v3 introduces a new section, Section 318, to establish specific financing and operational provisions for the Arkansas Valley Conduit project, including a new repayment contract structure. Additionally, v3 clarifies savings provisions related to CERCLA liability in Section 103 and makes minor technical adjustments to coordinate descriptions in Section 306 and adds conditions to the use of contributed funds in Sections 339 and 340.
Water Resources Development Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
The bill is a comprehensive package of water infrastructure authorizations and policy reforms aimed at modernizing the Army Corps of Engineers' civil works mission, addressing diverse water challenges, and streamlining project delivery.
What it actually does
This Act, the "Water Resources Development Act of 2026," authorizes numerous water resources development projects, studies, and modifications across the United States. It establishes new program offices within the Army Corps of Engineers to improve efficiency in inland navigation, water supply, technical assistance, and alternative delivery methods. The bill also reauthorizes and modifies existing programs, deauthorizes inactive projects, and includes specific provisions related to dam safety, environmental infrastructure, and regional water management issues.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is crucial for maintaining and upgrading vital water infrastructure, enhancing flood protection, restoring ecosystems, and ensuring reliable water supplies. They emphasize the importance of streamlining project delivery, promoting beneficial use of dredged material, and improving coordination with non-Federal partners to address local needs effectively. The establishment of new offices and updated policies will lead to greater efficiency and responsiveness from the Corps.
Opponents contend
Critics, if any, might raise concerns about the overall cost of the numerous authorized projects, potential environmental impacts of certain developments, or the effectiveness of new administrative offices. Some might argue that certain provisions could lead to federal overreach or that the bill does not adequately prioritize specific critical needs over others.
The bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring significant time to read and understand its full implications, especially given the numerous amendments to existing law and specific project authorizations.
Sec. 101, Title I
Establishment of New Program Offices within the Directorate of Civil Works
This section mandates the establishment of four new offices within the Army Corps of Engineers' Directorate of Civil Works: the Office of Inland Navigation Construction Management, the Office of Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency, the Office on Technical Assistance and Community Outreach, and the Office on Alternative Delivery Methods. These offices are intended to streamline management, enhance technical support, and improve coordination for specific mission areas, with dedicated program managers and staff.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these new offices will enhance the Corps' efficiency and responsiveness, addressing long-standing issues in inland navigation, water supply, and project delivery. They believe dedicated focus will accelerate project completion and better serve non-Federal partners.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against establishing new offices, but critics might argue that such restructuring could lead to increased bureaucracy or that existing resources could be better utilized without creating new administrative layers.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between the desire for increased specialization and efficiency versus the potential for added administrative overhead and the need to ensure adequate funding and staffing for these new entities without diverting resources from other critical Corps functions.
Sec. 103, Title I
Limited Liability for Contaminated Sediment Removal
This provision states that the Secretary of the Army will not be liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) for releases of hazardous substances resulting from covered activities (removal or remediation of contaminated sediment) carried out under a joint plan approved by the EPA Administrator. The Corps must document contaminants and identify responsible parties, and the provision does not affect the ability to seek cost recovery from responsible parties or liability for negligence.
Sec. 109, Title I
Modifications to Continuing Authority Programs
This section establishes a new program for studies and projects to improve flood risk management for existing Corps projects, with a Federal cost share of 50% for studies (first $100,000 Federal) and a non-Federal share of 75% for construction, capped at $15 million Federal. It also amends the drought resiliency program (Sec. 155 of WRDA 2020) to expand eligible activities and adjust cost shares, and increases expenditure limits for several other continuing authority programs (e.g., emergency streambank protection, small flood control projects).
Sec. 119, Title I
Prohibition on Diversion of Water from Missouri River
This section prohibits the diversion or export of water from any portion of the Missouri River or its tributaries for use outside of a Missouri River State, unless approved by the Governor of each of the ten Missouri River States (Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Wyoming). It also prohibits the Secretary from undertaking or funding studies on such diversions without the same gubernatorial approval. This does not apply to previously authorized diversions related to Federal reserved water rights before January 1, 2025.
Sec. 130, Title I
Cost-Benefit Treatment for Natural and Nature-Based Features
This section directs the Secretary, in evaluating the benefits and costs of an authorized water resources development project, 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 not more than 10 projects, including specific projects for New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries and a coastal storm risk management project in New Jersey. The authority sunsets after 5 years.
Sec. 201, Title II
Authorization of Numerous New Feasibility Studies
This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies for 107 new water resources development projects across various states, covering purposes such as ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, navigation, water supply, and recreation. These studies are for projects identified in previous 'Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development' documents or otherwise reviewed by Congress.
Sec. 306, Title III
Specific Deauthorization of Inactive Projects
This section deauthorizes specific portions of several water resources development projects, including flood channels in the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, a levee along the Lower San Joaquin River in California, and portions of navigation channels in the Harlem River and Newtown Creek in New York. It also deauthorizes a portion of the Charleston Harbor navigation project upon the sale of a marine terminal and a snagging/clearing project in Shot Pouch Creek, South Carolina.
Sec. 307, Title III
Authorization and Modification of Environmental Infrastructure Projects
This section authorizes 100 new environmental infrastructure projects across various states and modifies the authorized funding levels for 84 existing projects under Section 219(f) of WRDA 1992. These projects typically involve water and wastewater infrastructure, stormwater management, environmental restoration, and water supply improvements. It also adds a provision allowing the Federal share of costs for these projects to be provided as reimbursement for non-Federal interests.
Sec. 401, Title IV
Authorization of Specific Water Resources Development Projects
This section authorizes seven specific water resources development projects for construction by the Secretary, substantially in accordance with their respective Chief of Engineers reports or decision documents. These projects include navigation improvements (Gulfport Harbor, MS; Columbia River Turning Basins, WA & OR), flood risk management (Kentucky River, KY; New York-New Jersey Harbor, NY & NJ), ecosystem restoration (Lower Osage River Basin, MO; Little Goose Creek, WY), and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction (Surf City, NC). The estimated federal and non-federal costs for each project are explicitly listed.
Sec. 501, Title V
National Dam Safety Program Amendments
This section amends the National Dam Safety Program Act, specifically extending the authorization for the National Dam Safety Program by increasing the period for which grants may be made to states from 2 to 7 years (Sec. 8(e)(4)). It also extends the authorization of appropriations for the rehabilitation of high hazard potential dams from 2026 to 2031 (Sec. 8A(j)(4)). Additionally, it makes technical corrections regarding the focus of certain dam safety studies, removing references to 'low-head dams' in specific contexts.
Provides a limited liability shield for the Secretary of the Army under CERCLA for releases of hazardous substances during contaminated sediment removal or remediation, provided the activity is part of a joint plan approved by the EPA Administrator. The Corps must still document contaminants and identify responsible parties, and the shield does not cover negligence.
Sec. 103, Title I
Why it matters:While not intentionally buried to be evasive, the technical nature of CERCLA liability and the specific conditions for the shield make it less immediately obvious to a casual reader than a direct project authorization. It's standard legislative practice to place such legal details within relevant sections.
Case for: Supporters argue this is crucial for enabling the Corps to undertake necessary environmental dredging projects that are currently stalled due to fear of CERCLA liability, thereby accelerating critical cleanups. It facilitates action while retaining mechanisms for accountability.
Case against: Critics might argue that any reduction in CERCLA liability, even conditional, could potentially lessen the incentive for the Corps to fully internalize environmental risks or could be seen as a precedent for other agencies to seek similar exemptions.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could unlock numerous contaminated sediment removal projects nationwide that were previously deemed too risky for the Corps to undertake.
Prohibits the diversion or export of water from the Missouri River or its tributaries for use outside of the ten Missouri River States without the unanimous approval of the Governors of all those states. It also requires the same unanimous approval for any federal studies on such diversions.
Sec. 119, Title I
Why it matters:This is a significant policy rider addressing a long-standing and contentious issue of interstate water rights and resource control. Its inclusion in an omnibus WRDA bill ensures it moves forward with other popular provisions, rather than facing standalone scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents from the Missouri River Basin argue this protects their vital water resources from external demands, ensuring that the basin's water is primarily used for the benefit of the states within it, especially in times of drought.
Case against: Critics from water-stressed regions outside the basin might contend this creates an unreasonable barrier to addressing broader national water needs and could be seen as an inefficient allocation of a shared national resource.
Estimated impact: High, as it effectively grants a veto power to each Missouri River State over any future out-of-basin water transfers or studies, significantly impacting water management and development in the region.
Directs the Secretary, for up to 10 projects (including two specifically named), to treat the benefits of measures utilizing natural or nature-based features as at least equal to their costs in project evaluations. This authority sunsets after 5 years.
Sec. 130, Title I
Why it matters:This provision is a policy rider designed to promote specific types of environmental solutions by altering their economic justification. It might be included in a broader bill to ensure passage without extensive debate on the underlying economic methodology.
Case for: Supporters argue this is necessary to properly value the multi-faceted benefits of natural infrastructure, which often extend beyond quantifiable economic returns and include ecological and resilience advantages that traditional models miss.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision introduces an artificial bias into project selection, potentially leading to less economically efficient projects or diverting funds from more traditional, proven infrastructure solutions.
Estimated impact: Medium, as it directly influences the feasibility and design of up to 10 major water resources projects, potentially shifting investment towards nature-based solutions.
Amends Public Law 87-590 to modify the repayment contract for the Arkansas Valley Conduit in Colorado. It allows for a 75-year repayment period with simple interest at 50% of the Treasury rate for the non-Federal share (35% of cost) if financial hardship is demonstrated, and allows for revenue from excess capacity contracts to count towards repayment.
Sec. 318, Title III
Why it matters:This is a targeted financial concession for a specific project, likely included to ensure its viability and secure local support. Such specific financial terms are often included in omnibus bills to avoid individual scrutiny.
Case for: Supporters argue that these modified repayment terms are essential to make the Arkansas Valley Conduit project financially feasible for the communities it serves, ensuring access to domestic water supplies in a region facing water scarcity.
Case against: Critics might argue that such generous repayment terms constitute a federal subsidy that could set a precedent for other projects, potentially increasing federal financial exposure for local water infrastructure.
Estimated impact: Significant for the communities involved, potentially reducing their financial burden by tens of millions of dollars over the project's lifespan, ensuring the project's completion.
Directs the Secretary to expedite the Buffalo Bayou Tributaries and Resiliency Study in Texas, including its environmental review and Chief's Report. It specifies that the Chief's Report should recommend a 'comprehensive project' (including a subterranean tunnel conveyance system) and is not required to evaluate alternatives unacceptable to the non-Federal interest.
Sec. 337, Title III
Why it matters:This is a significant policy rider for a major, potentially controversial project. By directing the study's scope and limiting alternative evaluations based on non-Federal interest acceptance, it streamlines the path for a specific, large-scale solution, likely to avoid prolonged debate on alternatives.
Case for: Proponents argue that this expedited process and focus on a comprehensive solution, including a tunnel, is essential for providing robust flood risk management in the Buffalo Bayou area, which has experienced devastating floods like Hurricane Harvey. They contend that the non-Federal interest's preferences should be paramount for local projects.
Case against: Critics might argue that limiting the evaluation of alternatives and expediting the study could lead to a less thoroughly vetted or more expensive solution, potentially overlooking more cost-effective or environmentally preferable options. They might also raise concerns about federal resources being directed to a specific, pre-determined outcome.
Estimated impact: High, as it significantly influences the direction and timeline of a major flood risk management project in a densely populated area, potentially involving billions of dollars in federal and local investment.