergency
assistance solely because of system configuration. Significant
commercial, agricultural, and residential investments may rely on the
outer or non-Federal levee, yet that levee may remain ineligible for
rehabilitation assistance following flood damage.
This approach undermines local flood risk management strategies and
leaves communities exposed during future flood seasons despite
substantial local investment in flood protection infrastructure.
WRDA 2024 included Section 1146 (Systemwide improvement framework
and encroachments), which addresses the P.L. 84-99 program. Among other
changes, this provision amends the program to establish criteria for
non-Federal interests to remain eligible for repair and rehabilitation
assistance for levee systems under a systemwide improvement framework.
This provision has not yet been implemented.
In the meantime, sponsors report uncertainty about whether
districts are accepting new P.L. 84-99 submissions or whether
additional requirements may apply. Several districts appear to be in a
transitional posture as program guidance evolves following the recent
WRDA provisions and internal policy reviews. In some cases, sponsors
have been told informally that additional documentation may be required
or that reviews may take longer, even though no formal changes have
been made.
This variation across districts leaves sponsors unsure how their
requests will be evaluated or what timelines to expect, making it
difficult for sponsors to plan for upcoming flood seasons or initiate
repairs with confidence while district-level expectations remain in
flux.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
The Corps' shift of the P.L. 84-99 program away from its
Congressionally intended emergency response focus towards a more
prospective planning and compliance framework.
Short windows of time to use funds and persistent
problems with timely delivery for repair projects.
Longer and slower review processes delaying essential
repairs.
Expanded documentation requirements not specified in
statute.
Unpredictable and slow reimbursement timelines.
Difficulty performing sponsor-led interim repairs with
confidence in reimbursement.
Loss of eligibility based on system configuration rather
than function or condition.
Inconsistent district-level expectations and uncertainty
about eligibility as guidance continues to evolve.
A need to establish a longer window and clearer process
for using P.L. 84-99 funds, faster contracting authority, and more
opportunities for non-Federal sponsor-led implementation of repairs.
A need to solve the problem of communities either
operating damaged facilities or self-funding repairs without certainty
of reimbursement, by allowing a waiver or exemption for non-Federal
sponsors, in circumstances where disaster funding is delayed, to ensure
rehabilitation reimbursement for repairs undertaken in good faith while
waiting for Federal approval.
5. Section 902 Cost Limits and Construction Pauses
Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
establishes the maximum allowable total cost for a Corps project. This
is commonly referred to as the Section 902 limit. It serves as a
statutory cap that prevents the Corps from obligating or expending
funds on a project once total costs exceed a defined threshold.
Congress intended Section 902 to promote fiscal discipline and ensure
that major Federal investments do not move forward without updated
Congressional approval when costs rise significantly.
The Section 902 limit is based on several factors, including the
authorized project cost, inflation adjustments, and certain cost
estimate updates. Although the calculation framework appears
straightforward, it has become increasingly difficult to manage in
practice. Projects now experience long timelines between feasibility,
authorization, and construction. Inflation, supply chain conditions,
labor costs, environmental compliance requirements, and evolving
engineering data can all push project costs upward over time. Even when
non-Federal sponsors maintain strong controls on their side, external
factors can increase the total project cost and place the project near
or over the 902 limit.
When a project approaches or exceeds its Section 902 limit, USACE
cannot award contracts or continue progressing major elements of work.
The Corps must prepare a Post-Authorization Change Report (PACR),
secure approval from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, and ultimately obtain a new Congressional authorization. This
process can take years. In the meantime, contractors reprice bids,
schedules slip, and communities wait for projects that have already
demonstrated Federal interest and national benefit.
These delays directly affect non-Federal sponsors. Local
governments, state agencies, and special districts often have legal
obligations, real estate commitments, and community expectations that
continue regardless of pauses in the Federal share. Project
interruptions can disrupt local planning cycles, complicate financial
commitments, and create uncertainty for industry partners and
residents. These challenges occur with navigation, flood risk
management, coastal resilience, ecosystem restoration, and water supply
projects.
NWC members report that Section 902 is particularly difficult for
smaller projects under approximately $50 million. Smaller projects tend
to have tight cost margins, and even moderate price adjustments can
bring them close to or above the statutory cap. When this happens, work
must pause until Congress provides new authority. For non-Federal
sponsors, a project that was intended to move quickly can stall for a
year or longer, despite the availability of the local cost-share and
clear operational need. These smaller investments often support
regional and rural economies. Delays can cause missed construction
windows, disrupt dredging schedules, and undermine the reliability of
the water resources infrastructure system.
The underlying issue is not a conflict with the Section 902 goal of
fiscal discipline. Rather, the challenge is ensuring that necessary
infrastructure projects do not become stuck due to statutory caps that
may not reflect current economic conditions or real-world project
timelines. The question for Congress is whether targeted updates could
help the Corps and non-Federal sponsors manage risk more effectively
while preserving Congressional oversight. Flexibility for inflation,
improved tools for phased or incremental delivery, or clearer processes
for smaller projects could help maintain accountability without slowing
delivery of nationally significant infrastructure.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Concerns about project delivery delays tied to Corps
processes that halt or slow construction.
Rising project costs and uncertainty created by
inflation, supply chain pressures, and changing Federal requirements.
Challenges with inconsistent application of Corps
policies across districts, leading to unclear expectations for planning
and budgeting.
The need for greater predictability in Corps timelines,
decision points, and Federal approvals.
Frustration when local cost-share obligations continue
while Federal progress stalls.
Concern that long pauses in Corps processes undermine
local planning cycles, public expectations, and financing.
Strong interest in ensuring that all project categories,
including small navigation and flood risk reduction projects, maintain
steady progress once authorized.
Difficulty aligning local budgets with Federal pauses or
reauthorizations, especially when sponsors have contractual or legal
obligations they cannot delay.
A need for expedited contributed-funds authority for
small projects; consider increasing allowable contract award
flexibility by raising the Section 902 limit variance, or allowing non-
Federal sponsors to pre-authorize contributed funds within the PPA,
with USACE concurrence, so contracts can be awarded when bids come in
slightly above the 902 limit without waiting for new legislation.
6. Recognizing and Advancing Multi-Use Benefits in Corps Projects
Many Corps Civil Works projects provide benefits that extend well
beyond the single business line under which they are authorized or
evaluated. For non-Federal sponsors, these multi-use benefits are often
essential to securing local financing, building public support,
achieving resilience goals, and meeting state and regional
requirements. However, Federal policy and Corps planning guidance do
not always fully recognize or capture these broader benefits, which can
complicate project justification, funding eligibility, and long-term
implementation.
Non-Federal sponsors increasingly propose and design projects that
address multiple regional needs at once, such as reducing flood risk
while restoring habitat, improving water quality, enhancing recreation,
or supporting navigation reliability. Local sponsors may also invest
their own funds to incorporate multi-use features that provide social,
environmental, and economic value to their communities. When Federal
evaluation processes narrowly categorize benefits under a single Corps
mission area, it can understate the full value of a project and create
obstacles to Federal participation.
This issue has gained visibility across multiple WRDA cycles.
Project sponsors have consistently highlighted the practical
challenges. For example, multi-benefit flood risk reduction projects
often deliver measurable environmental, recreational, and water
management outcomes that are not fully reflected in a traditional
single-purpose benefit cost analysis. As a result, sponsors face
difficulties advancing solutions that align with both local priorities
and modern resilience needs.
Non-Federal sponsors emphasize that the Corps' current evaluation
framework may not fully capture:
The ecosystem and water quality benefits embedded in
flood risk reduction and stream restoration projects.
The groundwater recharge and habitat outcomes associated
with levee setback projects.
The economic and community benefits of recreation
facilities that accompany ecosystem or resiliency improvements.
The navigation-reliability benefits associated with
nature-based features that also provide habitat or erosion reduction.
The climate adaptation value of projects designed to
provide overlapping protections across multiple risk categories.
Sponsors note that when multi-use benefits are not recognized or
counted, projects may appear less cost-effective at the Federal level
even though they deliver significant regional and national value. This
can limit the use of innovative solutions, discourage integrated
project designs, and reduce the ability of sponsors to pursue the most
resilient and sustainable approaches.
Non-Federal sponsors believe this issue is especially important as
communities face increasing climate-related hazards, aging water
infrastructure, and pressures to maximize the value of public
investments. Multi-use solutions often represent the most efficient way
to meet overlapping community needs, and improved recognition of these
benefits would better align Corps practices with modern integrated
water management.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Narrow benefit classification that does not reflect the
full set of outcomes a project provides.
Difficulties justifying multi-benefit project features
when benefits fall outside the Corps' primary mission area for the
study.
Challenges aligning Corps planning criteria with state
and local requirements for integrated water management.
Limited flexibility in incorporating sponsor-funded
enhancements that improve resilience or environmental performance.
Risks that multi-use features may not receive Federal
credit or may complicate the approval process.
A need to recognize and advance multi-use benefits in the
evaluation and implementation of Corps projects.
7. Cost Overruns and Delays and Design Maturity Expectations
Non-Federal sponsors are experiencing growing delays, rising costs,
and significant uncertainty due to evolving expectations about design
maturity at the feasibility stage.
NWC shares Congress's and the Corps' goal of delivering authorized
water resources projects efficiently, predictably, and in a manner that
reflects responsible stewardship of Federal and local resources. Our
members recognize the complexity of the Civil Works program and the
constraints under which both Congress and the Corps operate.
Cost growth and schedule delays across the Civil Works portfolio
are not confined to the construction phase. In many cases, these
challenges begin earlier, during feasibility studies and the transition
from study to design, and compound over time as projects move through
authorization and funding.
Non-Federal sponsors care deeply about this issue because they are
full partners throughout the project lifecycle. Sponsors include
states, local governments, tribal governments, and special purpose
public entities established under state law, such as flood control
districts, port authorities, water districts, levee districts, and
similar public agencies. Many of these special purpose districts
function as extensions of state or local government and are funded
directly by the communities they serve.
Non-Federal sponsors share costs during feasibility studies,
design, and construction and assume responsibility for long-term
operation and maintenance once projects are completed. These entities
often operate within fixed or voter-approved revenue structures and
must plan and budget years in advance based on anticipated scopes,
schedules, and cost estimates. When studies extend, design assumptions
change, or timelines shift, the financial and planning impacts are felt
immediately at the local level.
The Corps has taken meaningful steps to address cost growth and
schedule risk, including reassessing how much design detail is
completed earlier in the process. The recently adopted 35 percent
design standard reflects a good-faith effort by Corps leadership to
improve cost certainty and reduce downstream risk. At this time, NWC is
not taking a position on the 35 percent design standard and believes
additional discussion with the Corps and non-Federal sponsors is
warranted.
Members have raised concerns, however, about how the 35 percent
design standard fits within existing feasibility study and project
delivery frameworks. In particular, sponsors have noted uncertainty
about how design expectations at the feasibility stage interact with
schedule targets and cost assumptions under the 3x3x3 framework, as
well as how this approach would align with the 5x5x3 authority included
in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024, which has not yet been
implemented. Additional guidance on how these elements are intended to
work together would support more consistent application and clearer
expectations.
Regardless of whether projects proceed under 3x3x3 or a future
5x5x3 framework, non-Federal sponsors remain concerned that the
fundamental drivers of cost overruns and delays persist. These
challenges stem from the cumulative effects of extended feasibility
studies, evolving design assumptions, gaps between authorization and
appropriation, and incremental funding over multiple years.
In many cases, Chief's Reports are authorized years before
construction funding becomes available. During this period, inflation,
labor and materials pricing, real estate requirements, and staffing
costs continue to rise. Over the past five years, these increases have
been substantial, meaning that cost estimates developed during
feasibility or early design frequently no longer reflect construction
realities by the time funding is available.
Once projects enter construction, incremental appropriations
further extend schedules and compound cost growth. While these funding
practices reflect broader budget constraints and competing national
priorities, they directly affect both Federal and non-Federal partners
and limit the ability of sponsors to plan with certainty.
NWC recognizes that the feasibility, authorization, and
appropriations processes each serve important and distinct purposes,
and we do not suggest that any single element is flawed in isolation.
However, when these phases operate on disconnected timelines, cost
growth and schedule delays become systemic rather than exceptional,
regardless of design standards or delivery frameworks.
In that spirit, NWC has reached out to the Corps to request a
partnership discussion with non-Federal sponsors focused on
feasibility, design, funding alignment, and cost growth. Our members
want to be part of the solution and bring practical, real-world project
delivery experience. NWC believes continued collaboration among
Congress, the Corps, and non-Federal sponsors is essential to improving
outcomes while preserving the integrity of the Civil Works program.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Applying a 35 percent design standard across the board
may present challenges for larger, more complex, or phased projects,
where design progression and risks evolve over time.
There is an inherent balance that must be struck between
keeping feasibility studies streamlined and affordable while also
advancing sufficient design detail to support authorization decisions.
Some sponsors have indicated that expectations for design
detail during feasibility may, in certain cases, exceed what can be
supported within available feasibility study funding.
One size does not fit all for project cost estimating
because projects differ widely in scope, uncertainty, complexity,
schedule, and institutional context.
The disconnect between authorization and appropriation
means that even a refined estimate at authorization can become outdated
if a project waits multiple fiscal years for construction funding.
Members worry that the current approach drives risk-
averse cost estimating and higher contingencies without truly reducing
cost risk and may make it impractical to bring large projects forward
for authorization.
For some sponsors, the additional design work required
upfront may increase non-Federal costs that cannot be recouped if the
project does not ultimately receive appropriation.
Sponsors also seek clarity on how 35 percent design
maturity will interact with the statutory 5x5x3 framework, once
implemented, and what flexibilities may exist for projects where the
required level of design cannot be reasonably achieved within
feasibility constraints.
They also need clarity on what flexibilities may exist
for projects where the required level of design maturity cannot be
reasonably achieved within feasibility constraints, and how these
expectations will be applied consistently across Corps districts.
A need for clarity on what flexibilities may exist for
projects where the required level of design maturity cannot be
reasonably achieved within feasibility constraints, and how these
expectations will be applied consistently across Corps districts.
A need to consider the differences between uncertainty
(how well we know internal and external factors) and complexity (size,
time horizon, number and interactions of elements) and how these
factors can affect the determination of project costs.
Whether a tiered design-maturity framework should be
considered that differentiates small, moderate, and large or phased
projects.
8. Non-Federal Delivery Tools and Corps Governance
For decades, Congress has provided a set of authorities that allows
non-Federal sponsors to participate more directly in delivering water
resources projects, when doing so can save time, reduce cost, or
accelerate public benefits. These include Section 203 feasibility
studies, Section 204 construction projects, Section 1043(b) project
implementation pilots, and other authorities such as Section 211. Each
was created to recognize that many local partners have technical
capacity, local knowledge, and capital resources that can be mobilized
more quickly than the Federal process allows. The core concept behind
these tools is partnership. When structured well, they give non-Federal
sponsors flexibility to advance work within the parameters of Federal
law while preserving the Federal interest, safety standards, and
environmental compliance.
However, the implementation of these authorities often falls short
of Congressional intent. Non-Federal sponsors report that the delivery
tools do not function as intended because of internal Corps governance
practices that add layers of review, introduce procedural uncertainty,
and delay decision-making. Although Congress designed these authorities
to decentralize and streamline delivery, in practice the Corps applies
many of the same planning, policy, and technical review requirements
that apply to Federally executed projects. This can make alternative
delivery functionally indistinguishable from the traditional Corps
process, erasing the benefits Congress intended.
A central part of the challenge relates to the Corps' internal
governance structure. The agency operates through a hierarchy that
flows from headquarters to divisions to districts. While this structure
supports national consistency, it can create bottlenecks when decision
authority is not delegated to the level closest to the work. Many non-
Federal sponsors report that districts are willing to make decisions or
approve work, but divisions require extensive policy reviews, iterative
resubmittals, or elevate decisions to headquarters. In some cases, even
routine approvals must move through multiple layers, adding months or
years to schedules. When this occurs, the non-Federal delivery tools
established by Congress cannot be used efficiently because sponsors are
still subject to lengthy Federal internal processes that were never
designed for decentralized delivery.
This situation creates several practical problems for non-Federal
sponsors. First, uncertainty in approval timelines makes it difficult
to plan financing, maintain contractor availability, or coordinate with
state and local permitting processes. Second, Federal review delays can
increase project costs and jeopardize the ability of local governments
to meet their cost share obligations. Third, each district and division
may interpret Congressional authorities differently, creating regional
inconsistencies that complicate long-term planning and create
inequities among project sponsors. Fourth, when internal Corps reviews
extend for months or years, the benefit of alternative delivery is lost
entirely, making it more difficult for communities to address urgent
flood, navigation, ecosystem, or water supply needs.
Finally, the absence of a clear path for timely policy decisions is
a recurring barrier. Non-Federal sponsors report that unresolved legal
or policy questions can sit for years without clear guidance or
elevation. Without a predictable way to resolve these issues, sponsors
cannot proceed with design, right-of-way acquisition, or contracting.
As a result, Congressional intent to encourage non-Federal initiatives
and shorten delivery timelines remains largely unrealized.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Lengthy Corps district and division reviews slow sponsor-
led progress.
Policy questions not elevated promptly by districts for
resolution.
Challenges using Section 203, 204, and Section 1043(b)
effectively.
Sponsors facing uncertainty, despite Congressional intent
to streamline delivery.
A need for an output-based delivery approach, where
sponsors commit to deliver defined outputs and USACE limits its review
to life safety, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
authorization compliance.
A need to allow sponsors to begin acquiring rights-of-way
at the design maturity level they are comfortable with, with USACE
crediting only those interests actually needed for the project; and for
audit-based approaches for real estate acquisitions, focusing USACE
review on a sample of transactions and ensuring systems are in place
for tracking and access.
A need for more efficient decision-making and review,
including setting timelines for division decisions and allowing waivers
to bypass division review in specified circumstances.
A need to clarify and, where necessary, strengthen
authorities like Sections 203, 204, and 1043(b), and improve work-in-
kind and contributed-funds policies so sponsors can advance work when
Federal appropriations are uncertain.
A need for PACR reform, including developing a faster,
more focused mechanism to handle cost and scope changes, targeting
decision timelines of months rather than years.
9. Project Partnership Agreements and Permitting Requirements
A Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) is the core legal contract
between the Corps and a non-Federal sponsor that establishes the cost
share, assigns responsibilities, and incorporates the Federal laws and
policies that govern delivery of a water resources project.
For sponsors, signing a PPA is a major legal and financial
commitment that triggers local appropriations, bonding, real estate
acquisition, and long-term operation and maintenance obligations.
Because of this, sponsors must be able to rely on the terms of the
agreement and understand the requirements they are accepting. In recent
years, however, PPAs have become increasingly complex as more layers of
Federal guidance, interpretation, and evolving policy get folded into
the agreements. This can create significant uncertainty when sponsors
are preparing to sign and proceed.
In practice, sponsors report that the PPA process has become slower
and less predictable. Routine agreements often require multiple rounds
of review not only at the district level but also at the division and
headquarters levels, which adds time and introduces inconsistent
interpretations of the same statutory or policy language. When
districts and divisions are not aligned, PPA execution can stall for
months or years even when sponsors are ready to advance work. This
uncertainty creates real consequences for local governments that must
coordinate their own procurement schedules, contracting requirements,
and financing timelines with Federal sequencing.
Another challenge is that the PPA often incorporates Federal
requirements that did not exist when the feasibility study was
completed or when the project was authorized. This can place non-
Federal sponsors in difficult positions because they are legally bound
by state budgeting cycles and must explain to elected officials and
local taxpayers why costs or obligations have shifted late in the
process. These changing requirements also create cases where a PPA
includes provisions that differ from what sponsors understood during
feasibility or authorization, making it harder to maintain local
support for Federally authorized projects.
Inconsistency across Corps districts is also a recurring issue.
Sponsors describe cases where one district interprets a WRDA provision
broadly, allowing a reasonable path forward, while another district
interprets the same provision in a far more restrictive way. This makes
it difficult for multi-jurisdictional sponsors, regional consortiums,
or sponsors who work with multiple districts to plan effectively. It
also creates inequity across the country, because similarly situated
communities can experience very different timelines and requirements.
In addition, sponsors note that, when they wish to advance work
with local funds, the Corps sometimes requires additional Federal
permits or approvals even after NEPA compliance is complete. This
undermines the purpose of project partnership, which is to allow
Federal and local entities to work together to advance an authorized
project efficiently. Congress has provided tools that allow sponsors to
move forward when they have the capacity, but if the Corps requires
duplicated reviews or new permits, those tools cannot be used as
intended.
Overall, sponsors view PPAs as essential, but they need the process
to be predictable, transparent, and grounded in clear Federal guidance.
When the terms of a PPA shift late in the process, or when agreements
sit unexecuted because internal Corps governance requires multiple
layers of review, communities face delayed benefits and increased
costs. Sponsors have emphasized that they respect Federal standards and
oversight but believe the current PPA process could be streamlined in
ways that preserve accountability while better aligning with
Congressional intent and local fiscal realities. The goal is not to
weaken Federal review but to improve efficiency, consistency, and
fairness so that authorized projects can move into construction and
deliver the national and local benefits Congress intended.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Inconsistent inclusion and application of PPA provisions
across districts.
Whether there should be a requirement for a non-Federal
sponsor, which wants to carry out design or construction work after
execution of an agreement, to obtain additional Federal permits beyond
those that would have been required if USACE constructed the work
(assuming that NEPA and related Federal laws have been satisfied).
Difficulty aligning and incorporating updated WRDA
provisions with current PPAs.
Challenges interpreting which requirements control during
construction.
10. Navigation Funding Metrics and Access to the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund
Navigation projects depend on stable and predictable Federal
funding, yet the current approach for prioritizing and allocating
dollars does not always reflect the national economic and strategic
value of certain waterways. Historically, ton miles have been the
primary metric used to determine funding priority for maintenance
dredging and navigation needs. While ton miles are an important measure
of cargo movement by weight and distance, they do not capture the
broader economic, national security, and supply chain importance of
waterways that move high value, high consequence, or strategically
essential goods. Several non-Federal sponsors have raised concerns that
relying on ton miles alone disadvantages shorter waterways and regions
where the commodities moved are critical to national energy
reliability, fuel distribution, or specific industrial sectors, even if
the total cargo tonnage is lower. When the funding model does not
recognize these dimensions, channels that serve vital national
interests can remain underfunded, which increases the risk of service
interruptions, economic instability, and loss of Federal investment
already made in those systems.
These concerns intersect with how the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(HMTF) operates. The HMTF was designed to provide a stable, formula-
driven source of funding for harbor maintenance. Under the statutory
framework established through the CARES Act and WRDA 2022, HMTF
receipts are treated by Congress as off-budget and are supposed to be
appropriated according to a formula that grows with collections. When
Congress passes a full-year Continuing Resolution instead of a new
appropriations bill, however, the Corps receives only the prior-year
HMTF appropriation rather than the higher formula amount that Congress
could have appropriated. The off-budget treatment cannot be
retroactively applied in the following year, which strands funding
capacity that Congress intended to make available.
This occurred in fiscal year 2025 when the Corps received $2.771
billion, the fiscal year 2024 level, instead of the $3.087 billion
permitted by the formula. Approximately $316 million could not be
accessed and could not be recovered in fiscal year 2026 because the
Energy and Water Appropriations funding for that year only applies the
fiscal year 2026 formula amount. For port authorities, navigation
districts, local governments, and the dredging industry that rely on
stable dredging cycles and Federal predictability, stranded HMTF
authority creates vulnerabilities that complicate planning, increase
maintenance backlogs, and undermine the national interest in safe and
reliable navigation channels.
For non-Federal sponsors, the problem is two-fold. First, the
funding priority system does not fully account for the economic or
strategic value of certain waterways, which results in chronic
underfunding maintenance of projects that carry high-consequence goods
or serve critical regional infrastructure. Second, even when Congress
intends to provide adequate funding through the HMTF, continuing
resolutions can prevent the Corps from accessing the full amount the
law allows, leaving sponsors without the maintenance support they rely
on to keep channels open, safe, and competitive. These combined
pressures create uncertainty, increase local financial burdens, and
place additional strain on inland and coastal systems that are
essential to national commerce.
Non-Federal sponsors have emphasized that reliable access to the
HMTF and funding metrics that more accurately reflect national
priorities are crucial for long-term planning, economic stability, and
resilience. The underlying issue is not a lack of Federal commitment
but a misalignment between statutory intent, appropriations mechanics,
and the metrics used to determine which waterways rise to the top of
the funding queue. Realigning these elements would allow navigation
projects across the country to be maintained according to their true
national importance, rather than solely their tonnage characteristics,
and would provide the predictability needed for communities to sustain
safe and efficient navigation systems.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Ton-mile metrics that undervalue high-importance or
shorter navigation systems.
Stranded HMTF authority during continuing resolutions,
including $316 million in fiscal year 2025, and a need to allow future
appropriations bills to reach back and apply off-budget treatment to
HMTF amounts that were stranded during a full-year continuing
resolution.
Missed dredging windows that increase cost and reduce
reliability.
Difficulty planning maintenance cycles without
predictable funding.
11. The Importance of Meaningful Consultation and Clear Communication
with Non-Federal Sponsors.
Non-Federal sponsors serve as essential partners in carrying out
Federally authorized water resources projects. They bring local
resources, technical capacity, and long-term operational responsibility
to projects that serve national economic, environmental, and safety
interests. Because of this partnership, sponsors depend on clear,
timely communication from the Federal government to plan effectively
and meet their obligations. Federal actions that alter project scope,
delivery timelines, funding availability, or compliance requirements
directly affect the sponsors tasked with managing these
responsibilities at the local level.
This importance of consultation is also grounded in Federal policy.
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism requires Federal agencies to engage
with state and local governments when Federal actions have direct
effects on their responsibilities or impose compliance costs. The
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (P.L. 104-4) reinforces this principle by
directing agencies to avoid shifting substantial costs or burdens to
state, local, or special district governments without early and
meaningful dialogue. These frameworks reflect the same shared-
responsibility model at the core of WRDA, where Federal and non-Federal
partners must coordinate to deliver infrastructure that serves national
and regional needs.
When communication is delayed or incomplete, sponsors may face
contract complications, unanticipated local cost increases, scheduling
disruptions, or legal constraints that make compliance difficult.
Recent developments have underscored how quickly uncertainty can grow
when sponsors do not have reliable visibility into how Federal
decisions are made or how they will be implemented in the field. The
subsections below highlight specific areas where communication
challenges have created real impacts for sponsors and where
strengthened consultation is essential for WRDA 2026.
A. Federal Funding Pauses and the Need for Transparency
In October 2025, the Office of Management and Budget announced that
an estimated $11 billion in Corps Civil Works projects were being
paused. No public list identifying the affected projects has been
released. Non-Federal sponsors, industry partners, and even some
Congressional offices report learning about potential impacts only
through informal, need-to-know conversations with the agency. This
level of uncertainty is highly unusual in a program where projects have
already been authorized by Congress and appropriated through annual
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts.
For sponsors, the practical concern is how potential delays may
affect ongoing planning, contracting, and project execution. Many
sponsors have already signed Project Partnership Agreements, committed
local funding, acquired real estate, and prepared to move forward based
on Congressional authorization and appropriations. When questions arise
about Federal timing or contract actions, sponsors may need to adjust
schedules, revisit contracting assumptions, or prepare for potential
changes in project sequencing.
These uncertainties can also affect the communities and industries
that rely on water resources infrastructure. For example, if a port is
preparing for a channel deepening project and has already invested in
landside facilities to support larger vessels, a delay in Federal
channel work could affect when those facilities can be fully utilized.
Industries planning to route goods through that port may need to adjust
their logistics. Similar considerations apply to flood risk reduction,
ecosystem restoration, or water supply projects, where changes in
timing may affect local preparedness, construction windows, or project
benefits.
The concern being raised is not about the merits of any individual
pause, nor about the decision-making process itself. Rather, sponsors
are seeking clarity where possible so they can manage their local
obligations responsibly, communicate with governing bodies, and plan
for potential adjustments in project delivery.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
No public list identifying the projects subject to the
estimated $11 billion pause.
Sponsors learning of impacts only through informal, need-
to-know communication channels.
Financial risk for obligations being undertaken pursuant
to signed PPAs.
Uncertainty affecting navigation reliability, dredging
schedules, flood risk reduction, and other nationally significant
missions.
Difficulty managing construction seasons, local budgets,
and contracting timelines.
Reduced confidence in the predictability of the
partnership model for both WRDA and Energy and Water Development
Appropriations.
B. Communication Protocol Changes Affecting Congressional
and Sponsor Engagement
Earlier in this testimony, WRDA was described as a three-way
partnership among Congress, the Corps, and non-Federal sponsors. That
partnership only works when all three are able to communicate openly
about project needs, technical issues, and implementation challenges.
On October 15, 2025, the Department of War issued a directive requiring
Corps districts to obtain approval from the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of War for Legislative Affairs (ASW(LA)) before engagement
with Federal or state elected officials or their staff. While we
understand the intent to ensure consistent messaging, this change has
raised concerns about how it may impede the quality and completeness of
information available to Congress as it prepares to develop WRDA 2026
and establish FY2026 appropriations.
Congressional staff have historically relied on technical
assistance from Corps district, division, and headquarters offices and
non-Federal sponsor input to understand project status and needs,
technical constraints, and regional priorities. That information helps
staff evaluate potential WRDA provisions, weigh the implications of
proposed changes, and respond to constituents.
Since the October 15th Department of War directive, non-Federal
sponsors and others have reported situations where districts are
hesitant or unable to discuss project details, feasibility status, cost
pressures, or implementation concerns without higher-level approval. If
non-Federal sponsors or Congressional staff cannot readily engage with
the Corps on these sorts of issues, the result may be fewer, less
detailed, or less accurate WRDA proposals and a weaker factual
foundation for committee deliberations and appropriations.
At the same time, our members in the field report that they are
experiencing more difficulty obtaining information from their local
Corps offices on project timelines and needs, implementation of recent
WRDA provisions, and the status of specific studies or construction
efforts. Sponsors depend on this information to manage local budgets,
plan contracts, communicate with their own governing bodies, and
coordinate with their Congressional delegations. When information moves
more slowly or becomes harder to access, it complicates both oversight
and day-to-day project management.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Congressional staff have more difficulty obtaining
timely, detailed information from districts to support WRDA proposals
and oversight.
Districts indicate they cannot discuss project history,
status, or technical details without higher-level pre-approval.
Sponsors encountering delays or limitations when seeking
basic information on study milestones, construction schedules, and
implementation of WRDA provisions.
Risks that incomplete or outdated information will reach
Congress, affecting the quality of WRDA submissions and decision-
making.
Slower identification and resolution of issues that could
otherwise be addressed early through direct engagement among Congress,
the Corps, and non-Federal sponsors.
C. Additional Areas Where Early Consultation Is Essential
Beyond these specific examples, sponsors consistently stress that
timely and meaningful consultation is vital whenever Federal actions
have direct implications for local planning or financial commitments.
This includes implementation of new WRDA provisions, updates to
guidance documents, shifts in national funding priorities, or changes
in program execution that affect real estate requirements, permitting
expectations, or project sequencing.
Early communication allows sponsors to plan responsibly, manage
risks, and align Federal actions with local obligations. When
consultation occurs late or not at all, the consequences fall
disproportionately on communities that must absorb financial exposure,
renegotiate contracts, or delay critical infrastructure improvements.
In many cases, these impacts raise the same federalism and unfunded
mandate concerns that Executive Order 13132 and the UMRA were designed
to address. While the Corps primarily implements policy through
guidance, memoranda, and program execution rather than formal
rulemaking, the practical effect on non-Federal sponsors can be
comparable to regulatory action, particularly where Federal decisions
alter cost exposure, project sequencing, or local financial
commitments.
EPA has established a formal, structured Federalism consultation
process to implement Executive Order 13132, entitled EPA's Action
Development Process. Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism,
Nov. 2008), which governs how the agency engages state and local
governments early when Federal actions have Federalism implications.
While EPA's actions are often regulatory, the underlying principle is
directly relevant to Civil Works implementation, where guidance,
memoranda, and program execution decisions can have comparable fiscal
and planning impacts on non-Federal sponsors. A similarly structured,
predictable consultation framework within the Corps, tailored to the
Civil Works mission, would help surface issues earlier, reduce
downstream friction, and improve shared understanding across
headquarters, divisions, districts, and non-Federal sponsors.
This kind of top-down awareness paired with bottom-up input would
improve transparency, reduce unintended consequences, and support more
effective project delivery.
NWC Member Concerns and Suggestions to Consider:
Limited visibility into WRDA implementation timelines.
Inconsistent and late-stage communication about policy
updates or guidance development.
Difficulty planning long-term capital budgets without
reliable scheduling information.
Delays in identifying and addressing implementation
challenges at the district level.
Strengthen early consultation when Corps actions impact
state and local and public districts responsibilities.
Use consultation to improve outcome rather than slow
decision-making.
Lack of a consistent early consultation framework for
guidance or implementation actions with federalism or cost implications
for non-Federal sponsors.
Closing
Thank you for the opportunity to share the perspectives of NWC and
the non-Federal sponsors we represent. The challenges outlined in this
testimony reflect the real-world experience of communities that partner
with the Corps every day to plan, fund, and deliver projects that serve
national needs. We recognize that not every issue raised here will
require legislative action, and we are continuing to work closely with
our members to develop practical solutions for those areas the
committee believes are appropriate for WRDA 2026. We appreciate the
committee's continued commitment to a strong and effective WRDA
partnership, and we look forward to working with you as WRDA 2026 moves
forward.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Camillo, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES CAMILLO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MIDWEST
FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Camillo. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, Ranking
Member Wilson, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today to participate in this time-
honored tradition of public participation in the legislative
process.
I am Charles Camillo, executive vice president of the
Midwest Flood Control Association. Our mission is to be a
leading advocate to shape policy and secure investments that
protect people and safeguard communities from destructive
floods.
We are at a pivotal moment on the upper Mississippi River.
With the implementation of navigation and ecosystem
improvements authorized through NESP [Navigation and Ecosystem
Sustainability Program] and UMRR [Upper Mississippi River
Restoration Program], our region now has two of the three
necessary components to implement a holistic approach on the
upper Mississippi River. All that remains is the third leg of
that stool: systematic flood control.
The Great Flood of 1993 devastated the Midwest. The flood
caused anywhere from $15 billion to $20 billion in economic
damages. It is important to note, though, as we gather here
today, that the existing flood control infrastructure in place
at that time that was authorized and funded by Congress,
designed and implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and maintained and nurtured by the local levee districts,
prevented an additional $19 billion in economic damages. This
highlights in a very real way the criticality of undergoing the
authorization process that we are participating in today.
Flood control advocates came close to realizing the dream
of achieving the third leg of the stool when Congress
authorized a thorough study through the Upper Mississippi River
Comprehensive Plan authorized by WRDA in 1999. But the
stakeholders across the region could not really agree on a
plan, and we failed to reach the necessary benefit-to-cost
justification thresholds through the study. So here we are
today, 32 years after the devastation caused by the Great Flood
of 1993, and our risk remains unchanged.
To this end, the long-term objective of the Midwest Flood
Control Association is to build lasting relationships to find a
long-term comprehensive solution to the flood problems on the
upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers that we can all agree
upon.
We applaud recent legislation advanced through this
committee. WRDA 2022 authorized the Upper Miss Flow Frequency
Study, while WRDA 2024 authorized the Upper Mississippi River
System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study. We see those studies as
the potential first steps to achieving the long-sought vision
for systematic flood protection. We pledge our commitment to
being a good partner to find an acceptable long-term solution.
But in the meantime, our immediate near-term objective is
to help our levee and drainage districts--there are 74 of
them--to preserve and maintain their current level of
protection and accreditation.
We have some reservations with the flow frequency study and
its potential impact on current levels of protection and
accreditation. We maintain the position that flow frequency
studies should not be done in a vacuum.
We understand and appreciate that the Corps of Engineers
needs the flow frequency data to understand what is happening
on the river, but we want the Corps of Engineers to also use
that data to develop actionable solutions to offset changes to
flood profiles. Releasing new profiles without actual solutions
will impact levee accreditation and cause significant increases
in flood insurance rates and significant decreases in property
values.
The Midwest Flood Control Association strongly supports the
passage of a WRDA bill in 2026. Our immediate priorities for
such a bill are included in our formal written statement
submitted for the record.
The Midwest Flood Control Association is very optimistic
about the future. We like what we are hearing from our
engagements with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works. We also applaud the leadership at the
headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They asked
stakeholders to challenge them on policy and legislation and to
give them realistic proposals with specifics, something the
Corps of Engineers can sink their teeth into. We feel the
priorities we set forth above do just that.
We also thank the division and districts for their
willingness to meet and exchange ideas. At the end of the day,
they will be the ones who will need to deliver for us.
Again, the Midwest Flood Control Association thanks this
committee for your dedication to the bipartisan approach and to
improving the lives of Americans from across the country and
for giving us this opportunity to present our views today.
[Mr. Camillo's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Camillo, Executive Vice President,
Midwest Flood Control Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today in the Nation's
Capitol and for allowing us to participate in this time-honored
tradition of public participation in the legislative process. I am
humbled to be here today to represent a sample of the local people who
live, work and thrive along our Nation's waterways in the American
Heartland. The people I represent commend this committee's unyielding
commitment to a bipartisan approach and look forward to working with
you to develop sustainable solutions to water resources challenges
across the country.
I am Charles Camillo, Executive Vice-President of the Midwest Flood
Control Association. Our association represents around 75 levee and
drainage districts along the Missouri, Illinois and Upper Mississippi
Rivers. The Midwest Flood Control Association's mission is to be a
leading advocate to shape strategic policies and secure federal and
local investments that protect people, safeguard communities and secure
the regional economies across Iowa, Illinois, Missouri and the greater
Midwest from destructive floods. While we strongly support and advocate
for our allies in the navigation industry, our partner ports and
harbors, and our friends in the conservation and environmental
stewardship arenas, I am here today as a champion for flood control.
We are at a pivotal moment on the Upper Mississippi River. With the
implementation of the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program--
first authorized through WRDA 07--and the continuation of the Upper
Mississippi River Restoration Program--first authorized in WRDA 86--our
region now has two of the three necessary components to implement a
holistic approach to address the needs of the Greater Upper Mississippi
River drainage basin. All that remains is the third leg of that stool--
systematic flood control.
The Great Flood of 1993 devastated the Midwest. According to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the flood led to the deaths of 47 people,
damaged or destroyed more than 70,000 homes and caused the evacuation
of approximately 74,000 people. The flood also caused anywhere from $15
billion to $20 billion in economic damages. Adjusted for inflation that
amount would be more than doubled in today's dollars. It is important
to note, though, as we gather here today that the existing flood
control infrastructure at that time--that was authorized and funded by
Congress, designed and implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and maintained and nurtured by the local people though their levee and
drainage districts--prevented an additional $19 billion in economic
damages. This highlights in a very real way the criticality of
undergoing the authorization process that we are participating in
today.
Flood control advocates on the Upper Mississippi River came close
to realizing their dream of achieving the third leg of the stool when
Congress authorized a thorough study through the Upper Mississippi
River Comprehensive Plan Study authorized by WRDA 99. When the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers released that study in 2008, they did not
recommend a plan due to the inability of any alternatives to reach the
necessary benefit-to-cost justification thresholds. So here we are
today, 32 years after the devastation caused by the Great Flood of
1993, and our risk remains unchanged.
To this end, the long-term objective of the Midwest Flood Control
Association is to build lasting relationships and work with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the other regional stakeholder groups--
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, the Mississippi River Cities
and Town Initiative, Neighbors of the Mississippi and other levee
districts and associations--to find a long-term comprehensive solution
to the flood problem that we can all agree upon.
The Midwest Flood Control Association applauds recent legislation
advanced through this Committee and WRDA. Section 8219 of WRDA 2022
authorized a Hydraulic Evaluation of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers, commonly referred to as the Upper Miss Flow Frequency Study;
while Section 1227 of WRDA 2024 authorized the Upper Mississippi River
System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study. We see those studies as the
first steps to achieving the long-sought vision for systemic flood
protection. The Midwest Flood Control Association supports both studies
and pledges its commitment to be a good partner with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and other regional stakeholders to find an
acceptable long-term solution.
The Midwest Flood Control Association also recognizes that it could
take the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers up to 10 years from now to
complete both the Flow Frequency Study and the Upper Miss Flood Risk
and Resiliency Study; and even that is dependent on securing funding
and finding a non-Federal cost-share sponsor. To that end, the
immediate near-term objective of the Midwest Flood Control Association
is to help our levee and drainage districts preserve and maintain their
current levels of protection and accreditation until the long-term
objective can be achieved.
The Midwest Flood Control Association certainly has some
reservations with the ongoing Flow Frequency Study and its potential
impact on the current levels of protection and accreditation. We
maintain the position that Flow Frequency Studies should not be done in
a vacuum. We understand and appreciate that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers needs the flow frequency data to understand what is happening
on the river, to establish a new water surface and flood profiles and
to inform the larger, but separate, Flood Risk and Resiliency Study. To
be clear, we want the Corps of Engineers to have that data. We want the
Corps of Engineers to use that data. But we want the Corps of Engineers
to have and use that data to develop realistic, actionable solutions to
offset or mitigate any resultant changes to the water surface and flood
profiles. Releasing new flood profiles without actionable solutions
will impact levee accreditation and cause significant increases in
flood insurance rates and significant decreases in property values.
For instance, many of our agricultural districts estimate that they
would see a reduction in property values ranging from $1,000-$2,000 per
acre. For a levee district of 15,000 acres--the average size of our
agricultural districts--that represents a reduction of $15 to $30
million in property values. Our urban districts on the other end of the
spectrum also face severe impacts. The Southwestern Illinois Flood
Prevention District represents the crown-jewel of our association's
membership from the standpoint of risk/consequences as it protects more
than 150,000 people living in 25 separate communities that support
roughly 60,000 jobs. The district also protects refineries,
manufacturing sites and portions of interstates 55, 64, and 70 from
inundation. All told, the Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention
District protects more than $18 billion in property values. It is
estimated that the district will see a 20-30% reduction in property
values--$3.6 billion to $5.4 billion--if it were to lose its 500-year
level of protection.
Further, if the Flow Frequency Study results in changes to the
water surface and flood profiles and the Flood Resiliency Study does
not receive funding or does not find a non-Federal sponsor willing to
provide the necessary cost-share, it serves few other purposes than to
be used as a regulatory tool for PL 84-99 compliance or FEMA
accreditation.
There is an existing tool or solution to address changes in flood
protection--the 408--permission process. Our membership, however, knows
from experience that the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
interprets and implements 408 permissions--at least on the mainstem
upper Mississippi River--negatively alters the process and leaves it
useless for maintaining existing levels of protection and levee
accreditation.
With this in mind, the Midwest Flood Control Association strongly
supports the passage of a WRDA bill in 2026. Our immediate priorities
for such a bill include:
1) Limiting the applicability/use of the results of the Flow
Frequency Study to planning purposes only until the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers develops actionable solutions to address or offset any
potential changes to water surface elevations and flood profiles.
2) Designating the results of the Flow Frequency Study as
preliminary until the final disposition of the Upper Mississippi River
System Flood Risk and Resiliency Study or any spin-off studies that
posit actionable solutions to address or offset any changes to water
surface elevations and flood profiles.
3) Preventing agencies from using the preliminary data from the
Flow Frequency Study as a regulatory enforcement tool for P.L. 84-99
eligibility/enforcement or FEMA accreditation while the Flow Frequency
Study is deemed preliminary.
4) Developing a means for levee and drainage districts to maintain
the current level of protection and accreditation at their own expense
when Flow Frequency Studies result in documented changes to water
surface elevations.
5) Calling on the Administration to bring a commonsense approach
to standardize and streamline the 408 permission process.
The Midwest Flood Control Association is very optimistic about the
future. We like what we are hearing during our engagements with the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. We look
forward to working with the Honorable Assistant Secretary, Adam Telle,
as they prepare to launch their initiatives to deliver quality
infrastructure across the nation.
We also applaud the leadership at the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Major General Jason Kelly, the Deputy Commanding General
for Civil Works has publicly emphasized his commitment to get creative
to address stakeholder concerns where the Corps of Engineers can. He
asked us to challenge them on policy and legislation, to give them
clean asks, to give them realistic proposals with specifics, something
the Corps of Engineers ``can sink their teeth into''. We feel the
priorities we set forth above do just that.
Again, the Midwest Flood Control Association thanks this Committee
for your dedication to improving the lives of Americans from across the
county and for giving us this opportunity to present our views today.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Jones, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF BRYAN JONES, PRESIDENT, MID-ATLANTIC DIVISION,
HNTB CORPORATION
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member
Larsen--good to see you--Ranking Member Wilson, and members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the importance of WRDA.
We appreciate the committee's commitment to enact this
important bill into law every 2 years, a regular cadence that
keeps projects moving, provides greater certainty to local
communities, and ensures that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
responds effectively to the Nation's evolving needs. This
legislation helps make our communities safer, increases the
resilience of our infrastructure, and strengthens our supply
chain and trade routes through strategic investments in
America's ports and waterways.
My name is Bryan Jones. I am president of HNTB's Mid-
Atlantic Division. HNTB is an employee-owned infrastructure
solutions firm that has provided planning, design, and
construction management for large-scale public and private
projects across the United States for more than 110 years. We
are a longstanding partner to the Corps, delivering Civil Works
projects that reduce flood risk, strengthen communities, and
support economic resilience.
Members of the subcommittee, this work is personal to me. I
grew up on a farm in rural south Louisiana near the confluence
of three rivers that were essential to my family's livelihood
getting our grain from farm to market every single year. I also
witnessed firsthand the consequences of catastrophic system
failures from hurricanes like Katrina and Rita in 2005, to the
devastating inland floods of south Louisiana in 2016.
These experiences and many others have shaped my conviction
that reliable water infrastructure supported by WRDA's
predictable authorization cycle is essential to the safety and
security of our communities, as well as our national
competitiveness.
Those in this room know all too well that there is no such
thing as ``fast enough'' when it comes to delivering
infrastructure improvements. As the Corps and non-Federal
sponsors see growing demands to deliver projects quickly with
limited resources, Congress can help by ensuring that they have
the flexibility to leverage private-sector expertise through a
broad range of delivery and financing tools that reflect the
scale and the complexity of today's Civil Works program.
Integrated design-build contracts, for example, enhance
coordination between design and construction on technically
complex projects, accelerate delivery, and reduce schedule risk
while maintaining cost discipline. Incremental funding
approaches also allow large multiyear projects to move forward
efficiently with an annual appropriation.
Public-private partnerships and other collaborative
delivery models can further the Corps' capacity, enabling more
work to be delivered faster with more effective risk
allocation.
Broader and more consistent use of these tools represent a
prudent evolution of the Civil Works program, supporting timely
public benefits, limiting long-term cost growth, and maximizing
the return on Federal and non-Federal investment.
HNTB is proud to support the Corps' work by delivering on-
time and on-budget for projects nationwide.
With tremendous thanks to this committee and Chairman Sam
Graves for their work in authorizing the project, one example
of this work is with the Kansas City District of the Corps to
design levee, floodwall, and railroad closures, reducing flood
risk to the community and protecting more than $10 billion in
infrastructure.
Another highlight of our work is in New Orleans, which is a
vital gateway, as you well know, for U.S. commerce, requiring
flood risk reduction systems and navigation projects to support
one of the world's busiest ports and waterways. HNTB planned
and designed projects, such as the West Closure Complex Pump
Station, the Seabrook Gate Complex, and the Morganza to the
gulf floodwalls, which strengthen storm surge defense while
safeguarding key shipping routes.
As we look ahead--in closing--to WRDA 2026, I ask that the
subcommittee, one, continue to support streamline permitting
reforms that enable efficient Corps delivery; two, ensure
adequate feasibility phase funding to allow timely and
technically sound outcomes for complex projects; three, to
continue and expand authorities that promote concurrent
reviews, programmatic approaches, and pilot innovations; four,
to allocate resources to advance innovative funding and
financing tools, including public-private partnerships, to
optimize project delivery.
It has been an honor, Mr. Chairman, to speak with you
today, and the committee, about WRDA's role in shaping our
communities and supporting economic growth, and at the proper
time, I welcome any questions that you may have. Thank you,
sir.
[Mr. Jones' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bryan Jones, President, Mid-Atlantic Division,
HNTB Corporation
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on
the importance of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). We
appreciate the Committee's commitment to enact this important bill into
law every two years--a vital cadence that keeps critical water
infrastructure projects moving, provides certainty to local communities
and ensures the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with state and
local partners, can respond effectively to the nation's evolving needs.
This legislation advances goals we all share: making our communities
safer, increasing the resilience of our infrastructure and improving
our supply chain and trade routes through strategic investments in
America's ports and waterways.
My name is Bryan Jones, and I am the President of HNTB's Mid-
Atlantic Division. HNTB is a U.S. employee-owned infrastructure
solutions firm that has provided planning, design and construction
management for large-scale public and private projects for more than
110 years. We have extensive experience partnering with the Corps to
design and deliver major civil works and military construction
projects--building stronger levees, smarter drainage systems and
resilient ports. The bottom line is driving outcomes: reducing flood
risk to communities, keeping local economies moving after storms and
strengthening America's competitiveness. As the President of our Mid-
Atlantic Division, I directly oversee our work across seven East Coast
states, from Pennsylvania to South Carolina, and support our work with
the Corps firmwide.
This work is personal to me. I grew up in south Louisiana. I've
seen what a storm surge or stalled rainstorms can do when defenses fall
short--specifically Katrina in 2005 and the catastrophic flooding in
2016. Those experiences shaped my understanding of water resource
policy and belief that well designed water systems are foundational to
resilient transportation systems and a strong American economy.
These systems are critical to our nation's economic
competitiveness, and WRDA's dependable two-year authorization cycle
provides for the necessary long-term planning and investment that
sustain them. The work of this subcommittee in reliably enacting WRDA
allows private-sector partners such as HNTB to support communities,
local leaders and the Corps in advancing projects that drive economic
growth and strengthen supply chains.
Members of this subcommittee know all too well that this work is
never finished and there's no such thing as ``fast enough'' when it
comes to infrastructure improvements. We continue to see greater demand
for investments in infrastructure to meet needs we have now, as well as
the needs of future generations. Proactively addressing these needs at
the Federal level helps maximize local investments as well and reduces
the likelihood of having to rebuild following disaster events,
increasing the stability of local communities; this is critical in an
environment where every dollar counts.
As agencies such as the Corps are challenged to move quickly and
stretch limited resources, expanding private-sector partnerships and
innovative financing and delivery tools are critical to meeting the
nation's growing water resource challenges. Firms such as HNTB are
essential to providing necessary experience and capacity both to the
Corps and its non-Federal sponsors. We have a deep bench of talent
nationwide, and are efficient and nimble, with the ability to respond
and adapt to evolving market conditions.
Legislation that supports tools such as non-traditional funding and
innovative project implementation approaches within the Civil Works
program can accelerate project delivery, reduce risk and improve
overall outcomes without diminishing accountability. The Fargo-Moorhead
Flood Diversion Project provides an example of how public-private
partnerships can leverage non-Federal capital and expertise to advance
a complex, nationally significant project, while preserving the Corps'
central role in safety, engineering oversight, environmental compliance
and protection of the Federal interest. Similarly, authorities enacted
by Congress, including section 1043(b) of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014, allow non-Federal entities to carry out
water resources projects consistent with Corps standards when Federal
appropriations, alone, are insufficient to meet pressing infrastructure
needs.
Stakeholders also strongly support the Corps' expanded use of
innovative contracting and funding mechanisms that reflect the scale
and complexity of the Civil Works portfolio. Integrated Design and
Construction contracts offer important advantages on technically
challenging projects by improving coordination between the design and
construction phases, accelerating timelines and reducing schedule risk
while promoting cost discipline. In addition, incremental funding
approaches--such as those currently being demonstrated on the
Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir--provide a practical means of
sustaining progress on large, multi-year projects in the context of
annual appropriations. The use of P3 structures and other collaborative
contracting methods, when applied thoughtfully, can enable delivery of
more work, faster, and with more sophisticated risk transfer.
From the standpoint of project sponsors and external partners,
broader and more consistent use of these tools represents a prudent
evolution of the Civil Works program, enabling the timely delivery of
public benefits, reducing long-term cost escalation and maximizing the
return on both Federal and non-Federal investments.
Delivering on time and on budget is important to HNTB because we
know that communities can't afford delays. With tremendous thanks to
this committee and Chairman Sam Graves for their work in authorizing
the project, HNTB was able to build on our decades of working with the
Kansas City District Corps of Engineers to design levee, floodwall and
railroad closures. This project made huge strides in reducing flood
risk to the community and in protecting more than $10B in
infrastructure. Our team partnered closely with the exceptionally
capable Corps team, combining our collective deep expertise with our
innovative approaches to deliver resilient, risk-informed solutions for
the community.
Another key project to highlight is our work in New Orleans, which
is a vital gateway for U.S. commerce, requiring flood risk reduction
systems and navigation projects to support one of the world's busiest
ports. HNTB planned and designed projects such as the West Closure
Complex Pump Station, Seabrook Gate Complex and Morganza to the Gulf
floodwalls, which strengthen storm surge defenses while safeguarding
shipping routes. The upcoming IHNC Lock Replacement--long overdue after
being authorized in 1956--will modernize failing infrastructure, remove
persistent navigation bottlenecks and protect the reliability of cargo
movement vital to the Mississippi River system and the national
economy.
While outside the purview of WRDA, HNTB is also proud to support
the expansion of Arlington National Cemetery, preserving its sacred
legacy. In partnership with the Corps, we honor the military community
while leveraging private-sector innovation to deliver timeless
solutions that accelerate progress for our nation's military families.
As we look ahead to WRDA 2026, we ask this subcommittee . . .
To support clear and streamlined permitting reforms to
enable the Corps to deliver its regulatory mission efficiently,
promoting economic development with the appropriate protection for the
aquatic environment;
To recognize that design maturity funded adequately
during the feasibility phase enables a more robust, timely and
technically accurate outcome and to seek ways to reform the feasibility
study paradigm allowing sufficient authorization to complete large-
scale, technically complex engineering analyses in support of national
needs;
To continue enabling the Corps to focus on delivery of
complex, large-scale water resources infrastructure solutions,
including by expanding authorities enabling concurrent reviews, greater
use of programmatic approaches and pilot innovations; and
To support allocation of resources for initiatives and
tools that facilitate use of innovative funding and financing methods
(including public-private partnerships) to optimize project delivery.
Thank you for your time, consideration and work in shaping the
future of our nation's water resources infrastructure. It has been an
honor to speak with you today about WRDA's role in shaping our
communities and supporting economic growth. I welcome any questions
that you may have.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
I now recognize Mr. Garcia to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Garcia of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for the opportunity to waive onto the subcommittee today. I
know that votes were just called, but I am grateful that we get
to have our final witness today.
I want to introduce Dr. Noel Hacegaba.
Noel, thanks for being here. First, let me start by
personally congratulating you. Dr. Hacegaba is our new CEO at
the Port of Long Beach and comes well prepared to do that job.
And we just want to congratulate you and are excited to work
with you, as we have for many years.
The port and the city are very lucky to have your
leadership. We know that you are going to continue to do great
work at our port. Had the privilege of working with Noel when I
was mayor of Long Beach for 8 years, and Noel and I actually
had a chance to work together in city hall even prior to that
work.
You have been an incredible advocate for ports and for
trade. You have been a driving force in our port for some of
the most impactful projects, including a number of terminal
projects planned and underway that will grow the ability to
move cargo across the country and, of course, around the world.
Noel also directed the port's response to the global supply
chain disruptions during the pandemic, and he helped establish
a supply chain information highway, a digital platform to
improve efficiency and data sharing across our national freight
network.
Couldn't be more grateful to have him here today. And with
that, Mr. Chairman, thanks again for waiving on, and I would
like to yield back.
Mr. Collins. Dr. Hacegaba, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF NOEL HACEGABA, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND
INCOMING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PORT OF LONG BEACH,
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you, Congressman Garcia, for your very
generous introduction and for your longstanding support for a
strong American port system.
Good morning, Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, Ranking
Member Larsen, Ranking Member Wilson, and members of the
committee. It is an honor and a privilege to testify before
this distinguished subcommittee today.
My name is Noel Hacegaba, and as Representative Garcia
said, I currently serve as chief operating officer, but on
January 1, I have the great pleasure of assuming the role of
chief executive officer at the Port of Long Beach.
Together with the men and women of the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union, and our marine terminal
operators and supply chain partners, the Port of Long Beach
moves more than $300 billion in cargo annually through every
congressional district, supporting 2.7 million jobs across
America. In the first quarter of 2025, we moved the most
containers of any U.S. port.
Though we are a California port, we have moved billions of
dollars worth of cargo through many of your home States,
including Georgia, Missouri, Washington, and Florida. We export
soybeans from the Midwest, hay from Arizona, cotton from Texas,
almonds from California, and pork and beef from Texas,
Colorado, Kansas, and the Midwest.
Additionally, the Port of Long Beach is one of 18 federally
designated commercial strategic seaports, which means our
infrastructure directly supports national security needs in
time of crisis.
I am here today to present priorities, not just on behalf
of the Port of Long Beach, but in partnership with a broader
port community, including the California Association of Port
Authorities, who just elected me as their president, as well as
the American Association of Port Authorities and the Coalition
for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors.
The policies this committee advances through the Water
Resources Development Act are essential for our economy and
national security. Thank you for working to deliver a
bipartisan bill every 2 years.
The first priority I will outline for WRDA 2026 is a need
for reauthorizing our Deep Draft Navigation Project. This
project will deepen and expand the Federal channels at our port
to 80 feet, improving safety and enhancing efficiency for
vessel operations, particularly larger and heavier ships.
Long Beach is the only west coast port capable of berthing
very large crude carriers which hold more than 1 million
barrels of oil each. We bring in over 200 million barrels of
oil annually, and this project will enhance energy security by
facilitating safer navigation.
Thanks to WRDA 2022, the project has an authorized Chief's
Report and received full preconstruction engineering design
funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Our request for
WRDA 2026 is the approval of a Post-Authorization Change
Report, or PACR, which we have been diligently working on with
our partners at the Corps.
Second, I want to thank this committee for its work over
the years to ensure Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund dollars are
fully allocated for their intended purpose. The port
respectfully requests your continued support to ensure that
annual distribution of these funds is not viewed as optional.
As both a donor and energy transfer port, we estimate that
the Port of Long Beach alone generated $400 million in HMT
revenues in 2024. We are asking for equitable funding for donor
and energy ports.
Funds for in-water expanded uses were authorized in WRDA
2020, but have been received only once by qualifying donor and
energy ports in the fiscal year 2024 Army Corps workplan. This
resulted in $49 million for Long Beach, which we are using for
dredging as well as critical seismic and safety improvements at
our wharves and quays.
Ports need reliable HMT expanded use funding to complete
safety improvements, and we ask for the committee's help in
advancing this priority through WRDA.
While today's hearing is on WRDA, I also want to thank the
committee for your work on the surface transportation
reauthorization bill, as ports need both strong water and
landside networks to support critical supply chains.
In closing, the Port of Long Beach appreciates the
committee's leadership to ensure America's maritime
infrastructure remains strong and globally competitive through
WRDA. There is no substitute to seeing port operations
firsthand, so I personally invite each of you to tour the Port
of Long Beach, including those of you who have already done so,
as there is always something new to see. And I promise the
weather will be perfect.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee,
thank you again so much for the opportunity to testify, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions at the appropriate
time.
[Mr. Hacegaba's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Noel Hacegaba, Chief Operating Officer and
Incoming Chief Executive Officer, Port of Long Beach, California
Good morning, Chairman Graves, Chairman Collins, Ranking Member
Larsen, Ranking Member Wilson and Members of the Committee, it is an
honor and a privilege to testify before this distinguished subcommittee
today.
My name is Noel Hacegaba, and I serve as the current Chief
Operating Officer and incoming Chief Executive Officer of the Port of
Long Beach. The Port of Long Beach is a nationally significant trade
gateway, moving more than $300 billion in cargo annually and supporting
2.7 million jobs across the United States. We moved the most containers
of any port in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2025 and continue to
move the most tonnage of any port on the West Coast. Approximately half
of that tonnage consists of energy commodities that fuel our national
economy.
Before addressing the Port of Long Beach's specific Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) priorities, I would like to thank Congressman
Garcia, the Port's hometown Representative, for his steadfast support
of the Port and for his leadership on the Congressional PORTS Caucus.
As the Congressman can attest, seeing port operations first hand is the
best way to understand the enormity of the Port of Long Beach's
contributions to the nation and I would like to personally invite each
of you to pay us a visit in Long Beach. Many of you have already done
so, and I thank you for that, and I welcome you back as there is always
something new to see as we continue to grow and modernize our Port.
I also want to thank the Committee for its commitment to delivering
the bipartisan WRDA bill on a biennial basis. WRDA plays a critical
role in strengthening America's economy, supply chain resilience, and
national security by providing federal investments in our nation's
ports and waterways. From the Port of Long Beach's perspective, WRDA is
must-pass legislation and we applaud the Committee's leadership in
advancing these critical infrastructure investments for all Americans.
I am here today on behalf of the Port of Long Beach and in
partnership with the broader port community, including the American
Association of Port Authorities, the California Association of Port
Authorities (CAPA), California Marine Affairs and Navigation
Conference, and the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade
Corridors. Just last week, I was elected President of CAPA by our
State's 11 ports, so I am highlighting priorities that benefit not only
the Port of Long Beach, but more broadly American ports and our
partners along the supply chain.
America's seaports are essential national assets. Our seaports
connect American producers and consumers to global markets, support
millions of jobs nationwide, and serve as a cornerstone of our
industrial and economic competitiveness. The Port of Long Beach,
together with our strong workforce anchored by the men and women in the
International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), marine terminal
operators and regional and national partners, moves cargo to and from
communities in every congressional district and supports strong,
resilient supply chains across the country. With 6,000 refrigeration
spaces, the Port of Long Beach is the leading gateway on the West Coast
to transport perishable cargo such as meats, seafood and produce from
California's breadbasket and America's heartland. We export soybeans
from the Upper Midwest, hay from Arizona, cotton from Texas and the
Atlantic South, almonds from California, and pork and beef from Texas,
Colorado, Kansas and the Midwest.
In fact, the Port of Long Beach manages billions of dollars in
trade for many of your home states. Georgia ranks seventh in the nation
in total trade value supported by the Port of Long Beach, with cargo
valued at more than $3.6 billion including cars, car parts, fork lifts,
bulldozers, and clothing. We move more than $2.3 billion in cargo to
and from Florida including clothing, electronic equipment, medical
equipment, and vehicle tires. $2.1 billion in cargo through Washington,
including clothing, consumer electronics, suitcases, and lamps.
Finally, $2.1 billion across Missouri including clothes, aluminum,
electronics, furniture, and energy commodities. While the bulk of the
value represented is on the import side, hundreds of millions in value
is also for exports, and all this trade supports thousands of American
jobs in your home districts.
There is a good chance that many that people watching today's
hearing are doing so on a screen that came through the Port of Long
Beach, as more than 80% of U.S. televisions move through the San Pedro
Bay ports complex.
WRDA is essential to keeping the flow of imports and U.S. exports
moving and to keep our gateways safe, efficient, and competitive.
At the Port of Long Beach, our ability to safely accommodate modern
vessels, move cargo efficiently, and compete in the global supply
market depends on safe, navigable deep water channels and supporting
in-water infrastructure. Consistent federal partnership through WRDA
ensures that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) can plan,
authorize, and deliver the projects that keep our channels and harbors
ready to ensure America is leading the global economy.
Last year, the Port of Long Beach moved nearly 10 million
containers, and more than 200 million barrels of oil. The main channel
reaches 76 feet making Long Beach the only West Coast port capable of
berthing a Very Large Crude Container ship (VLCC), which can hold more
than one million barrels of oil each. The Port of Long Beach is also
the only port in Southern California with four terminals capable of
receiving liquid bulk cargo, which includes crude oil.
The policies in WRDA that have allowed the Port of Long Beach to
work with the USACE to support these commercial maritime operations and
safely move energy commodities are critical to America's economy and
our national security. The Port of Long Beach is one of 18 federally
designated Commercial Strategic Seaports. In that role the Port stands
ready to protect this nation. Recently, we hosted the largest Army
Reserve exercise ever, where more than 9,000 reservists underwent
training across multiple sites, including the Port of Long Beach. Our
participation in supporting this critical need put the safety and
reliability of our maritime infrastructure on center stage for national
security. Keeping American ports like Long Beach competitive not only
economically benefits our nation, but is a matter of national security,
and I want to thank you all for your leadership and investment in port
infrastructure to ensure American ports continue to be global leaders
on trade.
Deep Draft Navigation
A top priority for the Port of Long Beach is our Deep Draft
Navigation project. This project will deepen the main federal channel
from 76 to 80 feet, improving safety, and enhancing efficiency for
vessel operations by allowing VLCCs to call at maximum capacity under
most weather and tide conditions without waiting offshore. The project
will bolster the Port's ability to deliver significant national
economic benefits.
Thanks to WRDA 2022, the project has an authorized Chief's Report
and received full Preconstruction Engineering and Design funding from
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Our request for WRDA 2026
is the approval of a post authorization change report (PACR) which we
have been diligently working on with our partners at the Corps.
Authorizing the PACR for this project in the forthcoming WRDA will help
ensure our infrastructure keeps pace with evolving cargo volumes,
vessel size, and global competition. We seek the Committee's assistance
in ensuring that the USACE completes the PACR for inclusion in WRDA
2026.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund/Donor Ports
I also want to thank this committee for its longstanding work over
the years to ensure Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) dollars are
fully allocated for their intended purpose. I recognize the significant
work the Committee put into the distribution of these critical funds
and the Port respectfully requests your continued support to ensure
that annual distribution of these funds is not viewed as optional.
In particular, funds for in-water expanded uses have been received
only once by qualifying donor and energy ports since they were
authorized in WRDA 2020. This occurred in the FY24 USACE workplan which
resulted in the distribution of $49 million for Long Beach, which the
Port is using for dredging at our berths and for critical seismic and
safety improvements at our wharves and quays. For the Port of Long
Beach alone, more than $500 million in critical safety projects are
planned over the next 10 years in our capital investment plan. A
reliable and automatic allocation of HMT expanded use funding is
essential to making sure these safety improvements are completed.
As both a donor and energy port, we estimate that the Port of Long
Beach alone generated approximately $400 million in HMT revenues in
2024. Over the last decade, the Port of Long Beach has proudly
supported our fellow U.S. ports' dredging projects by generating
billions to the fund. We are not seeking the creation of a new funding
stream. We are simply calling for collected HMT funds to be allocated
according to congressional intent to invest a mere fraction of the fund
to protect our National Commercial Strategic Seaport and other ports
that keep our economy moving and generate billions of dollars in
revenues for their states and this country.
Comprehensive Infrastructure Investments
While today's hearing focuses on water infrastructure, the purview
of this Committee is much more expansive and I want thank the Committee
for the work that it is also doing to prepare for the next surface
transportation reauthorization bill. Entities like ports rely on strong
water and surface transportation networks to support critical supply
chains. Modernized navigation and improved freight fluidity can reduce
vessel delays and idling, improve operational efficiency, and
complement our ongoing work to transition to cleaner, more sustainable
goods movement. The Port of Long Beach remains committed to support a
more competitive, future-ready maritime industry. Ensuring that
waterside access and landside capacity grow together is vital to the
country's economic prosperity.
In closing, the Port of Long Beach appreciates the Committee's
leadership and bipartisan work to ensure America's maritime
infrastructure remains strong, modern, and globally competitive. WRDA
is a critical tool for protecting our economic vitality and keeping our
supply chains moving efficiently and safely. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, and Members of the Committee, thank you again for the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with you to advance
this important legislation, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
The chair has been notified there will be a series of votes
occurring on the House floor. The subcommittee shall stand in
recess, subject to call of the chair.
I am sorry if I didn't--Ms. Wilson wants me to clarify
myself. The chair has been notified there will be a series of
votes occurring on the House floor. The subcommittee shall
stand in recess, subject to call of the chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Collins. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment will reconvene the previously recessed hearing.
I now yield myself 5 minutes for questioning.
Ms. Ufner, non-Federal sponsors are an essential part of
the Army Corps of Engineers. I know that is what you were
talking about in your opening statement. In your experience,
how has the Corps worked effectively with these non-Federal
sponsors just to carry out our Civil Works projects?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Non-Federal sponsors are an integral part of getting
projects on the ground. They actually work with the Corps to
identify water resource challenges on the ground. And once
those challenges are identified, they do enter into a formal
agreement with the Corps, called a Project Partnership
Agreement, which lays out their cost share as well as their
Federal requirements and any long-term obligations that they
have throughout the process.
And I just want to note here that the non-Federal sponsors,
their funding comes from public entities, so they do share a
responsibility to the taxpayer, as does the Federal Government
when designing these projects.
Thank you.
Mr. Collins. Are there ways that the Corps can improve its
budgeting process, maybe with multiyear budgets?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for the question. So the question is,
can the Corps improve their processes, correct, whether it be
multiyear or--and there are many different ways that you can
look at this. Primarily, we are going to say communications,
that if there is the ability of the--it works best among all
stages of Government if we can communicate, and this is even
before policies are proposed, studies, projects, and there
needs to be touch points throughout the process to really do
discussion about what is working and what is not working, what
is feasible, and what we can do moving forward.
Mr. Collins. And I know that was number one on your list
when you were doing your opening statement, but can you expound
on that just a tad bit more on the communication?
Ms. Ufner. What, the communication?
Mr. Collins. Yes, ma'am, on being more clear.
Ms. Ufner. There are a couple things that we did flag in
the back on the communication. My earlier answer focused on
primarily rules and regulations, but we do flag within the
testimony concerns with the Department of War memo on
engagement with congressional staff, especially during the WRDA
process.
Taking a step back, we realize, as a non-Federal sponsor,
how important Congress and the Corps is through this process,
because the Corps can provide technical assistance to both our
non-Federal members as well as Congress, and so it is really
important that we have that engagement.
Mr. Collins. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Dr. Hacegaba--I got it, didn't I?
Mr. Hacegaba. Hacegaba.
Mr. Collins. Hacegaba. Or Dr. Noel. In Georgia, we have
seen a serious lack of operations and maintenance dredging work
done in our navigability in our ports. Have you seen that at
the Port of Long Beach or had similar experiences?
Mr. Hacegaba. We have, Chairman. There is an old saying
that what happens in Long Beach, at our port, eventually
cascades across the country, and that is how critical our port
is to the Nation's transportation system.
Mr. Collins. Can you give me any pointers on how we can fix
some of that?
Mr. Hacegaba. Well, to take this project that we brought
before this committee today and the PACR that we are
requesting, this Deep Draft Navigation Project would enable us
to handle larger ships that will handle more energy product.
That is not only good for the Nation's economy, but it
prioritizes and strengthens national security as well.
Mr. Collins. All right. Okay. Thank you.
I don't really have time to ask another question, but I am
going to anyway.
Mr. Jones, HNTB has recently been recognized for its work
on public-private partnerships with the Corps. In your
experience, how has the P3 approach worked to reduce cost,
accelerate schedules, or otherwise improve project outcomes?
Mr. Jones. Yes, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. HNTB, as you
noted, does have the experience with public-private
partnerships. We see that, across the board, that there are
opportunities to significantly expand the Corps' capacity
compared to the traditional delivery model by utilization of
P3s.
I think it is worth noting, though, that P3s are not a
silver bullet. They are not to be used in every instance. But
in working with either the Corps or the non-Federal sponsor,
understanding what the project is, what the goals of the
project are, and then consider what alternative delivery
opportunities there may be, P3 may, in fact, be the best
opportunity to one, accelerate the project delivery, get that
project online quicker, and leverage private resources that can
be brought to bear to accelerate often delayed project
schedules.
Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
I am definitely out of time, so I yield back.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Ms. Wilson,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Hacegaba, as the chair of the Florida Ports Caucus, I
understand your port's goal of remaining competitive in the
global market. In your testimony, you discussed your request
for a Post-Authorization Change Report in WRDA 2026. Can you
discuss what Congress should do to keep the PACR process
predictable and timely?
Mr. Hacegaba. Ranking Member, thank you for your question.
It is a great question because the reason why we are
championing this PACR within the WRDA 2026 is because a project
of this type supports the Nation's priorities for national
security as well as supports the national economy. And when you
look at the PACR, what we are doing is trying to rightsize the
funding necessary to deliver this project at a time when costs
have escalated for a variety of different reasons.
And as this subcommittee is well aware, over time, most
projects that are under the discretion of Army Corps have also
experienced escalation in costs. And what we are trying to do
is rightsize the funding necessary to deliver this project in
order to get this project of national significance up and
running to support national security as well as the Nation's
economy.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Ufner, it has come to my attention that many of my
colleagues are having difficulty getting information from the
Corps as they are forced to wait for the Pentagon to clear the
sharing of information. Can you discuss how this change in
information sharing has the ability to hinder project
development and delivery?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for this question. And to your point
about the Department of War memo, we are hearing about
challenges both from the congressional and from the non-Federal
sponsor level. From the congressional, we are definitely
hearing some examples of getting the communication that they
need to get from the Corps.
And one of the things we keep on stressing is that WRDA is
essentially a three-legged stool or a triangle, that if one
partner is unable to provide information, it makes it unsteady.
From a non-Federal sponsor angle, we have heard examples of
non-Federal sponsors asking the Corps for needs assessments and
other information that they have been unable to obtain due to
uncertainty surrounding how the Corps can interface with
entities outside the Corps with this memo.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Jones, since becoming a Member of Congress, I have been
pushing to move WRDA into a regular 2-year cycle. The cycle is
important because it delivers certainty and routine as we
process our Nation's needs.
Can you discuss how maintaining a consistent cycle helps
the industries, local sponsors, and the Federal Government?
Mr. Jones. Yes, well, thank you for the question, Ranking
Member.
As you alluded to, the 2-year cycle of WRDA is critical. I
think you heard from all of us this morning the criticality of
that 2-year cycle. What it does, Congresswoman, is it provides
predictability to the Corps of Engineers as well as the non-
Federal partners who are out on the ground trying to deliver
projects. There is some assurity that, with the 2-year cycle,
that the folks on the ground know what to expect, know how to
plan, understand the funding that lies ahead for their
projects, where there might be funding gaps that they can look
to fill.
As in any area of business, particularly in private
business of which I am fortunate to be a part of, understanding
the schedule and having predictability is essential to
everything that we do, and I don't see it to be any different
in delivering public infrastructure projects that are delivered
through WRDA.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Okay. Thank you very much.
I ask unanimous consent that statements from the following
organizations be made a part of today's hearing record: the
American Public Works Association; the American Society of
Civil Engineers; the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel
Association; the National Wildlife Federation; and the Port of
Tampa Bay.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter of December 17, 2025, from Vic Bianes, PE, President, and Scott
D. Grayson, CAE, Chief Executive Officer, American Public Works
Association, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S.
Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson
December 17, 2025.
Congressman Mike Collins,
Chair, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2351 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-1010.
Congresswoman Frederica Wilson,
Ranking Member, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2080 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-0924.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson,
The American Public Works Association (APWA) represents 32,000
public works professionals across North America who serve in both the
public and private sectors providing expertise at the local, state and
federal government levels. Working in the public interest, our members
are responsible for designing, building, operating, and maintaining
America's vast infrastructure network that is so fundamental to our
economy, environment, public health, and safety. This includes water
infrastructure such as ports and harbors, inland waterway navigation,
and water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater, drainage and flood
control systems. APWA members strongly value our collaboration with our
federal partners, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Civil Works Program, to
successfully deliver critical water resources improvements for
communities across the country.
For close to 85 years, Congress has provided federal funds through
vital infrastructure financing programs to municipalities to address
local water quality challenges. These long-standing programs are
essential to the strength of our communities and this investment, along
with the $50 billion in supplemental funding provided through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA), has gone a long
way to ensuring water systems can continue to serve their communities.
Water infrastructure projects grow our economy, create jobs, protect
our environment, and provide a better quality of life for all
Americans. The Water Resources Development Act and associated water
infrastructure programs are an essential part of this system. As we
look forward, APWA urges the Committee to consider the following for
its 2026 water infrastructure package.
Program Reauthorization
Reauthorize the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund programs through 2031 and authorized funding at $3.25
billion for each program.
Reauthorize the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program and maintain the existing authorized
levels and authorize funding at $75.6 million.
Reauthorize the Clean Water Infrastructure Resilience and
Sustainability program, Midsize and Large Drinking Water System
Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability program and Drinking Water
System Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability program through
2031.
Reauthorize the Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse
Municipal Grant through 2031 and increase authorized funding to $400
million.
Reauthorize the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and
Resilience program through 2031.
Legislation
H.R. 5566--Sustainability and Resilience Program
Reauthorization
H.R. 5661--Water Preservation and Affordability Act
H.R. 5868--Water Cybersecurity Enhancement Act
H.R. 5730--Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Grant
Reauthorization Act
H.R. 3861--Clean Water SRF Parity Act
H.R. 2093--To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act with respect to permitting terms, and for other purposes
H.R. 6229--To reauthorize the Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act of 2014, and for other purposes
Additional Priorities
APWA would also like to highlight to the Committee the importance
of workforce development programs. The water industry's workforce is
aging and not achieving a full rate of replacement. This puts a strain
on employees who may be required to perform double duty merely to
maintain basic operations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates
that the water sector will need about 220,000 new jobs annually to keep
up with demand.
The Congressional intent codified in IIJA recognized the importance
of ensuring a strong pipeline of skilled and diverse workers in the
water and wastewater sector and the part that public works plays in
establishing and growing that workforce. APWA was proud to have played
a key role in incorporating that language into the law and continues to
support the maintenance of dedicated programs that recruit, train, and
retain new water industry professionals.
Conclusion
Each day public works professionals are diligently working to
protect and maintain the critical infrastructure that is so essential
to protecting our health and quality of life. Because of our shared
commitment, APWA looks forward to continuing to work with you and your
staff on this legislation to help public works professionals meet our
water infrastructure challenges. If you have questions or comments
regarding this letter or APWA's water priorities, please contact APWA
Government Affairs Manager Leah Harnish.
Sincerely,
Vic Bianes, PE,
President, American Public Works Association.
Scott D. Grayson, CAE,
Chief Executive Officer, American Public Works Association.
CC: Congressman Sam Graves, Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
Congressman Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) thanks the committee
for the opportunity to submit the following statement for the record
detailing our priorities for the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 2026. We also wish to express our appreciation to the committee for
its commitment to keeping WRDA on schedule for reauthorization, as it
has done biennially since 2014. Doing so ensures greater certainty and
predictability for new and ongoing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
water resources projects and provides an opportunity to make needed
updates to federal water resources policy. ASCE looks forward to
working with the committee in the weeks and months ahead to further
improve our nation's water resources infrastructure.
Over the past two WRDA cycles, Congress has enacted into law
multiple key policies supporting the safety and enhancement of our
nation's infrastructure. This includes reauthorization of the National
Levee Safety Program, the authorization of a new national inventory of
low-head dams in 2022, and reauthorization of the National Dam Safety
Program along with an adjustment to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
cost share formula in 2024. In March 2025, ASCE released the latest
version of its Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Thanks in
large part to the enactment of these policies in WRDA, grades for all
four of the water resources infrastructure Report Card chapters
improved from 2021 to 2025, with the grades for Dams and Levees both
improving from ``D'' to ``D+'', Ports improving from ``B-'' to ``B'',
and Inland Waterways improving from ``D+'' to ``C-''. Congress passing
effective WRDA legislation every two years is critical to the
condition, capacity, resilience, and lifespan of our nation's water
resources infrastructure. We are grateful for the opportunity to
continue to be a part of that conversation and encourage the
committee's support for the following ASCE priorities.
Support for High Hazard Potential Dams
The United States is home to more than 92,000 dams serving a
variety of functions from water storage and flood control to irrigation
and recreation. Of those dams, 18 percent (or nearly 17,000 dams) are
classified as having high-hazard potential. This means a failure of one
of these dams would likely result in the loss of life and significant
destruction of property. While hazard potential is not an indicator of
a dam's overall condition, almost 2,600 of the nation's 17,000 high-
hazard potential dams have been assessed to be in poor or
unsatisfactory condition. Since 2012, the number of high-hazard
potential dams has grown by nearly 20% due to increased downstream
development. Compounding the problem, the average age of the nation's
dams is 64 years, which is 7 years older than in 2021, and 7 out of 10
dams nationwide are more than 50 years old according to the Association
of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO). These trends, along with
increasingly severe weather events producing higher levels of
precipitation, will continue to place increased strain on the nation's
high-hazard dams.
Federal programs like the National Dam Safety Program provide
states with grant funding to support certain administrative and dam
monitoring activities by state level dam safety programs. However,
these state assistance grants may not be used to support dam
rehabilitation projects or dam repairs. One of the few federal funding
streams available to support dam repair and rehabilitation is the High
Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program, or HHPD Program. The
HHPD Program was first authorized in 2016 under the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act and provides
competitive grants to states to support rehabilitation projects for
dams that pose the greatest risk to the public. Since 2019, the HHPD
Program has provided $71.1 million in grant funding across 40 states
and Puerto Rico, despite being historically underfunded through annual
appropriations and having much of the funding provided through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act reprogrammed or rescinded.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/learn/dam-safety/
rehabilitation-high-hazard-potential-dams/awards#2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HHPD program's legislative authority is set to lapse in
September of 2026. Reauthorization of this critical program will be
necessary to ensure that it is available to address the growing
challenges to high-hazard dams nationwide. As such, ASCE strongly
encourages the inclusion of H.R. 5414, the Dam Assessment and
Mitigation Support (DAMS) Act into any WRDA legislation taken up in
Congress in 2026. The DAMS Act would reauthorize the HHPD program for
five years. It would also allow states to use their own risk-based
priority systems, in lieu of federally created systems, to identify
dams in greatest need and better prioritize grant applications in a
manner that best meets the needs of their own communities.
Revision of National Dam Safety Program State Assistance Grant Formula
In 2024, WRDA reauthorized the National Dam Safety Program, which
had lapsed at the end of Fiscal Year 2023. The National Dam Safety
Program provides resources to states to support inspection and
monitoring activities, staffing needs, and emergency planning through
State Assistance Grants. The 2024 reauthorization of this program
ensures those funds can continue to flow directly to state dam safety
programs. WRDA 2024 also included provisions to incorporate low-head
dams into the National Inventory of Dams. Low-head dams are small,
river spanning structures which produce dangerous currents that have
been shown to harm public safety. ASCE supported the incorporation of
these structures into the inventory to improve the overall safety of
the nation's dams. State Assistance Grant allocations to states are
determined by multiple factors, including number of dams in a state.
WRDA 2024 altered this formula factor by including the number of low-
head dams in addition to dams (33 U.S.C. Sec. 467j(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) &
(II)). This poses multiple challenges to states and may affect their
ability to receive valuable resources for their dam safety programs.
While the development of a national inventory of low-head dams
continues to be a priority for ASCE, it is a process that is still in
its early stages and not yet fully developed. Additionally, many states
do not regulate or collect data on low-head dams, and the federal
government currently lacks the resources and proper mandate to provide
incentives to states to collect and upload low-head dam data into the
budding inventory. Until USACE has had time to properly develop the
low-head dam inventory, including assisting states with the process of
counting and collecting data on low-head dams, factoring low-head dams
into the total number of dams that determine State Assistance Grant
allocations may divert funding away from states that have significant
dam safety needs but lack the capacity to properly account for low-head
dams. These circumstances reduce the overall safety of the nation's
dams. To address these challenges, ASCE recommends striking the
language incorporating low-head dams into the grant formula from the
2024 law and to instead continue supporting robust efforts to grow and
develop the National Low-Head Dam Inventory.
Reauthorization of the National Levee Safety Program
USACE has identified more than 24,000 miles of levees across the
country providing flood protection to over 2,300 communities
nationwide. The nation's levee systems protect more than 23 million
people, and $2 trillion worth of property value--including 7 million
buildings and 5 million acres of farmland--that sit behind them. Since
the creation of the National Levee Safety Program, USACE has made
significant progress developing a national regulatory and support
framework to improve the safety of the nation's levees.
The National Levee Safety Program was first authorized in 2014 for
the purposes of supporting the standing up of state levee safety
programs, creating a comprehensive database of the nation's levees,
developing guidelines for levee safety best practices, and supporting
repair and rehabilitation of the nation's levees. The National Levee
Safety Program was last reauthorized in the 2022 WRDA and has continued
to make significant progress. In 2024, USACE produced the first
National Levee Safety Guidelines, providing a consistent yet flexible
set of best practices for levee management, reducing flood impact,
utilizing nature-based solutions to improve levee safety, and
addressing the needs of underserved communities living behind levees.
Additionally, USACE has made significant progress developing its
National Levee Database, providing more detailed data on USACE's levee
portfolio, as well as dams owned and operated at the state and local
level. As previously noted, this progress played a large role in ASCE's
decision to raise its grade for the nation's levees in its 2025 Report
Card for America's Infrastructure from D to D+.
The National Levee Safety Program's legislative authority is set to
expire at the end FY 2028. In 2024, the House's WRDA bill included a 4-
year reauthorization of the National Levee Safety Program. That
provision, however, was not included in the Senate WRDA bill, and was
thus not included in the final WRDA signed into law by President Joe
Biden in early 2025. To ensure that it can continue to develop and
provide needed assistance to states, ASCE strongly encourages the
inclusion of a 5-year reauthorization into WRDA 2026.
Addressing the Water Resources Project Backlog
In each WRDA bill, Congress authorizes new navigation, ports, and
flood protection projects and feasibility studies for USACE to begin
work on. In 2024, Congress authorized 21 new water resources projects
with an authorized total federal funding level of more than $10
billion. While authorization of new projects every other year is
essential to USACE planning, and provides the agency with a degree of
predictability, Congressional appropriators have not been able to fund
water resources projects at a fast enough pace, creating a current
project backlog of more than $100 billion. This backlog results in
project delays, increased overall costs, and can create challenges to
project development and design. ASCE encourages Congress, including the
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, House Transportation &
Infrastructure Committee, and House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, to work closely with the USACE to develop plans and
strategies to address and reduce the water resources project backlog.
Utilize Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for Maintenance Dredging
Activities
Waterside infrastructure needs, such as maintenance dredging, are
paid for through the federal Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The
HMTF collects revenue through a 0.125% user fee on the value of cargo
shipped. The 2020 WRDA included full utilization of the $10 billion
balance of the HMTF by allowing $500 million to be appropriated in FY
2021, with an increase of $100 million annually until 2030. The full
expenditure of the HMTF has been a longtime priority and ASCE strongly
supported Congress's effort to address this issue in 2020.
Dredging is a critical and continuously needed activity for ports.
Channel depth determines the size of vessels that can call at a port,
and maintenance dredging is important for making sure ports can safely
accommodate large ships and compete with one another.
In 2025, Ports received the highest grade on ASCE's Report Card for
America's Infrastructure, earning a grade of B. Port investment
decisions are largely driven by the need to upgrade aging facilities
and maintain the depth of channels and harbors to keep them safe and
navigable. To help ensure the continued functionality of our nation's
ports, ASCE urges Congress to continue to spend down the balance of the
HMTF on maintenance dredging activities.
Conclusion
ASCE appreciates the opportunity to provide the committee with this
statement on its priorities for the 2026 Water Resources Development
Act. We strongly believe that our nation must prioritize investments in
its water resources infrastructure to ensure public safety, a strong
economy, and the protection of environmental resources. Support for
America's dams, levees, ports, and inland waterways is needed to close
the growing funding gap and to ensure the country has world-class 21st
century infrastructure.
Letter of December 17, 2025, from Michele Stanley, President and Chief
Executive Officer, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, to Hon.
Mike Collins, Chairman, and Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson
December 17, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Frederica Wilson,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:
On behalf of the over 500 members of the National Stone, Sand &
Gravel Association (NSSGA), I am writing to share our priorities for
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2026 ahead of the
Subcommittee's upcoming stakeholder priorities hearing. NSSGA
represents aggregates producers and manufacturers of equipment and
services that support the construction industry. Our members employ
more than 100,000 hardworking men and women responsible for producing
the essential raw materials found in every home, building, road, port,
dam, and public works project across the nation.
Aggregates are critical components in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) projects authorized under WRDA. These materials are vital for
improving ports and harbors, enhancing waterway infrastructure and
navigation, protecting shorelines, mitigating flooding, and supporting
ecosystem restoration efforts. Our industry also plays a key role in
environmental applications, including erosion control, water filtration
systems, wastewater management, drinking water purification, and
wetland restoration.
NSSGA strongly supports the biennial reauthorization of WRDA to
provide certainty and sustained funding for these essential
infrastructure projects. This predictability enables aggregates
producers to plan effectively and supply the building materials needed
for vital water infrastructure initiatives. We applaud the
Subcommittee's efforts to gather stakeholder input and urge Congress to
prioritize the following in WRDA 2026:
Continued Investment in USACE Civil Works Projects:
Authorize and fully fund projects that address navigation improvements,
flood risk management, coastal protection, and ecosystem restoration.
These initiatives not only bolster economic competitiveness but also
create jobs and support communities reliant on reliable water
infrastructure.
Streamlining Permitting and Regulatory Processes: Promote
policies that expedite project reviews while maintaining environmental
protections to reduce delays and costs associated with infrastructure
development.
Material Neutrality and Performance-Based Standards:
Encourage the use of non-discriminatory, performance-based criteria for
materials in USACE projects to foster innovation, sustainability, and
cost savings for taxpayers.
NSSGA appreciates the bipartisan tradition of WRDA, and the
aggregates industry stands ready to provide the essential materials to
support our nation's water infrastructure projects. Please consider
NSSGA as a resource as you continue your important work of advancing
this legislation.
Sincerely,
Michele Stanley,
President and CEO, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.
cc: The Honorable Sam Graves
The Honorable Rick Larsen
Statement of Melissa Samet, Legal Director, Water Resources and Coasts,
National Wildlife Federation, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Frederica S. Wilson
Chairman Collins, Ranking Member Wilson, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the National
Wildlife Federation's priorities for the Water Resources Development
Act of 2026.
The National Wildlife Federation is the nation's largest
conservation advocacy organization with almost eight million members
and supporters and affiliates in 52 states and territories. Our members
represent the full spectrum of people who care deeply about wildlife:
they are bird and wildlife watchers, hikers, gardeners, anglers,
hunters, forest stewards, and farmers. The National Wildlife Federation
has championed clean and healthy rivers and streams since our founding
in 1936. Conserving our wetlands, streams, rivers, and shorelines for
wildlife and communities is at the core of our mission.
The Nation's Water Resources Challenges Are Growing at an Alarming Rate
America's communities and infrastructure are being tested like
never before. Increasingly severe storms and floods are wreaking havoc
on communities and infrastructure, putting people at risk and causing
billions of dollars of damage each year. America's treasured wildlife
is in crisis, including the freshwater species most affected by water
resources projects. The overwhelming societal and economic toll of
these crises affects us all. The common-sense reforms outlined in this
statement would build on recent Water Resources Development Acts to
help keep communities safe, allow our treasured wildlife to thrive, and
protect billions of dollars of federal and state investments.
Severe Storms and Floods Are Wreaking Havoc on Communities
The nation is facing increasingly severe storms and floods, extreme
droughts, massive wildfires and record high temperatures. We have
suffered more billion-dollar inland flood disasters in the last decade
than in the prior three decades combined.\1\ We have endured the
highest frequency of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes over the last eight
years than ever before.\2\ The human suffering caused by these and many
smaller disasters is unfathomable, with low-income communities bearing
a disproportionate share of the harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S.
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2025) (https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/), DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73.
\2\ Id. (citing AOML, 2025) (``the U.S. has been impacted by
landfalling category 4 or 5 hurricanes in six of the last eight years
(Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, Laura, Ida, Ian, Helene), which is the
highest frequency on record'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ever-mounting toll of human suffering and hundreds of billions
of dollars in yearly economic losses \3\ from natural disasters shows
no sign of abating and every sign that it will continue to grow.
Research shows that both the intensity and number of extreme storms
will continue to increase. In some locations, future extreme events
could be twice as intense as historical averages.\4\ By 2050, high
tides could cause ``sunny day'' flooding in coastal communities 25 to
75 days a year.\5\ By 2100, previously rare extreme rainstorms could
happen every two years.\6\ By the end of the century, homes and
commercial properties currently worth more than $1 trillion could be at
risk of chronic flood inundation.\7\ Over the next 30 years, the ``risk
of coastal floods damaging or destroying low-income homes will triple''
resulting in the flooding of more than 25,000 affordable housing units
each year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ E.g., Joint Economic Committee Report June 2024 (https://
www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/6/flooding-costs-
the-u-s-between-179-8-and-496-0-billion-each-year) (The total cost of
flooding in the United States is estimated to be ``between $179.8 and
$496.0 billion each year in 2023 dollars.'').
\4\ Madakumbura, G.D., Thackeray, C.W., Norris, J. et al.
Anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation over global land areas
seen in multiple observational datasets. Nat Commun 12, 3944 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24262-x.
\5\ NOAA High Tide Flooding Report, 2021 State of High Tide
Flooding and Annual Outlook.
\6\ Megan C. Kirchmeier-Young, Xuebin Zhang, Human influence has
intensified extreme precipitation in North America, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences June 2020, 117 (24) 13308-13313;
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1921628117.
\7\ Union of Concerned Scientists. Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic
Floods, and the Implications for US Coastal Real Estate (2018).
\8\ Maya K Buchanan et al, Sea level rise and coastal flooding
threaten affordable housing, Environ. Res. Lett., 15 124020/ (2020)
(Also highlighting that even low levels of flooding can ``cause
profound disruptions to families already struggling to make ends meet''
and can be particularly challenging to remedy in affordable housing
units, which are often in poor repair to begin with.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Treasured Wildlife Has Been Pushed to the Brink
The changing weather, combined with historic and ongoing
destruction and degradation of vast swaths of habitat, have pushed
America's wildlife into crisis, helping to drive the planet's ongoing
6th Mass Extinction of species.\9\ As many as one-third of America's
plant and wildlife species are vulnerable, with one in five imperiled
and at high risk of extinction.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Gerardo Ceballos, Ehrlich Paul, Raven Peter, Vertebrates on the
brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass
extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences June 2020,
117 (24) 13596-13602; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1922686117 (``The ongoing sixth
mass extinction may be the most serious environmental threat to the
persistence of civilization, because it is irreversible. . . . the
sixth mass extinction is human caused and accelerating. . . . '').
\10\ Stein, B. A., L. S. Kutner, J. S. Adams eds. 2000. Precious
Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States. New York:
Oxford University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's freshwater species, which are most affected by water
resources projects, have been particularly hard hit. Approximately 40
percent of the nation's freshwater fish species are now rare or
imperiled.\11\ Nearly 60 percent of the nation's globally significant
freshwater mussel species are imperiled or vulnerable, and an
additional 10 percent are already extinct.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Jelks, H. L., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, et al. 2008.
Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and
diadromous fishes. Fisheries. 33: 372-407.
\12\ Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris,
and R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the
United States and Canada. Fisheries 18: 6-22; Lydeard, C., R. H. Cowie,
W. F. Ponder, et al. 2004. The global decline of nonmarine mollusks.
BioScience 54 321-330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our wildlife crisis extends well beyond rare and endangered
species, and now affects many widespread and previously abundant
creatures, such as the little brown bat, monarch butterfly, and many of
our most beloved songbirds. State fish and wildlife agencies have
identified more than 12,000 species nationwide in need of conservation
action, and fully one-third of North America's bird species require
urgent conservation attention.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Stein, B. A., N. Edelson, L. Anderson, J. Kanter, and J.
Stemler. 2018. Reversing America's Wildlife Crisis: Securing the Future
of Our Fish and Wildlife. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The historic loss and degradation of wildlife habitat across the
country makes each additional acre of loss or degradation even more
consequential for the long-term viability of our nation's fish and
wildlife. At least ten states have lost more than 70 percent of their
wetlands, which provide essential fish and wildlife habitat, while 22
states have lost 50 percent or more of their original wetland
acreage.\14\ The construction of levees to reduce the frequency and
duration of flooding in the lower Mississippi River Valley has been
identified as the single largest historic contributor to wetland losses
in the country, according to the Department of the Interior.\15\ Fish
and wildlife have also been severely harmed through the pervasive
alteration of natural stream flows, including from reservoirs and locks
and dams, which have occurred in 86 percent of the almost 3,000 streams
assessed by the U.S. Geological Survey.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ T.E. Dahl and S.M. Stedman. 2013. Status and trends of
wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Conterminous United States
2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service. (46 pp); Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and trends
of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
(112 pp); Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the
conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. (82 pp); Dahl,
T.E., and Johnson, C.E., 1991, Status and trends of wetlands in the
conterminous United States, mid-1970's to mid-1980's. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. (28 pp).
\15\ Report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, The
Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands, Volume II, at 145 (1994).
Approximately 80 percent of the bottomland hardwood wetlands in the
lower Mississippi River basin have already been lost approximately.
Report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, The Impact of
Federal Programs on Wetlands, Volume I at 39.
\16\ U.S. Geological Survey, Ecological Health in the Nation's
Streams, Fact Sheet 2013-3033 (July 2013); Carlisle, D.M., Meador,
M.R., Short, T.M., Tate, C.M., Gurtz, M.E., Bryant, W.L., Falcone,
J.A., and Woodside, M.D., 2013, The quality of our Nation's waters--
Ecological health in the Nation's streams, 1993-2005: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1391 (120 pp).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building on Past Reforms Will Improve Project Outcomes
The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) plays an integral role in our
nation's response to these interconnected crises. The Corps is charged
with bolstering community resilience and securing clean and healthy
waters for people and wildlife alike. To help achieve these essential
goals, Congress has given the Corps critical directives and tools in
multiple, overwhelming bipartisan Water Resources Development Acts.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For example, since 2018 Congress has included multiple
provisions in the Water Resources Development Acts that allow and
encourage the Corps to: take advantage of the risk-reduction potential
of our natural defenses like healthy wetlands and floodplains; advance
effective hydrologic modeling including through partnerships with the
National Laboratories and academic communities; and improve outreach
and engagement with communities and Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, multiple provisions in the Water Resources Development
Acts of 2018, 2020, and 2022 strengthen and facilitate the Corps'
consideration of common-sense, low impact nonstructural solutions for
reducing flood impacts.\18\ These provisions build on the Congressional
directive established in 1974 for the Corps to carefully assess
nonstructural measures including home elevations and voluntary buyouts
to ensure that the Corps formulates ``the most economically, socially,
and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or preventing flood
damages.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ E.g., Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (Sec. 1149);
Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Sec. Sec. 114, 115, 116, 118,
119); Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (Sec. 8118).
\19\ 33 USC 701 b-11, WRDA 1974 Sec. 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These common-sense nonstructural solutions have long been
recognized by the Corps as ``proven methods'' for reducing flood
damages that are ``very effective'' in both the short term and the long
term.\20\ Nonstructural measures are also ``very cost effective when
compared to structural measures,'' \21\ including in small rural
communities and other larger geographies that flood from multiple
sources.\22\ Nonstructural measures typically produce $5 to $7 in
benefits for every $1 spent.\23\ By improving community resilience,
such measures can also help reduce the need for future--and typically
very costly--disaster response and recovery.\24\ \25\ \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ USACE Fact Sheet, Nonstructural Flood Risk Management Measures
(emphasis added). The cost-effectiveness of nonstructural measures is
due in part to the fact that they are ``sustainable over the long term
with minimal costs for operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,
and replacement.'' Id.
\21\ Id.
\22\ Letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army Adam Telle from Chad
Berginnis, Executive Director of the Association of State Floodplain
Managers (November 12, 2025).
\23\ National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard
Mitigation Saves 2019 Report at 77, 84.
\24\ From 2016 to 2025, the Corps received $53.3 billion in
supplemental funding, which in some years approached or exceeded the
levels of annual appropriations. Congressional Research Service, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers: Supplemental Appropriations, June 16, 2025.
\25\ From 2005 to 2018 Congress enacted 13 supplemental bills
related to flooding and natural disasters, providing a total of almost
$45 billion to the Corps. For the same period, annual discretionary
appropriations for flood-related projects and activities totaled $23
billion. Congressional Research Service, Army Corps of Engineers Annual
and Supplemental Appropriations: Issues for Congress, October 1, 2018.
\26\ With ever increasing effects from storms, these emergency
supplemental appropriations have also dramatically increased over time,
with the Corps receiving ``$1.1 billion in the 1990s, $19.2 billion in
the 2000s, and $29.0 billion in the 2010s.'' Congressional Research
Service, Supplemental Appropriations for Army Corps Flood Response and
Recovery, February 20, 2020. Of the $29.0 billion in supplemental
funding provided in the 2010s, $18.6 billion was for completing new or
ongoing flood risk reduction projects. During the same period,
construction funding for flood risk reduction projects through the
regular appropriations process averaged $8.4 billion a year. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress also has advanced cost-effective and environmentally
protective water resources projects by, among other things, directing
the Corps to: account for the costs of any transfers of flood risks
onto other communities as a project cost; improve community resilience
in the immediate aftermath of floods and other natural disasters
through emergency debris removal; and protect vital habitats that
provide natural flood protection and sustain fish and wildlife
resources, including by first avoiding and then offsetting unavoidable
damage to those habitats.
The recommendations outlined below would improve the Corps' ability
to implement these important directives--implementation that is all the
more important in the face of the many competing needs for federal
funding, the Corps' $1 billion plus construction backlog, and the
increasing flood and storm challenges facing communities across the
country.
Recommendations
Through our extensive experience with Corps projects across the
country--and with communities affected by those projects--it is clear
that additional direction is needed to ensure that the Corps implements
the most effective, cost-effective, and environmentally sound solutions
to the many water resources challenges facing the nation. To help the
Corps achieve these vital goals, the National Wildlife Federation
respectfully urges Congress to include policy reforms in the next Water
Resources Development Act that:
1. Improve project cost estimates by establishing clear criteria
to guide the development of cost estimates. This will improve project
planning, protect taxpayers, and provide certainty to non-federal
sponsors.
2. Maximize emergency debris removal benefits by ensuring that the
Corps' emergency debris removal contracts do not incentivize the
unnecessary removal of healthy vegetation and habitats. This will
safeguard communities, wildlife, and taxpayers.
3. Facilitate voluntary nonstructural measures by removing
arbitrary implementation barriers and reducing the non-federal cost
share for such measures. This will help reduce flood risks for
communities, while protecting wildlife and saving taxpayer dollars in
both the short and long term.
4. Ensure utilization of federal and state fish and wildlife
expertise by ensuring that Corps planners take advantage of
recommendations made pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
that derive from the special expertise of federal and state fish and
wildlife experts. This is a common-sense, cost-effective way to improve
projects and planning efficiency.
5. Clarify the need to offset new impacts resulting from
activities carried out under updated operating plans, as required for
all Corps projects. This will protect communities and wildlife, align
Corps project goals, and protect billions of dollars of federal and
state investments.
Each of these policy reforms is discussed in more detail below.
The National Wildlife Federation also urges Congress to ensure that
the Corps continues to swiftly advance important ecosystem restoration
efforts, including those designed to restore the Mississippi River,
coastal Louisiana, America's Everglades, the Ohio River, the Delaware
River, and the effort to stem the ongoing threat and harm from invasive
carp through the Brandon Road Lock and Dam project. We also encourage
Congress to support swift advancement of the Lower Mississippi River
Comprehensive Study and the authorization of associated recommended
tiered studies, including the tiered studies for the ``Lower
Mississippi River Restoration Program'' and ``Systemic Management of
the Greater Mississippi River Basin.''
The National Wildlife Federation greatly appreciates the
committee's role in advancing and overseeing the Corps' implementation
of these studies and projects that are so vitally important to the
health, well-being, and resilience of people and wildlife.
1. Improve Project Cost Estimates
Congress should improve the Corps' project cost estimates by
establishing clear criteria to guide the development of these
estimates. This will improve project planning, protect taxpayers, and
provide certainty to non-federal sponsors.
The Corps' project cost estimates often are not reliable, with the
actual costs of many Corps projects skyrocketing far above the amount
originally authorized by Congress.\27\ Escalating project costs place
heavy burdens on taxpayers and non-federal sponsors who pay the same
percentage of total costs no matter how high those costs might climb.
Widespread cost increases also call into question the project selection
process itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The Corps is allowed to increase construction costs without
Congressional approval for construction cost increases: (1) due to
inflation, cost indexes, and ``additional studies, modifications, and
actions (including mitigation and other environmental actions)
authorized'' by Federal law; and (2) by an additional 20 percent for
modifications that do not materially alter the scope or function of the
project as authorized. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 2280(1-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps agrees that many of its project cost estimates are
unreliable,\28\ with rising costs affecting projects large and small.
In recent years, the Corps has seen ``bids on important navigation and
flood control projects come in at double or triple the previous cost
estimates.'' \29\ Between FY2004 and FY2012, two-thirds of the 87 Corps
flood control projects budgeted for construction suffered from
skyrocketing project costs.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee, Oversight
Hearing on the State of the Civil Works Program (February 25, 2025);
USACE, Interim Guidance for Change Management on Civil Works Projects
(18-Jul-2025).
\29\ House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Report,
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
at 7.
\30\ GAO-14-35, Army Corps of Engineers: Cost Increases in Flood
Control Projects and Improving Communication with Nonfederal Sponsors
Flood Control Cost Overruns (December 2013) at 15 (referred to
hereafter as ``Flood Control Cost Overruns'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps' Chief of Engineers recently told Congress that accurate
cost estimates require an engineering design maturity level of at least
35%, but the Corps has ``allowed projects to be authorized with
engineering well, well below that 35% threshold.'' \31\ The result are
cost estimates that are ``way, way too optimistic.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, Oversight
Hearing on the State of the Civil Works Program (February 25, 2025).
\32\ Id.; USACE, Interim Guidance for Change Management on Civil
Works Projects (18-Jul-2025).
Examples of Cost Increases for Corps Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,532%.................................... American Rivers Common
Features project, CA
Original cost estimate of
$57 million increased to
$1.5 billion, due in part
to significant design
changes needed to ensure
public safety.\33\
1,238%.................................... Larose to Golden Meadow
project (pump component),
LA
Original cost estimate of
$800,000 increased to $10.7
million, due to design
changes required to handle
the actual site
conditions.\34\
274%...................................... Olmstead Lock and Dam
project, IL and KY
Original cost estimate of
$775 million increased to
$2.9 billion, due in part
to unaccounted for
construction
challenges.\35\
151%...................................... Turkey Creek Basin project,
KS and MO
Original cost estimate of
$43 million increased to
$108 million, including $10
million increase for work
required to access the
construction site.\36\
113%...................................... Roanoke River Upper Basin
project, VA
Original cost estimate of
$29 million increased to
$61.7 million, due to
required redesign to
address the discovery of
hazardous waste sites.\37\
98%....................................... Monongahela Locks & Dam
project, PA
Original cost estimate of
$556 million increased to
$1.1 billion.\38\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional\\ appropriators\\ also\\ recognize\\ this\\
problem,\\ and have advised the Corps that Class 3 Cost Estimates
should be provided in feasibility studies before a Chief's Report is
signed.\39\ A Class 3 Cost Estimate requires an ``intermediate level of
project design'' that includes a ``thorough investigation of the
factors that present the most risk during Construction'' such as
``geotechnical surveys, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and site
characterization, to include utility mappings.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/
p16021coll6/id/2194/rec/1.new.
\34\ GAO-14-35, Flood Control Cost Overruns at 15.
\35\ https://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Portals/64/docs/Projects/
FactSheets/Olmsted.pdf?ver=2020-02-27-101155-187.
\36\ GAO-14-35, Flood Control Cost Overruns at Appendix III.
\37\ Id.
\38\ https://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/Portals/72/docs/Mission/
Planning%20Program%20Project
%20Management/2021-116LowermonWEBOverviewPage(April2021).pdf.
\39\ House Report 118-580, Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2025 (July 11, 2024) at 24.
\40\ House Report 119-213, Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2026 (July 21, 2025) at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Congressional appropriators highlighted in the 2025 House Energy
and Water bill report, Class 3 Cost Estimates are essential at the
feasibility study phase because:
a project cannot be found technically feasible, economically
justified, and environmentally acceptable without the scope
definition, engineering, and design maturity necessary to
understand the true costs of delivering that project in a
manner consistent with applicable laws and regulations.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id.
The Corps' project cost estimates also understate costs because
they do not account for a number of critical cost categories,
including: the full life cycle of the project; delays in funding or
sub-optimal funding streams; residual flood risk or the shifting of
flood risks onto other communities despite longstanding requirements to
account for these costs \42\; and the loss of ecosystem services
including natural flood protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 33 USC Sec. 2283 (requiring the Corps to calculate the
benefits and costs of residential flood risks and upstream and
downstream impacts, among other things).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help address these problems, Congress should establish clear
criteria to guide the Corps' development of project cost estimates,
including requiring that feasibility study cost estimates: rely on at
least an intermediate level of project design that includes a thorough
investigation of the factors that present the most risk during
construction; account for delays in funding or sub-optimal funding
streams; account for residual flood risks and any shifting of flood
risks onto other communities; account for life cycle cost outlays; and
account for lost ecosystem services including natural flood protection.
2. Maximize Emergency Debris Removal Benefits
Congress should maximize the benefits from emergency debris removal
by directing the Corps to update its emergency debris removal contracts
to ensure that those contracts are not incentivizing the unnecessary
removal of healthy vegetation and habitats. This will provide important
safeguards for communities, wildlife, and taxpayers.
Communities face an ever-increasing need for emergency debris
removal to recover from devastating floods, hurricanes, tornados and
fires. The scale and frequency of these major weather-related disasters
continue to increase in the U.S. at an alarming rate, with the number
of $1+ billion disasters increasing by 155% in just the past 5
years.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2025) (https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps plays a critical role in helping communities recover from
floods, hurricanes, tornados, and fires through emergency debris
removal that is typically conducted through contracts with private
companies.\44\ However, key terms and payment structures in these
contracts are inadvertently incentivizing the unnecessary removal of
healthy vegetation and habitats that are critical for preventing
riverbank erosion, reducing the risk of destructive landslides,
delivering natural flood protection, and providing vital fish and
wildlife habitat.\45\ In some areas, unnecessary debris removal has
destroyed residential infrastructure, adding to the significant costs
of rebuilding. In the process, taxpayer dollars are wasted on payments
for unnecessary and destructive debris removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The Corps carries out emergency debris removal under its own
authorities and under mission assignment from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
\45\ Recognizing the need to improve the debris removal process,
Congress passed The Disaster Contracting Improvement Act in 2024 to
``establish an advisory group to encourage and foster collaborative
efforts among individuals and entities engaged in disaster recovery
relating to debris removal, and for other purposes.'' Pub. L. 118-153
(December 17, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracts that tie payments to the volume of debris removed--
instead of to the removal of storm debris that is putting communities
and homeowners at risk--are a key driver of unnecessary debris removal.
Debris removal contracts tied to volume caused significant problems in
North Carolina following Hurricane Helene, when contractors removed
healthy live trees still rooted in the ground; left parts of the Little
River bank completely bare; destroyed an important beaver-formed
wetland that provided extensive natural flood storage; crushed
endangered Elktoe mussels; and destroyed endangered Hellbender
habitat.\46\ Hundreds of homeowners in California reported damage to
driveways, septic systems, wells, and other infrastructure from
excessive debris removal following the devastating fires in 2017.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Benji Jones, ``The government stepped in to clean up a
disaster in North Carolina. Then they created another one.'' Vox, July
23, 2025 (https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/420513/flooding-debris-
removal-hurricane-helene-wildlife); Kati Myers, ``As Army Corps and
debris contractors near crucial deadlines, some worry rivers are
damaged.'' BPR News, May 22, 2025 (https://www.bpr.org/bpr-news/2025-
05-22/as-army-corps-and-debris-contractors-near-crucial-deadlines-some-
worry-rivers-are-damaged).
\47\ Laurel Rosenhall, ``As complaints mount about fire clean-up,
disaster contractors give big money to California dems.'' CalMatters,
October 9, 2018 (https://calmatters.org/politics/2018/10/as-complaints-
mount-about-fire-clean-up-disaster-contractor-gives-big-money-to-
california-dems/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems with volume-based debris removal are not limited to Corps
contracts. State debris removal contracts tied to volume led to the
removal of healthy trees and other inappropriate materials following
the devastating Kentucky floods in 2022, as repeatedly highlighted by
Corps advisors.\48\ One homeowner in McRoberts Kentucky reported that
their entire house had been removed without notice while they were
attempting to salvage their belongings.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Jared Bennett and Justin Hicks, ``How flood cleanup left
Kentucky disaster victims feeling violated and vulnerable.'' Kentucky
Lantern, April 27, 2023 (https://kentuckylantern.com/2023/04/27/how-
flood-cleanup-left-kentucky-disaster-victims-feeling-violated-and-
vulnerable/.
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help address these problems, Congress should direct the Corps
to: comprehensively evaluate the standard contract terms and fee
structures that the agency uses in its emergency debris removal
contracts (including volume-based provisions); and make appropriate
modifications to those terms and fee structures to facilitate effective
and expedient removal of disaster-generated debris that poses a risk to
public safety while minimizing the risk of unnecessary debris removal
that harms property, natural systems, or wildlife.
3. Facilitate Nonstructural Solutions
Congress should facilitate the use of voluntary nonstructural
measures to reduce flood risks by removing arbitrary barriers to
implementation and reducing the non-federal cost share for these
measures. This will help reduce flood risks for communities, while
protecting wildlife and saving taxpayer dollars in both the short and
long term.
For more than 50 years, Congress has required the Corps to
carefully assess home elevations, voluntary buyouts, floodproofing and
other types of nonstructural measures to ensure that the Corps is
``formulating the most economically, socially, and environmentally
acceptable means of reducing or preventing flood damages.'' \50\
Congress has repeatedly re-emphasized the need to assess these common-
sense measures in recent Water Resources Development Acts.\51\ Despite
these directives, Corps leadership recently paused all Corps studies
assessing ``non-structural measures at scale''.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 33 USC 701 b-11, WRDA 1974 Sec. 73.
\51\ E.g., Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (Sec. 1149);
Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Sec. Sec. 114, 115, 116, 118,
119); Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (Sec. 8118).
\52\ DCG-CEO Interim Guidance: Projects Involving Non-Structural
Measures at Scale (August 6, 2025). The Corps has not made this Interim
Guidance available to the general public but the description can be
accessed at the Corps Nonstructural Flood Risk Management web page
(``Until further direction from the DCG-CEO, USACE study teams, in
coordination with their vertical teams, will pause completion of final
feasibility reports involving non-structural measures at scale.''). The
purpose of this Interim Guidance was confirmed by Assistant Secretary
for Civil Work Adam Telle during a September 17, 2025 Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee (hearing video at 1.06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long recognized by the Corps, nonstructural measures are
``proven methods'' for reducing flood damages that are ``very
effective'' in both the ``short and long term'' and ``very cost
effective when compared to structural measures.'' \53\ Nonstructural
measures are particularly cost-effective in smaller and rural
communities, and well as more populated areas that flood from multiple
sources.\54\ Nonstructural measures produce $5 to $7 in benefits for
each dollar spent.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ USACE Fact Sheet, Nonstructural Flood Risk Management Measures
(emphasis added). The cost-effectiveness of nonstructural measures is
due in part to the fact that they are ``sustainable over the long term
with minimal costs for operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,
and replacement.'' Id.
\54\ Letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army Adam Telle from Chad
Berginnis, Executive Director of the Association of State Floodplain
Managers (November 12, 2025).
\55\ National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard
Mitigation Saves 2019 Report at 77, 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these substantial benefits, some longstanding Corps
policies undermine the selection and implementation of nonstructural
measures, including by transferring a portion of nonstructural project
costs onto individual homeowners.\56\ For example, to participate in a
Corps-offered home elevation, homeowners must pay out-of-pocket for a
significant array of elevation-associated costs. Since individual
homeowners do not incur out-of-pocket costs for structural projects,
policies that impose those costs onto individual homeowners for
nonstructural measures can discourage selection and participation in
those measures--even when those nonstructural measures are a more cost-
effective and less damaging way to address the community's water
resource challenge than a structural solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ USACE, Guidance for Nonstructural Project Planning and
Implementation (July 22, 2024) (identifying ineligible costs that are
not based on statutory mandates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners who participate in Corps-offered voluntary buyouts can
also incur significant out-of-pocket costs because the buyout awards
are typically too low to cover the cost of a comparable home in an area
that does not flood.\57\ Meanwhile, mobile home owners and renters are
unlikely to receive any benefits at all. These cost transfers create
stark inequities for small, rural and/or low-income communities where
homeowners cannot afford to participate in nonstructural measures but
are not offered a structural solution because it is not economically
justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Buy-out awards are typically very low because they are based
on the depressed home values that plague areas with chronic flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of effective interagency coordination also undermines the
Corps' ability to support nonstructural measures like highly effective
voluntary floodplain easements. Improved coordination could help
facilitate the use of easements, including through targeted use of
wetland reserve easements which are of great interest to landowners as
demonstrated by the heavily oversubscribed USDA Wetland Reserve
Easement Program. For example, landowners in Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee collectively sought to
enroll 176,138 acres into this program in FY2019, but funding was
available to enroll just 18,534 acres (leaving more than 90% of the
applications unfunded).\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Information provided by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service (just 98 applications were funded out of a total of 1,012
submitted for these states). Unfunded wetland reserve easement
applications roll over from year to year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modifying the non-federal sponsor's cost share requirement for
nonstructural features would also facilitate the use of these cost-
effective measures, while saving money for taxpayers and non-federal
sponsors in the long term. Reducing the non-federal cost share to 25%
for nonstructural features would incentivize non-federal sponsors to
pursue these solutions and align the Corps' nonstructural cost-share
requirements with those that apply to grant programs managed by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Importantly, this would also save
taxpayer dollars in the long term as nonstructural solutions typically
cost less and do more to eliminate the risk of future flood damages
than structural projects.
To facilitate the use of voluntary nonstructural measures, Congress
should: (1) require the Corps to include the cost of all work required
to elevate a home as a project cost (e.g., the costs to satisfy
building code requirements triggered by the elevation); (2) direct the
Corps to fund home buy-outs at a level equal to the pre-disaster fair
market value of the home plus a supplemental payment equal to an amount
that will allow the owner to purchase a comparable home in a safe
location within the same county in which the home to be acquired is
located; (3) ensure that renters and mobile home owners dislocated by a
home buy-out receive relocation assistance; (4) clarify the Secretary's
authority to transfer a portion of construction funds to another
federal agency to help implement targeted nonstructural measures; and
(4) reduce the non-federal cost share for nonstructural features to
25%.
4. Utilize Federal and State Expertise
Congress should ensure that Corps planners take advantage of
recommendations made pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
that derive from the special expertise of federal and state fish and
wildlife experts. This is a common-sense, cost-effective way to improve
projects and planning efficiency.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act has integrated federal and
state fish and wildlife expert review into Corps planning since 1958.
The Corps consults with the Fish and Wildlife Service (and where
applicable, the National Marine Fisheries Service) on project-specific
fish and wildlife impacts and on opportunities for mitigating any such
impacts. State fish and wildlife agencies are encouraged to consult
with the Corps on these impacts and opportunities. The Corps is
required to give ``full consideration'' to these expert
recommendations.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These longstanding and critically important reviews facilitate
project planning by ensuring the Corps has the advantage of
recommendations that derive from the special expertise of federal and
state fish and wildlife experts, such as methods and metrics for
assessing fish and wildlife impacts and mitigation opportunities.
However, Corps planners often do not utilize these recommendations,
leading to projects that cause unnecessary harm and mitigation plans
that are ineffective.
Designing, building, and operating water projects to sustain fish
and wildlife populations is critical to the public and the economy.
Wildlife conservation contributes $115.8 billion in total economic
activity and supports more than 575,000 jobs nationwide.\60\ In 2022,
the public spent $394.8 billion on wildlife recreation, $250.2 billion
on wildlife-watching activities, $99.4 billion on fishing, and $45.2
billion on hunting.\61\ Wildlife recreation is enjoyed by tens of
millions of people across the nation \62\, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, ``Conservation Economy
in America: A Snapshot of Total Fish and Wildlife-Associated Direct
Investments and Economic Contributions'' (September 2025).
\61\ U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2022 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation at 3-4 (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/Final_2022-National-Survey_101223-accessible-single-
page.pdf).
\62\ FHWAR, National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Related Recreation, State Surveys (available at https://
www.fishwildlife.org/afwa-informs/national-survey). All participant
numbers are based on participants over 16 years of age who participated
in fish and wildlife recreation within their home state. All
participation percentages are based on the percentage of the state
population over 16 years of age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22% of Arkansas residents (1.6 million people)
15% of Georgia residents (4.8 million people)
19% of Kentucky residents (2.5 million people)
26% of Minnesota residents (2.8 million people)
19% of Missouri residents (2.9 million people)
11% of New York residents (7.6 million people)
14% of Texas residents (11.9 million people)
72% of Washington residents (4.4 million people).
To reduce harm to fish and wildlife resources and improve planning
efficiency, Congress should direct the Corps to utilize recommendations
made pursuant to Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act reviews that derive
from the special expertise of federal and state fish and wildlife
experts to the maximum extent practicable (e.g., recommendations
regarding methods and metrics for assessing wildlife impacts;
assessments and determinations of those impacts, and methods for
effectively mitigating those impacts). Congress should further direct
the Corps to coordinate with State, Territorial, and Tribal Fish and
Wildlife Agencies and ensure projects are consistent with the State
Wildlife Action Plans or similar state-developed wildlife recovery
plans.
5. Clarify the Need to Offset New Impacts from Operations and
Maintenance
Congress should clarify the need to offset new impacts resulting
from activities carried out under updated operating plans and water
control manuals, as required for all Corps projects. This will protect
communities and wildlife, align Corps project goals, and protect
billions of dollars of federal and state investments.
The Corps has been required to offset impacts to fish and wildlife
for almost 40 years, and since 2007 has been required to include a
specific mitigation plan with project studies to help guide this
work.\63\ However, the Corps is not developing these mitigation plans
when it updates operating plans and water control manuals for many
older projects--even when the activities carried out under those plans
will cause significant new harm to fish and wildlife resources and the
plans will remain in place for decades. As a result, the Corps is
leaving the many key benefits that could be achieved through mitigation
off the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 2283(d)(1); Congressional Record Senate,
S11981 September 24, 2007 (specific mitigation plans are required
whenever a project is ``reevaluated for any reason''); see also
Congressional Record--Senate, Water Resources Development Act of 2007,
May 15, 2007 at S6122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, in 2017 the Corps issued the first report in more than
40 years updating the navigation maintenance plan for a 195-mile reach
known as the middle Mississippi River. That report did not include the
specific mitigation plan required by WRDA 2007, despite the Corps'
acknowledgement that the updated plan would destroy a substantial
amount of aquatic habitat and have ``a significant adverse effect on
the fish community.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Final Supplement I to the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Mississippi River Between The Ohio And Missouri Rivers
(Regulating Works) (May 2017) at 35, 190 (the project will result in
the loss of at least ``1,100 acres (8%) of the remaining unstructured
main channel border habitat'' on top of the loss of 35% of this habitat
already caused by the project) and Appendix H, at H-581 (stating
mitigation is not mandatory because the SEIS ``is not a report being
prepared for authorization by Congress'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps' failure to offset impacts from operations often
translates into the agency working at cross purposes. The Corps is
failing to offset severe damage to rivers, wetlands, and floodplains
from project operations even as it works to restore those same types of
habitats through hundreds of Congressionally authorized projects and
studies across the country.
To redress this problem, Congress should clarify the longstanding
requirement to offset new impacts to fish and wildlife resources from
activities carried out after the approval of, and pursuant to, updated
operating plans and water control manuals.
Conclusion
The National Wildlife Federation appreciates the Committee's
commitment to improving Corps planning to protect and restore the
nation's vital water resources for people and wildlife. We respectfully
urge Congress to implement the reforms outlined in this testimony to
make communities safer, ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars, and
allow the nation's treasured wildlife to thrive. The National Wildlife
Federation stands ready to help make these recommendations a reality.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide our recommendations for
the Water Resources Development Act of 2026.
Statement of Paul Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Port
Tampa Bay, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Frederica S. Wilson
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the importance of the Committee's commitment to enact a
biennial Water Resources Development Act, commonly known as WRDA. This
comprehensive and bipartisan legislation is crucial for our national
economic and infrastructure growth.
I am speaking not only as the past Chairman of both the American
Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and the Coalition for America's
Gateways and Trade Corridors (CAGTC), a former Federal Maritime
Commissioner, but most importantly as President and CEO of Port Tampa
Bay. I have been afforded the opportunity to witness firsthand the
tremendous benefits of WRDA's biennial funding for all of America's
ports and trade gateways. Having had the ability throughout my career
to advocate on behalf of hundreds of projects furthers my deep
investment in the continuation of the robust project development and
bipartisan support of projects that benefits all Americans through the
WRDA process.
WRDA's biennial cycle enables planning and execution of vital
projects, including those at Port Tampa Bay. It grants the Army Corps
of Engineers authority for water infrastructure projects, ensuring
maintenance of waterways, flood control, navigation, and environmental
restoration. WRDA supports economic growth, protects our environment,
and ensures the safety and well-being of our communities enhancing the
lives of every American. Congress must continue to support this
biennial legislation and provide the necessary authority to carry out
important projects critical to minimizing delays in updating this
infrastructure to keep up with the demands of maritime commerce.
This testimony will address the Harbor Maintenance provisions
enacted in recent Water Resources Development Acts, concerns regarding
the implementation of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), and the
importance of continued bipartisan support as the Subcommittee begins
its work toward WRDA 2026--particularly as these issues relate to Port
Tampa Bay's federally authorized channel deepening project.
Port Tampa Bay is Florida's largest port by tonnage and is a
critical component of the nation's federal navigation system. The Port
serves as a major gateway in the Gulf, providing fuel for 45% of the
State of Florida, construction materials, agricultural products, and
containerized cargo that support Florida's economy and national supply
chains. Port Tampa Bay's annual economic impact totals $34 billion
annually, generating $1.2 billion in local and state tax revenue and
supports 192,000 direct and indirect jobs. The federally authorized
deepening of Port Tampa Bay's main ship channel from 43 feet to 47 feet
is essential to maintaining navigational safety, improving operational
efficiency, and accommodating the larger vessels that increasingly
serve U.S. ports. The Subcommittee's longstanding leadership in
advancing WRDA authorizations has been instrumental in allowing
projects such as Port Tampa Bay's channel deepening to move forward.
Congress's approval of Port Tampa Bay's General Reevaluation Report
(GRR) in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 reflects the
bipartisan commitment of this Subcommittee and the full Committee to
modernizing the nation's navigation infrastructure. That authorization
enables the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Port Tampa Bay to advance
project design and construction, with the Port currently expending non-
federal matching funds to complete the Project Development and
Engineering (PD&E) phase. This partnership between Congress, the Corps,
and non-federal sponsors exemplifies the WRDA model--federal
authorization coupled with local investment to deliver nationally
significant infrastructure.
Port Tampa Bay strongly supports the Harbor Maintenance provisions
enacted in recent WRDAs, including reforms intended to ensure the full
utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) for its
intended purpose. These provisions are critical to addressing dredging
backlogs and maintaining the reliability of federally authorized
navigation channels. However, Port Tampa Bay is increasingly concerned
with recent pauses and delays in the execution of U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers navigation projects associated with HMTF expenditures. These
disruptions undermine the certainty Congress has sought to provide
through WRDA and create challenges for ports that are making
substantial non-federal investments based on expected federal
participation. As an example, for a project of the scale and complexity
of Port Tampa Bay's channel deepening, funding predictability and
timely Corps execution are essential. Delays increase costs, complicate
construction sequencing, and risk diminishing the return on investments
already made by the Port and its partners.
As the Subcommittee begins consideration of WRDA 2026, Port Tampa
Bay respectfully urges the continuation of the bipartisan approach that
has long defined WRDA. Stable authorization policy, transparent HMTF
implementation, and uninterrupted navigation project delivery are
essential to allowing ports to plan responsibly and leverage non-
federal funding effectively. Port Tampa Bay strongly supports the
Harbor Maintenance provisions enacted in recent WRDAs and appreciates
the leadership of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
in advancing these reforms. We respectfully request continued oversight
of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, timely execution of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers navigation projects, and sustained bipartisan
collaboration as WRDA 2026 is developed. The successful completion and
long-term maintenance of Port Tampa Bay's channel deepening project
depend on these commitments, and we thank the Subcommittee for its
continued support of the nation's ports and water resources
infrastructure.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crawford for 5
minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Camillo, you probably know this better than anybody in
the room or--but just for the purposes of a refresher, I am
going to ask that you indulge me on this. The Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 established a National Committee on
Levee Safety to make recommendations to Congress on a Federal
levee safety program. Although the committee submitted its
recommendations in 2009, it has remained dormant since.
In 2022, the Corps and FEMA signaled plans to reestablish
the committee with a scope that appeared to exceed
congressional authority and limit independent recommendations,
raising concerns among levee owners. All that effort was
withdrawn in 2023. The Corps has indicated plans to reestablish
the committee.
Levee owners report increasing top-down directives and
internally developed policies from the Corps with insufficient
stakeholder input, even from levee owners with a proven record
of meeting Federal levee standards.
In response to this, during WRDA 2024, I submitted a
request that would create a levee owner's advisory board to
restore the collaborative approach to flood protection that
many levee owners in my district and the larger Mississippi
Valley believe has been ignored by the Corps.
That said, can you speak to the impacts that you have
observed from your levee owner-operators on the failed National
Committee on Levee Safety?
Mr. Camillo. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
Levee operators, they are on the front lines. They are out
there on those levees every day. Nobody knows more, nobody
knows better how to protect those levees than they do. To
protect people, protect property, infrastructure, they know it.
They know the risks better than anyone because they live behind
those levees and they work behind those levees. Anything that
gives them more involvement, more oversight is going to be most
welcomed by any levee operator anywhere along the Mississippi
River.
To a levee district, I think they would tell you that levee
safety program, Public Law 84-99, other programs, are really
cutting their legs out from underneath them, that they are
imposing mandates, many of them unfunded, that are just
literally kicking their legs out from under them.
The CEOs, the chief engineers of those levee boards, are
usually hired by elected levee board members, and those levee
board members have people they need to answer to as well.
And so they are imposing those mandates to give them
oversight, to give them more voice in shaping policy and
management would be most welcome.
Had the Midwest Flood Control Association been in existence
when you received that letter of support--I think a few years
ago it was signed off on by the Mississippi Valley Flood
Control Association, the Missouri River Levee and Drainage
Districts, and the Association of Louisiana Levee Boards--we
would have signed that letter.
Mr. Crawford. Is it sufficient to say that overhauling this
defunct committee and creating a levee owner's advisory board
is necessary in reengaging local owner-operators of Federal
levee systems to improve flood protection?
Mr. Camillo. Sir, I didn't quite catch the question.
Mr. Crawford. I said, do you think it is sufficient to say
that overhauling this defunct committee and creating a levee
owner's advisory board is necessary in reengaging local owner-
operators of Federal levee systems to improve flood protection?
Mr. Camillo. Yes, Congressman. I think that what you would
need there is--I believe the old committee, when it was
dissolved--even before it was dissolved--did not have--for
instance, the fact it was waived, there was no accountability,
no transparency there. I think that would be warranted for
anything going forward.
Mr. Crawford. Also, you know this very well, some of the
highest rated levees in the Nation, and my levee districts, are
continuously improving their levees, as you have indicated in
your comments. Along the Mississippi, White, and Arkansas
Rivers, you find hundreds of structurally sound and
professionally managed levees. Despite that, the levee
districts within my district are constantly battling FEMA and
Corps due to overarching rules and regulations.
As the executive vice president of the Midwest Flood
Control Association, which you represent roughly 75 levee
districts yourself, can you speak on the challenges presented
by FEMA and the Corps that directly impact your district's
ability and the communities they protect?
Mr. Camillo. Yes, Congressman. So on the upper Mississippi,
take this flow frequency study, for instance, we don't have the
MRT project up there. It is a lot different system. It is all
Public Law 84-99, if they are in any program whatsoever.
Take a flow frequency study. If you release those results,
the Corps needs that data. If they study that data and they
release and it changes the flow frequency, okay, the flood
line, the flood profiles, without any solutions--so there is a
potential solution out there that is being studied now. The
last time we studied something for the upper Mississippi was
1999 that resulted in a plan that was sent to Congress in 2008,
but it didn't recommend a plan. It studied a host of
alternatives, but it didn't make any recommendation, yet the
new flood profile was out there. So now we are getting ready to
release another flood profile.
We are very happy. We have talked with the Corps, they have
convinced us, we are assured that they are using the right
science to develop this flow frequency study. Unlike the MRT
project, if you have a flood profile change in the MRT, you
automatically can just raise your levees. I am simplifying
things, but you don't need additional authorization. You just
have to wait in line for more appropriations. That is not the
case on the upper Mississippi.
There is a tool, and that is called section 408
permissions. But the way section 408 permissions are being
interpreted on the upper Mississippi River right now leaves
very little room for levee raises. They will widen your levees,
they will do it for relief wells, things of that sort, but
going higher, they are putting so much high contingencies on
that that it is really unachievable for your local levee
districts.
Mr. Crawford. I have to cut you off there, Mr. Camillo. I
am sorry, but I have exceeded my time by a minute, so I will
yield.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Friedman for 5
minutes.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the
witnesses for coming here and joining us today.
The projects and studies authorized by WRDA help with
waterways, navigable channels, water quality, et cetera, and in
my district, probably the most important one of these is the
L.A. River. We have been working for years to upgrade that
infrastructure to prevent flooding, which people don't remember
was a huge problem in Los Angeles and sometimes still is, and
we have a huge rain event coming just this week.
We are also making that river accessible to the public in
building parks and bikeways along it. In fact, just a couple
months ago, I brought Ranking Member Larsen, and he was really
shocked to see the number of people that were using that
recreation in a dense, park-poor area on a weekday afternoon.
So I look forward to continuing to see that resource
revitalized for my community.
And I want to come back to that, but first I want to turn
to a key priority for the ports of Los Angeles, having funded
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund with revenues from the Harbor
Maintenance Tax, which is the HMT. In fact, donor ports like
Long Beach account for 50 percent of all HMT revenue, yet
historically, they have received less than 2 percent of HMT
revenue in return. So they are donor ports and they are not
getting that revenue back.
So in 2020, Congress enacted section 102 of WRDA 2020,
which provided 12 percent of annual HMTF revenue for expanded
uses at donor and energy ports.
Mr. Hacegaba, even though this funding was authorized in
2020, as you know, it took 4 years for the Port of Long Beach
to receive a payment of $49 million. Can you elaborate on how
the port is using that funding and also what you will be using
that kind of funding for in the future? Briefly, if you can do
it.
Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
It is important to distinguish between the donor and energy
port funding allocated through WRRDA 2014, which is continuing
to be allocated. And the additional funding through that, what
you referenced, section 102 for in-water expanded uses, that
was authorized in WRDA 2020.
So what that means for us, the Nation's second busiest
port, a massive economic engine that generates nearly 3 million
jobs and moves cargo through every congressional district, what
that meant for us is, in contrast, section 102 funding, which
was not included in the fiscal year 2025 Corps workplan, is
about $380 million nationwide. For Long Beach, that is a
difference of $5.7 million, without section 102, versus $49
million that we received the year prior. So you are talking
about nearly a 90-percent drop in funding that is critical to
keep this project that is important for national security and
the national transportation system to be delivered.
Ms. Friedman. Sure. And we all saw during COVID that the
ports are so essential in terms of supply chain. We saw boats
not being able to get in and out and what that meant for
consumers, what that meant for prices. So I look forward to
engaging with my colleagues to make sure that the funds are
allocated as congressionally directed.
I want to go back now to the L.A. River, and I am going to
direct my questions to Ms. Ufner. I want to talk about, and it
was brought up before, the deeply concerning directive that was
issued on October 15 by the Department of Defense. They like to
call it the Department of War because I guess they don't
believe in defense or peace. But this directive requires the
Corps districts to obtain approval from the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of War for Legislative Affairs before
engagement with Federal or State-elected officials or their
staff.
Now, we have ongoing communication with the Corps all the
time about issues on the L.A. River, for approval of new
bridges that have been funded, for flood improvements so that
we keep our communities safe. We have had several conversations
with the Corps' L.A. District over the course of this year to
get critical updates on ongoing projects, like the restoration
project. But now they can't talk to us. They literally, under
this directive, can't talk to a Member of Congress before
getting signoff from the Secretary of War, which makes no sense
to me at all.
I want to know from you how you think that this new
bureaucracy and bloat is going to impact costs, how it is going
to impact the ability to protect people from flooding, to get
these funded projects done at a time when tariffs are already
driving the costs up increasingly every single week, what kind
of effect is this going to have?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
This could potentially have an impact definitely on the
WRDA process, let alone with everyday conversations with the
Corps. The challenge is, if you have all three Federal--all
three partners work together on WRDA, making sure communities
are safe with water, the communication is key at the end of the
day, because you have to communicate what is working, what is
not working.
The Corps has to have the ability to go to Congress and
say, hey, here are some of the water problems within the
communities, and here are some of the non-Federal sponsors that
have come to me. The non-Federal sponsors need to go to the
Corps and say, hey, I am having this problem, could you help us
design something where I can take to Congress. And if that leg
is taken out of the equation, it may impact the future WRDA
cycle.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you. Well, I am extremely concerned
about the impact of this on life and safety, so I want to thank
you so much for being here.
And I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Babin for 5
minutes.
Dr. Babin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
everyone. And I just want to thank all of our illustrious
witnesses for being here today.
I represent Texas' 36th District, which includes numerous
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects, such as the Houston Ship
Channel, the Ike Dike, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Cedar Bayou,
Anahuac Channel, and many, many others.
And, Ms. Ufner, if I could ask you the first question. As
president and CEO of the National Waterways Conference, you
represent non-Federal sponsors across the country who partner
with the Corps and often shoulder a significant local cost for
projects. Many Texas communities are frustrated by the long
delays, rising costs, inconsistent Corps requirements, even
after Congress has already acted.
What specific reforms should Congress prioritize in WRDA
2026 to speed up project delivery, control cost growth, and
ensure non-Federal sponsors, especially in States like Texas,
are not bearing unnecessary burdens once a project is
authorized?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for your question. There are existing
provisions in previous WRDA bills that address ability of non-
Federal sponsors to take on some responsibilities, like section
203 for the studies, 204 for the construction, 1043. In
reality, these on the ground have not been working as intended
because of the number of requirements that are being put on
non-Federal sponsors by the Corps.
The challenge seems to be that there are maybe multiple
cooks in the kitchen, and so if there is a way to give more
authority or give non-Federal sponsors the ability to take on
more responsibility, because at the end of the day, we want to
get these projects to the finish line.
Dr. Babin. Okay.
Ms. Ufner. And creating a win-win.
Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. One real quick, if you don't mind.
How important is it that WRDA 2026 focuses not just on new
authorizations, but on ensuring Corps fully and consistently
implements reforms that Congress has already enacted? How
important is that?
Ms. Ufner. I apologize. I missed part of that question.
Dr. Babin. Okay. How important is it that WRDA 2026 focuses
not just on new authorizations, but on ensuring that the Corps
fully and consistently implements what the Congress has already
enacted?
Ms. Ufner. That is a great question. To your point, the
ASA's office is currently going through implementation for WRDA
2024. There are a number of provisions yet to be implemented.
There are some provisions that won't need legislation, that
simply need guidance or implementation, but there are
definitely some that may need congressional oversight that you
may want to look at how certain provisions within WRDA are
working, where are the pain points, and why those pain points
exist.
Dr. Babin. Thank you. Mr. Jones, you have worked closely
with the Corps on major flood protection, navigation, and port
projects, and you have seen firsthand how delays and
uncertainty affect local communities and private investment.
From an industry and delivery standpoint, what changes to WRDA
policy or Army Corps practices would most improve certainty,
accelerate timelines, and reduce the risk of cost escalation
for critical infrastructure projects?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. As
you were alluding to, and Julie was as well, the study
requirements, Congressman, are oftentimes too rigid. The study
requirements can be protracted over many years and in some
cases decades, so working as best we can to reduce that
timeline and to reduce the study period and ultimately get
these projects into implementation is critical.
Again, working with the Corps of Engineers to understand
which agency is best suited to lead the project. In all
instances, perhaps it is not the Corps of Engineers. Perhaps it
is a non-Federal sponsor, and giving those and ensuring that
those agencies and non-Federal participants have the tools and
the resources and the latitude by which to ultimately achieve
the project goal.
Quite simply, not to overthink the project and to overstudy
the project, but to understand what is the intent of the
project, what are we trying to do to best serve our
communities, and ultimately find the quickest solution.
Sometimes it may involve the private sector, either through
private funding, through an innovative financing mechanism, or
just alternative delivery applications.
And again, just simply, Congressman, thinking outside the
box and ultimately trying to achieve what the project is
ultimately trying to achieve.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Jones. I have a couple more
questions, but I will have to submit those. Thank you to the
other witnesses as well.
Yield back.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms.
Scholten for 5 minutes.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Chair Collins, Ranking Member
Wilson. Welcome to our guests, our witnesses today. Thank you
for your thoughtful preparation and helping us get a better
handle on what we hope will be a very productive WRDA
reauthorization process.
I come from Michigan's Third Congressional District. Proud
to represent the good people of west Michigan in Congress where
water is a way of life. This is so critical.
I am eager for our committee's work on what will hopefully
be a seventh consecutive bipartisan Water Resources Development
Act to ensure Congress is helping communities navigate local
water resource challenges, boost regional economies, create
jobs, and protect our natural environment. This process is
inherently a collaborative effort between Congress, the Corps,
and local stakeholders.
I think we all can agree that it works best when we are in
communication with one another instead of having a single top-
down approach from Washington that does not take local
stakeholders into consideration.
However, a new Trump administration process requires
approval from so-called Department of War, the Department of
Defense, before local Corps districts share regional priorities
for upcoming WRDA. While I am hopeful this routine exchange of
information will eventually be green lit by the Department of
War, I am concerned that this policy will get in the way of a
robust and thoughtful WRDA 2026.
Dr. Hacegaba, can you speak to how critical it is that
there is congressional coordination between Congress and the
Corps district offices and local stakeholders like yourselves,
how critical that is for a thoughtful WRDA process.
Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
There's an old saying, teamwork makes the dream work.
Ms. Scholten. Absolutely.
Mr. Hacegaba. And when it comes t the important work before
this subcommittee, it really takes next level coordination and
collaboration to get things done. Case in point, the project
that we are advocating here for on behalf of the Port of Long
Beach, this is something that we have been talking to the Army
Corps for years now.
Having their partnership, having their engagement and
involvement throughout every phase of the project has brought
this project to what it is now, and what we are advocating for
today is in WRDA 2026 to authorize the PACR, which will help us
to deliver this as quickly as possible.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Jones, it seems like you maybe wanted to say something.
Invite your comment as well.
Mr. Jones. Well, I was just going to piggyback off of what
he said. Again, the old saying is, all politics is local,
right?
Ms. Scholten. Yes.
Mr. Jones. As we all know in this room, local knowledge of
projects, boots on the ground as was talked about with levee
authorities. I had the opportunity to grow up with individuals
who were farmers and served on levee boards. They knew the
levee systems and the flood control systems better than anyone.
Ms. Scholten. Absolutely.
Mr. Jones. I would just encourage, again, as we have talked
about this morning, increased communication that is driven from
boots on the ground all the way up to State oversight as well
as Federal oversight.
Ms. Scholten. Absolutely. I know our office is going above
and beyond being proactive, doing a lot of outreach to our
local stakeholders on this issue. We invite feedback throughout
this process. We have got to get this right. There is a lot at
stake.
I am so proud, as I mentioned, to represent so much of the
Great Lakes Water Basin, miles of Lake Michigan shoreline as
well as a small workhorse harbor in Grand Haven. This harbor
supports over 450 jobs and generates $88 million annually in
regional economic impact.
Earlier this year, Grand Haven's inner harbor was
threatened by a potential delay in dredging, something that we
know is threatening a lot of our waterways. A delayed dredging
cycle could have increased shipping costs by upwards of 30
percent at a time of already crippling inflation and disrupted
supply chains, could have resulted in an estimated to $3 to $5
million in additional costs that would have been passed down to
hard-working families in west Michigan and across the country.
While I was able to work alongside the Corps as well as
State and local leaders, again, those local politics, teamwork
making the dream work, to ensure the project proceeded on
schedule, this story emphasizes how critical the Corps' work
truly is and the good deal of work that Members of Congress
have to do to ensure that these projects continue to move
forward.
That is why it is so concerning to me that the Trump
administration has proposed over $2 billion in funding cuts to
the Corps. The President's budget also requests a 15-percent
reduction to Corps construction and a staggering 58-percent
slash to operations and maintenance activities. We simply can't
afford not to keep these dredging cycles on schedule.
Ms. Ufner, can you touch on the importance of reliable
robust funding to ensure that ports like mine back home in
Grand Haven and those throughout the Nation can remain
operational and best support local economies to keep our supply
chains moving.
Ms. Ufner. We do support robust funding for these purposes.
Thank you.
Ms. Scholten. Thank you. Agree that it is essential to make
sure that we keep the funding levels where they are. Fantastic.
I am seeing a nod. I will take that as an affirmative yes. One
thing that I am incredibly passionate about is permitting
reform.
I apologize. I got so excited, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Good.
Ms. Scholten. I will yield back. I will submit my question
for the record.
Mr. Collins. There you go. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Bost for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Camillo, I am going to say these things, but I don't
have to tell you this. I think you know my district just as
well as I do since you live there. My district in southern
Illinois has three separate navigable waterways with everything
that is on the Mississippi almost to St. Louis, everything on
the Ohio as long as it touches the State of Illinois, and then
the Kaskaskia.
With that being said, our levee systems are vitally
important for protecting farmlands, homes, and communities. We
all know how to stack sandbags. We all know how to fill
sandbags. We know what the importance of our levee systems are
and the concerns that we have. While I appreciate the work of
the Corps and what it does to help ensure the waterways are
safe and functioning, I have heard a lot of concerns from
constituents about the potential impact that the flow frequency
study could have on flood insurance and levee certification for
levee districts on the river.
Do you share those concerns, and can you provide an example
of impacts that could be affected if the profile changes?
Mr. Camillo. Yes. Thanks, Congressman, for the question. So
there are two different areas I would touch on. First is
agriculture. A lot of our levee districts in your region
especially are agricultural, and you are looking at around, on
average, about 15,000 acres per levee district.
There are some that are 10, some that are 25, but around
15. In talking with the levee operators there, if they were to
lose their 50-year flood--their flood status on the 50 years,
if that drops below there, they are looking at anywhere from
$1,000 to $2,000 per acre so that is $15 to $30 million per
acre at a time when the ag industry is kind of suffering the
way it is.
On the flip side of that, the urban areas, the Metro East,
Southwestern Illinois Flood Prevention District, I think a
sliver of that is in your district. That levee district
protects 150,000 people in 25 different communities, parts of
Interstate 55, parts of Interstate 64, parts of Interstate 70,
all those refineries over there in Hartford and Roxana.
It protects about $18 billion, 60,000 jobs and $18 billion
in property values. If they were to lose their 500-year
accreditation status, we are looking at a 20- to 30-percent
drop in property values. That is a $3.6 to $5.4 billion drop in
property values.
Mr. Bost. Well, additionally, can you kind of speak to the
importance of--I know what the problems are, but as far as
flood protection levee districts as it relates to navigation,
like what we have had the problem with whenever the Len Small
levee blew in the--they still call it the holiday flood, but it
was no holiday for me.
Mr. Camillo. Yes, sir. I am familiar with that issue as
well. Look, navigation improvements and flood control, it is a
symbiotic relationship. You can't have one without the other.
The navigation, the improvements for navigation, the
improvements for flood control, they work together in tandem
like the wheels of a bicycle making sure everything operates.
So you have revetments and dikes, those protect the levees from
scour. You have the levees. Without the levees, that river
would run bluff to bluff, and so the two work together to lock
that channel into place to make it usable at high water and low
water.
Mr. Bost. Yes. So my other question I have got here is, and
concerns deal with the fact that a lot of our--we talked about
the ag areas. When the levee systems were put up and the levee
districts were created, property tax in the State of Illinois
is what was used to try to keep and maintain the levees.
Unfortunately, that works in a community like a
municipality that can have the property tax level they need to
repair those. Do you have any suggestions on what we would do
in the future with my ag levees? Because they are barely able
to keep them up because of that.
Mr. Camillo. You are talking about individual agricultural
levees?
Mr. Bost. No, no. I am talking about the levees that need
to be improved in our levee districts that usually have ag land
that pay their taxes.
Mr. Camillo. If they lose those property values and their
property taxes go down, that is less money that they are going
to have to maintain and operate those levees themselves because
they have a lot of--if there is a repair, there is a cost share
that comes into it if there is a flood, but for the most part,
they are maintaining this, operating this 365 on their own
dollars. That makes that levee less safe if they don't have the
money to maintain and operate it properly.
Mr. Bost. I appreciate that. My time is about expired, and
I will yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Pou for 5
minutes.
Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me just thank
each and every one of our witnesses for your testimony. Let me
also thank Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson for
holding this very important hearing today.
My home State of New Jersey depends on waterways, ports,
and flood protection to stay economically competitive. From the
Passaic River to the Meadowlands, our communities are grappling
with aging infrastructure, rising flood risk, and clogged
navigation channels that threaten safety and economic growth.
This is to say nothing of critical decades-old flood mitigation
projects that remain in limbo.
Maintaining safe navigation in these waterways is no easy
feat. It requires a functioning Federal Government to
collaborate with State and local government to ensure that
community needs are addressed.
Last year, we saw the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey partner with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make
substantial improvements for the port's berth maintenance
dredging, the berth's rehabilitation, and the berth's
reconstruction.
If we are to build on this success, then a fresh bipartisan
WRDA must continue to equip communities with the tools to
deliver the long-term solutions for modern, resilient ports,
waterways, and flooding infrastructure.
I have two questions, and I hope to be able to get to them
very quickly. First question, Mr. Hacegaba, as COO of one of
the largest, busiest ports in the Nation, you have firsthand
experience managing large-scale navigation infrastructure.
As a Representative of New Jersey, home to the New York and
New Jersey Port Authority, I am particularly interested in how
Federal cost-sharing requirements affect port planning. Under
WRDA 1986, non-Federal sponsors of navigation channel
improvement must repay an additional 10 percent of the total
project cost at the end of the construction to cover the U.S.
Army Corps' administrative expenses.
My question to you is how does the requirement to repay
affect your ability to plan, finance, and budget for harbor
deepening projects?
Mr. Hacegaba. Congresswoman, thank you very much for your
question and your interest in ports. I like to say that before
the pandemic, ports were invisible, and all of a sudden they
were thrust into the spotlight, and all of a sudden they are
famous, right?
I think it is fair to say that investments in ports like
ours and the one that you represent, New York-New Jersey are
investments in the Nation's economy and Nation's transportation
system.
And when it comes to these investments, we can't do it
alone. We rely on deep partnerships with Federal agencies, and
WRDA has become instrumental in our ability to deliver these
projects that not only deepen and widen channels, but enable us
to move more cargo, and the more cargo we move through our
port, the more cargo we can shift to every single congressional
district and the better we can serve the American people.
Ms. Pou. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you for that.
In your testimony, you point out the unequal distribution
of donors and energy transfer allocations at the Port of Long
Beach. This is a concern that I share with our port authority
which didn't receive this funding in 2023 and in 2025.
So how would a 12-percent Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
allocation for donor and energy transfer ports build your
capacity and what kind of financial return on the investment do
you foresee for the HMTs?
Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
So for the Port of Long Beach, we generate about $400 million
in HMT revenues a year.
We estimate we get about 2 to 3 percent back, so that gives
you a sense of the inequity in terms of how much we generate
versus what we get, and when you look at the projects that we
are collaborating with the Army Corps on, for example, those
funds are necessary to deliver these projects that are critical
to the Nation's security and to the American economy.
Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you so very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Taylor [presiding]. The gentlelady yields.
Representative Burlison is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Ms. Ufner, in your testimony, you highlighted
a key challenge that non-Federal sponsors frequently encounter
when it comes to attempting to deliver water resource projects
in a timely way, apparently, the internal governance structure
of the Army Corps of Engineers. Can you shed some light on how
the internal governance of the Corps has contributed to these
delays?
Ms. Ufner. It is probably very similar to Congress when you
have committees, subcommittees, and--oh, this is a new one,
subcommittees with the districts, the committees with the
divisions, and of course Congress with headquarters, so it is
about consulting with all levels to make sure that things are
aligned.
And there are entities who may have different views about
what should be required, and sometimes that is where a lot of
the challenges come with non-Federal sponsors. This back and
forth about what is feasible within their Project Partnership
Agreement and what is not, so that is what is causing some of
the delays.
Mr. Burlison. So would you say that they are operating in a
way that is kind of top-down? They actually take direction from
the top or the local agencies, or is somewhere along the line
the direction and the message getting lost by the time it
actually gets to the local office?
Ms. Ufner. It may depend on the issue, but there are
definitely--there are chains of command that go up and back
down about--there are more efforts from the Federal level
headquarters to delegate more to the districts. Sometimes the
question becomes--there has been a number of staff turnover
also at USACE where there is a lot more uncertainty there and
the checks and balances within the agency.
Mr. Burlison. How have these internal delays impacted the
costs and actually the people that need these resources?
Ms. Ufner. Whether it be permitting, studies, projects, we
have found that there have been numerous delays where if
something might have been estimated to take several months but
may take several years to even get approval. Earlier in the
testimony, I talked about section 203, 204. Those authorities
ideally should be a quick turnaround and it could take several
years to get.
Mr. Burlison. It is unfortunate.
Ms. Ufner. But the whole process is very complex.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Mr. Jones, in your testimony, you emphasize that expanding
private-sector partnerships is essential to addressing our
Nation's growing water resource challenges. Can you expand on
how these private-sector partnerships could play an important
role?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Yes,
as I said in my testimony and earlier, P3s do have a role to
play here. Oftentimes, the ability to bring private capital to
bear on a project oftentimes has the potential to accelerate
those projects.
Public-private partnerships are not a silver bullet for
delivery. We know that. But there are many water resources
projects where it has proven to be successful. The Corps, in
fact, has piloted the implementation and the execution of
public-private partnerships and water resources already and
with great success. I would encourage the subcommittee as you
are looking at the next WRDA legislation to further encourage
the utilization of P3s in this space.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Mr. Hacegaba, in your testimony, you emphasized that WRDA
plays a critical role in strengthening our economy. Its impact
is clear to me from my home State of Missouri. Just in the year
2024 alone, we exported approximately $401 million in soybeans
alone, contributing to, I think, a total of $3 billion in
exports, even though Missouri is a landlocked State. We have
tremendous rivers.
Can you elaborate on how important WRDA is in maintaining
our strong U.S. supply chain and the economies even for States
like Missouri?
Mr. Hacegaba. Thank you for that question, Congressman,
critically important. By deepening and widening our channels,
we can handle more of your soybeans, export those to global
markets, and that strengthens jobs and Missouri's economy, and
it strengthens the Nation's economy.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Taylor. Gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Ms.
Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Dr. Hacegaba, your testimony highlighted how the Water
Resources Development Act plays a critical role in
strengthening national security. I agree with you.
The Potomac River is the only source of drinking water for
the Nation's Capital. The Army Corps of Engineers produces the
drinking water for the Nation's Capital, which has only 1 day
of backup water supply. If the river becomes unusable for
drinking water, which could happen at any time, whether through
manmade or mutual events, national security, the operations of
the Federal Government, DC residents, and the National Capital
region's economy would be at risk.
What are the risks to national security with the Nation's
Capital having only one source of drinking water and only 1 day
of backup water supply?
Mr. Hacegaba. Congresswoman, thank you very much for your
question. The Port of Long Beach is one of 18 federally
designated commercial strategic seaports. This is one of the
fundamental reasons why what happens in our port affects the
Nation's security.
But I can also tell you that WRDA is instrumental in
helping ports like ours, especially donor ports, energy
transfer ports deepen and widen channels to accommodate more
cargo, and those cargo flows feed into the Nation's economy,
and this is why it is critically important that we continue to
invest in ports like ours in order to continue strengthening
the Nation's security.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Ms. Ufner, in your testimony, you discussed the benefits of
flood risk reduction and stream restoration projects and the
importance of maintaining steady progress for these projects
once authorized. With the increase in extreme weather events,
including heavy rains due to climate change, how important is
it that Congress provide full funding projects?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for the question. To me, this is
almost a twofold answer that, first off, authorization to
address these issues is really, really important, and each
community, as you know from being in DC, has their own unique
challenges, and appropriations are very important.
When we talk about water projects, at least from our non-
Federal sponsors standpoint, we are often seeing a disconnect
between authorization and appropriations because of the amount
of funds that are available. The water needs within our
communities are significant and the need to fund them also
exists.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Ufner, what steps can Congress take to
prioritize the construction of these projects?
Ms. Ufner. From within the local communities, correct,
Congresswoman? On what Congress should do to----
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Ms. Ufner. Congress really should consider looking at
provisions that they have passed in previous WRDA bills to
assess what is working to address the needs within local
communities, and if something is not working, really dig into
the reasons why to determine how we can move forward, because
at the end of the day, all of our communities just want to be
safe and have a reliable supply of drinking water.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentlelady yields. The Chair
recognizes Representative Mast for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate that greatly.
I want to thank you all for your testimony today. Little
bit of it I caught in person. A little bit of it I caught on
the screen, but I appreciate all the testimony. I have some
questions for you, Ms. Ufner, and the rest of the panel in
part, but we will see. Would you say that every community has
their own individual needs? You recognize that? I think we all
can, right? You have seen one community, you have seen one
community, or just simply put, would you say all communities
have the same needs? Frank and obvious question.
Ms. Ufner. Simple answer. We have always said if you have
seen one port, one levee district, you have seen one port or
levee district.
Mr. Mast. Right. They are all unique. They have unique
Representatives, unique stakeholders, unique ecological inputs.
They are all unique. So I deal a lot with Lake Okeechobee in
the State of Florida managed by the Army Corps of Engineers
based on an operations schedule called LOSOM: Lake Okeechobee
System Operating Manual.
The schedule dictates charges based on lake level, weather
forecasting, safety, time of year, what the levels of the lake
are right at that time, a host of different things.
And in certain circumstances, the Army Corps of Engineers
will open gates, send water through the St. Lucie River and the
Caloosahatchee Canal, these are two separate sides of this
lake, into estuaries which are described as beneficial by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
So when you look at that, except transfers to the St. Lucie
Estuary, they are not beneficial, they are not essential, they
actually don't do anything good for our community. We want
zero. And you go to the other side of the State and they want
some of those discharges. It is a good thing for them. It goes
to the point of if you have seen one, you have seen one.
So my constituents, they don't want to get harmed by this.
Currently folks on the west, they are begging for water
transfers because they don't have enough water. Like I said, my
community is saying don't give us any water, none of it is
beneficial to us.
So do you think the Corps should listen to local people and
include their feedback to determine what is beneficial,
impactful, or harmful when it comes to water quality and
environmental protections?
Ms. Ufner. Communication is really key, and if the Corps is
partnering with local communities, that is when the listening
and the coordinating becomes really important, and we can take
the top-up or the top-down approach to this, and it has always
been NWC's perspective that the local communities understand
their local needs the best and that is what communications need
to occur.
Mr. Mast. Yes. Fair enough.
Doctor, how are you doing today?
Mr. Hacegaba. Very well, Congressman. Thank you.
Mr. Mast. Good. Glad to hear it. Are there divers operating
in the Port of Long Beach at any given time inspecting things
such as vessel hulls and divers operating there, inspecting
hulls and moorings, things like that?
Mr. Hacegaba. The short answer is yes, Congressman, there
are divers, yes.
Mr. Mast. Seems obvious, right? If these inspections
couldn't be undertaken because the divers couldn't see their
hand in front of their face due to water quality--I know a lot
of different water bodies, different water qualities--would the
port have to shut down?
Mr. Hacegaba. Well, anything that gets in the way of
commerce or anything that gets in the way of life, human safety
would be a cause for concern, and we would evaluate in
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard.
Mr. Mast. There you go. I think you pointed to it well,
right? Anything that is a cause for safety is something that we
need to be looking at. I deal with it in my community. Again,
we are supposed to have Bahama blue water in our area. We get
nasty discharges out of this lake that end up making it look
like guacamole, and I mean that literally. Sometimes it is so
thick that birds can walk on top of it, fish get suspended in
it because of what they discharge unnecessarily into my
community. Thank you all again for your testimony today. I wish
you all the best.
Yield back.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from the great State of Ohio, Ms.
Sykes for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you very much and looking forward to
discussing some of the local projects that we have in my
community in Ohio's 13th Congressional District, and thank you,
one, for your patience and your time today to all of our
witnesses.
So as I said, I am from Ohio's 13th District in northeast
Ohio, and we have areas like Peninsula, Boston Township, Boston
Heights, and the residential areas neighboring the Cuyahoga
Valley National Park.
These areas are expanding, which is fantastic, because it
is the best place on Earth, of course, but this level of
expansion does require smaller communities to modernize their
water systems to provide accessible and affordable water and
sewer services to their residents. And it helps to incentivize
businesses to move into and invest in the communities, but we
know how hard it is for a municipality, especially small ones,
to acquire their own water treatment facilities.
I often tell a story about a local mayor when I was first
elected and I asked him what can I do to help, and he looked at
me and he said, ``I don't know, because no one's ever asked me
that question.''
In a couple of months, he figured it out and has been
asking me, thankfully, for a lot of support, which has mostly
been around water and sewer projects. And so in 2024, I was
able to secure two WRDA authorizations, one for Summit County
and one for Stark County, and despite these efforts, my
appropriation requests for these were not included in this
year's appropriations.
I understand my grievance regarding appropriations is not
adequate for this particular panel or committee, but it is
still worth stating that when a community who expects these
resources to come, who quite literally said no one has ever
asked me how I can help you, we provide the help, but then they
are not funded, it is pretty devastating and unfortunate.
And so my question for you, Ms. Ufner, is I know you are
mostly non-Federal sponsors of Corps of Engineers projects, but
can you talk a little bit about how critical the funding part
is? I mean, it is great that we authorize the language, but the
funding, I see, Mr. Jones, you are nodding, too, so please jump
in after Ms. Ufner.
Ms. Ufner. Yes, the funding is important. I do want to take
a step back here, because this is one of the things that we
really hear commonly with our non-Federal sponsors or potential
non-Federal sponsors. We got money in WRDA, when are we going
to get it, and I really think it is partially an educational
process, taking a step back on behalf of all of us saying,
okay, we got money in WRDA, now we have to go to appropriations
and really frame all over again why this project is so
important to the community.
Mrs. Sykes. Mr. Jones.
Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congresswoman. You saw me nodding
there. Look, obviously, the difference in authorization and
appropriation is critical, right? And most Americans don't
realize that construction new start appropriations is another
significant hurdle that can take years, sometimes decades after
a project is authorized, and so there is a false sense of hope
that once an authorization is cleared and there are
opportunities to talk about that with the public, the public
expects that that project is going to construction oftentimes
months after that authorization, and that is oftentimes not the
case, right? As you have alluded to.
These authorizations sometimes result in inhibiting
projects from being funded from other sources, and I think that
is an opportunity for this committee to consider in WRDA 2026.
In other cases, authorizations actually prohibit funds from
other sources being directed towards that project. Particularly
around mitigation, funding sources come in from FEMA or CDBG
disaster recovery, Department of Agriculture, and so forth.
And finally, there should be an incentive, I believe, to
commit other sources of funds, whether Federal or non-Federal,
to these projects in order to ultimately achieve the schedule
that is desired and expected by the public.
Mrs. Sykes. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Thank you both
for answering that question, because it just goes to show how
complicated this is, and I have heard several of my colleagues
complain about the bureaucracy of this process, which is really
harming and raising the cost of many.
I will very quickly turn everyone's attention to Mr.
Camillo. I have a question for you. The city of Massillon,
which is in my district, they have repeatedly and I have
repeatedly discussed in this subcommittee desperate funding
needs for a sluice gate replacement.
Again, I know this is not an Appropriations Committee, but
still, in that bureaucracy, we have been having a hard time
getting answers for them to be assisted, and quite literally, I
am not willing to stand by and wait for a disaster.
So, Mr. Camillo, you have a lot of experience with this
type of infrastructure. What are your insights as to what my
community could experience in the event that this is not taken
care of?
Mr. Camillo. The appropriations process is always a
challenge because of prioritization, and there is only so much
funding to go around. We recommend a lot of times for our local
levee districts to see what is available through the States.
For fixing gates, the local State FEMA is sometimes of
assistance to those. There are other programs within the State
that we have them reach out and try until the Federal process
comes through.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you for extending me a little extra time.
I yield back.
Mr. Taylor. The gentlelady yields. The Chair recognizes
Representative Westerman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to all
the witnesses for being here today. I have great respect for
this process having served as the ranking member on the
subcommittee and working through a WRDA bill a few years ago,
so this is exciting, because it is usually something we can
come together and agree on.
Ms. Ufner, as you mentioned in your testimony, Congress is
best able to deliver effective, timely, and locally driven WRDA
reauthorizations when Federal and non-Federal partners
collaborate and engage in conversations, hopefully like the one
that we are having here today.
As you may be aware, in 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers recreation sites welcomed approximately 260 million
visitors nationwide, including millions across Arkansas. As
chair of the Natural Resources Committee, I think those numbers
dwarf the number of visitors to our national parks, even.
Corps-managed lakes and parks such as those surrounding
Lakes Ouachita, DeGray, and Greeson are cornerstones of our
tourism economy and our outdoor heritage. These sites are not
only vital to local economies, they also provide safe,
affordable access to public lands for fishing, boating, and
camping. However, many of these areas are facing aging
infrastructure and significant deferred maintenance.
Additionally, fees collected onsite are not always
reinvested in the locations where they are generated, and as we
look toward the 2026 WRDA bill, what opportunities do you see
to prioritize the maintenance and modernization of recreation
facilities in naturally rich States like Arkansas and across
the country?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you, Congressman, for your support and
your question. Aging infrastructure is a huge issue across the
board, not only for recreation, but for ports, flood control,
water districts, and it is just an ongoing issue that is a very
complex situation, because in some cases you have Federal
regulations that also may impact the aging infrastructure as
well as how to obtain funding for it, so it is about
identifying those two parts: permits, sometimes, and funding
issues.
And to Mr. Camillo's point that there is a priority of
deciding what is going to be funded, so it is about identifying
the challenges that are out there and directly going after
them.
Mr. Westerman. So you mentioned permits, and I can't let
that pass without talking about the need for permitting reform.
Could permitting reform help stretch our recreation
infrastructure dollars further?
Ms. Ufner. The question was does permitting reform help
stretch----
Mr. Westerman. Could permitting reform help stretch our
recreation infrastructure dollars further on Corps facilities?
Or maybe another way to answer that, does it take a long time
to get a permit and add cost to the project?
Ms. Ufner. You must have heard my thought pattern behind
this. If it does take a long time to get a permit and there are
a multitude of requirements, when you are talking about non-
Federal sponsors, they have a limited amount of money to deal
with, because they are also funded by the communities that they
serve. So the longer the permit process goes, the more
requirements, the more that they may have to hire consultants
to do this, so anything that helps them streamline to get a
project off the ground is helpful.
Mr. Westerman. I am just thinking back, when I first came
to Congress, Lake Ouachita is one of my favorite places to
recreate. It is where I grew up. There was a local organization
that volunteered to do maintenance, to pick up trash, and all
they wanted to do was make things better, and they were told
they had to cease and desist. They couldn't do that because the
regulations wouldn't allow them to help make the place better.
We did get a little bit of relief on that, but it is still
a problem. That is something I think we need to address here in
Congress.
I could spend the whole time talking about recreation and
permitting, but also, I have a lot of major waterways in my
district, including the Arkansas, the Red River, and the
Ouachita River.
Many of the levee districts along these rivers face
challenges in maintaining their levees in accordance with the
Corps system of guidelines. So we have these levees run through
very rural areas and we have limited resources to be able to
keep the levees up in the condition that they need to be in,
which creates a safety issue. And then we will have a big flood
and the levee washes out and everybody is standing around
trying to figure out who is going to fix the levee. The local
levee district probably is responsible for it, but the local
levee district has no funding to fix it.
So I will just ask the whole panel, do you see any
opportunity for collaboration between Federal and non-Federal
partners to address the safety issues being faced by our rural
levee districts in these communities? Mr. Camillo, would you
like to go first?
Mr. Camillo. Again, those folks are down there walking
every day on those levees. They know what is needed, and you
are right, there is--when I talk to our levee districts, the
challenge is that a lot of the unfunded mandates, if they
belong to the P.L. 84-99 program, for instance, it is making it
almost unaffordable. And I think our fear in our area is that
more and more levee districts are going to be withdrawing from
that program if the cost is all of a sudden outweighing the
benefit of being into those systems. So there just needs to be
some relief on the unfunded mandates.
Mr. Westerman. And with an engineering background, I have
always believed it to be true that good maintenance pays for
itself over time. If you can keep these levees up and they
don't fail, then the cost is much less than after these levees
fail and destroy property outside the levee, plus then you have
got the cost of rebuilding the levee.
Mr. Jones, did you have more to add?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Congressman. Prior to you walking in,
I commented that I grew up in a rural area on the banks of the
Mississippi River and the Atchafalaya River, so I understand
these rural levee systems very well. I believe there are
opportunities, again, for programs dedicated specifically to
these rural communities that do face these significant
maintenance and capital project costs.
Another opportunity is to consider based on the risk not to
over--and I say this with all due respect to the engineering
community of which I work--not to overdesign projects that
ultimately raise the cost of them beyond the point of
achievement, again, for the sake of overdesign, for a risk that
may never actually occur. And so I think there are
opportunities in that regard, too, to understand what the real
risk is and design to that likelihood.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, you have been overly generous.
I didn't realize the time was going the wrong way there. I
yield back.
Mr. Taylor. No problem at all. Gentleman yields. The Chair
will recognize itself for 5 minutes of questioning.
First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for being here,
not just for your time and expertise, but for the sacrifices
you all made to be here with us, and that doesn't go unnoticed,
and it is very appreciated.
Many communities in my district still lack adequate
drinking water infrastructure, and with the Ohio River running
right along my district, looking forward to reauthorizing WRDA
this Congress. From removing regulatory barriers to investing
in water infrastructure, there is a lot of work to be done
which could benefit southern Ohio.
Mr. Jones, I will turn to you first. We have seen that
public-private partnerships have historically led to both
faster project delivery and lower costs for taxpayers. The Army
Corps has seen those same benefits with projects during a pilot
program that specializes in public-private partnerships.
Through just four projects, the pilot program saved over
$500 million in more than 23 years of time. So, Mr. Jones, if
this program were to be reauthorized in the upcoming WRDA, how
could Congress improve these public-private partnerships to
further save taxpayer dollars and deliver these projects in a
more timely fashion?
Mr. Jones. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As you
alluded to, talk about the use of P3s in the water resources
space, critically important tool in the toolbox. I would
encourage us to use it as much as possible as this subcommittee
and Congress looks to move to the next reauthorization of WRDA.
I would encourage you to expand that authority. There have
been pilot projects and projects that you have alluded to that
have been very successfully executed.
Again, this is not a silver bullet. It is not made for
every project, but for those projects that do have the ability
to generate revenue and use that revenue to accelerate
construction, we should be looking for that opportunity.
We see this across the economy, whether it is in
transportation or in private commercial construction and now
with the development of AI and data centers and the like, and
water resources shouldn't be any different. There are
opportunities to leverage the private sector and private
capital to accelerate construction, again, saving time and
ultimately saving money. It seems like a no-brainer to do so.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. In 2016, the Army Corps conducted a
risk assessment of the Portsmouth-New Boston Levee System in
which the evaluation identified the levee to be at high risk.
Behind the levee, there are 11,000 of my constituents and 26
critical structures that serve the needs of the community.
While I am grateful that funding was obtained in 2022,
high-risk infrastructure should not be forgotten in areas prone
to flooding, especially along the Ohio River.
I was dismayed to hear in your testimony, Ms. Ufner, that
this instance is not uncommon, that the rehabilitation and
inspection program is not being used properly to provide
repairs for flood damaged levees, but rather more prospective
planning and compliance framework.
Ms. Ufner, in the upcoming WRDA reauthorization, how can
Congress reform this program so that levees can be repaired
before a major flooding event occurs?
Ms. Ufner. Thank you for your question. At the bottom line,
I think communication really needs to occur to find out what
the specific problem is with the levees, and I will tell you
all of our non-Federal sponsors are telling us different
challenges within the districts that they may have.
There is a huge concern with the permitting and the
unfunded mandates and the new requirements, and there seems to
be sometimes shifting of responsibilities that haven't been
there before, and so it is just making it clear that the
responsibilities under the statutory language are correct.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you. So in a situation like this
one where it is deemed to be a very high risk in 2016 and it is
not funded until 2022, you put that up to more of a permitting
delay problem than a communication problem?
Ms. Ufner. I am sorry, I missed part of the question.
Mr. Taylor. Oh, that's okay. In this situation we are
talking about, it was a project that was recognized as high
risk 6 years before it was funded, so would you say that is
more of a failure of the permitting process than of a lapse in
communication?
Ms. Ufner. Well, if it is a funded issue, it is tied to the
whole appropriations, correct? So there is a delay between the
authorization and appropriations, and that is an ongoing issue
and that is by the nature of the beast of how WRDA works in one
committee and appropriations in another. And to your point, if
it is a high hazard, communicating it to the Appropriations
Committee and then assessing what the priorities are.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you. I have used up my time. I am
going to behave since I let everybody else have extra.
The Chair recognizes Representative Figures for 5 minutes.
Mr. Figures. Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses for
being here. You're getting to the end of the line here, so
congratulations. I represent the Second Congressional District
of Alabama, which includes the Port of Mobile, which is now the
deepest port in the gulf thanks to the recent completion a
couple months ago of a significant dredging process that got
our port down to a depth of, I believe, about 48 feet now, and
so I come here with that perspective.
So I approach water resources policy with a focus on how
congressional decisions translate into real impacts for ports,
the workers there, communities that depend on reliable maritime
infrastructure, and ports like Mobile and obviously ports that
you guys work with and represent, they rely on long-term
planning.
They make multiyear capital investments based on the
expectation that when Congress sets policy and provides
direction through the Water Resources Development Act, that
direction will be carried out as intended and that the dollars
will flow therefrom to support those directives.
Congress was explicit in WRDA 2020 about fully utilizing
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and expanding eligible uses
of those dollars, including for donor and energy transfer
ports.
Yet this administration's budget and workplans, as has been
discussed throughout the hearing, have underfunded dredging and
zeroed out those expanded uses, and I represent a port that is,
you know, I make the case that we are the most recent
beneficiary, biggest beneficiary of significant dredging
investments, and so it is critical that we hold the
administration accountable for this and try to change this
going forward with WRDA.
Dr. Hacegaba, from a port operator's perspective, can you
explain how deviating from clear congressional intent on the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund affects a port's ability to plan,
invest, and remain competitive?
And in particular, if you could put yourself in the shoes
of the Mobile Port, I know you work in Long Beach, but a port
now that has significantly enhanced its capacity to be able to
import and export goods into this country. They are doing that
obviously for the first time, and so there is a lot of
planning, strategic planning that goes into that, a lot of
expectations that go into that. Can you explain what sort of
uncertainty you would feel, knowing the need for the dredging?
Not sure how familiar you are with the geography of Mobile
Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, but there is a lot of sediment at
the end in Mobile Bay that travels down literally from
throughout this country, so can you explain how this
environment would affect you approaching that job.
Mr. Hacegaba. Certainly, and thank you for your question,
Congressman. As a matter of fact, I have been to Mobile and was
very impressed. It was during the summer, so it is hard to
forget my visit, but have been very impressed with the
development and the growth that I have seen from afar in your
port, and you are exactly right.
This is how critical your work as a subcommittee is in
funding these projects. Any time you enable ports like Mobile
or Long Beach or ports across the Nation to deepen, to widen
their channels, improve navigational safety, increase capacity,
you are basically investing in the national economy. You are
fortifying national security.
For us at the Port of Long Beach, projects take many years
to design, develop, finance, deliver, and it is critically
important that we have a predictable and certain funding stream
in order to be able to deliver projects on time.
In earlier commentary, it was talked about the necessity to
streamline the permitting process, because as we all know, time
is money, and as projects get delayed, costs only go up, and so
it becomes critically important to deliver these projects as
quickly as possible. That is the reason why we at the Port of
Long Beach support full authorization of HMT revenues. This is
why we support and are asking for equitable funding for donor
and energy ports.
Mr. Figures. Thank you.
Ms. Ufner, locks and dams. I represent in my district the
Black Warrior/Tombigbee River Waterway, which needs significant
repairs, replacements, and maintenance in the lock and dam
system. Can you talk a little bit about that. I don't know--I
apologize if I missed it when I stepped out, but I don't know
if we have talked indepth about the need for that type of
funding and that type of support as we are going forward.
Ms. Ufner. One of our members, Tombigbee. There is such
incredible need for funding across the board in the water
realm, and I know we keep on stressing it, whether it be locks
and dams, ports, et cetera, but the locks and dams especially
are extremely important to the inland waterway to really move
goods to market.
And when you look at the Midwest, especially along
Mississippi or Pennsylvania or all the other areas and the
amount of goods that go to and from, really support our
national economy, and equal funding for that to make sure that
we remain strong and that we can address these aging
infrastructure to make sure that the economy and the
communities are safe.
Mr. Figures. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentleman yields. The Chair
recognizes Representative Kiley for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Ufner, I wanted to ask you about an issue we have been
dealing with in my district, because I suspect that maybe it is
not the only area where this has occurred and perhaps there
might be an opportunity to fix the larger issue.
So the town of Roseville in my district had a project
authorized under WRDA 2022, under Section 219, Environmental
Infrastructure. Congress then appropriated $75,000 in the
relevant appropriations bill for fiscal year 2023 for the
project, but since then, the town has had a hard time working
with the Army Corps on getting the project off the ground. And
I am concerned, and growing increasingly concerned, that the
Corps doesn't have clear, uniform procedures to support local
communities, to support them in allowing them to proceed with
project implementation.
So I think it would probably be helpful if the Corps could
issue clearer guidance that the district offices across the
Nation would follow.
So I wanted to ask you, have you heard of other authorized
projects having trouble implementing Section 219, Environmental
Infrastructure projects, and do you think the Corps could issue
clearer guidance to district offices across the country?
Ms. Ufner. Congressman, if it is okay, I would love to get
back to you on that answer.
Mr. Kiley of California. That would be great. Thank you. I
don't know if any other witnesses have thoughts.
[No response.]
Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Taylor. The gentleman yields.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
again, to all our witnesses, and thanks for allowing me to
waive on today.
I wanted to just ask Dr. Hacegaba, I just wanted to use
this opportunity to ask you about the Port of Long Beach Deep
Draft Navigation Project. It is a project that obviously I am
familiar with. During when I was mayor, we worked a lot with
the port and the whole team on advancing it. And we know that
the WRDA process is obviously complex, but I know that also
bipartisan members of this committee have been involved in this
effort and are strongly supportive of these types of projects.
I am grateful to hear the news that, just last week, the
administration had removed the pause that the Corps put on the
project. Certainly, we look forward to working with anyone that
wants to make the Post-Authorization Change Report that you
referenced in your opening remarks as it refers to WRDA for
2026.
For those who aren't familiar with this project, could you
just share a little bit more detail why it is important, not
just for the port, but really for trade across the country?
Mr. Hacegaba. Yes, certainly. And thanks again for your
question, Congressman. And thank you again for your very
generous introduction and longstanding support of, not just the
Port of Long Beach, but ports across the Nation.
This Deep Draft Navigation Project is important because it
enables a port like ours, who happens to be the second busiest
and moves cargo across every single congressional district, it
enables us to handle larger ships that carry more cargo and it
allows us to enable even more imports and exports. And our
partnership with the Army Corps is such that WRDA enabled them
to invest moneys in this project to keep it moving forward.
I will say this, Congressman, we were very surprised when
we learned of the pause because this project is a project of
national significance. But we are very grateful that the pause
has been lifted. We are working closely with Army Corps to get
the project back on track.
And, again, the reason investments in ports like these and
projects like these are so important is because you think about
the positive economic impact that ports like ours have on the
national economy, you are talking about 2.7 million jobs, cargo
to every congressional district in the country.
Mr. Garcia of California. Great. Thank you. And I think we
all saw, of course, during the pandemic, just some of the
supply chain disruptions that were happening, how
infrastructure and seaports are so important, how investments
are critical to move cargo and to actually keep the economy
strong. We are talking about, as you know, millions of jobs
across the country are dependent on--oftentimes on ports in
California just alone, and so I think that is really important.
I know there is a tight timeline to have a Post-
Authorization Change Report completed ahead of WRDA
reauthorization. Do you know if the Army Corps of Engineers has
indicated when they expect that report to be completed?
Mr. Hacegaba. We don't have a certain timeframe,
Congressman, but I can tell you that Brigadier General Lloyd
was at our port just a couple of weeks ago, and we fully
engaged discussions with the Army Corps. We are very optimistic
that we can meet the deadline to get this in WRDA 2026.
Mr. Garcia of California. Great. And I just want to add
just for the record, also, it is really important that the Army
Corps is clear and works, not just with our port partners, but
with Members of Congress. I think oftentimes it is difficult to
get information to our ports, and certainly to us in the
Congress, on how critical it is that the Army Corps projects
move forward and that we get regular updates. So I just want to
make sure that we are aware of that.
Just finally before I close, briefly, on the allocation of
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund dollars, can you just share one
or two examples, Noel, about how important those dollars are to
a port like Long Beach and so many others?
Mr. Hacegaba. Absolutely. The reason this is so important
is--you take the donor ports, as an example. Donor ports
generate about half of all HMT revenues, but we only get about
2 percent in return. Yet these donor ports happen to be the
ports that have the greatest impact to the local and national
economy. This is why projects like these, reauthorizing WRDA
with section 102, for example, with expanded in-water use, is
so important to enable us to be a bigger economic engine for
the American people.
Mr. Garcia of California. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentleman yields.
The Chair recognizes Mr. DeSaulnier for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses.
I represent a district in the East Bay of the San Francisco
Bay area. I have represented the San Francisco Delta, bay area
delta for a long time. It provides a large amount of clean
water to the State of California, including Los Angeles, and to
the ag industry.
So my question for Ms. Ufner, how can areas like that, with
almost 8 million people, and also being a great resource to the
agricultural industry that produces one-third of all the fruits
and vegetables in the United States, as we go through this
investment in infrastructure in areas like that, how do we make
sure that the regional plans--and the bay area has a lot of
government. You have got nine counties, and I don't know how
many cities and special districts--how do we coordinate that
and use this to make sure that we are doing the best investment
for a place like that, the largest estuary west of the
Mississippi, that has huge impacts not only on people who drink
water, but the national economy vis-a-vis the ag industry in
particular?
Ms. Ufner. That is a challenging--when you are looking--
because you are asking about a regional focus, how do you bring
everyone to the table. Regardless of whether you are talking
your area or other areas, you have a combination of both large
and small governments as well as special districts, and they
have different capacity needs. And getting them talking about
it and the available funding that--because when you are talking
about the Federal share versus the non-Federal share, non-
Federal sponsors usually have a limited amount of money that
they can bring to the table, which is based on whether it be
taxes or community.
So it is about educating and bringing them together,
whether it be in a townhall, and that is getting more into
details, but it is about how to bring different size levels of
government to the table to talk about these challenges and what
they have available.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And in the context of sea level rise, which
the bay area, like most areas such as ours, there is a bigger
challenge. So we have invested a lot in our levees to keep the
infrastructure up, trying to have that regional approach. And
we can learn from other areas that are similar to that.
Mark Twain famously said, in California, whisky is for
drinking, and water is for fighting. So trying to get this
opportunity, from an engineering perspective, in an area like
that that is so crucial to get this right, and to your point,
having come from local government, Prop 13 was a good thing for
some people. I will include myself from a personal standpoint.
But the maintenance of effort in the local match is always a
problem. And it is not a good financial model because, clearly,
the benefit to the economy on the west coast, in this instance,
and to a place with--what is the California's GDP would be the
fourth largest in the world right now, and water is so
important.
Mr. Jones, what can we learn from the Corps in this moment
in sort of following on in that, in regions like this, how we
can coordinate better with local and regional and State
agencies on the pure engineering and the delivery of projects?
I think this is something we can agree on, on a bipartisan
level we have in this committee, is project delivery is
important, particularly in this kind of environment.
Mr. Jones. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
You spoke of some 80 jurisdictions in your area, that is an
immense challenge. One of the things that we know, though, is
that water knows no political boundaries, and so water is
moving about amongst those 80 different political
jurisdictions. So it is going to take immense communication and
coordination.
From the engineering perspective, though, understanding and
trying to remove as best we can the political factors in the
discussion and allowing the data and the science and the
engineering solutions to ultimately lead the conversation,
right. Obviously, there will be political influence and
discussion. There will be community input and discussion. Every
stakeholder will have their say and priority.
But prior to you coming in, I talked about my background
being from southern Louisiana.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Similar.
Mr. Jones. Very similar. In the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina and the inland floodings in the State, and bringing
those folks to the table to, one, educate them on how water
flow actually occurs, where the water needs to be, and the
various uses.
And simply put, I would just offer that there is no such
thing as overcommunication in this regard, and trying to have
every stakeholder understand what their needs are, but as
importantly, understand what the needs of their fellow
stakeholders are, and ultimately try to achieve some regional
priorities and then work towards those goals.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. The gentleman yields.
Are there any further questions from any members of the
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would
like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Letter of December 11, 2025, from Beth Callaway, Executive Director,
Interstate Council on Water Policy, to Hon. Mike Collins, Chairman, and
Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike
Collins
December 11, 2025.
The Honorable Mike Collins, Chair,
The Honorable Frederica Wilson, Ranking Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, 2251 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Wilson:
The Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) expresses our
appreciation to Congress for the successful completion of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2024 (Public Law No. 118-272).
Among its many beneficial provisions, Congressional efforts to address
the challenges faced by non-Federal sponsors in US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Project Partnership Agreements (PPAs) in WRDA 2024
represent important progress toward more equitable and effective
collaborations with non-Federal partners.
Looking ahead, ICWP is eager to continue working with Congress to
build on these achievements and further advance equitable solutions for
non-Federal partners in WRDA 2026.
Request for PPA Reforms in WRDA 2026
ICWP urges Congress to finalize and enact PPA reforms during WRDA
2026 development. As stipulated by WRDA 2024, ICWP and our members have
worked collaboratively since its passage with the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to inform its analysis regarding potential
reforms to USACE PPA requirements, specifically those related to
indemnification and operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and
rehabilitation (OMRR&R).
ICWP expects that GAO's recommendations for any necessary changes
to existing law or policy will be incorporated into statute. Through
such codification, Congress can provide the clarity and certainty that
non-Federal partners need to participate fully and confidently in USACE
projects. Enshrining these reforms will ensure their continuity and
empower non-Federal organizations to advance water resource objectives
in alignment with their respective laws, policies, and long-term
interests.
Indemnification reform
ICWP requests that the Committee include language in WRDA 2026 that
replaces the current blanket indemnification requirement with a more
balanced approach to liability.
Section 103(j) of WRDA 1986 requires non-Federal
interests to hold the United States harmless from damages. This
stipulation is often at odds with the constitutions and laws of many
states as well as the policies of nonprofit organizations.
Our previous commentary on WRDA 2024 highlighted that 22
states currently face direct conflicts between PPA requirements and
their state laws. Many state constitutions prohibit agencies from
obligating funds without an appropriation or incurring indebtedness on
behalf of the state before such appropriation is made.
The current indemnification requirement forces non-
Federal parties to assume indeterminate liabilities, which may arise at
unpredictable times and costs for uncertain reasons. This broad
assumption of liability often exceeds limits set by state tort law and
creates a significant barrier to beneficial water resource projects.
ICWP urges Congress to eliminate or replace blanket indemnification
with a more equitable, shared liability model, allowing non-Federal
partners to participate equally in USACE-partnered projects.
Define an endpoint for OMRR&R obligations
ICWP also calls for the establishment of a clearly defined endpoint
for OMRR&R obligations.
Section 103(j) of WRDA 1986 requires non-Federal sponsors
to bear 100 percent of these costs. Historically, USACE limited this
obligation to the standard 50-year design life of a project. However, a
policy change in 2012 now requires perpetual non-Federal
responsibility.
This open-ended commitment places an undue burden on non-
Federal entities and discourages future participation. Setting a
defined endpoint for these obligations would provide a more equitable
and sustainable partnership framework.
Address Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in WRDA 2026
Additionally, ICWP requests that WRDA 2026 address the beneficial
use of dredge material.
While beneficial reuse for flood control and ecosystem
restoration is a priority, it can increase project costs due to greater
transportation distances.
USACE has set an ambitious goal of 70 percent beneficial
use by 2030, but progress toward this target has been hindered by
delays in completing internal guidance. For example, in the Great Lakes
region, USACE's requirement to select the least cost alternative for
dredge disposal may conflict with beneficial use objectives and limit
opportunities for local community benefits.
ICWP encourages Congress to consider requiring that USACE allow
greater flexibility and enable pursuit of beneficial use of dredge
material to allow for more local community benefits.
Conclusion
ICWP remains committed to collaborating with Congress to develop a
WRDA 2026 solution that supports equitable engagement by project
partners and ensures USACE fulfills its Federal obligations on PPAs. By
implementing a fair approach to PPA liability, clearly defining OMRR&R
endpoints, and prioritizing flexible, beneficial use of dredge
material, Congress can advance water resource initiatives that best
serve the nation's water resource needs.
For further questions or clarification, please contact ICWP
Executive Director Beth Callaway.
Sincerely,
Beth Callaway,
Executive Director, Interstate Council on Water Policy.
Statement of Sunny Simpkins, Executive Director, National Association
of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Mike Collins
Dear Chairmen Graves and Collins and Ranking Members Larsen and
Wilson--
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National
Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA)
regarding priorities for the Water Resources Development Act of 2026
(WRDA 2026). We are grateful for this Committee's longstanding
bipartisan commitment to advancing water resources legislation and for
your dedication to building more resilient communities across our
nation.
About NAFSMA
Founded in 1978, NAFSMA is an organization of public agencies whose
mission is the protection of lives, property, and economic activity
from the adverse impacts of storm and flood waters. Many NAFSMA member
agencies serve as non-federal sponsors in partnership with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on flood risk management and ecosystem
restoration projects.
For more than 46 years, NAFSMA has advocated for sound public
policy and encouraged technological and programmatic improvements in
water resources management. Our focus spans flood risk infrastructure
management, floodplain management and insurance, water quality, and
related environmental issues. We have long supported a biennial WRDA to
authorize critical water resources projects and policies that guide
USACE activities nationwide.
The Case for WRDA Reform
As Congress prepares WRDA 2026, NAFSMA respectfully submits the
following priorities for consideration. These proposals address
documented barriers that delay projects, increase costs at both the
local and federal levels, and limit effective non-federal partnerships.
Our recommendations are grounded in the real-world experience of our
member agencies, which represent the frontlines of flood risk
management and water infrastructure delivery across the nation.
Priority 1: Innovative Project Delivery
Through previous WRDAs, Congress has directed USACE to utilize
alternative project delivery approaches to meet the nation's water
resource needs. While these authorities represent meaningful progress,
NAFSMA has identified concerns and opportunities to improve their
implementation.
Section 203--Non-Federal Feasibility Studies
Concerns
Study cost reimbursement is capped at the original
authorization amount, with no adjustment for inflation.
Non-federal sponsors do not receive reimbursement for
USACE technical assistance costs.
Authority is limited to feasibility studies and does not
extend to subsequent planning phases.
Recommendations
Allow the Secretary to increase study limits for complex
projects where warranted.
Make USACE technical assistance costs eligible for
reimbursement or credit.
Expand Section 203 authority to include General or
Limited Reevaluation Reports and Post-Authorization Change Reports.
Section 204--Non-Federal Construction
Concern
There is no mechanism to address construction cost
changes that occur during a multi-year funding process, creating
uncertainty and potentially stranding non-federal investment.
Recommendation
Apply the Section 902 cost escalation process to non-
federal construction to ensure equitable treatment of cost changes.
Section 1043(b)--Non-Federal Implementation Pilot
Concerns
This valuable authority is temporary and limited in
scope.
Current implementation requires non-federal sponsors to
follow the same processes as USACE, undermining the efficiency gains
Congress intended.
Recommendations
Make the authority permanent and incorporate the pilot's
advanced funds provision to allow transfer of unobligated federal funds
to non-federal sponsors.
Direct USACE to adopt a standards-based approach similar
to those used successfully by other federal agencies.
Standards-Based Approach
NAFSMA recommends that USACE look to the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as models. FHWA's Local Agency Program relies on
certification, allowing qualified local agencies to operate with
appropriate oversight rather than step-by-step federal involvement. HUD
similarly establishes standards and audits for compliance instead of
requiring grantees to mirror federal procedures.
Under a standards-based framework, USACE would establish clear
requirements, certify capable non-federal sponsors, and conduct
periodic audits--preserving federal oversight while enabling the
efficiency Congress intended. Flexibility is essential to the
standards-based approach because flood challenges vary significantly
across communities. Geography, hydrology, existing infrastructure, land
use, and fiscal capacity all influence what solutions are feasible in a
given locale. Built-in flexibility allows agencies and local
governments to meet performance objectives while tailoring strategies
to their unique conditions.
In addition, this approach would also address local agency
accountability concerns raised in the 2020 and 2026 Senate Reports
accompanying the 2020 and draft 2026 Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations Bills using a proven federal model.
Section 221--Design Review Process
Concern
Uncertainty around credit for non-federal design work
discourages sponsors from using their capabilities.
Recommendation
Establish a milestone-based review process with 90-day
USACE review periods and preliminary credit determinations.
Priority 2: Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
Concern
Despite legislative intent, a 2020 rule prohibits WIFIA and
therefore the Corps Water Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP) from
financing congressionally authorized projects. This restriction does
not apply to the Department of Transportation's TIFIA program and
creates an unnecessary barrier to leveraging federal financing for
water resources projects.
Recommendations
Define congressionally authorized projects as local
assets when non-federal sponsors hold title and responsibility.
Allow WIFIA and CWIFP loans for projects on non-federal
lands when the non-federal sponsor owns and maintains the project.
Draft language that would allow financing for federal projects:
Financial assistance for a project under this subtitle may not be
used by or transferred to a Federal Entity, applied to any physical
asset owned by a Federal Entity, nor through the extension of such
financial assistance, contractually obligate the Federal Government to
provide additional financial assistance for a project beyond the face
value of the WIFIA financial assistance, plus any capitalized interest
allowed under this subtitle.
Provided further if the project, is in whole or in part, a project
currently authorized by an Act of Congress for the Army Corps of
Engineers to construct, the project must also satisfy one of the
following:
1) The project has been authorized for construction by the Army
Corps of Engineers and subsequently completed. The completed project is
owned, operated and maintained by a non-Federal entity.
2) The project has been authorized for construction by the Army
Corps of Engineers, has not been constructed, and:
a. The project is being constructed in whole by a non-Federal
entity; or
b. A non-Federal entity constructs a part of the project and
seeks Financial assistance under this subtitle for only such part.
In conjunction with the limitation above, if the recipient of
financial assistance for a project under this subtitle is an eligible
entity other than a Federal entity, agency, or instrumentality, and the
dedicated sources of repayment of that financial assistance are non-
Federal revenue sources, such financial assistance shall, for purposes
of budgetary treatment under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2
U.S.C. 661 et seq.)--
(1) be deemed to be non-Federal; and
(2) be treated as a direct loan or loan guarantee (as such terms
are defined, respectively, such Act); and
(3) entitled to non-cash budgetary treatment.
These changes would unlock significant financing opportunities for
flood risk management infrastructure while stretching limited federal
appropriations further.
Priority 3: Project Design and Section 902 Cost Limits
Concern
A conflict exists between SMART planning objectives and cost
estimate confidence requirements. Large, complex projects cannot
reasonably reach 35 percent design before authorization, yet current
policy creates uncertainty around cost limits.
Recommendations
Provide for separable elements or phased authorization
for large projects, including multi-year appropriations.
Authorize projects using the June 2023 Design Majority
Memo standards (Class 3 estimates at 10-60 percent design).
Use the existing Section 902 and Change Control Board
process to manage cost adjustments.
Allow grandfathering for studies that have reached the
selected plan milestone.
Priority 4: Project Real Estate Requirements
Real estate acquisition remains one of the most significant sources
of delay and cost escalation in USACE projects, often extending
timelines by 18-24 months.
Section 1104--Non-Standard Estates
Concerns
The process is overly rigid and does not reflect regional
real estate conditions.
Delays of 18-24 months are common and significantly
increase project costs.
Recommendations
Define standard estates to include public lands,
conservation easements, and cooperative agreements.
Delegate approval authority to District Commanders.
Establish a 180-day review period for non-standard estate
requests.
Section 103--Credit Process for Real Estate
Concern
Validation of appraisals and approval of credit authority
often exceed the appraisal validity period.
Backlog of LERRDs (Lands, Easements, Rights of Way,
Relocations, and Disposals) crediting at USACE District offices across
the Country, totaling more than $250,000,000 alone within the State of
California.
Recommendations
Extend appraisal validity when federal delay occurs.
Base validity on the offer date rather than close of
escrow.
Delegate real estate credit authority to the District or
Division level.
Establish a 120-day review timeline.
Establish a pilot project within the South Pacific
Division that would authorize a non-federal sponsor to receive LERRDs
credit at the time the USACE approves the LERRDs Certification Package
for construction, subject to the following conditions:
+ Real property must be acquired in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended (Uniform Act or URA) and 49 CFR part 24, the
implementing regulation.
+ USACE will review and concur within 30 days of submitting all
appraisals over $2,000,000. Concurrence is assumed if a written
response is not provided within 30 days. (USACE concurrence is limited
to whether the appraisal met USPAP standards.)
+ USACE will review and concur within 30 days of submittal any
settlement of over 20% or $50,000, whichever is higher, of just
compensation. Concurrence is assumed if a written response is not
provided within 30 days. (USACE concurrence is limited to whether the
NFS followed the Uniform Act.)
Our members consistently report that real estate requirements are
the single largest source of project delay. Issuing take letters at 90
percent design is often infeasible for non-federal sponsors, and we
encourage collaboration on more realistic timelines.
Priority 5: Section 408 Clarification
Concern
It is currently unclear whether flood risk management projects that
have been formally deauthorized remain subject to Section 408
permissions, creating uncertainty and inconsistent application across
USACE Districts.
In many cases, non-federal sponsors are intentionally pursuing
deauthorization because projects have reached the end of their original
federal service life. These legacy projects often no longer meet
current design standards, risk profiles, or community needs.
Deauthorization allows non-federal sponsors to responsibly
recapitalize, modernize, and manage this infrastructure at the local
level using updated approaches, funding mechanisms, and integrated
stormwater or resilience strategies.
This lack of clarity undermines the purpose of deauthorization and
can impose unnecessary federal review requirements on infrastructure
that is no longer a federal project.
Recommendation
Clarify that deauthorized projects are not subject to
Section 408 requirements.
Despite recent guidance, obtaining Section 408 permission continues
to require substantial staff time and funding, delaying projects that
protect communities.
Priority 6: Coordination of Technical Reviews
Concern
Technical reviews for federal projects are conducted in a linear,
sequential manner, with feasibility study reviews often taking longer
than subsequent design reviews. This sequencing extends overall project
schedules, increases costs, and limits the ability of non-federal
sponsors to advance meaningful design work early in the process.
Because feasibility reviews can consume a disproportionate amount
of time, opportunities to advance additional design in parallel are
missed. This results in less-developed designs at key decision points,
contributing to greater uncertainty in cost estimates and less
efficient project delivery.
Recommendation
Direct USACE to establish predictable review timelines and improve
coordination by integrating feasibility, technical, policy, and risk-
informed reviews into standard, concurrent processes wherever
practicable. An integrated review approach would allow additional
design to proceed during feasibility, leading to more mature designs,
improved cost estimate confidence, and a more efficient overall
process.
Non-federal sponsors are significantly affected when permitting and
review delays jeopardize funding tied to state, local, or federal grant
timelines. In some cases, these delays result in the loss of awarded
funds or require costly reapplications. Congress should explore
opportunities to empower non-federal sponsors to support federal
permitting and review capacity while maintaining appropriate federal
oversight and accountability.
Priority 7: Integrating Stormwater Management into Flood Risk
Management Projects
Concern
Stormwater management and flood risk management projects frequently
occur in the same geographic areas but lack coordinated authority and
integration. As storms continue to intensify, communities are
experiencing increased pluvial flooding--flooding caused by heavy
rainfall overwhelming local drainage and stormwater systems often
independent of riverine or coastal flooding.
Pluvial flooding is occurring with greater frequency and severity
due to more intense rainfall events, aging stormwater infrastructure,
and increased impervious surfaces. When stormwater considerations are
not integrated into flood risk management projects, opportunities are
missed to address the full spectrum of flood risk facing communities.
Recommendation
Authorize non-federal sponsors to incorporate stormwater
management designs into flood risk management project planning and
design.
Integrating stormwater management with flood risk reduction would
enable multi-benefit projects that more effectively address pluvial and
riverine flooding together, maximize the value of federal and local
investment, and deliver improved flood protection and water quality
outcomes for communities.
Benefits of These Recommendations
NAFSMA's proposed reforms would:
Accelerate project delivery by reducing timelines and
administrative barriers.
Improve financing access through WIFIA for
congressionally authorized projects.
Control costs through realistic inflation adjustments and
cost management flexibility.
Increase local capacity by expanding non-federal
implementation authority.
Enable innovation through multi-benefit, integrated water
resources approaches.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, NAFSMA appreciates
the opportunity to present these priorities for WRDA 2026. The
bipartisan tradition of water resources legislation has delivered
tremendous benefits nationwide, and we are confident WRDA 2026 will
continue that legacy.
These practical, targeted reforms address the real barriers our
member agencies face every day in protecting communities from flood
risk. By empowering capable non-federal sponsors, streamlining
processes, and enabling innovative financing and multi-benefit
solutions, Congress can accelerate delivery of critical water
infrastructure while stretching limited federal resources.
NAFSMA stands ready to serve as a resource to the Committee as you
develop WRDA 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.
We welcome any questions.
Appendix
----------
Questions to Julie A. Ufner, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Waterways Conference, Inc., from Hon. Brian Babin
Question 1.a. Ms. Julie Ufner, as President and CEO of the National
Waterways Conference, you represent non-Federal sponsors across the
country who partner with the Army Corps and often shoulder significant
local costs for projects. Many Texas communities are frustrated by long
delays, rising costs, and inconsistent Corps requirements, even after
Congress has acted. What specific reforms should Congress prioritize in
WRDA 2026 to speed up project delivery, control cost growth, and ensure
non-Federal sponsors--especially in states like Texas--are not bearing
unnecessary burdens once a project is authorized?
Answer. The National Waterways Conference (NWC) appreciates the
opportunity to respond to the questions for the record and to build on
the testimony submitted for this hearing. NWC represents a broad cross-
section of non-Federal sponsors and stakeholders engaged across the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Civil Works program, including
navigation, flood risk management and storm damage reduction, water
supply, hydropower, and dam safety interests. Within Texas, NWC
represents and has heard directly from a range of members involved in
multiple Civil Works business lines, and several of the issues
discussed below reflect concerns raised by Texas-based sponsors and
other non-Federal interests.
In its testimony, NWC raised a number of policy, delivery, and
implementation issues affecting Civil Works projects nationwide. In
this response, NWC highlights a subset of those issues that have risen
to the surface as particularly relevant to the upcoming Water Resources
Development Act of 2026 (WRDA 2026), while also acknowledging that not
all challenges are easily or best addressed through new authorization
language. In some cases, implementation, Corps-level action, or
Congressional oversight may be more appropriate or more timely than
statutory changes.
NWC approaches these questions using a two-pronged lens. First, we
identify areas where WRDA 2026 could provide clarity, direction, or
refinement to improve project delivery and reduce unnecessary delay or
cost exposure for non-Federal sponsors. Second, we identify areas where
existing authority already exists, but where implementation challenges,
inconsistent application, or ongoing rulemakings suggest that oversight
or further evaluation may be the more effective path forward at this
time.
NWC also recognizes and strongly supports Congress's consistent
enactment of WRDA since 2014. The regular passage of WRDA has provided
much-needed predictability for authorizing studies, projects, and
policy direction, and NWC views itself as a long-standing partner in
that authorization process. At the same time, NWC recognizes that WRDA
represents only the first step in a multi-step process. Projects and
policies authorized through WRDA must ultimately be funded through the
annual appropriations process and, critically, must be implemented
effectively by the Corps.
From NWC's perspective, ensuring timely and effective funding and
implementation of WRDA provisions, as well as other existing
authorities, is as important as enacting new authorization language.
Understanding why certain provisions are delayed, inconsistently
applied, or not implemented at all can help inform not only future WRDA
cycles, but also appropriations decisions and oversight priorities. For
that reason, this response seeks to be candid about where statutory
changes may be appropriate, where implementation challenges persist,
and where additional Congressional engagement or oversight could help
achieve the outcomes Congress intends.
A. Minimum Necessary Real Estate Interests
Non-Federal sponsors continue to experience significant delays,
increased costs, and landowner resistance related to how the Corps
defines and acquires real estate interests for Civil Works projects.
These challenges are particularly acute for ecosystem restoration,
natural infrastructure, floodplain reconnection, and other multi-
benefit projects, but they extend across business lines, including for
many flood control and coastal storm damage reduction projects.
Sponsors are not seeing changes on the ground, despite repeated
Congressional direction emphasizing the use of minimum necessary real
estate interests, including most recently in WRDA 2024. This is not
because the Corps lacks authority. Rather, it reflects a disconnect
between existing policy, statutory direction, and how real estate
decisions are being made and implemented at the district level.
What Is Actually Happening on the Ground. From the sponsor
perspective, real estate has become one of the least predictable and
most time-consuming components of project delivery.
Sponsors report that districts frequently require fee title or fee-
like estates even where project purposes could reasonably be met
through easements, rights-of-entry, or other limited real estate
interests. While districts may acknowledge that alternatives are
theoretically allowable, they are often not supported in practice.
Where districts are willing to consider alternatives, sponsors
report that non-standard real estate agreements can take several years
to execute. These timelines are not feasible for communities facing
flood risk, navigation constraints, or environmental degradation, and
they introduce uncertainty that complicates project planning,
financing, and landowner engagement.
Additionally, every Corps district seems to have different
standards for when real estate acquisition can start on a project. Real
estate is normally at the cost of the non-Federal sponsor and is led by
the non-Federal sponsor. However, sponsors have noted how some Corps
districts normally may not allow real estate acquisitions to start
until, for example, the 50 percent design is reached, whereas other
Corps districts may require as much as 90 percent design before real
estate acquisition can start. The philosophy appears to be that the
Corps does not want to risk acquiring property prior to sufficient
design maturity, to ensure that everything that is acquired is needed
for the project. Since the acquisition risk falls on the non-Federal
sponsor, the non-Federal sponsor should be allowed to start
acquisitions at the design maturity level at which they are
comfortable, with the Corps only crediting for the real estate
interests used for the project.
Sponsors also report that real estate requirements often surface
late in the project lifecycle, after feasibility work has advanced or
design assumptions have been established. This can force sponsors to
reopen landowner negotiations, revise project footprints, or delay
projects entirely. The cumulative effect is increased cost, loss of
willing landowners, erosion of local support, and in some cases,
projects that stall or fail to advance.
Why This Is Happening and Where the Corps Is Struggling. This is
not fundamentally a statutory problem. The Corps already has policy
that allows the use of easements and other limited real estate
interests where they are sufficient to meet project purposes. That
flexibility predates WRDA 2024.
In practice, however, districts frequently default to fee title
because it is viewed internally as the lowest-risk option. Fee title is
administratively clean. It simplifies questions of access, enforcement,
long-term responsibility, and future modification. In a risk-averse
institutional environment, it reduces ambiguity and limits the need for
ongoing interpretation or justification.
This default behavior is reinforced by several structural factors:
Existing real estate guidance has not kept pace with
modern project types such as natural infrastructure and multi-benefit
restoration.
Approval pathways for non-standard estates are perceived
as time-consuming, uncertain, or subject to second-guessing.
District staff are incentivized to minimize internal
review risk rather than tailor estates to project needs.
There is no consistent, project-type-specific framework
defining what ``minimum necessary'' means in practice.
As a result, even where flexibility exists, it is often not
exercised. The issue is not whether the Corps can use alternative
estates. It is the lack of clarity around when, how, and under what
conditions those alternatives are acceptable and defensible across
districts and divisions.
WRDA 2024 reinforced the principle of minimum necessary real estate
interests, but sponsors are not yet seeing changes because
implementation guidance has not been issued or existing policies
consistently applied. In the absence of that guidance, districts have
continued to rely on existing practices.
This underscores a deeper point. There should not have been a need
for new statutory language, because the Corps already had authority and
policy to exercise flexibility. The fact that Congress acted reflects
the persistent gap between policy on paper and practice on the ground.
What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. WRDA 2026 presents an
opportunity to move beyond restating principles and instead clarify
expectations and reduce ambiguity in how minimum necessary real estate
interests are applied. Congress may wish to consider:
Scope of Necessary Real Estate Interest: Reiterating that
the ``minimum real estate interest'' necessary for project purposes is
the maximum interest the non-Federal sponsor can be required to
provide.
Project-Type-Specific Real Estate Frameworks: Directing
the Corps to develop and apply project-type-specific real estate
frameworks that clearly identify when easements or other limited
estates are appropriate.
Document and Justify: Requiring the Corps to document and
justify when fee title is required in cases where limited interests
could otherwise meet project purposes.
Provide Clarity: Clarifying that real estate decisions
should be based on the functional needs for construction, maintenance,
and rehabilitation, and aligned with project risk and long-term
performance rather than default administrative preference.
Provide the Non-Federal Sponsor More Acquisition
Flexibility: Since the acquisition risk falls on the non-Federal
sponsor, allow the non-Federal sponsor to start acquisitions at the
design maturity level at which they are comfortable, with the Corps
only crediting for the real estate interests used for the project.
Streamlined Real Estate Acquisition Process: Streamline
the real estate acquisition process by relying more on audits versus
reviewing all acquisitions, and developing a tracking system; this
would help reduce Corps staffing needs and decrease acquisition times.
When the non-Federal sponsor for any reason--whether to ensure
fairness to land-owners, to avoid uneconomic remnants, or for the non-
Federal sponsor's convenience or other purposes--lawfully acquires an
interest greater than the minimum the Corps has determined is needed
for project purposes, the non-Federal sponsor may choose to provide the
minimum interest to the Corps while retaining fee simple title (or any
estate greater than the minimum required for project purposes). In such
cases, the current policy of crediting the non-Federal sponsor for the
value of the lesser interest--that is, for the amount the non-Federal
sponsor would have had to expend to obtain the basic minimum interest--
should be followed.
These steps would not remove Corps discretion, but would provide
clearer guardrails and expectations, helping districts make decisions
that balance legal certainty with delivery efficiency.
Implementation and Oversight Considerations. In parallel, several
issues are primarily implementation-related and may be best addressed
through oversight rather than new statutory authority.
These include:
Timely issuance and consistent application of WRDA
implementation guidance (including specifically for WRDA 2024).
Ensuring existing real estate policy flexibility is
actually being used in practice.
Improving internal consistency across districts and
divisions to reduce late-stage real estate surprises.
From the sponsor perspective, oversight and follow-through on
enacted provisions can be just as important as new WRDA language.
Without implementation, statutory direction alone will not resolve the
real estate challenges sponsors continue to face.
B. Design Maturity Requirements and the 35 Percent Design Threshold
Non-Federal sponsors are increasingly concerned about how design
maturity expectations are being applied across Corps Civil Works
projects, particularly the growing expectation that projects advance to
35 percent design earlier in the project lifecycle. Sponsors report
that this shift is materially changing where cost, risk, and
uncertainty are borne, often without improving project delivery
outcomes.
The issue is not opposition to better project definition or cost
accuracy. Sponsors understand the value of sound design and disciplined
decision-making. The concern is that the 35 percent design threshold is
being advanced as a broad solution to cost growth and delays without
sufficient clarity, flexibility, or alignment with how projects are
authorized, funded, and delivered in practice.
What Is Actually Happening on the Ground. From the sponsor
perspective, advancing projects to 35 percent design often requires
significant upfront investment before there is any assurance that
construction funding will follow. This shifts financial risk to non-
Federal sponsors earlier in the process, particularly for smaller or
resource-constrained communities.
Sponsors also report confusion about how the 35 percent design
expectation interacts with existing Corps planning and delivery
frameworks, including the 3x3 process and the more recent 5x5
framework. In practice, it is often unclear whether advancing design
earlier actually accelerates delivery, or whether it results in design
work that must later be revisited due to funding delays, changed
conditions, regulatory requirements, or evolving project scope.
In some cases, sponsors report that advancing design without
funding predictability increases exposure to inflation and market
volatility. Design assumptions can become outdated before construction
begins, requiring rework and undermining the goal of improving cost
certainty.
Sponsors further note that the 35 percent design expectation was
developed and applied without meaningful engagement with non-Federal
sponsors, despite the fact that sponsors are responsible for a share of
design costs and bear much of the risk if projects stall or are
delayed.
Why This Is Happening and Where the Corps Is Struggling. The Corps
is attempting to address longstanding concerns related to cost growth,
scope changes, and extended delivery timelines. From the Corps'
perspective, advancing design maturity earlier is intended to reduce
uncertainty and support better decision-making.
However, this approach assumes a level of continuity between
authorization, design, and construction funding that does not exist in
practice. Authorization and appropriations are separate processes, and
projects frequently experience significant gaps between design
advancement and construction funding. Advancing design without aligning
it to realistic funding pathways can therefore increase inefficiency
rather than reduce it.
Internally, sponsors report, and Corps leadership has acknowledged
in some cases, that there is not full agreement within the Corps on how
the 35 percent design threshold should be applied, how flexible it
should be by project type, or how it aligns with broader delivery
reforms. In the absence of clear and consistent guidance, districts
apply the expectation unevenly, leaving sponsors uncertain about what
is required, when it is required, and why.
The result is a uniform expectation applied across projects with
very different risk profiles, delivery timelines, and funding pathways.
What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. WRDA 2026 provides an
opportunity to bring greater clarity and balance to how design maturity
expectations are used as a delivery tool.
Congress may wish to consider:
Scalable and Risk-Based: Clarifying that design maturity
requirements should be scalable and risk-based rather than uniformly
applied across all project types and sizes. This could include
recognizing that the appropriate level of design maturity may vary
depending on project size/complexity, funding certainty, and delivery
timelines. One size does not fit all for a portfolio of projects that
range so drastically in size and complexity.
Align Design Advancement Expectations: Direct the Corps
to better align design advancement expectations with realistic funding
pathways in order to reduce rework and unnecessary early expenditures.
Greater transparency around how design thresholds are intended to
reduce cost growth, and the conditions under which they are most
effective, would help sponsors and districts make more informed
decisions.
Greater Flexibility: Pulling back on strict, universal
mandates, or providing a simplified process to get a Corps
headquarters/Assistant Secretary of the Army waiver from such mandates.
These steps would preserve the Corps' ability to improve project
definition while acknowledging the financial and practical realities
faced by non-Federal sponsors.
Implementation and Oversight Considerations. Several aspects of
this issue are primarily related to implementation and may be best
addressed through oversight rather than new statutory authority. These
include clarifying how the 35 percent design expectation aligns with
existing 3x3 and 5x5 frameworks, ensuring consistent application across
districts and divisions, and creating opportunities for structured
sponsor engagement before significant policy shifts affecting cost-
sharing are adopted.
From the sponsor perspective, improved communication and
transparency around design expectations would reduce uncertainty and
help ensure that efforts to control cost growth do not inadvertently
introduce new risks or delays.
C. Section 902 Cost Limits and Construction Pauses
From the non-Federal sponsor perspective, Section 902 has become a
recurring point where otherwise viable projects slow or stall, not
because the project purpose has changed, but because projected costs
exceed the authorized limit. It has been observed that most of the cost
growth in many projects can be attributed to incremental funding and
the delays in receiving that funding, wherein inflation and market
changes, particularly for steel and other construction materials, can
have a profound impact on cost growth. Sponsors increasingly experience
Section 902 as a disruption to project delivery that introduces
uncertainty, delay, and additional cost exposure, even when there is
agreement that the project remains necessary and aligned with its
original authorization.
What Is Actually Happening on the Ground. Non-Federal sponsors
report that Section 902 issues most often arise after a project has
already advanced through feasibility, design, or early stages of
implementation. Project costs have increased significantly due to the
broad cost escalation that has affected the entire U.S. economy since
the pandemic. In many cases, projected cost increases reflect not only
inflation, but market conditions, or refined engineering estimates as
project details are better understood, rather than a fundamental change
in project scope or purpose. Delays in continued funding for a project
also often contribute to cost escalation as a result of the foregoing
factors.
Once a project is projected to exceed its authorized cost limit,
sponsors experience delays while the Corps prepares post-authorization
documentation and seeks the approvals required to proceed. During this
period, projects may slow or pause, contracts may be deferred, and
timelines become uncertain. From the sponsor perspective, this pause is
especially problematic because costs often continue to rise while work
is delayed.
Sponsors consistently report several impacts:
Construction or project advancement is delayed while
post-authorization approvals are pursued.
Non-Federal cost exposure increases as project
management, design, and mobilization costs continue during the pause.
Local budgeting and financing become more difficult due
to uncertainty around timing and total project cost.
Public confidence erodes when projects appear stalled
despite continued need and sponsor commitment.
A common theme raised by sponsors is that the delay required to
address the cost exceedance can itself contribute to additional cost
growth, increasing the likelihood that Section 902 issues will recur.
Why This Is Happening and Where the Corps Is Struggling. Section
902 serves an important Congressional oversight function by requiring
Congressional approval when a project's authorized cost limit is
exceeded. Once that threshold is crossed, the Corps has limited
discretion and must prepare detailed documentation and seek new
authorization before proceeding above the cap.
The challenge sponsors identify is that Section 902 does not
distinguish between cost increases driven by fundamental changes in
project scope and those driven by inflation, market escalation, or
refined estimates that occur as projects mature. As project delivery
timelines lengthen, these non-scope-related cost increases are becoming
more common, triggering Section 902 processes even when the underlying
project remains sound.
Internally, the Corps is required to follow a compliance-driven
process that can take significant time to complete. Districts must
pause or slow work while documentation is prepared and reviewed, even
when there is alignment between the Corps and the sponsor that the
project should continue moving forward. While Congress ultimately
retains authority to raise the authorized cost limit, sponsors
experience the practical consequences of delay during the approval
process.
What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. Based on input from non-
Federal sponsors, WRDA 2026 presents an opportunity to better align
Section 902 processes with modern project delivery realities while
preserving Congressional oversight. Congress may wish to consider:
Distinguish Cost Escalation from Scope/Purpose Change
Under Section 902: Seeking approaches that more clearly distinguish
between cost increases driven by changes in project scope or purpose
and those driven by inflation, market conditions, or refined cost
estimates. This could be addressed in part through revisions to the
Section 902 cost + escalation formula to adequately account for actual
escalation (not driven by scope/purpose changes) and to eliminate the
need for some Change Control Board reviews and project re-
authorizations, which can further delay projects. From the sponsor
perspective, treating these situations the same can unnecessarily
disrupt delivery when the project purpose remains unchanged.
Execute Projects as Authorized: As part of the foregoing,
providing the Corps with clear instruction to execute the project that
has been authorized by Congress, and to limit the circumstances for
revising the scope, function, or cost-share proportion of the
authorized project as defined in official project documentation.
Redefining project fundamentals can cause considerable uncertainty and
increased cost for local sponsors, and waste precious resources for all
partners.
Prevent Delay-Driven Cost Escalation: Allowing certain
activities to continue while post-authorization approvals are pursued
could help prevent additional cost escalation caused by delay. Sponsors
have emphasized the importance of avoiding full construction pauses
when Section 902 thresholds are triggered but Congressional action is
anticipated.
Provide More Efficient Mechanisms to Handle Cost and
Scope Changes Other Than Through Post-Authorization Change Reports:
Providing additional, more efficient mechanisms to handle at least some
cost and scope changes other than through post-authorization change
reports (PACRs). PACRs are commonly taking several years to complete,
and have become a bureaucratic nightmare, with reviews often taking
longer than the actual work.
Clarify Section 902 for Long-Duration Projects: Clarify
expectations for how Section 902 should apply to long-duration
projects, where cost escalation over time is foreseeable. Clearer
direction could reduce uncertainty, improve predictability, and limit
repeated disruption for projects that remain aligned with their
original authorization.
Update Authorized Cost Limits to Reflect Modern Project
Costs: Consider raising or adjusting authorized cost limits under
Section 902 to reflect inflation, market conditions, and the scale of
modern Civil Works projects. Members have emphasized that existing caps
were established under very different cost environments and
increasingly do not reflect the realities of delivering large, long-
duration projects today, resulting in avoidable disruption even when
projects remain aligned with their original authorization.
Update Project Delivery Approaches: Provide specific
guidance and direction for the Corps to evaluate and implement means
for more effective and efficient delivery of projects, including
shortening and making contracting timelines more efficient; modernizing
project contractor involvement, design and construction management, and
delivery approaches; and enabling the Federal government to more easily
adopt commercial practices.
Implementation and Oversight Considerations. In addition to
potential WRDA action, sponsors have noted that oversight may be needed
to examine how Section 902 processes are being implemented in practice.
Areas of concern include the length of time required to complete post-
authorization documentation, consistency of application across
districts and divisions, and whether internal review processes could be
streamlined to reduce unnecessary delay. Sponsors also have expressed
concern about existing funding processes for projects, including the
use of incremental funding versus fully funding projects from the
beginning.
From the sponsor perspective, improving transparency and
predictability in how Section 902 is administered would materially
improve project delivery outcomes, regardless of whether additional
statutory changes are enacted.
D. Strengthening and Clarifying Non-Federal Sponsor Project Delivery
Authorities
Over the years, Congress has created and modified several
authorities which allow non-Federal sponsors to accelerate projects by
taking the lead on more work, including Section 203 (of WRDA 1986) for
studies, Section 204 (of WRDA 1986) for construction, and Section
1043(b) (of WRRDA 2014) pilot program for construction, and Contributed
Funds Agreements. These are all important tools. However, in practice,
they are not saving non-Federal sponsors time or money in delivering
critical flood risk reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration
projects.
What Is Happening on the Ground. Non-Federal sponsors increasingly
view existing sponsor-led delivery authorities, including Sections 203,
204, Section 1043(b), and similar tools, as underutilized relative to
their original intent. These authorities were created to leverage
sponsor capacity, accelerate delivery, and reduce pressure on Corps
staffing by allowing capable non-Federal sponsors to perform portions
of studies or construction with Federal oversight.
In practice, sponsors report that when these authorities are used,
the delivery model often resembles traditional Corps execution rather
than a true sponsor-led approach. Federal review layers, documentation
requirements, and approval timelines frequently mirror those applied to
Corps-delivered projects, limiting the efficiency gains these
authorities were intended to provide.
Moreover, there have been instances where non-Federal sponsors may
desire to advance tangible work contributions on a water resources
development project in advance of a Federal interest determination,
when seeking a project authorization through a non-Federally led
Section 203 feasibility study. As part of this, they have sought, but
generally have been unable, to enter into a partnership agreement with
the Corps (under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970), prior
to their completion of the 203 study, to get credit for the cost of
such tangible work contributions that would be completed by the non-
Federal sponsor prior to Federal authorization of the study. This has
discouraged some non-Federal sponsors from early implementation of
important tangible work contributions on water resources development
projects.
To reduce risk and provide greater certainty to be considered for
credit, some non-Federal sponsors are seeking an amendment to Section
203 to clarify that non-Federal sponsors may enter into a partnership
agreement (under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970) with the
Corps in advance of a Federal interest determination for a non-
Federally led feasibility study under Section 203.
Many non-Federal sponsors have the wherewithal to pursue non-
traditional delivery of critical Civil Works projects, however the
current implementation of these authorities often creates more risk and
uncertainty for sponsors than traditional delivery mechanisms. The
Corps has an enormous backlog of authorized projects and is
underutilizing tools that would help the nation to build more, build
faster, build cheaper, conserve more water, and achieve more ecosystem
restoration.
Why This Is Happening and Where the Structure Breaks Down. Sponsors
understand the need for Federal oversight, particularly with respect to
life safety, NEPA compliance, and adherence to authorized project
purposes. The issues arise when review expectations extend beyond those
core Federal interests and effectively recreate full Corps control over
scope, sequencing, and delivery methods.
Members have identified several recurring challenges:
Review standards are not clearly defined as outcome-
based, leading to iterative and open-ended comment cycles.
Corps division and headquarters review timelines are
often unclear, creating uncertainty and delay.
Districts apply sponsor-led authorities inconsistently,
sometimes due to risk aversion or lack of clear guidance.
Sponsors performing significant portions of work may
still be required to obtain permits or approvals that undermine the
efficiency of sponsor-led delivery.
From the sponsor perspective, these issues reflect a lack of
clarity about how much discretion sponsors are intended to have under
existing law and what the Federal role should be once a sponsor elects
to use these authorities.
What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. Based on input from
sponsors, WRDA 2026 presents an opportunity to reinforce Congressional
intent behind sponsor-led delivery authorities by clarifying how they
should function in practice. Congress may wish to consider:
Clarify Output-Based Federal Review Standards: Clarifying
that sponsor-led delivery authorities are intended to operate under
output-based standards, with Federal review focused on life safety,
NEPA compliance, and consistency with authorized purposes, rather than
replicating full Corps-controlled delivery models.
Define the Federal Role in Sponsor-Led Delivery:
Reinforcing that, when a non-Federal sponsor elects to perform work
under Sections 203, 204, Section 1043(b), or similar authorities, the
Federal role is oversight and acceptance, not day-to-day project
management or redesign.
Establish Clear Review Timelines for Division and
Headquarters: Providing clearer expectations for the timing of division
and headquarters reviews for sponsor-led work to reduce uncertainty,
prevent open-ended review cycles, and improve delivery predictability.
Reinforce Congressional Intent to Leverage Sponsor
Capacity: Reaffirming that these authorities were created to leverage
non-Federal sponsor expertise and capacity, accelerate project
delivery, and reduce pressure on Corps staffing, not to recreate
traditional Corps execution through parallel review processes.
Section 203 Clarification: Clarifying that non-Federal
sponsors may enter into a partnership agreement (under section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970) with the Corps in advance of a Federal
interest determination for a non-Federally led feasibility study under
Section 203.
Section 1043(b) Clarifications: Clarifying that projects can be
delivered using local, not Federal requirements. In addition, making it
easier for non-Federal sponsors to provide the Corps with funds to
strategically advance projects, including by improving the contributed
funds agreement process by providing greater certainty on the timing of
when decisions will be approved or denied. This would be a common-sense
approach to what has become an unnecessarily cumbersome process.
Implementation and Oversight Considerations. Oversight may be
warranted to assess how sponsor-led delivery authorities are being
implemented across districts and divisions. Sponsors continue to
observe that similar projects can face materially different review
expectations, depending on location, creating uncertainty and
discouraging broader use of these authorities. Greater consistency in
how these tools are applied would improve predictability and confidence
for sponsors considering sponsor-led delivery.
Oversight may also be appropriate to examine whether existing
internal guidance and review practices align with Congressional intent.
Although these authorities were created to enable sponsor-led delivery
with focused Federal oversight, sponsors report that implementation
often replicates traditional Corps execution models. Reviewing how
guidance is interpreted and applied could help identify where review
expectations exceed what is necessary to protect Federal interests.
In addition, oversight could focus on division and headquarters
review practices for sponsor-led work, including the length of reviews
and the clarity of decision points. Sponsors report that undefined or
open-ended review timelines can delay projects even when statutory
authority is clear. Greater transparency around review sequencing and
decision timelines would improve delivery outcomes.
Finally, oversight could examine how effectively current
implementation leverages non-Federal sponsor capacity. Sponsors have
raised concerns that risk aversion can lead to unnecessary Federal re-
review of work performed under sponsor-led authorities, limiting the
efficiency gains these tools were intended to provide. Clarifying
acceptance criteria and improving transparency around Federal
acceptance decisions could help ensure these authorities function as
Congress intended.
E. Strengthening the Corps' Project Delivery Processes
What Is Happening on the Ground. The Corps is tasked with
delivering a large and complex portfolio of Civil Works projects,
including construction and maintenance, yet its workforce capacity is
declining, it faces a massive, long-term project backlog, and costs and
delays are continuing to rise. Some estimates of the backlog are
approaching $100 billion.
Why This Is Happening and Where the Corps Is Struggling. The Corps'
project backlog is being driven by several factors, including
insufficient and incremental funding, budgetary constraints and
shutdowns, aging infrastructure with increasing maintenance demands,
staffing and hiring challenges, complex regulatory requirements,
bureaucratic and planning delays, and inefficient, incremental project
delivery.
The Corps has acknowledged these problems, including its project
delivery issues, and is attempting to address some of these
longstanding concerns by taking steps to improve its performance and
engineer solutions through initiatives such as its ``Revolutionize
USACE Civil Works initiative.'' Such initiatives include overhauling
traditional delivery of the Civil Works program using innovative tools,
modernizing internal processes, and pursuing alternative financing
approaches, and streamlining permit processes and eliminating
duplicative reviews to expedite permit decisions for infrastructure
projects. However, many sponsors believe that such programmatic
modifications have been insufficient.
What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. Based on input from non-
Federal sponsors, WRDA 2026 presents an opportunity to focus on some of
the Corps' project delivery issues, including project prioritization,
streamlining project delivery and planning, alternative project
delivery methods, and accountability and structural changes. Congress
may wish to consider:
Establish Specific Goals and Timelines: Directing the
Corps to establish specific goals and timelines for implementing
improved project delivery design and construction approaches, and
reporting back to Congress within a reasonable set timeframe on their
implementation plan for each of the Corps' project-related business
lines.
Transform Project Delivery Models: Encouraging the Corps
to transform its project delivery models, including by transitioning
from project-specific, siloed approaches to one of taking a more
portfolio- and programmatic-centric approach for more efficiently
delivering all of the Corps' business lines, to reduce project costs
and delivery timelines.
Leverage Non-Federal Capabilities: Encouraging the Corps
to better utilize the capabilities of local sponsors and private
entities to assist in project implementation. (See also the discussion
on ``Strengthening and Clarifying Non-Federal Sponsor Project Delivery
Authorities,'' above.)
Accelerate Permitting Processes: Streamlining permitting
requirements and eliminating duplicative reviews to expedite decision-
making.
Early Stakeholder Coordination: Strengthening outreach
and engagement with non-Federal interests, including engaging with
project sponsors and stakeholders early to set realistic schedules,
define project scopes, and avoid delays. (See also the discussion on
``Strengthening Communication and Consultation,'' below.)
Implementation and Oversight Considerations. Oversight may be
appropriate to assess how the Corps is developing and implementing
changes to its project delivery processes across its districts and
divisions, including steps the Corps is taking to transform its project
delivery models, modernizing internal management processes,
streamlining permitting and other approval processes (including
eliminating duplicative reviews to expedite permit decisions for
infrastructure projects), and pursuing alternative financing approaches
(including leveraging non-Federal public and private capabilities).
Oversight also may be appropriate to assess what the Corps is doing
to develop and implement better and more uniform internal controls to
keep projects on time and on budget, develop and use better data
systems to track maintenance and other project needs and ensure
accountability, reduce the number of non-policy issues which must move
up and down the chain for approval (including by delegating more
authority downward), and establish a realistic process to resolve
policy, legal, waiver and other issues in a timely manner.
F. Strengthening Communication and Consultation
What Is Happening on the Ground. Non-Federal sponsors and
stakeholders continue to experience gaps in communication and
coordination with the Corps, particularly during periods of policy
development, implementation, and guidance issuance. While Congress has
taken steps to encourage early engagement and public input, sponsors
report that communication often diminishes after initial comments are
collected, even as policies and guidance are finalized and implemented.
Sponsors also report challenges obtaining timely information from
Corps districts on issues that may affect Congressional engagement or
local decision-making. In some cases, districts have indicated they are
limited in what they can share due to internal restrictions, creating
uncertainty for sponsors and for Congressional staff seeking to
understand project status or implementation impacts.
Why This Is Happening and Where the Breakdown Occurs. Sponsors
recognize that the Corps operates within constraints related to
communications with Congress and other stakeholders. However, recent
interpretations of internal Department of War guidance, including the
Department of War memo on state and federal elected official engagement
(Oct. 2025), have created confusion about what information districts
can share and with whom. In practice, this has led some districts to
limit engagement even on factual or process-related matters,
particularly when an issue may intersect with Congressional interest.
At the same time, sponsors have observed that major policy
decisions affecting project delivery are sometimes made without
sufficient engagement with non-Federal sponsors who bear cost-sharing
responsibilities. A frequently cited example is the adoption of the 35
percent design maturity expectation. Sponsors report that this policy
was developed and implemented without meaningful consultation, despite
significant cost and risk implications for non-Federal partners. Even
within the Corps, there appear to be differing views on whether this
approach will achieve its intended goals.
Members have also emphasized that, for certain sponsor-led
authorities, particularly Section 1043(b) and Contributed Funds
Agreements, current implementation introduces unnecessary risk and
uncertainty. Sponsors report that projects delivered under these
authorities are sometimes required to meet Federal requirements that go
beyond what is necessary to protect Federal interests, undermining the
purpose of sponsor-led delivery. Sponsors have suggested that greater
clarity around the use of local requirements, as well as more
predictable timelines for approval or denial of Contributed Funds
Agreements, would help these tools function as intended and better
leverage non-Federal capacity.
What Can Be Addressed Through WRDA 2026. WRDA 2026 presents an
opportunity for Congress to reinforce expectations around communication
and consultation, particularly where policies or guidance materially
affect non-Federal sponsors. Congress may wish to consider:
Establish Expectations for Timely Implementation and
Transparency: Directing the Corps to issue implementation guidance for
new WRDA authorities within a reasonable specific timeframe (e.g., 12-
18 months), and to communicate clearly to Congress--and to the public--
when additional time is needed. Where the Corps determines that a
provision cannot be implemented as enacted, Congress should be informed
of the reasons, including legal, technical, or resource constraints.
Providing this feedback would improve transparency, support effective
oversight, and inform future authorization and appropriations
decisions.
Clarify Applicability of WRDA 2026 Provisions to
Previously Authorized Projects: Clarify the applicability of WRDA
provisions to previously authorized projects, including that the
provisions of WRDA 2026 apply to projects authorized under previous
WRDAs.
Require Iterative Consultation During Implementation of
WRDA Provisions: Directing the Corps to provide a additional,
structured opportunities for non-Federal interest engagement after
initial public comments are collected and before final implementation
guidance is issued for WRDA provisions that materially affect non-
Federal sponsors. This would ensure that implementation approaches
reflect practical impacts identified during early execution planning.