Legislation to approve water projects is typically one of the most bipartisan bills to pass Congress, but advancing a package this year may be harder thanks to President Donald Trump’s penchant for withholding funding from his political enemies.
Lawmakers have been approving Water Resources Development Act bills on schedule every two years since 2014 — securing popular levee, harbor, lock, dam and water treatment system projects home for their states and districts.
But neither the House nor the Senate have unveiled their proposals yet, and time is running out for bipartisan legislation before congressional action typically grinds to a halt during a contentious election year. Meanwhile, some lawmakers are already trying to use the package as a vehicle for addressing grievances with the administration.
“WRDA is likely to be more complicated this year, not because Congress lacks interest in passing a bill, but because several pressures are converging at once,” said Julie Ufner, CEO of the National Waterways Conference, an advocacy group that lobbies on the measure.
The workhorse water resources bill is the latest legislative priority to be threatened by the Trump administration’s bare-knuckled approach to presidential power, as congressional leaders also work to advance other long-sought bipartisan deals on permitting reform, highways and defense.
This year’s WRDA bill comes as Democratic lawmakers are still smarting from the administration’s move to divert hundreds of millions of construction dollars from projects in Washington state and California to red states in last year’s budget. The White House also paused $11 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects in blue states during last fall’s government shutdown.
Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said he hopes his committee can craft a water projects bill that will win strong support.
But if the Army Corps is going to operate “as the president’s personal political retribution machine, they’re going to have huge problems,” said Whitehouse, who is also working with Capito on permitting and highways.
Already, the political headaches are piling up for committee leaders on WRDA. Most treacherous, perhaps, is the Colorado delegation’s request that the bill include the “Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act,” a plan to secure clean drinking water to rural southeastern Colorado.
That legislation passed Congress unanimously last year, but Trump unexpectedly vetoed it in December amid a feud with Democratic Gov. Jared Polis over the fate of former Colorado county clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted on state charges for tampering with voting machines after spreading 2020 election conspiracy theories.
The House then voted against an effort to override that veto led by Republican Rep. Jeff Hurd, whose deep-red district is one of the ones that would benefit from the project, along with fellow GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert’s.
The outlook for the legislation may be different now that Polis last month commuted Peters’ nine-year prison sentence.
“I have no final word, but I’m working on it,” Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said of efforts to get the vetoed bill into WRDA. “Hope springs eternal.”
Missing the juice
WRDA directs the Army Corps’ water infrastructure program and often wins broad support by advancing a litany of pet projects.
In years past, the legislation has authorized over 100 new studies and a couple dozen projects to reduce flood risks, improve ports and navigation, and restore wetlands.
But while interest in WRDA has been growing — House members submitted more than 1,700 bills, projects and studies for consideration — this year’s product is expected to authorize fewer Army Corps chiefs’ reports than in the past.
The reports, which offer recommendations to move forward on specific projects, have often been the juice that gets WRDA over the finish line. Key negotiators nonetheless remain bullish.
Capito said the smaller pipeline of chiefs’ reports is not a concern. The main challenge is ensuring the corps has money to carry out projects and studies as directed by Congress, she said.
“The challenges are the resources, because some of these projects are so expensive and so lengthy. But I think we’ll work through it,” Capito said.
The WRDA bill could be one of the few to advance that addresses the impacts of climate change, even with Congress’ reticence to discuss the issue and the administration rejecting the need to fund solutions.
The legislation is a chance to update how the Army Corps responds to flooding and coastal erosion and to address critical issues like dam safety. This year, environmental groups are pushing for language that would require the agency to prioritize natural infrastructure, such as levee setbacks and wetlands creation, something the administration has moved away from.
“The administration has made significant changes to corps priorities, and WRDA is Congress’s opportunity to redirect the corps,” said Kelsey Cruickshank, advocacy campaigns director at American Rivers. “I’m interested in how much Congress will take that opportunity.”
Tensions and ‘common ground’
The timing for action on WRDA is still unclear. While Transportation and Infrastructure Committee spokesperson Justin Harclerode said a draft House bill could be ready later this summer, Whitehouse said it’s still too early to say when a Senate version will be out.
Meanwhile, the Army Corps is moving more slowly than usual on completing chiefs’ reports to advance specific projects for inclusion in the legislation.
So far, just three reports for new projects are ready to go. Ufner expects the total to come out to fewer than 10. By comparison, there were 17 in WRDA enacted in 2024, 25 in 2022 and 46 in 2020.
The Army Corps did not respond to questions for this story. But one potential reason for the delay is a new policy requiring the design of projects to be at least 35 percent complete before the agency recommends that they move forward.
The aim is to ensure agency staff have a good sense of what will be built and to help keep project costs within budget. Still, agency leaders have promised to get more chiefs’ reports finished soon, said Tracy Zea, president and CEO of the Waterways Council, a water infrastructure lobbying group.
“In the budget hearing, [Lt. Gen. William ‘Butch’] Graham, announced there will be more Chiefs Reports. Hopefully enough to drive interest of the bill up,” Zea, who is also a former Republican staffer for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an email.
The bill could include some measures that dovetail with Trump administration priorities, such as speedy and efficient construction of projects. Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.) is interested in including language to improve “the efficiency in the corps’ processes and programs,” said Harclerode, the committee spokesperson.
“[We] hope to be able to find some common ground that supports the administration’s goals here,” Harclerode said.
Other provisions under consideration could set up a clash.
Reps. Ritchie Torres and George Latimer, both Democrats from New York, have asked the committees to include language attempting to override a new Defense Department policy that limits agency communications with Congress.
The policy requires agency staff to obtain approval from the department’s public affairs division prior to engaging with Congressional offices and has also drawn ire from Transportation and Infrastructure ranking member Rick Larsen (D-Wash.).
Also under consideration is legislation from Whitehouse and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) that would direct the Army Corps to fully evaluate nonstructural approaches to flood risk reduction: things like home buyouts, home elevations and floodproofing of structures to lessen damages.
Last year, the agency paused some flood control studies that rely primarily on nonstructural solutions, with officials saying the decision was driven by the high cost of those projects.
Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, said nonstructural solutions have long been a part of the corps’ ethos and should remain so. The group hopes to see Tillis’ and Whitehouse’s bill in WRDA.
In Berginnis’ view, WRDA remains one of the few chances for Congress to get something done in an “era of hyper-partisanship.” The bill is especially critical given the Army Corps’ vast jurisdiction, he said.
“A lot of things the corps has jurisdiction over are being impacted by the changing climate conditions. I know that’s the taboo thing to say, but it’s true,” Berginnis said.
