Water Resources Development Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill is a comprehensive legislative package aimed at modernizing and expanding the nation's water infrastructure and management practices through the Corps of Engineers.
What it actually does
H.R. 9497, the "Water Resources Development Act of 2026," authorizes numerous water resources development projects, studies, and modifications across the United States, primarily under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). It includes provisions to improve contracting efficiency, manage contaminated sediment, establish new program offices within the Corps, update policies on real estate and dredged material, and address specific regional water challenges like flood risk, drought resiliency, and ecosystem restoration. The bill also deauthorizes inactive projects and modifies existing ones.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is crucial for maintaining and upgrading vital water infrastructure, enhancing national security, improving flood and storm resilience, restoring critical ecosystems, and ensuring reliable water supply for communities. They would highlight the creation of new program offices to streamline operations and improve responsiveness to local needs, as well as the focus on beneficial use of dredged material and natural infrastructure.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill authorizes too many projects, potentially leading to excessive federal spending or projects that are not economically justified. Concerns could be raised about the scope of deauthorizations or modifications, or specific provisions that might favor certain regions or industries over others. Without a CBO score, some might also express concern about the overall fiscal impact.
The bill is 68 pages long and highly technical, requiring several hours for a thorough review. Given its "Introduced in House" status, there is ample time for review, but its complexity means that a quick read would miss significant details.
Title I, Sec. 101
Establishment of New Corps Program Offices
This section mandates the establishment of four new offices within the Corps of Engineers' Directorate of Civil Works: an Office of Inland Navigation Construction Management, an Office of Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency, an Office on Technical Assistance and Community Outreach, and an Office on Alternative Delivery Methods. These offices are intended to streamline management, improve coordination, and provide specialized support for various Corps missions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these offices will enhance the Corps' ability to execute its diverse missions, improve responsiveness to non-Federal partners, and address critical national needs like inland navigation, water supply, and drought resilience more effectively.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against organizational improvements aimed at efficiency, though some might question the necessity of new offices versus optimizing existing structures or worry about administrative overhead.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between creating new, specialized structures for efficiency versus potential for increased bureaucracy or resource allocation challenges within the existing Corps framework.
Title I, Sec. 103
CERCLA Liability Protection for Contaminated Sediment Remediation
This section provides a liability shield under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) for the Secretary of the Army (Corps) when carrying out covered activities (removal or remediation of contaminated sediment) in accordance with a joint plan approved by the EPA Administrator. The Corps must document hazardous substances and identify responsible parties, and the Federal Government retains the right to seek cost recovery from those parties.
Title I, Sec. 105
Streamlining Section 408 Permissions
This section amends the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408) to require the Secretary to establish "categorical permissions" for certain activities that affect Corps-owned or operated public works. These permissions would apply to categories of activities that are similar, cause minimal adverse environmental effects, and are regularly submitted for approval, aiming to streamline the permitting process.
Title I, Sec. 108
Accelerating Feasibility Studies
This section amends existing law to accelerate Corps feasibility studies. It requires studies to be completed as efficiently and expeditiously as practicable, align with non-Federal interests' goals, and involve concurrent review by district, division, and headquarters personnel. It also mandates detailed project schedules with milestones and cost estimates, with a goal of completing final feasibility reports within 4 years and a maximum Federal cost of $5,000,000, with congressional notification for exceedances.
Title I, Sec. 109
Expansion and Modernization of Continuing Authority Programs
This section establishes a new continuing authority program for project modifications to improve flood risk management (with a $15M Federal limit) and reauthorizes/expands the drought resiliency program (with a $10M Federal limit). It also increases the maximum Federal expenditure limits for several existing continuing authority programs, including emergency streambank/shoreline protection, small flood control projects, and environmental improvements. It clarifies that the most recent expenditure limits apply to ongoing projects.
Title I, Sec. 112
Updating Regulations for Dredged Material Disposal
This section mandates the Secretary to update Corps regulations for establishing the "Federal standard" for dredged material disposal or placement. The updates must align with recent legislation emphasizing beneficial use of dredged material, including economic and environmental benefits, and considering factors like confined aquatic disposal capacity and non-Federal costs. A rulemaking process must be initiated within 6 months.
Title I, Sec. 120
Missouri River Water Diversion Restrictions
This section prohibits the diversion or export of water from the Missouri River or its tributaries for use outside of a Missouri River State (Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Wyoming) unless approved by the Governor of each of those states. It also prohibits federal studies or funding for such diversions without similar gubernatorial approval, with an exception for previously authorized diversions related to federal reserved water rights.
Title I, Sec. 131
Valuing Natural and Nature-Based Features
This section directs the Secretary, in evaluating benefits and costs of authorized water resources development projects, to treat benefits attributable to measures utilizing natural or nature-based features as at least equal to the costs of such measures. This authority is limited to 10 projects, with two specific priority projects identified (New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, and a coastal storm risk management project in New Jersey). A report on the evaluations is required within 4 years, and the authority sunsets after 5 years.
Title I, Sec. 133
Expanding Scope of Flood Risk Management Studies
This section clarifies federal policy to recognize comprehensive flood risk from various drivers (riverine, extreme weather, coastal/tidal, sea level rise, stormwater) and mandates equal consideration for structural and nonstructural features in feasibility studies. It expands the scope of studies to include all effects within the geographic area, including stormwater, and requires the Secretary to incorporate feasible non-Federal interest alternatives into recommended plans as construction features.
Title II, Sec. 201
Authorization of Numerous New Feasibility Studies
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies for 107 new water resources development and conservation projects across various states and purposes (e.g., flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, navigation, water supply). It also authorizes studies for 24 modifications to existing projects. These studies are the first step towards potential future federal investment in these areas.
Title III, Sec. 301
Streamlining Deauthorization Process for Inactive Projects
This section amends the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 to refine the process for deauthorizing inactive water resources development projects. It clarifies that the purpose of deauthorization is to address the backlog of authorized but unconstructed projects. It also updates the timeline for the Secretary to submit and regularly update the deauthorization list and appendix to Congress and the Federal Register.
Title III, Sec. 303
Specific Land Conveyances
This section authorizes the Secretary to convey specific parcels of federal land, often without consideration, to local entities for public purposes. Examples include conveying 48 acres in Corona, California, to the City for water reclamation, 4.02 acres in Duck, North Carolina, for a fire station, and Grassy Island in Toledo, Ohio, for public benefit. It also authorizes a sale of 25 acres in Umatilla County, Oregon, at fair market value. These conveyances are subject to various terms, including reversion clauses and liability provisions.
Title III, Sec. 306
Deauthorization of Specific Projects/Portions
This section deauthorizes specific portions of several water resources development projects. Notably, it deauthorizes numerous flood channels within the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, subject to an agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to ensure continued operation and maintenance. It also deauthorizes a portion of the Lower San Joaquin River flood protection project, parts of the Harlem River and Hudson River navigation channels in New York, and a portion of the Charleston Harbor navigation project in South Carolina upon cessation of commercial operations.
Title IV, Sec. 401
Authorization of Specific Water Resources Infrastructure Projects
This section authorizes several specific water resources development projects for construction, based on completed Chief of Engineers reports or decision documents. These include navigation improvements for the Columbia River Turning Basins (WA & OR), flood risk management for the Kentucky River in Beattyville (KY), ecosystem restoration for Little Goose Creek (WY), coastal storm risk management for Surf City (NC), and several modifications and other projects like the Rio de Flag (AZ), Port of Long Beach (CA), Central and Southern Florida (C-111 South Dade), Kentucky Lock Addition (KY), Memphis Metropolitan Stormwater (MS), and Chickamauga Lock Replacement (TN). Each authorization includes estimated federal and non-federal costs.
Title V, Sec. 501
National Dam Safety Program Amendments
This section amends the National Dam Safety Program Act. It extends the authorization for the National Dam Safety Program by changing the sunset date for certain provisions from 2026 to 2031. It also modifies language regarding the types of dams included in certain program aspects, specifically removing references to "low-head dams" from two subclauses related to program activities.
While granting the Corps CERCLA liability protection for contaminated sediment remediation, this subsection explicitly states that nothing in the section affects the Federal Government's responsibility to seek cost recovery from responsible parties under CERCLA.
Title I, Sec. 103(e)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify that a specific exemption does not negate broader legal responsibilities, ensuring that polluters can still be held accountable.
Case for: Proponents would argue this maintains the "polluter pays" principle of CERCLA, ensuring that the federal government can still recoup costs from those responsible for contamination, even as the Corps is enabled to proceed with cleanup.
Case against: No direct case against, as it upholds an existing principle.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for ensuring long-term financial accountability for environmental cleanups, though the immediate impact is on legal clarity rather than direct spending.
For the new continuing authority program for flood risk management improvements, the Secretary may not include modifications to address operations and maintenance responsibilities of the non-Federal interest, including deferred or incomplete maintenance. The baseline condition for determining modifications is the "as-built" condition.
Title I, Sec. 109(4)(B)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail to prevent federal funds from being used to cover local entities' neglected maintenance responsibilities, a common concern in cost-sharing programs. It's standard to include such limitations.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures federal funds are used for improvements and new capabilities, not to bail out non-Federal partners who have failed to maintain their share of existing projects, promoting fiscal responsibility and accountability.
Case against: Non-Federal interests with significant deferred maintenance might find this provision burdensome, as it requires them to address their own maintenance issues before accessing federal funds for improvements.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for local entities with aging infrastructure, requiring them to invest in maintenance before seeking federal improvement funds.
This section expresses a Sense of Congress that the Secretary should review and update minimum real estate interests for completed flood risk management projects, provide summaries to non-Federal interests, and develop a streamlined process for updating project boundaries. This is to ensure projects maintain benefits, comply with manuals, and can receive necessary permissions for future work.
Title I, Sec. 138
Why it matters:"Sense of Congress" language is often used when there is broad agreement on a policy goal but a desire to avoid a direct mandate or to allow for administrative flexibility.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a crucial step to ensure the long-term viability and operational flexibility of existing flood risk management projects, addressing common issues with outdated real estate records and local land use changes.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against improving the management of existing projects.
Estimated impact: Administrative burden for the Corps, but potentially significant long-term benefits for project maintenance and local planning.
This sub-subsection repeals previous sections from the Water Resources Development Acts of 2022 and 2024 that also dealt with the deauthorization of portions of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project. This indicates a new, consolidated approach to that specific deauthorization.
Title III, Sec. 306(a)(5)
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative cleanup, ensuring that the new, comprehensive deauthorization language supersedes previous, potentially conflicting or less complete, attempts. It's standard practice.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures legal clarity and avoids conflicting authorities regarding the deauthorization of these specific flood channels, streamlining the transition of responsibilities.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against technical legislative cleanups.
Estimated impact: Primarily legal and administrative clarity; no direct fiscal impact beyond simplifying the regulatory landscape.