v2 is a complete substitute amendment that significantly expands the scope of the Water Resources Development Act. It introduces several new policy directives and studies across water resources development and environmental protection, including new sections for emerging harbors, specific project maintenance, and mandates new studies on clean water technical assistance and microplastics.
Water Resources Development Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill comprehensively addresses national water infrastructure needs through new authorizations, program reauthorizations, and operational reforms for both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
What it actually does
The Water Resources Development Act of 2026 (WRDA 2026) authorizes new water infrastructure projects, modifies existing ones, and reauthorizes various water-related programs across two main divisions. Division A focuses on Army Corps of Engineers civil works, including navigation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and coastal storm risk reduction projects, along with general provisions for Corps operations and studies. Division B addresses drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, reauthorizing and modifying various Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant programs, State Revolving Loan Funds, and geographic initiatives.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is essential for maintaining and upgrading critical water infrastructure, protecting communities from floods and coastal storms, restoring vital ecosystems, and ensuring safe drinking water and effective wastewater treatment nationwide. They highlight the bipartisan nature of WRDA bills and the importance of regular reauthorization to address evolving water resource challenges and promote economic development.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that while the overall goals are laudable, the bill's omnibus nature could obscure less meritorious projects or policy riders. Concerns could be raised about the total cost, the efficiency of some authorized projects, or specific provisions that might favor certain regions or interests over others.
The bill is 100 pages long and highly technical. An informed reader would need several hours to thoroughly review it, which may be challenging given typical legislative timelines for omnibus bills.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 1101
Congressional Notice on Implementation
This section requires the Secretary of the Army to develop and transmit a plan for implementing the bill within 90 days of enactment. This plan must identify provisions needing new guidance, rules, or appropriations, and set timelines for their issuance. It also mandates quarterly briefings to Congress on implementation status and requires 30-day notice before issuing any new guidance or rules.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision enhances congressional oversight and ensures timely and transparent implementation of critical water infrastructure legislation, preventing delays and ensuring legislative intent is met.
Critics contend
Some might argue that such detailed reporting requirements could create an undue administrative burden on the Corps, potentially diverting resources from project execution.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances congressional desires for oversight and transparency with the potential for increased administrative overhead for the implementing agency.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 1106
Streamlining Continuing Authority Programs (CAPs)
This section delegates management, review, and approval of decision documents for Continuing Authority Program (CAP) projects to District Commanders. It also mandates the use of simplified evaluation procedures for CAP studies, such as limited alternatives analysis and streamlined documentation, unless a project significantly increases risk to human life or safety.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 1113
Design Maturity and Cost Estimates
This section expresses a Sense of Congress regarding the importance of accurate cost estimates and appropriate design maturity levels in Corps studies. It prohibits requiring 35% or greater design maturity for projects if a lesser level is sufficient for a Class III cost estimate. It also allows the Secretary to carry out preconstruction planning, engineering, and design (PED) activities for proposed projects after feasibility reports are submitted, establishing a separate appropriations account for these funds.
Division A, Title II, Sec. 1201
Authorization of New Feasibility Studies
This section authorizes the Secretary of the Army to conduct feasibility studies for 47 new water resources development projects across various states, including for ecosystem restoration in Mobile, AL; navigation in Kodiak, AK; coastal storm risk management in Hayward, CA; and flood risk management in Athens-Clarke County, GA. It also authorizes modifications to 14 existing projects for new purposes or improvements.
Division A, Title II, Sec. 1205
Expedited Action on Juneau Glacial Lake Flooding
This section expresses a Sense of Congress that the Secretary should expedite documentation for projects to manage glacial lake outburst flooding risk in Juneau, Alaska. It mandates expedited completion of necessary reports (technical, Chief's, etc.) and allows the Secretary to proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design if a project is justified and requires further congressional authorization.
Division A, Title III, Sec. 1301
Environmental Infrastructure Program Expansions
This section amends Section 219(a) of WRDA 1992 to allow environmental infrastructure assistance to be provided as grants or reimbursements, in addition to design assistance. It also authorizes 77 new environmental infrastructure projects across various states, including for water and wastewater in Nelson Lagoon, AK; Kingman, AZ; and Custer County, CO. A significant modification is for Rhode Island, authorizing $71 million for comprehensive water/wastewater/environmental assistance with a 90% federal share for disadvantaged communities.
Division A, Title III, Sec. 1303
Deauthorization of Obsolete Projects
This section deauthorizes specific portions of several federal water projects. These include flood channels in the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, a levee system in the Lower San Joaquin River, CA, and portions of the Harlem River and Hudson River Federal Navigation Channels in New York. It also deauthorizes a portion of Charleston Harbor, SC, upon completion of a specific land sale.
Division A, Title III, Sec. 1310
Lake Eufaula Encroachment Resolution Plan
This section directs the Secretary to prepare an encroachment resolution plan for Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma, addressing unauthorized structures on federal land. The plan must describe encroachments, their impacts, alternatives to removal, prevention measures, costs, and resolution options (agreements, easements, licenses). It also imposes a moratorium on compelling removal until Congress specifically authorizes such action.
Division A, Title IV, Sec. 1401
Project Authorizations
This section authorizes several new water resources development projects, including for navigation (e.g., Gulfport Harbor, MS, $548M total; Columbia River Turning Basins, WA/OR, $21.8M total), flood risk management (e.g., Kentucky River, KY, $12.5M total; Waccamaw River, SC, $7.4M initial total; New York-New Jersey Harbor, $278M total), ecosystem restoration (e.g., Lower Osage River Basin, MO, $146.6M total; Little Goose Creek, WY, $80.9M total), and hurricane and storm damage risk reduction (e.g., Surf City, NC, $198.6M initial total). It also authorizes modifications to existing projects like the Port of Long Beach Deep Draft Navigation Project, CA ($255.8M total), and the Central Everglades Planning Project, FL ($12.3B total).
Division B, Title I, Sec. 2102
DWSRF Reauthorization and Expanded Uses
This section reauthorizes the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) program with increasing appropriations from $3.75 billion in FY2027 to $4.5 billion in FY2030. It expands eligible uses of funds to include addressing emerging contaminants (like perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS), lead service line replacement, and projects that provide both drinking water service and wildfire suppression benefits, especially in high-risk or rural communities. It also clarifies that grant amounts can be determined by Community Project Funding or Congressionally Directed Spending.
Division B, Title I, Sec. 2109
Digital Infrastructure Technology Grant Program
This section establishes a new EPA grant program to provide $15 million annually from FY2027-2030 for eligible entities (publicly owned public water systems or treatment works in rural areas or areas with critical water supply needs, or states/tribes on their behalf) to design, construct, and maintain digital infrastructure technology. This includes remote sensing, real-time monitoring, artificial intelligence for optimization, and cybersecurity measures. Priority is given to systems serving fewer than 3,300 people or those most in need.
Division B, Title II, Sec. 2205
CWSRF Reauthorization and Emerging Contaminants
This section reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program with $3.5 billion annually from FY2027-2030. It expands eligible projects to include those addressing emerging contaminants, such as PFAS, through capital investments for assessment and monitoring. Similar to the DWSRF, it clarifies that grant awards can be determined by Community Project Funding or Congressionally Directed Spending.
Division B, Title III, Sec. 2306
New Southeast New England Program
This section establishes a new 'Southeast New England Program' within the EPA to protect, enhance, and restore coastal watersheds in Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. It authorizes $7.5 million annually from FY2027-2030 for grants to various entities (states, local governments, tribes, non-profits, universities) for projects related to pollution reduction, ecosystem restoration, water quality improvement, stormwater runoff reduction, and resilience. The federal share for these grants is capped at 75%.
Division B, Title IV, Sec. 2401
Water Intelligence, Security, and Cyber Threat Protection
This section establishes an EPA program to encourage and support participation of community water systems and treatment works in the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center. It authorizes $10 million annually from FY2027-2030 to offset membership costs, expand EPA cooperation with the Center, and enhance tools for monitoring water sector status and preparedness against malevolent acts or natural hazards. It also mandates a report to Congress on the state of cybersecurity in the water sector.
Allows non-Federal interests to contribute up to 10% more than the maximum federal cost for authorized navigation projects, if requested, to expedite the project.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 1103(2)
Why it matters:This is a technical adjustment to existing authorities, often placed within amendments to streamline legislative drafting.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides flexibility for non-Federal partners to accelerate project delivery, especially for critical navigation improvements, by allowing them to front more funds, thereby reducing delays.
Case against: Critics might suggest it could lead to situations where non-Federal interests over-commit or where federal oversight of project costs becomes less stringent if non-Federal funds are readily available.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions of dollars in accelerated project funding for navigation projects.
Prohibits the Secretary from delaying progress of certain studies (those developing recommendations for congressional authorization) toward a schedule milestone by a period exceeding 45 days in total under existing WRDA 2014 timelines.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 1115(d)(1)(D)
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative directive aimed at improving Corps efficiency, common in WRDA bills.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a critical measure to prevent bureaucratic delays in the Corps' study process, ensuring that projects move forward in a timely manner and do not languish for years.
Case against: Some might argue that strict deadlines, even with a 45-day buffer, could force premature decisions or inadequate analysis if unforeseen complexities arise during a study.
Estimated impact: Potential acceleration of numerous Corps feasibility studies, reducing overall project timelines.
Clarifies that projects under the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program are 'water resources development projects' and eligible for non-Federal execution, with the non-Federal interest responsible for hazardous substance remediation at the project site, and those remediation costs excluded from the federal project cost.
Division A, Title III, Sec. 1311(f)(3)(C)
Why it matters:This is a technical clarification of eligibility and cost-sharing for a specific program, likely addressing past implementation issues.
Case for: Proponents argue this clarification removes ambiguities, encourages non-Federal partners to undertake restoration projects, and ensures that remediation costs are appropriately handled outside the federal project budget.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such technical clarifications, though some might argue that shifting remediation costs entirely to non-Federal partners could be a burden.
Estimated impact: Potentially streamlines Great Lakes restoration projects and clarifies financial responsibilities.
Expands eligible uses of Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds (DWSRF) to include projects that improve drinking water service while also providing wildfire suppression benefits, especially in high-risk or rural communities.
Division B, Title I, Sec. 2102(a)(2)(G)(iii)
Why it matters:It's a specific expansion of an existing program's eligibility, often listed among other technical changes.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a smart, multi-benefit investment, leveraging drinking water infrastructure to enhance community resilience against wildfires, particularly in vulnerable areas.
Case against: Some might argue that blending wildfire suppression with drinking water projects could dilute the primary focus of DWSRF on drinking water quality and safety, or that wildfire funding should come from other dedicated sources.
Estimated impact: Potentially millions of dollars directed towards dual-purpose infrastructure projects in wildfire-prone regions.
Requires the EPA Administrator to revise regulations within 180 days to provide exemptions for the use of nonpotable aquifers for Class VI wells (used for geologic sequestration of CO2). It specifies criteria for such exemptions, including that the aquifer does not currently and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water, or has total dissolved solids content between 3,000 and 10,000 mg/l and is not reasonably expected to supply a public water system.
Division B, Title IV, Sec. 2403
Why it matters:This is a significant regulatory change that could be controversial, potentially affecting environmental groups and the energy industry. Placing it in 'Other Matters' might reduce immediate scrutiny compared to a dedicated title.
Case for: Proponents argue this streamlines the permitting process for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, which are critical for climate change mitigation, by clarifying and expanding the use of nonpotable aquifers for CO2 injection.
Case against: Environmental groups might raise concerns about potential risks to groundwater quality, even in nonpotable aquifers, or the adequacy of safeguards for long-term CO2 storage.
Estimated impact: Could significantly impact the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies and the regulatory landscape for underground injection.