In the National Defense Authorization Act turned mini-Omnibus policy bill, lawmakers include a “compromise” Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (WRDA). The WRDA bill is the main vehicle Congress uses to authorize the study, design, and construction of federal water infrastructure projects (flood control, ecosystem restoration, river navigation, and coastal port deepenings). Since 2014, Congress has enacted a WRDA every two years.  

The headline of this bill is the nearly $38 billion federal taxpayers are committing to 30 newly authorized or significantly altered Corps of Engineers construction projects (Sec. 8401, page 3546). The 25 new project authorizations, totaling $30.4 billion in federal dollars, are spread across the country and Puerto Rico with price tags ranging from $10.5 million for harbor modifications in Glynn County, Georgia, to more than $21 billion for the “Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration” project (Texas chips in $13 billion for the $34 billion project). Odds are these projects, like nearly every project before them, will increase in costs over time as construction delays occur and project modifications accumulate. Illustrating this point, the bill authorizes six “Modifications” to previously authorized projects. Price tags range from the paltry $19.8 million (all-federal) modification to Washington D.C.’s flood risk management project to the whopping $3.218 billion (also, all-federal) modification to Michigan’s New Soo Lock Construction project. A project on Central and Southern Florida’s Indian Lagoon is actually the costliest modification at $5.4 billion, but the non-federal sponsor will, supposedly, pick up half the tab. 

This particular WRDA authorizes hundreds of reports for potential new projects. This includes 94 new feasibility studies and 12 new studies of modifications to existing water resources development projects. These are spread across the country and include projects for flood or coastal risk management, recreation opportunities, ecosystem restoration, and dam safety. Specific projects are listed on pages 3297 to 3315. Feasibility studies are a necessary step in the design and eventual construction of a particular Corps project. Congress also puts its collective thumb on the scale directing the Corps (Sec. 8202) to expedite the completion of a feasibility study for 25 particular projects, and if they find the project is justified, immediately move into pre-construction planning, engineering, and design (PPE&D) of those projects. Typically if a feasibility study determines a project is viable, Congress would have to give the Corps explicit authorization to move to designing the project. This pre-emptive authorization of PPE&D gives these projects a head start in getting designed and constructed, with taxpayer dollars at stake. 

There are also dozens of studies on all kinds of other issues not necessarily tied to a particular project. These run the gamut from broad to very narrow. It includes broad concerns like:  

• (Sec. 8208) – directing the Corps conduct a comprehensive study of increasing reservoir capacity across the South Pacific Division by using natural features or nature-based features upstream from reservoirs,  
• (Sec. 8234) – a report on corrosion prevention activities at Corps projects, and  
• (Sec. 8232) – opportunities to add solar generation or even floating solar to Corps projects and facilities.  

But the majority of studies are narrow and parochial in nature. Examples include:  

• (Sec. 8221) – A directive to expedite the study of adding barge lanes to the Houston, TX, ship channel,  
• (Sec. 8218) – a report on the economic benefits of recreational boating on the Great Lakes, and  
• (Sec. 8213) – a report on any excess property near Whittier Narrows Dam that could be transferred to the city of Pico Rivera, California, for the replacement of recreational facilities adversely impacted by ongoing safety repairs made to the Whittier Narrows Dam. Judging by the framing of the question, we’re guessing Congress has pre-determined the answer.  

More concerning than the parochial reports, the WRDA also includes numerous changes to water resources policy, many of which are fiscally irresponsible. Since revival of the once-every-Congress WRDA process in 2014, Congress has used the WRDA to undermine efforts to rein in the cost of federal water projects. They’ve done this by repeatedly reducing or completely relieving non-federal interests – that is the communities, port authorities, states, etc., that benefit from a project – of their financial responsibilities in the project. This WRDA continues this process. For example, under Sec. 8312, federal taxpayers will now cover 90 percent of the $490 million navigation project at the port of Nome, Alaska, instead of the 75 percent promised when the project was authorized in 2020. Another example is Sec. 8308, “a special rule” requiring federal taxpayers to cover increased costs for beach nourishment projects in Cape May, NJ, as well as Folly Beach, South Carolina, and both Wrightsville Beach and Topsail Beach and Vicinity, in North Carolina.    

But the biggest concern is a wholesale abandonment of cost-share for entire classes of projects. Barge interests using the inland waterways will have their share of construction costs for locks and dams that make navigation feasible reduced to 35 percent (instead of 50 percent) – permanently. This is the latest in a long-running barge industry effort to eliminate industry contributions to the construction of navigation infrastructure. When including operation and maintenance costs, the inland waterway industry already benefits from a greater than 90 percent federal subsidy, but evidently that is not enough. 

Water Resources Development Acts are important pieces of legislation for making investments in our nation’s water infrastructure. All of Congress should be given adequate time to evaluate and debate the merits of this bill. Latching it to the NDAA in the final weeks of Congress means this won’t happen, and the real and escalating costs of the projects for taxpayers won’t surface for years to come.