Water Resources

Local Sponsors' Views on Corps' Implementation of Project Cost Sharing Gao ID: RCED-92-11FS November 15, 1991

The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a cost-sharing partnership with local sponsors whose active participation and financial commitment are essential to accomplish water resource development projects. The sponsors generally are local or state governments or other public entities, like flood control districts or port authorities, that ask the Corps' for help. This fact sheet presents the views of local sponsors on the Corps' implementation of cost sharing under the act, including the sponsors' views on their relationship with the Corps and the impact of cost sharing on accomplishing proposed projects, such as flood control or navigation projects.

GAO found that: (1) proposed Corps water development projects have four phases which include reconnaissance, feasibility, preconstruction engineering and design (PED), and construction; (2) most of the 448 local sponsors responding to a GAO questionnaire were generally satisfied with their interaction with the Corps during project planning and development as potential or actual cost-sharing partners; (3) although the majority of respondents were satisfied with their ability to interact with Corps staff and influence key project decisions, a significant number of respondents said that the Corps did not treat them as equal partners; (4) a majority of respondents with projects in the feasibility, PED, or construction phases had concerns about the cost-sharing agreements; and (5) respondents for 216 projects delayed or terminated during or at the end of a phase generally stated that a lack of financial capability, conflicting budget and project policies, or local political issues resulted in the delay or termination of their proposed projects.



The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.