Army Corps of Engineers
Organizational Realignment Could Enhance Effectiveness, but Several Challenges Would Have to Be Overcome Gao ID: GAO-10-819 September 1, 2010The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' (Corps) civil works mission has grown over the years, while its three-tiered headquarters, division, and district structure has remained the same since it was created in 1893. GAO was asked to examine for the Civil Works Program (1) over time, how the Corps has realigned its organization to take into account its changing mission, budget, staffing, and workload; (2) the challenges that the Corps has faced in realigning its organization; and (3) areas where officials and stakeholders believe changes to organizational alignment, if any, could enhance the Corps' civil works mission. Organizational alignment refers to, among other things, changes in structure, roles and responsibilities, and technical and policy guidance. GAO completed a historical and legislative review of the Corps' mission and past realignment efforts, reviewed budget, staffing, and workload data, and interviewed current and former officials and stakeholders.
Since 1893, the Corps has had mixed results in modifying its organizational alignment in response to its changing mission, budget, staffing, and workload, but the fundamental structure has remained the same. For example, the Corps has added capacity and staff in response to its expanding mission, which now includes nine functional areas. Additionally, from 1994 to 2003, the Corps experienced static funding levels and responded by launching an effort that realigned the agency roles, functions, and processes to improve the efficiency of the Civil Works Program. In contrast to these efforts, other past proposals for realignment have not been implemented. For example, in 1992, the Corps proposed reducing the number of district offices in response to a diminished workload and budget. However, Congress did not support the closing of any districts, and therefore, this, as well as other similar proposals, have not been implemented. The Corps has faced and will likely continue to face three challenges to any realignment effort: (1) inability to gain congressional support, (2) limitations of its funding structure, and (3) the autonomous culture of its districts. Most current and former officials told GAO that past attempts to realign district offices have failed because of a lack of congressional support. They said that the perceived risk of service reductions and job losses has and will continue to generate congressional resistance to such realignment efforts. In addition, they said the Corps' annual incremental project-based appropriations and cost-sharing requirements create an impediment to realignment. For example, funding projects in increments hinders project efficiency by increasing costs and timelines. Finally, they said the autonomous culture of the districts has created a culture where they are reluctant to share resources and workload. This has impeded the Corps' efforts to realign its work and resources more efficiently. Although many officials and stakeholders that GAO spoke with generally agreed that the Corps' structure is appropriate because it allows each level to focus on client and stakeholder needs at that level, some said that the current workload did not justify 38 districts. Officials and stakeholders also identified three areas where changes could result in enhanced effectiveness. First, they identified the need to redefine and clarify roles and responsibilities within the three levels so that Corps staff and managers are clear about the extent of their responsibilities. Second, there are opportunities to make better use of the Corps' Centers of Expertise, which were created to consolidate key skills and knowledge and improve the effectiveness of the overall Civil Works Program. Areas in which the centers could be improved include better information on the types of services available and qualifications of the experts in the centers. Finally, the majority of division and district commanders we interviewed said that the Corps' technical guidance is outdated and needs to be revised. Some of this technical guidance is between 10 and 15 years out of date and may result in divisions and districts executing projects differently. To improve the effectiveness of the Corps, GAO recommends, among other things, that the Department of Defense direct the Corps to review and revise as necessary the roles and responsibilities of component levels of the organization, and determine the extent to which the agency's technical guidance needs to be updated. The Department of Defense generally agreed with the recommendations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Anu K. Mittal Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-9846GAO-10-819, Army Corps of Engineers: Organizational Realignment Could Enhance Effectiveness, but Several Challenges Would Have to Be Overcome
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-819
entitled 'Army Corps Of Engineers: Organizational Realignment Could
Enhance Effectiveness, but Several Challenges Would Have to Be
Overcome' which was released on September 30, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2010:
Army Corps Of Engineers:
Organizational Realignment Could Enhance Effectiveness, but Several
Challenges Would Have to Be Overcome:
GAO-10-819:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-819, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers‘ (Corps) civil works mission has grown
over the years, while its three-tiered headquarters, division, and
district structure has remained the same since it was created in 1893.
GAO was asked to examine for the Civil Works Program (1) over time,
how the Corps has realigned its organization to take into account its
changing mission, budget, staffing, and workload; (2) the challenges
that the Corps has faced in realigning its organization; and (3) areas
where officials and stakeholders believe changes to organizational
alignment, if any, could enhance the Corps‘ civil works mission.
Organizational alignment refers to, among other things, changes in
structure, roles and responsibilities, and technical and policy
guidance.
GAO completed a historical and legislative review of the Corps‘
mission and past realignment efforts, reviewed budget, staffing, and
workload data, and interviewed current and former officials and
stakeholders.
What GAO Found:
Since 1893, the Corps has had mixed results in modifying its
organizational alignment in response to its changing mission, budget,
staffing, and workload, but the fundamental structure has remained the
same. For example, the Corps has added capacity and staff in response
to its expanding mission, which now includes nine functional areas.
Additionally, from 1994 to 2003, the Corps experienced static funding
levels and responded by launching an effort that realigned the agency
roles, functions, and processes to improve the efficiency of the Civil
Works Program. In contrast to these efforts, other past proposals for
realignment have not been implemented. For example, in 1992, the Corps
proposed reducing the number of district offices in response to a
diminished workload and budget. However, Congress did not support the
closing of any districts, and therefore, this, as well as other
similar proposals, have not been implemented.
The Corps has faced and will likely continue to face three challenges
to any realignment effort: (1) inability to gain congressional
support, (2) limitations of its funding structure, and (3) the
autonomous culture of its districts. Most current and former officials
told GAO that past attempts to realign district offices have failed
because of a lack of congressional support. They said that the
perceived risk of service reductions and job losses has and will
continue to generate congressional resistance to such realignment
efforts. In addition, they said the Corps‘ annual incremental project-
based appropriations and cost-sharing requirements create an
impediment to realignment. For example, funding projects in increments
hinders project efficiency by increasing costs and timelines. Finally,
they said the autonomous culture of the districts has created a
culture where they are reluctant to share resources and workload. This
has impeded the Corps‘ efforts to realign its work and resources more
efficiently.
Although many officials and stakeholders that GAO spoke with generally
agreed that the Corps‘ structure is appropriate because it allows each
level to focus on client and stakeholder needs at that level, some
said that the current workload did not justify 38 districts. Officials
and stakeholders also identified three areas where changes could
result in enhanced effectiveness. First, they identified the need to
redefine and clarify roles and responsibilities within the three
levels so that Corps staff and managers are clear about the extent of
their responsibilities. Second, there are opportunities to make better
use of the Corps‘ Centers of Expertise, which were created to
consolidate key skills and knowledge and improve the effectiveness of
the overall Civil Works Program. Areas in which the centers could be
improved include better information on the types of services available
and qualifications of the experts in the centers. Finally, the
majority of division and district commanders we interviewed said that
the Corps‘ technical guidance is outdated and needs to be revised.
Some of this technical guidance is between 10 and 15 years out of date
and may result in divisions and districts executing projects
differently.
What GAO Recommends:
To improve the effectiveness of the Corps, GAO recommends, among other
things, that the Department of Defense direct the Corps to review and
revise as necessary the roles and responsibilities of component levels
of the organization, and determine the extent to which the agency‘s
technical guidance needs to be updated. The Department of Defense
generally agreed with the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-819] or key
components. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-
3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The Corps Has Had Mixed Results in Modifying Its Organizational
Alignment in Response to Changes in Its Mission, Budget, Staffing, and
Workload:
The Corps Has Faced and Will Likely Continue to Face Challenges If It
Undertakes Organizational Realignment in the Future:
Officials and Stakeholders Agree That the Corps' Three-Tiered
Structure Is Appropriate, but Some Changes to Alignment Could Enhance
Its Effectiveness:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Former Corps Officials GAO Interviewed:
Appendix III: Timeline of Select Laws and Events Related to the Civil
Works Mission:
Appendix IV: Army Corps of Engineers' Budget, Staffing, and Workload:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Division-Level Full-Time
Equivalents, by Fiscal Year:
Table 2: Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Division-Level
Construction and Operations and Maintenance Project Expenditures, by
Fiscal Year:
Table 3: Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Total Appropriations
(Annual and Supplemental), by Appropriations Funding Account and by
Fiscal Year:
Table 4: Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Annual Obligations, by
Appropriations Funding Account and by Fiscal Year:
Table 5: Army Corps of Engineers District-and Division-Level Civil
Works Full-Time Equivalent Utilization for a Sample of Districts, by
Fiscal Year:
Table 6: Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction and
Operations and Maintenance Project Expenditures, by Fiscal Year:
Table 7: Army Corps of Engineers Number of Civil Works Construction
and Operations and Maintenance Projects, by Fiscal Year:
Figures:
Figure 1: Locations of the Corps' Civil Works Divisions and Districts:
Figure 2: Selected Key Events Reflecting Changing Responsibilities of
the Corps Over Time:
Figure 3: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reported Appropriations, by
Fiscal Year for Nine Appropriations Accounts:
Figure 4: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Total Obligations, by Fiscal
Year for Nine Appropriations Accounts:
Figure 5: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Full-Time
Equivalents, by Fiscal Year:
Abbreviations:
BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure:
CoP: Community of Practice:
Corps: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FTE: full-time equivalent:
FUSRAP: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program:
O&M: operations and maintenance:
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 1, 2010:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency
responsible for, among other things, domestic civil works projects. In
recent years the Corps has come under criticism from Members of
Congress, stakeholders, and the public about the effectiveness of its
Civil Works Program, including the length of time it takes to complete
projects and the Corps' increasing backlog of congressionally
authorized projects.
The Corps has a history dating back to the founding of the country.
When the Continental Congress organized the Continental Army in 1775,
it provided for a Chief Engineer to design and construct military
batteries and fortifications. In 1802, the U.S. Congress authorized
the establishment of the Corps and founded the U.S. Military Academy
at West Point as an engineering school--the first in the nation--under
the supervision of the Corps. The Corps started out as a small group,
and in 1812 consisted of 17 officers and 19 enlisted men. The Corps'
civil works mission was established in 1824, when Congress passed the
General Survey Act, authorizing the President to use the Corps to
survey road and canal routes "of national importance, in a commercial
or military point of view."[Footnote 1] Soon after, Congress
appropriated $75,000 to the Corps for improving the navigation of the
Ohio and Mississippi rivers. As the nation grew, the Corps was given
additional civil works responsibilities.
In general, the Corps receives "no-year" appropriations through the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act--that is, there are no
time limits on when the funds may be obligated or expended, and the
funds remain available for their original purposes until expended.
Projects are typically funded incrementally and often over many years.
Since fiscal year 2006, the Corps has received appropriations of over
$5 billion per year for its Civil Works Program.[Footnote 2]
Currently, the Corps, through the Civil Works Program, employs
approximately 25,000 civilian personnel and 650 military personnel and
covers hundreds of civil works projects nationwide. The program
comprises nine major functional areas, or business lines, which
include not only navigation and flood risk management, but also a
regulatory program, water supply, hydropower, recreation, environment,
emergency management, and support for others.[Footnote 3] Since the
late nineteenth century, the Corps has been structured into three
tiers--headquarters, divisions, and districts.
Given your interest in the Corps' Civil Works Program and the long-
standing history of the Corps' organizational structure, you requested
that we examine the Corps' organizational alignment. For purposes of
this report, organizational alignment refers to integration of various
organizational components (headquarters, divisions, and districts),
the roles and responsibilities of these components, or the funding and
staff resources that are available to support the Corps' civil works
mission.[Footnote 4] Specifically, our objectives were to examine (1)
how, over time, the Corps has modified its organizational alignment to
take into account its changing mission, budget, staffing, and
workload; (2) the challenges the Corps has faced in realigning its
organization and the extent to which these or other challenges are
still relevant; and (3) what changes to the Corps' organizational
alignment, if any, do officials and stakeholders believe could enhance
the effectiveness of the civil works mission.
To examine how the Corps has modified its organizational alignment to
take into account its changing mission, budget, staffing, and
workload, we analyzed data on appropriations and obligations, full-
time equivalent (FTE) data,[Footnote 5] and project number and
expenditures for the Civil Works Program. We also did a historical and
legislative analysis of how the Corps' mission and organizational
alignment has evolved over time using Corps historical documents and
congressional committee and conference reports, and other
congressional documents. We compiled appropriations and obligations
data from the Budget of the United States Government for each of the
Corps' civil works funding accounts for fiscal years 1980, 1990, and
2000 through 2009.[Footnote 6] We received and compiled FTE data from
the Corps at the district level for fiscal years 2000 through 2009;
division level for fiscal years 2000 through 2009; and Corps-wide for
fiscal years 1980, 1990, and 2000 through 2009. According to Corps
headquarters officials, reliable district-level FTE data were
available for fiscal years 2000 through 2009, reliable division-level
data were available back to 1990,[Footnote 7] and reliable Corps-wide
data were available back to fiscal year 1980. We obtained the number
of construction and operations and maintenance (O&M) projects for each
district from cost and financial statements found in the Annual Report
for Civil Works Activities for 1980, 1990, and 2000 through 2008. The
construction account includes construction and major rehabilitation
projects related to navigation, flood control, water supply,
hydroelectric power, and environmental restoration. The O&M account
focuses on preserving, operating, and maintaining river and harbor
projects that have already been constructed. We restricted this
analysis to construction and O&M projects because not all districts
included information in the annual reports on the number of project
investigations they conducted during the fiscal year.[Footnote 8] We
also calculated expenditures on construction and O&M projects for each
district in fiscal years 1980, 1990, and 2000 through 2008 based on
data from the Corps.
To examine the challenges the Corps has faced and may continue to face
in realigning its organization, the opportunities for realignment that
may exist, and past efforts to realign the Corps, we conducted
semistructured interviews with the current and five former Chiefs of
Engineers; the current and four former Assistant Secretaries of the
Army for Civil Works; one former Acting Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works; seven current and six former senior Corps
officials; officials from the eight domestic civil works divisions;
officials from a nonprobability sample of 10 of the 38 domestic civil
works districts; and seven stakeholders, including three academics and
four interest groups. We selected districts based on geographical
representation and to ensure the inclusion of small, medium, and large
districts. We conducted 50 interviews and performed a content analysis
of these interviews to identify common themes. For the purposes of
reporting our results, we used the following categories to quantify
responses of officials and stakeholders: "some" refers to responses
from two to five individuals, "several" refers to responses from six
to eight individuals, "many" refers to responses from nine or more
individuals, and "majority" refers to responses from over half of an
interview group. In addition, to determine the challenges the Corps
has faced in past realignment efforts, we also conducted a review of
historical Corps documents, congressional hearings, and other reports
on Corps realignment efforts. Appendix I contains a more detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology, and appendix II contains a
list of former Corps officials we interviewed.
We conducted this performance audit between August 2009 and August
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.
Background:
The Corps is the world's largest public engineering, design, and
construction management agency. Located within the Department of
Defense (DOD), the Corps has both military and civilian
responsibilities. The Military Program provides engineering,
construction, and environmental management services to DOD, other U.S.
government agencies, and foreign governments. Under its Civil Works
Program, at the direction of Congress, the Corps plans, constructs,
operates, and maintains a wide range of water resources projects. The
Corps' Civil Works Program is organized into three tiers: a national
headquarters in Washington, D.C., eight regional divisions, and 38
local district offices (see figure 1). In fiscal year 2010, the Civil
Works Program employed approximately 25,000 civilian personnel in
numerous occupational classifications, including civil engineers,
biologists, economists, architects, lock operators, mechanics, and
foresters.
Figure 1: Locations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works
Divisions and Districts:
[Refer to PDF for image: U.S. map]
The map depicts the following:
Division headquarters location;
District headquarters locations;
Division boundary;
District boundary;
State boundary.
Division: North Atlantic;
Division Headquarters location: New York;
District headquarters locations:
New England;
New York, NY;
Philadelphia, PA;
Baltimore MD,
Norfolk VA.
Division: South Atlantic;
Division Headquarters location: Atlanta, GA;
District headquarters locations:
Wilmington, NC;
Charleston, SC;
Savannah, GA;
Jacksonville, FL;
Mobile, AL.
Division: Great Lakes and Ohio River;
Division Headquarters location: Cincinnati, OH;
District headquarters locations:
Nashville, TN;
Louisville, KY;
Huntingdon, WV;
Pittsburgh, PA;
Detroit, MI;
Chicago, IL.
Division: Mississippi Valley;
Division Headquarters location: Vicksburg, MS;
District headquarters locations:
Vicksburg, MS;
New Orleans, LA;
Memphis, TN;
St. Louis, MO;
Rock Island, IL;
St. Paul, MN.
Division: Northwestern;
Division Headquarters location: Portland, OR;
District headquarters locations:
Portland, OR;
Seattle, WA;
Walla Walla, WA;
Omaha, NE;
Kansas City, MO.
Division: Southwestern;
Division Headquarters location: Dallas, TX;
District headquarters locations:
Fort Worth, TX;
Galveston, TX;
Tula, OK;
Little Rock, AR.
Division: South Pacific;
Division Headquarters location: San Francisco, CA;
District headquarters locations:
San Francisco, CA;
Sacramento, CA;
Los Angeles, CA;
Albuquerque, NM.
Division: Pacific Ocean;
Division Headquarters location: Honolulu, HI;
District headquarters locations:
Honolulu, HI;
Alaska.
Source: GAO representation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data.
[End of figure]
Corps headquarters primarily develops policies and plans the future
direction of the organization. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, appointed by the President, establishes the policy
direction for the Civil Works Program. The Chief of Engineers, a
military officer, is responsible for execution of the civil works and
military missions. The Chief of Engineers delegates day-to-day
leadership and management of the Civil Works Program to the Deputy
Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, who is a
general officer, and the Director of Civil Works, who is a civilian
employee.
The primary role of the Corps' eight civil works divisions, which were
established generally according to watershed boundaries, is to
coordinate their districts' civil works projects. Each division office
is headed by a division commander, who is a military officer. The role
of the 38 civil works districts is to plan and execute projects. Each
district office is headed by a district commander, who is also a
military officer. Each district office performs the following seven
functions that are relevant to executing its projects: (1) planning,
(2) engineering, (3) construction, (4) operations, (5) program and
project management, (6) resource management, and (7) regulatory
functions. Furthermore, district offices are responsible for
coordinating with project stakeholders such as state and local
partners.
The Civil Works Program operates 50 Centers of Expertise and seven
research laboratories, which assist Corps division and district
offices in the planning, design, and technical review of civil works
projects. The Centers of Expertise are designated individuals or
organizations--located either in district offices, division offices,
or research laboratories--with capability or expertise in a
specialized area. The Corps designates employees at various levels
within the organization to oversee, manage, and coordinate the
centers. The Corps established the centers to consolidate expertise,
improve consistency, reduce redundancy, and enhance institutional
knowledge, among other things. The Corps' seven research laboratories
support DOD and other agencies in military and civilian projects. For
example, the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory performs ocean,
estuarine, riverine, and watershed regional scale systems analyses
research support work for the Corps and the DOD Task Force in support
of the Ocean Commission.
The Centers of Expertise program is comprised of 10 mandatory centers
and 40 nonmandatory centers. The Corps requires that district and
division offices consult the mandatory Centers of Expertise that are
relevant to their projects during project planning, formulation, or
execution. For example, if a district is implementing a hydropower
project, it must consult the Hydropower Analysis Center, a mandatory
Center of Expertise, on project analysis or economic benefit
evaluations. The set of 40 nonmandatory centers are known collectively
as a Directory of Expertise, and their use is discretionary. Divisions
and districts may seek out the expertise of the centers in the
directory as needed. The Centers of Expertise, both mandatory and
nonmandatory, are typically funded out of project budgets, and
according to the Corps, collectively these centers have unique and
unparalleled expertise that is critical to the functions of district
and division offices.
The conference reports accompanying the annual Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Acts generally lists individual projects
and specific allocations of funding for each project. Through this
report, the appropriations committees essentially outline their
priorities for the Corps' water resource projects. Congress directs
funds for many individual projects in increments over the course of
several years. For example, a construction project to reduce flood
damage in the Greenbrier River Basin of West Virginia has an estimated
total cost of $158 million. The conference reports directed $1.5
million to this project in fiscal year 2009 and $1.4 million in fiscal
year 2010. Additional funding for this project will be contingent upon
future congressional appropriations.
In fiscal year 2010, funding for civil works projects included annual
appropriations of over $5.4 billion through the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act. The Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act provides funds for nine appropriation accounts,
which support eight of the Civil Works Program's nine major business
lines.[Footnote 9] In addition to the funding received through annual
appropriations acts, the Corps received supplemental appropriations in
6 of the past 8 fiscal years. Also, as outlined in the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, the Corps typically receives funds,
particularly for construction projects, from each project's local
sponsor, which may be a state, tribal, county, or local agency or
government. The degree of cost sharing required varies by, among other
things, project purpose.
The Corps Has Had Mixed Results in Modifying Its Organizational
Alignment in Response to Changes in Its Mission, Budget, Staffing, and
Workload:
The Corps has faced significant changes in its mission, budget,
staffing, and workload over the last several decades. As a result, the
Corps has had mixed results in modifying certain aspects of its
organizational alignment, such as the roles, responsibilities, and
resources of its components in response to these changes. While the
agency's fundamental structure has remained the same since 1893, it
has made efforts to realign its organization within its three-tiered
structure--some of which have been implemented, but others were not.
Changes in the Corps' Mission, Appropriations, Staffing, and Workload:
The Corps' civil works mission started with navigation
responsibilities in 1824 when Congress passed the General Survey Act,
which authorized the President to use the Corps to survey road and
canal routes of commercial or military importance. Since that time,
the Corps' civil works mission has expanded to include the following
additional responsibilities: flood risk management, regulatory
program, water supply, hydropower, recreation, environment, emergency
management, and support for others (see figure 2). Appendix III
contains a more detailed timeline of key events and legislation
related to the Corps' civil works mission.
Figure 2: Selected Key Events Reflecting Changing Responsibilities of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Over Time:
[Refer to PDF for image: lists]
1824-1900:
* Navigation: General Survey Act of 1824;
* Flood Risk Management: Establishment of the Mississippi River
Commission (1879);
* Emergency Management: Congress authorized the Corps to dispense
supplies and rescue victims after floods on the Mississippi River
(1882);
* Regulatory and Environment: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890 and 1899.
1901-1925:
* Hydropower: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909;
* Flood Risk Management: Flood Control Act of 1917.
1926-1950:
* Flood Risk Management: Flood Control Act of 1936;
* Recreation: Flood Control Act of 1944;
* Emergency Management: Disaster Relief Act of 1950.
1951-1975:
* Water Supply: Water Supply Act of 1958;
* Support for Others: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965;
* Environment: National Environmental Protection Act of 1969;
* Regulatory: Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
1976-Present:
* Emergency Management: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (1988);
* Environment: Water Resources Development Act of 1990.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Over time, the Corps has also seen fluctuations in its appropriations
and obligations, staffing levels, and workload. For example, although
the Corps had relatively stable appropriations and obligations for
fiscal years 2000 through 2004, subsequent years have shown more
variability in funding (see figure 3 and figure 4).[Footnote 10] In
recent years, some of this variability is a result of supplemental
funding that has been provided to the Corps for expenses related to
the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. According to
a senior Corps budget official, funding has also been directed to
expenses related to the consequences of hurricanes Gustav and Ike
(both 2008 hurricanes), as well as the 2008 Midwest floods. In fiscal
year 2009, the agency received supplemental funding of about $5.8
billion for hurricane protection in Louisiana; and the Corps received
$4.6 billion in fiscal year 2009 through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
Figure 3: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Reported Appropriations, by
Fiscal Year for Nine Appropriations Accounts:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1980;
Total Appropriations: $3.2 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $7.5 billion.
Fiscal year: 1990;
Total Appropriations: $2.9 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $4.4 billion.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Total Appropriations: $3.3 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $4.1 billion.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Total Appropriations: $4.0 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $4.9 billion.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total Appropriations: $3.9 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $4.7 billion.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total Appropriations: $4.0 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $4.7 billion.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total Appropriations: $3.8 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $4.4 billion.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total Appropriations: $4.6 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $5.1 billion.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Total Appropriations: $11.0 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $11.7 billion.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Total Appropriations: $5.9 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $6.1 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Total Appropriations: $8.1 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $8.2 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Total Appropriations: $15.6 billion;
Total Appropriations (FY2009 dollars): $15.6 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of the Budget of the United States for fiscal
years 1980, 1990, and 2000 through 2009.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Total Obligations, by Fiscal
Year for Nine Appropriations Accounts:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1980;
Total Obligations: $3.3 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $7.7 billion.
Fiscal year: 1990;
Total Obligations: $3.7 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $5.6 billion.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Total Obligations: $5.0 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $6.2 billion.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Total Obligations: $5.0 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $6.1 billion.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total Obligations: $5.3 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $6.3 billion.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total Obligations: $5.4 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $6.3 billion.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total Obligations: $5.4 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $6.1 billion.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total Obligations: $6.7 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $7.4 billion.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Total Obligations: $10.6 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $11.3 billion.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Total Obligations: $7.3 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $7.6 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Total Obligations: $11.3 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $11.5 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Total Obligations: $13.1 billion;
Total Obligations (FY2009 dollars): $13.1 billion.
[End of figure]
At the same time, Corps-wide allocations for staff, measured in FTEs,
has declined from over 28,000 in 1980 to fewer than 22,000 in 2009
(see figure 5). However, the extent of the decline in FTEs has also
varied by divisions and districts, and some offices have seen a slight
increase in FTEs. For example, from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year
2009, FTEs in the North Atlantic Division reduced by over 24 percent
from 2,417 FTEs to 1,822 FTEs, while FTEs in the Northwestern Division
reduced by about 7 percent from 3,840 FTEs to 3,557 during the same
time period (see table 1). Similarly, while FTEs in the Seattle
District increased by about 5 percent, from 539 FTEs in fiscal year
2000 to 567 FTEs in fiscal year 2009, FTEs in the Honolulu District
reduced by about 57 percent, from 130 in fiscal year 2000 to 56 in
fiscal year 2009.
Figure 5: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Full-Time
Equivalents, by Fiscal Year:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1980;
FTE allocation: 28,238.
Fiscal year: 1990;
FTE allocation: 28,115.
Fiscal year: 2000;
FTE allocation: 25,325.
Fiscal year: 2001;
FTE allocation: 25,477.
Fiscal year: 2002;
FTE allocation: 25,281.
Fiscal year: 2003;
FTE allocation: 25,215.
Fiscal year: 2004;
FTE allocation: 24,888.
Fiscal year: 2005;
FTE allocation: 23,777.
Fiscal year: 2006;
FTE allocation: 22,838.
Fiscal year: 2007;
FTE allocation: 22,617.
Fiscal year: 2008;
FTE allocation: 22,316.
Fiscal year: 2009;
FTE allocation: 21,972.
Source: GAO analysis of Army Corps of Engineers data.
[End of figure]
Table 1: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Division-Level Full-
Time Equivalents, by Fiscal Year:
Great Lakes & Ohio River Division:
FY 2000: 4,348;
FY 2001: 4,321;
FY 2002: 4,274;
FY 2003: 4,222;
FY 2004: 4,014;
FY 2005: 3,672;
FY 2006: 3,490;
FY 2007: 3,363;
FY 2008: 3,347;
FY 2009: 3,605.
Mississippi Valley Division:
FY 2000: 5,419;
FY 2001: 5,357;
FY 2002: 5,345;
FY 2003: 5,335;
FY 2004: 5,052;
FY 2005: 4,920;
FY 2006: 4,845;
FY 2007: 4,622;
FY 2008: 4,502;
FY 2009: 4,805.
North Atlantic Division:
FY 2000: 2,417;
FY 2001: 2,352;
FY 2002: 2,334;
FY 2003: 2,284;
FY 2004: 2,186;
FY 2005: 2,075;
FY 2006: 2,009;
FY 2007: 1,809;
FY 2008: 1,889;
FY 2009: 1,822.
Northwestern Division:
FY 2000: 3,840;
FY 2001: 3,830;
FY 2002: 3,908;
FY 2003: 3,920;
FY 2004: 3,771;
FY 2005: 3,695;
FY 2006: 3,685;
FY 2007: 3,541;
FY 2008: 3,453;
FY 2009: 3,557.
Pacific Ocean Division:
FY 2000: 312;
FY 2001: 288;
FY 2002: 279;
FY 2003: 270;
FY 2004: 283;
FY 2005: 299;
FY 2006: 294;
FY 2007: 266;
FY 2008: 253;
FY 2009: 244.
South Atlantic Division:
FY 2000: 2,715;
FY 2001: 2,807;
FY 2002: 2,860;
FY 2003: 2,903;
FY 2004: 2,798;
FY 2005: 2,681;
FY 2006: 2,538;
FY 2007: 2,398;
FY 2008: 2,327;
FY 2009: 2,397.
South Pacific Division:
FY 2000: 1,818;
FY 2001: 1,782;
FY 2002: 1,763;
FY 2003: 1,750;
FY 2004: 1,683;
FY 2005: 1,597;
FY 2006: 1,623;
FY 2007: 1,579;
FY 2008: 1,522;
FY 2009: 1,559.
Southwestern Division:
FY 2000: 2,375;
FY 2001: 2,369;
FY 2002: 2,388;
FY 2003: 2,285;
FY 2004: 2,203;
FY 2005: 2,099;
FY 2006: 2,065;
FY 2007: 1,985;
FY 2008: 1,915;
FY 2009: 1,973.
Total:
FY 2000: 23,244;
FY 2001: 23,106;
FY 2002: 23,151;
FY 2003: 22,969;
FY 2004: 21,990;
FY 2005: 21,038;
FY 2006: 20,549;
FY 2007: 19,563;
FY 2008: 19,208;
FY 2009: 19,962.
Source: GAO analysis of Army Corps of Engineers data.
[End of table]
This variability has also been seen in the divisions' and districts'
workload. For instance, between fiscal years 2000 and 2009, the
Pacific Ocean Division's construction and O&M project expenditures
have ranged from a low of $18,756,845 to a high of $73,960,902, while
the Mississippi Valley Division ranged from a low of $882,822,221 to a
high of $957,991,516 (see table 2). Similarly, in some districts like
Seattle, construction and O&M project expenditures have ranged from a
low of $62,716,478 to a high of $78,650,927, while Honolulu's has
ranged from a low of $2,583,263 to a high of $13,884,393. Appendix IV
contains detailed information on the Corps' budget, staffing, and
workload for each of the 38 districts.
Table 2: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Division-Level
Construction and Operations and Maintenance Project Expenditures, by
Fiscal Year:
Great Lakes & Ohio River Division:
FY 2000: $614,397,498;
FY 2001: $614,651,369;
FY 2002: $643,798,386;
FY 2003: $635,618,634;
FY 2004: $671,317,336;
FY 2005: $643,281,196;
FY 2006: $646,526,223;
FY 2007: $675,702,409;
FY 2008: $797,172,303.
Mississippi Valley Division:
FY 2000: 902,580,698;
FY 2001: 956,833,153;
FY 2002: 941,389,142;
FY 2003: 888,229,574;
FY 2004: 882,822,221;
FY 2005: 907,068,763;
FY 2006: 912,442,165;
FY 2007: 941,675,567;
FY 2008: 957,991,516.
North Atlantic Division:
FY 2000: 345,927,512;
FY 2001: 385,668,081;
FY 2002: 467,094,476;
FY 2003: 479,435,366;
FY 2004: 438,366,931;
FY 2005: 412,668,844;
FY 2006: 361,250,465;
FY 2007: 346,530,582;
FY 2008: 385,204,656.
North Western Division:
FY 2000: 502,968,081;
FY 2001: 542,736,190;
FY 2002: 560,833,780;
FY 2003: 579,812,242;
FY 2004: 538,507,914;
FY 2005: 520,345,809;
FY 2006: 521,653,889;
FY 2007: 553,288,048;
FY 2008: 647,570,935.
Pacific Ocean Division:
FY 2000: 30,600,954;
FY 2001: 23,891,879;
FY 2002: 28,976,933;
FY 2003: 18,756,845;
FY 2004: 73,960,902;
FY 2005: 69,800,132;
FY 2006: 53,271,070;
FY 2007: 49,948,781;
FY 2008: 50,052,022.
South Atlantic Division:
FY 2000: 555,452,249;
FY 2001: 646,437,347;
FY 2002: 678,710,812;
FY 2003: 646,686,974;
FY 2004: 600,466,667;
FY 2005: 660,365,584;
FY 2006: 592,725,244;
FY 2007: 621,775,881;
FY 2008: 596,660,567.
South Pacific Division:
FY 2000: 309,619,743;
FY 2001: 269,824,728;
FY 2002: 295,678,282;
FY 2003: 364,371,009;
FY 2004: 352,955,994;
FY 2005: 307,148,019;
FY 2006: 330,262,063;
FY 2007: 412,120,321;
FY 2008: 452,440,115.
Southwestern Division:
FY 2000: 422,592,426;
FY 2001: 436,801,061;
FY 2002: 434,192,094;
FY 2003: 433,878,716;
FY 2004: 431,146,142;
FY 2005: 350,127,301;
FY 2006: 363,590,688;
FY 2007: 434,000,725;
FY 2008: 443,425,099.
Source: GAO analysis of Army Corps of Engineers data.
[End of table]
Past Efforts to Realign the Corps' Organizational Structure:
The Corps' three-tiered structure--headquarters, divisions, and
districts--has remained the same since 1893. However, in some
instances, the number of divisions and districts and the roles and
responsibilities have changed in response to changes in the agency's
mission, workload, funding mechanisms, staffing levels, and budget.
Some past efforts to realign the agency include the following:
* Expanding mission. The Corps has realigned as a result of its
expanding mission. For example, in 1824 the Corps' primary mission was
navigation, but as the Corps' mission expanded and as a result of the
increased responsibility given to the Corps, it realigned into eight
divisions largely based on watershed boundaries.[Footnote 11] Also,
because of its expanding mission, the Corps realigned its district
offices in the 1970s by, for example, hiring environmental
specialists. This came, in part, in response to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to
consider the environmental impacts of proposed major federal actions
that significantly affect the environment.
* Specific workload needs. In the past, the Corps has established
temporary district offices to handle the work of a single large
project. For example, in 1942, the Corps formed its Manhattan Engineer
District to oversee and provide technical expertise for the planning
and construction of facilities related to atomic research. The
district remained open until the end of World War II. Similarly, in
1972, the Corps established the Susquehanna Engineer District to
complete work related to the extensive damage caused by Hurricane
Agnes in New York and Pennsylvania. The Susquehanna Engineer District
was only open for 4 months.
* Changes in funding mechanisms. In the 1980s, the Corps implemented a
realignment in response to its changing funding mechanisms.
Specifically, the 1986 WRDA generally required the Corps to obtain
cost-share agreements with local sponsors to share the federal burden
of Corps projects. In response, the Corps expanded its district roles
and responsibilities and implemented a project management process in
1989 to improve relationships with nonfederal partners and improve
project costs and timelines. This new process assigned a project
manager at the district level to each Corps project to work with
project sponsors on a day-to-day basis and manage the progress of the
project.
* Changes in staffing levels. The Corps has also implemented some
realignments in response to changes in staffing--which have been
reduced by over 22 percent over the past two decades. For example, the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 required the President to
reduce the number of FTEs in federal agencies, with the Corps' Civil
Works Program assigned to reduce by 3,401. In response, in 1995 the
Corps realigned division roles and responsibilities and the structure
of the agency. Specifically, it regionalized human resource functions,
transferred finance and accounting functions to a single location, and
eliminated technical and policy review functions at the division
level. In addition, in response to the reduced FTEs, in 1997 the Corps
reduced the number of division offices from 11 to 8.
* Static budget. In 2003, the Corps implemented a realignment, in
part, in response to its relatively static budget. Specifically, from
1994 to 2003, the Corps experienced a period of static administrative
funding levels. In response to this situation, the Corps launched an
organizational initiative in 2003--called USACE 2012--to realign the
roles, functions, and processes of the three tiers with the goal of
improving the efficiency of the Civil Works Program. For example,
USACE 2012 created regional business centers at the division level to
coordinate the activities of the districts within a region to ensure
they shared resources and technical expertise, and improved project
management and delivery. As part of their responsibilities, the
regional business centers assign work to each of the districts
according to each district's capabilities and available staff. USACE
2012 also created regional integration teams at the headquarters level
to resolve regional issues. Regional integration teams provide a
single point of contact for regional business centers to resolve
concerns and issues that must be dealt with at the headquarters level.
Some Realignment Attempts Have Not Been Implemented:
In the past, other attempts for organizational realignment of the
Corps have been considered but not implemented for a variety of
reasons. For example, in 1949, 1971, 1978, and the early 2000s,
various members of the executive branch proposed to transfer the
Corps' civil works functions to other federal agencies, but these
proposals did not result in any changes. In 1949, the Hoover
Commission recommended the transfer of all water resource functions of
the federal government, including those of the Corps, to the
Department of the Interior.[Footnote 12] Similarly, in 1971, President
Nixon proposed a new Department of Natural Resources to bring together
natural resources responsibilities scattered throughout the federal
government, and President Carter made a similar proposal in 1978. More
recently, former Corps officials we spoke with said that during his
tenure, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had considered whether the Civil
Works Program should be taken out of DOD and given to another agency.
The Corps has also undertaken some past attempts to make its
organizational structure more efficient by reducing the number of
district offices. However, these attempts faced stiff resistance and
were not implemented. For example, in 1989, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations recognized the need for the Corps to examine every
available opportunity to increase its efficiency and effectiveness and
directed the Chief of Engineers to initiate a conceptual study of
potential field organization structures. As a result of this study,
the Corps proposed a reduction in the number of district offices in
the contiguous United States from 35 to 22 and a reduction in the
number of division offices from 10 to 6, in response to the diminished
workload and budget of the agency. In order to accomplish this
realignment, the Corps chose to submit the plan as part of the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. However, in an amendment to
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Congress
specifically excluded the Corps' Civil Works Program from downsizing.
Shortly after, in the fiscal year 1993 annual appropriation, Congress
included funds to further a more efficient headquarters and division
office structure but prohibited the Corps from closing any district
offices as part of that reorganization plan. As a result of this
study, the Corps proposed consolidating and downsizing division
offices, reducing the number from 11 to 6, and removing technical and
policy review functions from the division level. The proposal also
added another district, for a total of 36, but consolidated planning
and engineering functions in 15 districts. Congress did not approve
this proposal, and it was not implemented.
The Corps Has Faced and Will Likely Continue to Face Challenges If It
Undertakes Organizational Realignment in the Future:
Inability to obtain congressional support has been and will continue
to be the primary challenge to any organizational realignment,
according to the officials and stakeholders we interviewed, as well as
our analysis of records of past realignment attempts. Current and
former Corps officials and other stakeholders also identified two
additional challenges that could impede any realignment attempts.
These include the Corps' funding structure and the autonomous culture
of its districts.
Lack of Support Is the Primary Challenge to Realignment:
Lack of support for the Corps realignment efforts by Members of
Congress, as well as local officials and their constituents in the
potentially affected divisions or districts, has been one of the
challenges most often noted by current and former Corps officials and
other stakeholders that we interviewed. According to former officials,
the Corps districts have historically enjoyed a close relationship
with their elected representatives in Congress. As a result, any
closure of a district office as part of a realignment proposal is
likely to meet strong opposition from elected officials because of
congressional concerns, including (1) the perception that the
district's needs will not be adequately served if the office is closed
and (2) the potential loss of jobs in the district. For example,
according to a former Chief of Engineers, in response to a past
realignment effort, he received calls from congressional delegations
upset because he was proposing to take jobs away from their district.
According to another senior Corps official, in 1997, the Corps was
able to reduce the number of division offices from 11 to the 8 that it
currently has, rather than reduce the number of district offices,
because the divisions have a smaller number of employees than district
offices. Therefore, reducing the number of division offices would
result in fewer job losses in a congressional district, thus reducing
the congressional concern.
Similarly, historical records indicate that past realignment efforts
to reduce the number of Corps districts and divisions were
unsuccessful or were delayed because of significant opposition from
Members of Congress. For example, as mentioned earlier, in 1991 the
Corps attempted to close 13 districts and four divisions using the
BRAC process, which was intended to provide a fair process for the
timely closure and realignment of military installations inside the
United States. However, in response to concerns among Members of
Congress, the Secretary of Defense decided against including the
Corps' reorganization plan in the 1991 list of BRAC base closures.
Four of the five former Chiefs of Engineers we interviewed provided
examples of opposition from Members of Congress to past realignment
efforts that included the closure or reorganization of districts. For
example, one former Chief of Engineers said that a realignment
proposal was delayed because Members of Congress were concerned about
which division their Corps district would be incorporated into. A
former senior Corps official faced a similar situation as a district
engineer when he wanted to move a facility from his district to
another district where the facility was better able to perform its
work. However, the congressional Member representing the district
opposed the move and, according to this former senior official,
prevented it from happening. Several officials we interviewed told us
that the inability to obtain congressional support for any Corps
realignment efforts that include closing districts and divisions will
continue to be a factor in the foreseeable future.
The Corps' Funding Structure Creates Challenges to Organizational
Realignment:
Unlike many other federal agencies that have budgets established for
broad program activities, most Corps civil works funds are
appropriated for specific projects and require nonfederal sponsors to
share project costs. Current and former Corps officials and other
stakeholders we interviewed said that these requirements have led to
inefficiencies and project delays that are difficult to overcome and
hinder attempts at organizational realignment. Specifically, they
identified the following challenges created by the Corps' funding
structure:
* Incremental funding reduces efficiency and increases costs.
According to an academic stakeholder we interviewed, organizations
need stable funding and a predictable workload to be efficient, but
the Corps has neither. This sentiment was echoed by many former and
current Corps officials who said that funding projects in increments
hinders the Corps' ability to be efficient. For example, they said
that incremental funding sometimes forces the Corps to stop projects
because they do not have sufficient funding to complete the next stage
of the project. This can cause project delays and the costs of
projects to escalate. For example, according to a division commander,
"What used to be $1 million will be $3 million by the time you get
around to spending the money." Another current senior official said,
"This is one of the reasons that a civil works project takes 20 years
to execute, instead of 3 if we were fully funded from the start." Our
previous work has demonstrated that incremental funding can result in
project delays and cost increases. For example, our work looking at
hurricane protection projects in southeastern Louisiana found that
taking an incremental approach that was based on funding and direction
provided through specific appropriations had increased the overall
cost to the federal government.[Footnote 13]
* Cost-sharing requirements can delay projects and cause costs to
escalate. According to the current Chief of Engineers, the Corps
sometimes has to delay work on a project while local sponsors raise
their portion of a civil works project's cost. For example, according
to a division commander, recently some local sponsors have been unable
to raise their portion of the funding due to the economic downturn,
resulting in some projects having to be idled. Conversely, at times
the local sponsor has been able to fund its portion of the project,
but the Corps has not, according to some Corps officials that we spoke
with. In such cases, the sponsor may have to raise more money as the
price of the project increases due to delays, which they said can also
be frustrating to the local sponsors.
* The Corps' funding structure makes watershed planning difficult. The
Corps' organizational structure is built around the nation's
watersheds. Many current and former Corps officials and stakeholders
that we spoke with said the Corps should plan projects based on
feasibility studies conducted at the watershed level, but that the
existing funding process, according to these officials and
stakeholders, prevents them from doing so. Specifically, funding is
directed for studies that are intended to lead to individual district-
based projects, not for watershed-level studies. For example,
according to a senior Corps official, Corps division and district
boundaries are generally based on watersheds, but districts must
complete individual project budgets that do not take into
consideration the needs of the nation. In addition, feasibility
studies--a necessary step leading up to every project--generally
require cost sharing from local sponsors, and thus a watershed-level
feasibility study would typically require multiple sponsors. However,
some officials said that sponsors may be reluctant to fund such a
study because it will not necessarily result in a project in their
district. Many former and current Corps officials supported a
watershed approach to civil works project planning and development,
but recognized the difficulties in the current funding structure to
conduct them.
The Culture in District Offices Has Inhibited Recent Realignment
Efforts:
The culture of the Corps district offices was cited by the majority of
current and former officials as a challenge to realignment efforts.
Because Corps districts receive project-based funding, they have an
incentive to acquire and retain control over projects, according to
some officials, and this has led to an autonomous culture in which
some districts are reluctant to share resources. In particular, these
officials said this is because a district's workload determines the
amount of personnel it can employ, so some district officials believe
that sharing work could lead to layoffs or reductions in force.
Several former Corps officials cited examples of how this culture is
an impediment to organizational realignment and may lead districts to
resist sharing work with other districts. For example, one former
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works said that there was
tension among districts about sharing work, and there is nostalgia for
the "full-service" district--a district that could carry out all
aspects of a project. According to this Assistant Secretary, "It sets
up a functional barrier to sharing work across districts." Another
former senior Corps official said that districts' resistance to
sharing work was compounded by the belief that other districts do not
understand local needs, problems, and conditions, and therefore the
local district must execute its own projects. Yet another former
senior Corps official said that collaboration is difficult because the
congressional boundaries and funding process force districts to only
think locally. Some current Corps officials cited similar examples.
For example, a district commander told us that his district once had
excess capacity to perform work, yet a neighboring district contracted
out their excess work instead of sharing it with his. Similarly, a
division commander confirmed that some districts use contractors
instead of using other Corps capabilities. Additionally, some division
commanders told us that district commanders may hesitate to share work
because the commander loses control of the tasks that are shared but
is still responsible for completing the project.
As a result of this culture, the Corps has also been slow to implement
aspects of USACE 2012, its most recent realignment effort, according
to some Corps officials we spoke with.[Footnote 14] USACE 2012 is
intended, in part, to promote the sharing of work by the districts
within each division, thereby providing a steadier workload for each
district and more stability for the workforce. However, two former
Chiefs of Engineers said that districts were used to being in control
of the resources within their boundaries, and it was a big cultural
shift for the districts to give up some of their control. Furthermore,
USACE 2012 was undertaken, in part, because the funding the Corps was
receiving at that time was not enough to support an organizational
structure with 38 full-service districts.[Footnote 15] According to
the current Chief of Engineers, while he recognizes that some of the
districts would rather be independent and "full-service," the reality
is that this level of effort cannot be sustained in each district.
Officials and Stakeholders Agree That the Corps' Three-Tiered
Structure Is Appropriate, but Some Changes to Alignment Could Enhance
Its Effectiveness:
While many current and former Corps officials and stakeholders
generally agreed that the Corps' three-tiered structure was
appropriate to meet its mission, some believe that the number of
districts could be reduced as part of a comprehensive organizational
realignment. In addition, these officials and stakeholders identified
opportunities to clarify roles and responsibilities, enhance expertise
and policy guidance, as well as modify the Corps' funding structure
that could lead to improved effectiveness without resorting to a
complete realignment.
The Corps' Structure Is Appropriate, but the Number of Districts Could
Be Reduced:
Many current and former Corps officials and stakeholders agreed that
the Corps' three-tiered structure was appropriate to accomplish the
agency's civil works mission. Specifically, according to the officials
and stakeholders we spoke with, the Corps' three-tiered structure
allows each tier to focus on the client and stakeholder needs at that
level. For example, according to some current Corps officials,
including the Chief of Engineers, the division level provides
supervision for districts that headquarters alone would not be able to
provide. Some former and current Corps officials also told us the
district level is important because it provides a presence in the
local community. For example, one former senior Corps official said
that "having people [districts] at the local level is a strength of
the Corps because it brings local understanding, relationships,
contacts, and an appreciation for local problems." However, some
interview participants told us that the Corps was not well structured.
For example, one current senior Corps official said it takes too much
of an investment to sustain 38 districts and eight divisions.
Although many favored the three-tiered structure, some former and
current officials and stakeholders said that the Corps could
consolidate some of its districts--including some of the smaller
districts that do not have sufficient work. However, these officials
and stakeholders also recognized that any kind of realignment plan
that reduces the number of districts would require congressional
support and could not be accomplished by the Corps alone. Some
officials and stakeholders suggested that Congress would have to
consider establishing a process similar to the BRAC process to
facilitate congressional approval of a reduction in the number of
districts. According to one former official, a BRAC-like process to
close a district would involve choosing districts to close based on
objective criteria. However, as mentioned earlier, past attempts to
include district closures as part of the BRAC process were not
successful.
Corps Officials and Stakeholders Said That Roles and Responsibilities
Could Be Clarified or Modified to Improve the Corps' Effectiveness:
Several current Corps officials identified the need to redefine and
clarify the roles and responsibilities within the Corps' three-tiered
structure to help improve its effectiveness. In particular, the roles
and responsibilities of division and district commanders need to be
clarified, according to some division commanders. For example, one
division commander new to the Corps said that he was unsure where he
could locate specific guidance to accomplish tasks necessary for his
role. Another division commander said that although new district
commanders receive an orientation course, a capstone document for
commanders would be helpful, as would a published doctrine that
explains the roles and responsibilities for each level within the
Corps. Some division and district commanders said that while USACE
2012 was the Corps' overall foundational doctrine, it needed more
details to be helpful to commanders in understanding their roles and
responsibilities. Our past work shows that clearly defined roles and
responsibilities are necessary for an organization to be most
effective.[Footnote 16]
Many current division and district commanders also said that the Corps
should clarify the roles and responsibilities of its Communities of
Practice (CoP). The Corps created CoPs to build, maintain, and provide
expertise and capability and develop best practices, and considers
them a central part of the USACE 2012 realignment. For example, the
environmental CoP develops and delivers solutions and provides advice
on technical management, design, and execution of a full range of
sustainability, cleanup, and environmental protection activities.
However, some current division and district commanders said that the
CoPs' roles and responsibilities need to be clarified because some CoP
members were taking actions that were not consistent with their level
of responsibility. For example, one commander said that CoPs members
were generating policies that had resource implications, which is a
responsibility of commanders--not the CoPs. Another commander said
that a CoP ordered a job description in his division to be revised
without his consent. However, according to this official, CoPs are not
in the chain of command and are therefore not allowed to give orders
on personnel-related matters. One division commander said that this
confusion was a result of a failure within the agency to understand
the difference between a CoP, which is a forum to exchange best
practices, and a functional board, which focuses on specific
disciplines.
Many current and former Corps officials and stakeholders also
identified opportunities to alter roles and responsibilities within
the project review process. For example, according to some officials
we spoke with, Corps projects receive multiple reviews at the
headquarters, division, and district levels, as well as an external
review, without regard to project size. In 1995, the Corps began
implementation of a realignment plan that removed review functions
from the divisions. According to a former Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, a previous effort to streamline the review
process by removing division-level reviews further slowed the process
because headquarters did not have the capacity to handle more review
responsibilities. In 2003, USACE 2012 established a concurrent project
review process. The goal of this was for all levels of the
organization to provide input early in the project planning process
rather than waiting until later on to identify problems, which can
result in time-consuming repetition of the planning process. However,
according to some current Corps officials that we spoke with, the
Corps has not fully embraced this concept. For example, one division
commander said the agency still performs two levels of review because
headquarters is concerned that policy will not be applied consistently
across the agency. Similarly, all four of the interest groups we
interviewed told us that the Corps' review process was slow. For
example, one group said that the multiple reviews between the various
Corps levels is time-consuming.
Many current Corps officials identified two specific areas that need
to be addressed to enhance the review process: (1) re-examine the
roles and responsibilities within the three tiers and (2) reassess the
criteria that dictate the level of review a project receives. With
regard to the first area, the role of the division in the review
process was questioned by some officials we spoke with. For example,
according to a deputy district commander, divisions should only be
doing an administrative review to make sure planning documents are
complete for headquarters review. Similarly, a district commander
suggested transferring all review functions from the division to
headquarters because the division review did not add value to project
plans. Another area identified by current officials where roles and
responsibilities need to be clarified, was that review bodies at the
headquarters level need to be integrated earlier into the project
review process.[Footnote 17] These officials said that it is time-
consuming to fix a project plan if flaws are discovered during the
final review because they must then be sent back through the review
process. With regard to the second area of concern, current Corps
officials cited the opportunity to revise criteria that determine the
level of review a project receives. Some district commanders told us
that currently small projects are required to receive the same level
and number of reviews as large projects, and this is inefficient and
costly. For example, a district commander told us that a $5 billion
hurricane project receives the same level of review as a $1 million
ecosystem restoration project. He and others said that, instead, the
level of risk should determine the level of review.
Corps Officials Suggested Changes to Better Utilize Expertise to
Improve Effectiveness:
Many current and former Corps officials, including the current Chief
of Engineers, said that the Corps' Centers of Expertise were useful
because they help to optimize the use of specialized expertise, but
they noted opportunities to make better use of the centers. First,
some former and current officials agreed that the centers need a
stable source of funding to remain viable. Centers are typically
funded by performing work for districts and being reimbursed from a
district's project funds. According to these officials, districts may
be reluctant to use the centers because they take resources away from
their civil works projects. For example, this leads to centers being
under-funded and asking for work from others, according to a former
senior Corps official. In order to ensure better utilization of the
centers, some former and current officials suggested centrally funding
the centers. For example, two officials suggested fully funding the
centers from the Corps' general expense account, which currently funds
headquarters and divisions.
Second, several current Corps officials told us that districts and
divisions need more information about the centers, including
information on their capabilities and their roles and
responsibilities. For example, some of the officials we interviewed
said that they needed more information on the differences between
mandatory centers and directories of expertise. During our interviews,
one district commander was unable to distinguish between the two, and
another was unaware of the centers altogether. In addition, other
officials said there was not enough information on the mandatory
Centers of Expertise. For example, one division commander said that
while it may be mandatory to send work to a center, it is generally
unclear that districts must do so, and he believed that the centers
are not being used consistently across the agency. Another division
commander said centers could better publicize themselves with
brochures and outreach to other divisions and districts. Some
officials also said the centers should provide more information on how
long it will take for projects to receive services, so that districts
can better manage their projects' timelines.
Third, several current and former Corps officials suggested that more
information should be available on the certification and training that
the experts at the centers receive, so that the centers can assure
district offices that they have the qualified staff necessary to do
the job. For example, one division commander said that, in the case of
one of his own centers, he was not sure it had the level of expertise
that he would want or that he would recommend its services to other
commanders. In addition, a current deputy district commander said
certain centers have bad reputations, so he would not send work to
them without assurance that they had quality staff. In this regard, he
suggested the centers should have some kind of requirements or
certification for experts to demonstrate that they are qualified in
their area of expertise. Other current and former officials also said
that the centers vary in the quality of work they provide to districts
and that the level of expertise needed to be standardized.
Although many current and former Corps officials and other
stakeholders said that the best way to maintain expertise was to keep
it concentrated in the centers, others disagreed. For example, one
former Chief of Engineers said that it is difficult for a subject
matter expert within a district to maintain expertise if they only
work on a subject occasionally, whereas in a center they can work on
it regularly. Furthermore, an academic expert that we spoke with said
that grouping experts together allows them to interact, creating a
collective expertise that as a whole exceeds the sum of the parts. In
contrast, some current and former officials questioned the usefulness
of the centers and said that the Corps could better use expertise if
it were kept in the districts. For example, one former Chief of
Engineers said national centers may not know the local area as well as
the district and that districts may be able to purchase expertise in
their own area, such as at a local university. This was echoed by a
current division commander who said that experts from the centers may
not understand the local projects, politics, or environment as well as
district experts.
Current and Former Officials Identified the Need for Updated Guidance
to Improve the Corps' Effectiveness:
In addition to identifying ways of improving the use of expertise, the
majority of current division and district commanders we interviewed,
as well as a former senior Corps official, said that the Corps'
technical guidance is outdated and needs to be revised. According to
some Corps division and district commanders, on average Corps
technical guidance is between 10 and 15 years out of date, and some
guidance dates back to the 1970s. According to a former senior Corps
official, this means that each division and district may be executing
projects differently because they lack current guidance. This has also
resulted in confusion for Corps project managers and has led local
sponsors to question the feasibility of constructing projects without
current guidance, according to a Corps district official. Some Corps
officials told us that historically, the Corps had been noted by
industry officials and around the world as the place to go to get
technical guidance. Now, according to one Corps official, the Corps
has to go to the industry for such information, and another official
told us that the New Orleans District is using manuals from other
nations for some of its work because their technical guidance is more
advanced than the Corps'. Furthermore, the current Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works agreed that technical guidance is outdated
and added that the Corps is behind in issuing implementation guidance
on many requirements of WRDA 2007.[Footnote 18] The Assistant
Secretary also said that the Corps has limited resources dedicated to
address such updates.
Modifying the Corps' Funding Structure Can Improve Its Effectiveness
According to Officials and Stakeholders:
Current and former Corps officials, including the current and former
Assistant Secretaries of the Army for Civil Works, and stakeholders
that we interviewed identified opportunities to change how the Corps
is funded to better enable it to execute its mission. First, several
officials suggested providing a steadier stream of funding, such as
full funding for projects or funding them in multiyear increments. As
mentioned previously, the Corps receives "no-year" funding and
Congress currently funds projects in 1-year increments, which,
according to these officials may delay or increase the costs of
projects. One current Corps official told us that the fully funded
projects authorized in response to Hurricane Katrina gave the Corps an
opportunity to involve contractors earlier in the building process,
which has allowed the Corps to be more timely and efficient in
carrying out these projects. A former Assistant Secretary suggested
funding civil works projects in multiyear increments, as the Corps'
military construction projects are now funded. According to a division
commander, this would provide a predictable funding stream that would
allow the Corps to execute civil works projects in more a timely
manner.
Second, several former and current officials and stakeholders
suggested that Congress fund civil works projects that take into
account an entire watershed, which they said would better address the
nation's water resources. As previously mentioned, funding is
currently provided for specific projects at the district level, and
the needs of the whole region or watershed are not taken into account.
One stakeholder said, "The Corps does not often receive funds for
watershed studies because Congress wants to appropriate funds that
benefit their own local districts rather than the whole watershed."
Some current and former officials and stakeholders advocated that
Congress dedicate a stream of funding for watershed programs, then let
the Corps decide how best to use the funds. However, some of these
officials and stakeholders acknowledged that changes to how the Corps
is funded would be difficult in a fiscally constrained budget
environment and would require changes in congressional authorizations
and a significant increase in appropriations, which they recognize is
highly unlikely.
Conclusions:
Since 1824, the Corps has been responsible for civil works projects of
national importance, and its mission has expanded over time to include
such responsibilities as navigation, emergency response, and
environmental restoration. Organizational alignment of the Corps is
crucial because it establishes the framework within which the Corps'
large workforce can most effectively and efficiently carry out these
diverse and important missions. In this regard, clearly defined roles
and responsibilities are necessary for management to exercise control
over an organization. However, the Corps does not have clear guidance
on the roles of division and district commanders, and as a result,
some Corps staff indicated that commanders and CoPs are confused about
the scope of their responsibilities. Without clearly defined roles and
responsibilities, Corps officials are left to determine, on their own,
what their job requires, which increases the risk that they might
complete tasks inconsistently. In addition, the alignment of the
Centers of Expertise within the Corps' organization is important if
the Corps is to optimize the use of specialized expertise, eliminate
redundancy, and increase standardization across the agency. However,
without a stable source of funding, lack of information on how the
centers are to be used, and without adequate assurance that the
centers have the appropriate quality of experts, it is unlikely that
the districts will use them in a systematic fashion. Moreover, up-to-
date technical guidance is crucial to the Corps' civil works mission,
since it helps determine how the Corps executes projects. However,
much of the Corps' technical guidance is outdated and needs to be
revised and the Corps has limited resources available to complete this
task. As a result, districts may not be following the best available
practices because they lack current guidance. Finally, even though the
Corps receives "no-year" funding, a more stable funding approach could
improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Civil Works
Program.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the effectiveness of the Corps' Civil Works Program, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Chief of Engineers
and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take the
following four actions:
* Review and revise as necessary the roles and responsibilities of
each component level of the organization and ensure that they are
clearly articulated in agency guidance;
* re-evaluate the Centers of Expertise and develop a process to help
ensure that they are consistently used across the agency;
* determine the extent to which the agency's technical guidance needs
to be updated, create a schedule for completing these updates, and if
additional funding is needed to accomplish these updates, provide this
information to Congress; and:
* work with Congress to develop a more stable project funding approach
that facilitates project implementation and that provides more
efficient and effective use of funds.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense for
review and comment. The department generally agreed with the
recommendations in our report. Specifically, the department concurred
with our recommendation that the Corps re-evaluate the Centers of
Expertise and develop a process to help ensure that they are
consistently used across the agency. The department agreed that the
Centers of Expertise need to be periodically reviewed and that the
agency should improve its guidance and information on the types of
services available and qualifications of the experts in the Centers.
The department partially concurred with our other three
recommendations. Specifically, with regard to our recommendation that
the Corps review and revise as necessary the roles and
responsibilities of each component level of the organization and
ensure that they are clearly articulated in agency guidance, the
department believes that the roles and responsibilities of each
component are appropriate, but agreed to work to increase the
understanding of the roles of the components, both within and outside
of the organization. The department also agreed that confusion exists
about the roles and responsibilities of the Communities of Practice,
particularly with regard to reviewing decision documents, and will
review and clarify as necessary all existing guidance, corporate
governance documents, and other publications.
In addition, the department also partially concurred with our
recommendation that the Corps determine the extent to which the
agency's technical guidance needs to be updated, create a schedule for
completing these updates, and if additional funding is needed to
accomplish these updates, provide this information to Congress. The
department stated that development and maintenance of technical
guidance is identified by technical experts within the Corps; however,
budget decisions regarding this development and maintenance must be
made within the framework of all of the needs and priorities of the
Civil Works Program. The department also noted that it is not
appropriate for the agency to inform Congress of requirements for
funding beyond those included in the President's budget, unless that
information is specifically requested by Congress. While we believe
that it is important to recognize individual agency needs within the
framework of all of its priorities when making budget decisions for
the Civil Works Program, we continue to believe that, if additional
funding is needed to accomplish these updates, that information should
be provided to Congress.
Finally, the department partially concurred with our recommendation
that the Corps work with Congress to develop a more stable project
funding approach that facilitates project implementation and a more
efficient and effective use of funds. The department agreed and
believes the administration and Congress are generally aware that many
studies and some projects are not funded for the most efficient
execution. The department stated that the Corps will continue to
promote efficient funding during the budget process, but will support
budget decisions made by the administration. While we acknowledge that
there are constraints to the budgeting and appropriation of funds for
the efficient execution of projects, we continue to believe that the
Corps should work with Congress to develop a more stable project
funding approach that would allow for a more efficient and effective
use of funds and execution of projects in a more timely manner.
A copy of the department's letter commenting on the draft report is
reprinted in appendix V.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense,
the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and other interested parties. In addition, this report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We were asked to examine (1) how, over time, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) has modified its organizational alignment to take
into account its changing mission, budget, staffing, and workload; (2)
the challenges the Corps has faced in realigning its organization and
the extent to which these or other challenges are still relevant; and
(3) what changes to the Corps' organizational alignment, if any, do
officials and stakeholders believe could enhance the effectiveness of
the civil works mission.
To examine the Corps' changing civil works mission over time, we
conducted a review of the legislative history of the Corps' civil
works mission. We also conducted a review of historical Corps
literature, studies, and congressional hearings and committee reports.
To examine the Corps' civil works budget, we obtained appropriations
and obligations data from the Budget of the United States Government,
by the nine appropriations funding accounts, for the following fiscal
years: 1980, 1990, and annually between 2000 and 2009. We chose these
years because data were electronically available and the
appropriations funding accounts remained relatively constant over
those years. To examine the changes over time for the staffing of the
Civil Works Program, we obtained full-time equivalent (FTE) data, by
district for fiscal years 2000 through 2009, from the Corps based on
data from the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System. We also
obtained FTE allocations by division for fiscal years 2000 through
2009[Footnote 19] and Corps-wide FTE allocations for fiscal years
1980, 1990, and annually between 2000 and 2009. According to the
Corps, Corps-wide staffing data were found for prior fiscal years;
however, it was unknown how these data were collected and counted and
therefore they were deemed not reliable. Additionally, FTE data
pertain only to Corps civilian employees, because, according to the
Corps, military personnel are considered to be on duty all day, every
day and, therefore, the Corps does not track the time they spend on
civil works projects. To examine the Corps' changing workload, we
obtained the number of construction and operations and maintenance
(O&M) projects each district listed in its cost and financial
statements included in the Corps' Annual Report on Civil Works
Activities for fiscal years 1980, 1990, and annually between 2000 and
2008. According to the Corps, the districts only report construction
and O&M projects in this table. We also obtained project expenditure
data for construction and O&M projects for fiscal years 1980, 1990,
and annually between 2000 and 2008. These were the only years the
Corps was able to supply us with project expenditure data, so we also
restricted our analysis of the number of projects to those years.
To determine how the Corps has modified its organizational alignment
throughout its history, we reviewed Corps documentation, congressional
hearings, and committee reports related to past realignment efforts.
We also spoke with former and current Corps officials and stakeholders
about efforts that they were involved with or had knowledge of. Based
on the documentation and testimonial evidence, and to the extent
possible, we linked these efforts with changes in the Corps' mission,
budget, staffing, and workload.
To determine the challenges the Corps has faced and would face in
modifying its organizational alignment, and the changes to
organizational alignment needed to enhance its effectiveness, we
conducted semistructured interviews with the current and five former
Chiefs of Engineers; the current and four former Assistant Secretaries
of the Army for Civil Works; one former Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works; seven current and six former senior Corps
officials; officials from the eight domestic civil works divisions;
officials from a nonprobability sample of 10 of the 38 domestic civil
works districts; and seven stakeholders, including three academics and
four interest groups. During these interviews, we discussed whether
the Corps was aligned to accomplish its mission, opportunities to
realign roles and responsibilities of the three-tiers, advantages and
disadvantages to the number and location of districts and divisions,
opportunities to realign expertise and the sharing of best practices,
realignment of and challenges associated with the way in which the
Corps is funded, and challenges associated with past and any future
realignment of the Corps' Civil Works Program.
The semistructured interviews were transcribed and coded to identify
the challenges to modifying the Corps' alignment and changes in
alignment that would enhance effectiveness. The coding was based upon
themes in the interviews and was verified by a second reviewer. For
the purposes of reporting our results, we used the following
categories to quantify responses of officials and stakeholders: "some"
refers to responses from two to five individuals, "several" refers to
responses from six to eight individuals, "many" refers to responses
from nine or more individuals, and "majority" refers to responses from
over half of an interview group.
We attempted to contact all Chiefs of Engineers and Assistant
Secretaries of the Army for Civil Works that were in office in 1988 or
later. One former Chief of Engineers declined our interview, one
former Assistant Secretary is deceased, and another was unavailable to
speak with us. We identified other former senior Corps officials,
interest groups, and two of the three academic stakeholders using a
snowball sampling technique, in which we selected interviewees after
two of our previous interviewees had mentioned them as important
contacts. Finally, we spoke with one of the academic stakeholders
based upon previous GAO work on organizational alignment.
Additionally, academic stakeholders had to meet the following
criteria: (1) the academics' recognition in the professional or
academic community and (2) relevance of his or her published work or
research to organizational alignment.
To choose the nonprobability sample of districts, we gathered 2009
civil works FTE data from the Corps and divided it into three
categories: (1) large districts with more than 800 FTEs; (2) medium
districts with 400 to 799 FTEs, and; (3) small districts with 399 or
fewer FTEs. We sorted all districts by their FTE size category and
chose three districts in each of the FTE size categories, ensuring
that at least one district from each of the eight domestic civil works
divisions was chosen. We then plotted these nine districts on a map of
the Corps districts and divisions, and based on the geographical
spread of those nine districts, chose an additional district from an
area that was not geographically represented.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 through August
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Former Corps Officials GAO Interviewed:
This appendix includes former senior-level Corps officials that we
spoke to, including former Assistant Secretaries of the Army for Civil
Works, former Chiefs of Engineers, and former senior-level officials.
[End of section]
Former Assistant Secretaries of the Army for Civil Works:
Dr. G. Edward Dickey:
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 1990-1991,
1993-1994:
H. Martin Lancaster:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 1996-1997:
Dr. Joseph W. Westphal:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 1998-2001:
Mike Parker:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 2001-2002:
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 2003-2009:
Former Chiefs of Engineers:
Lieutenant General Elvin R. Heiberg III:
Chief of Engineers, 1984-1988:
Lieutenant General Henry Hatch:
Chief of Engineers, 1988-1992:
Lieutenant General Joe N. Ballard:
Chief of Engineers, 1996-2000:
Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers:
Chief of Engineers, 2000-2004:
Lieutenant General Carl Strock:
Chief of Engineers, 2004-2007:
Other Former Senior-Level Corps Officials:
Fred Caver:
Deputy Director of Civil Works, 2000-2005:
Don Cluff:
Chief of Programs Management Division, Director of Civil Works, 1985-
1996:
Brigadier General (Ret.) Gerald Galloway:
Member of the Mississippi River Commission, 1988-1995:
Tim Sanford:
Chief of Staff, 1998-2000:
Bory Steinberg:
Chief of Project Management Division, 1989-1992:
Major General (Ret.) Hans Van Winkle:
Deputy Commander, 2001-2003:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Timeline of Select Laws and Events Related to the Civil
Works Mission:
This appendix includes legislation and events that have led to the
current responsibilities of the Corps under its civil works mission.
Legislation and events are listed by the Corps' nine business lines.
While many of these laws and events affected more than one of the
Corps' nine responsibilities, we have grouped the laws and events
discussed in this appendix under nine headings describing the
responsibilities for illustrative purposes.
Navigation:
April 30, 1824, General Survey Act of 1824: This act outlined the
initial definition of the Corps' civil works mission. The act
authorized the President to employ "two or more skillful civil
engineers, such as officers of the corps of engineers" to survey road
and canal routes that facilitated national commercial, military, or
postal service activities.[Footnote 20]
May 24, 1824, Navigation Act: This act appropriated funds ($75,000)
for improvement of inland waterways navigation (removal of sand bars
in the Ohio River and removal of snags in the Ohio and Mississippi
Rivers).[Footnote 21]
[End of section]
May 20, 1826, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1826: This act authorized both
surveys and construction projects within the same act (a practice
continued to today).[Footnote 22]
January 21, 1927, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1927: This act gave
congressional authorization for the Corps to conduct surveys to devise
the most comprehensive and effective strategy for improving navigation
on navigable streams and their tributaries, and the most efficient
development of flood control, potential water power, and irrigation
needs.[Footnote 23]
Flood Risk Management (Flood and Storm Damage Reduction):
September 30, 1850: Congress commissioned the first planning study
from the Corps to determine the best way to control flooding on the
lower Mississippi River.[Footnote 24]
June 28, 1879, Establishment of Mississippi River Commission: Federal
flood control activity took form with the establishment of the
Mississippi River Commission, a seven-member organization including
three members from the Corps. The commission was responsible for
directing and completing surveys of the lower Mississippi River and
taking into consideration plans to prevent destructive flooding.
[Footnote 25]
March 1, 1917, Flood Control Act of 1917: This is act established the
Corps' flood damage reduction role and gave authority for federal
construction of flood control improvements beyond the Mississippi
Valley. It also notably prescribed that all plans for flood control
should include a comprehensive study of the relevant watershed and
report on potential other uses for the project, such as water power,
navigation improvements, and "such other uses as may be properly
related to or coordinated with the project."[Footnote 26]
January 21, 1927, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1927: This act gave
congressional authorization for the Corps to conduct surveys to devise
the most comprehensive and effective strategy for improving navigation
on navigable streams and their tributaries and the most efficient
development of flood control, potential water power, and irrigation
needs.[Footnote 27]
May 15, 1928, Flood Control Act of 1928: This act authorized the
Corps' Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.[Footnote 28]
June 22, 1936, Flood Control Act of 1936: This act declared flood
control as a "proper activity" of the federal government and
established the Corps as the agency responsible for flood control
throughout the nation, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation.
The act also effectively required submission of all Corps flood
control projects to a cost-benefit test (the federal government should
only sponsor projects where the benefit of a project exceeds its
cost).[Footnote 29]
August 18, 1941, Flood Control Act of 1941: This act rescinded certain
local contribution requirements for reservoir construction,[Footnote
30] spurring their construction.
July 14, 1960, Flood Control Act of 1960: Section 206 of this act
authorizes floodplain management studies. The Corps begins its Flood
Plain Management Services Program in response to this act.[Footnote 31]
March 7, 1974, Water Resources Development Act of 1974: This was the
first Water Resources Development Act. Prior to 1974, Corps projects
were authorized and funded through Rivers and Harbors and Flood
Control Acts.[Footnote 32]
Regulatory Program:
September 19, 1890 and March 3, 1899, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890
and 1899: The acts prohibit unauthorized obstructions in navigable
waterways and authorizes the Secretary of the Army to remove wrecks or
other obstructions from navigable waterways and to issue permits for
construction, excavation, or disposition of materials in, over, or
under navigable waters. Provisions of the 1899 act superseded the
provisions of the 1890 act.[Footnote 33]
October 18, 1972, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972: This act amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act), adding section 404.
Section 404 authorizes the Corps to issue permits for discharging
dredged or fill materials into "the waters of the U.S."[Footnote 34]
October 23, 1972, Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972: Authorizes the Corps to issue permits for the transportation of
dredged materials for the purpose of dumping in the ocean.[Footnote 35]
Hydropower:
March 3, 1909, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1909: This act authorized the
Corps to report data concerning the development and utilization of
hydroelectric power in project plans.[Footnote 36]
March 3, 1925, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1925: This was one of
earliest acts (together with 1909 Rivers and Harbors Act, above) that
called for a multipurpose approach to water resources development. It
authorized the Corps and the Federal Power Commission to conduct
survey cost estimates of navigable streams and tributaries "whereon
power development appears feasible and practicable."[Footnote 37]
Recreation:
December 22, 1944, Flood Control Act of 1944: This act gave the Corps
a recreation role that was added as part of flood control projects at
Corps reservoirs.[Footnote 38]
October 23, 1962, River and Harbor Act of 1962: This act expanded the
Corps' recreation role by authorizing the agency to build recreational
facilities as part of all water resource development
projects.[Footnote 39]
July 9, 1965, The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965: This
act provided for development of recreational opportunities at federal
water resources projects.[Footnote 40]
Emergency Management:
May 11, 1882: In the winter of 1882, floods on the Mississippi forced
thousands of people from their homes. The Army Quartermaster
Department had relief supplies for the refugees, but they were unable
to deliver them. Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to use
their engineer vessels to dispense supplies and rescue victims along
the river.[Footnote 41]
December 10, 1896: In Circular #18, the Chief of Engineers, by
authority of the Secretary of the Army, gave Army Engineers standing
authority to use or loan government equipment to save life and
property in cases of sudden emergency without prior headquarters
approval.
August 18, 1941, Flood Control Act of 1941: Section 5 of this act
authorized the Secretary of War to allot up to $1 million per year to
be used for rescue work or repair or maintenance of damaged or
threatened flood control works.[Footnote 42]
May 17, 1950, The Flood Control Act of 1950 (Title II of the River and
Harbor Act of 1950): Section 210 of this act further amended the 1941
Flood Control Act to increase the annual authorized funding level (for
rescue work and repair, restoration, or maintenance of damaged or
threatened flood control projects) from $2 to $15 million, and
authorized the Secretary of the Army to allot funds from other flood
control appropriations for immediate works until appropriations are
made.[Footnote 43]
Sept. 30, 1950, Disaster Relief Act of 1950: The act authorizes the
President to direct any federal agency to assist states and local
governments to alleviate suffering and damage caused by major
disasters.[Footnote 44]
June 28, 1955, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Act of 1955: This
act amended section 5 of the 1941 Flood Control Act giving the Corps
its emergency management mission. The act directed the Corps to spend
funds in emergency preparation and in rescue operations. This led to
the establishment of the Corps' Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
Program.[Footnote 45]
May 22, 1974, Disaster Relief Act of 1974: This act authorizes the
President to establish a program of disaster preparedness that
utilizes services of all appropriate agencies.[Footnote 46]
November 23, 1988, Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act: The Stafford Act authorizes federal agencies to
provide assistance during certain emergencies, expanding the Corps'
disaster preparedness role. The act, as subsequently amended,
authorizes agencies, including the Corps, to support the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in carrying out the Federal Response Plan
(now the National Response Plan) to provide coordinated disaster
relief and recovery operations.[Footnote 47]
Water Supply and Storage:
1850s to 1860s: The Corps developed and continues to maintain
permanent water supply systems to the District of Columbia and
Georgetown (today known as the Washington Aqueduct division of the
Corps' Baltimore District).
July 3, 1958, Water Supply Act of 1958: This act gave the Corps the
authority to include water storage in new and existing reservoir
projects for municipal and industrial uses.[Footnote 48]
Environmental Restoration and Protection:
September 19, 1890 and March 3, 1899, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890
and 1899: The 1890 act, later superseded by provisions of the 1899
act, prohibits unauthorized obstructions in navigable waterways and
authorizes the Corps to permit certain activities. It lays the
foundation of the Corps' environmental mission to protect, restore,
and manage the environment through the regulation of dredging and the
dumping of dredged materials given in the 1972 Clean Water Act.
[Footnote 49]
August 12, 1958, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: This act
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate with federal
agencies concerning wildlife, stating that "wildlife conservation
shall receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other
features of water-resource development programs through the effectual
and harmonious planning, development, maintenance, and coordination of
wildlife conservation and rehabilitation."[Footnote 50]
1966: U.S. Army Chief of Staff assigns the Corps supervision over all
engineering responsibilities related to the Army's growing
environmental protection and pollution reduction in the construction
and operation of the Army's military activities.
January 1, 1970, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA):
This act requires federal agencies to include in every recommendation
or report on a major federal action that significantly affects the
quality of the human environment, a detailed statement on the
environmental impact on, any unavoidable adverse environmental effects
of, and alternatives to the proposed action, among other things.
[Footnote 51]
October 18, 1972, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972: This act amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act), adding section 404.
Section 404 authorizes the Corps to issue permits for discharging of
dredged or fill materials into "the waters of the U.S."[Footnote 52]
November 17, 1986, Water Resources Development Act of 1986: This act
further expanded the Corps' environmental role to include enhancing
and restoring natural resources at certain new and existing projects.
[Footnote 53]
November 28, 1990, Water Resources Development Act of 1990: This act
mandates that environmental protection be included as one of the
Corps' primary missions.[Footnote 54]
October 13, 1997, Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Act of
1998: Congress for the first time directs funding for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) to the Corps. The
Corps is to conduct cleanup activities of early atomic energy program
sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act and National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. The FUSRAP Program was started in the 1970s under
the predecessor to the Department of Energy.[Footnote 55]
Support for Others:
March 4, 1915, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1915: Section 4 of this act
authorizes the Secretary of the Army to receive contributions from
private parties on expenditures of public funds in connection with
authorized river and harbor improvements.[Footnote 56]
September 4, 1961, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: This act
established the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). Also, Section 607 provided for the furnishing of services and
commodities to foreign countries on a reimbursable basis.[Footnote 57]
October 27, 1965, River and Harbor Act of 1965: This act authorized
the Chief of Engineers, under supervision of the Secretary of the
Army, to accept orders from federal departments and agencies for work
or services and to perform all or any part of such work by contract.
This provision was later repealed and re-enacted as an amendment to
the codification of Title 10 of the United States Code at 10 U.S.C. §
3036(d).[Footnote 58] This work includes flood control, the
improvement of rivers and harbors, research, and support to private
engineering and construction firms competing for, or performing, work
outside the United States. The Support for Others program (now named
the Interagency and International Services program) engages the Corps
in reimbursable work that is determined to be in America's best
interests.
October 16, 1968, Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968: Provides
authority for federal agencies to provide specialized or technical
services to state and local governments. This section was later
repealed and re-enacted as an amendment to the codification of Title
31 of the United States Code at 31 U.S.C. 6506.[Footnote 59]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Army Corps of Engineers' Budget, Staffing, and Workload:
Table 3: Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Total Appropriations
(Annual and Supplemental), by Appropriations Funding Account and by
Fiscal Year: Dollars in millions:
Investigations:
FY1980: $142;
FY1990: $129;
FY2000: $165;
FY2001: $166;
FY2002: $154;
FY2003: $134;
FY2004: $116;
FY2005: $144;
FY2006: $204;
FY2007: $171;
FY2008: $167;
FY2009: $193.
Construction:
FY1980: $1,660;
FY1990: $960;
FY2000: $1,272;
FY2001: $1,617;
FY2002: $1,591;
FY2003: $1,608;
FY2004: $1,610;
FY2005: $1,671;
FY2006: $2,859;
FY2007: $2,214;
FY2008: $3,675;
FY2009: $6,791.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries:
FY1980: $211;
FY1990: $330;
FY2000: $309;
FY2001: $366;
FY2002: $346;
FY2003: $342;
FY2004: $322;
FY2005: $328;
FY2006: $574;
FY2007: $397;
FY2008: $487;
FY2009: $759.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies;
FY1980: $170;
FY1990: $20;
FY2000: [Empty];
FY2001: $52;
FY2002: -$25;
FY2003: $77;
FY2004: $3;
FY2005: $383;
FY2006: $5,344;
FY2007: $1,561;
FY2008: $642;
FY2009: $3,680.
Operations & Maintenance:
FY1980: $941;
FY1990: $1,239;
FY2000: $1,167;
FY2001: $1,401;
FY2002: $1,419;
FY2003: $1,431;
FY2004: $1,327;
FY2005: $1,621;
FY2006: $1,527;
FY2007: $1,087;
FY2008: $2,572;
FY2009: $3,583.
Regulatory Program;
FY1980: [Empty]:
FY1990: $68;
FY2000: $117;
FY2001: $131;
FY2002: $127;
FY2003: $138;
FY2004: $139;
FY2005: $144;
FY2006: $158;
FY2007: $159;
FY2008: $180;
FY2009: $208.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program:
FY1980: [Empty];
FY1990: [Empty];
FY2000: $150;
FY2001: $141;
FY2002: $140;
FY2003: $144;
FY2004: $139;
FY2005: $164;
FY2006: $139;
FY2007: $140;
FY2008: $140;
FY2009: $240.
Expenses:
FY1980: $77;
FY1990: $142;
FY2000: $150;
FY2001: $157;
FY2002: $153;
FY2003: $154;
FY2004: $159;
FY2005: $166;
FY2006: $154;
FY2007: $167;
FY2008: $177;
FY2009: $179.
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works):
FY1980: [Empty];
FY1990: [Empty];
FY2000: [Empty];
FY2001: [Empty];
FY2002: [Empty];
FY2003: [Empty];
FY2004: 0;
FY2005: $4;
FY2006: $4;
FY2007: $4;
FY2008: $5;
FY2009: $5.
Total appropriations:
FY1980: $3,201;
FY1990: $2,888;
FY2000: $3,330;
FY2001: $4,031;
FY2002: $3,905;
FY2003: $4,028;
FY2004: $3,815;
FY2005: $4,625;
FY2006: $10,963;
FY2007: $5,900;
FY2008: $8,045;
FY2009: $15,638.
Total appropriations (FY2009 dollars):
FY1980: $7,516;
FY1990: $4,427;
FY2000: $4,140;
FY2001: $4,896;
FY2002: $4,666;
FY2003: $4,715;
FY2004: $4,354;
FY2005: $5,111;
FY2006: $11,714;
FY2007: $6,126;
FY2008: $8,164;
FY2009: $15,638.
Source: GAO analysis of the Budget of the United States Government for
fiscal years 1980, 1990, and 2000 to 2009.
Note: This figure only includes the Corps' nine appropriations funding
accounts. Other accounts may have been included in the Budget of the
United States Government.
[End of table]
Table 4: Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Annual Obligations, by
Appropriations Funding Account and by Fiscal Year: Dollars in millions:
Investigations:
FY1980: $140;
FY1990: $132;
FY2000: $190;
FY2001: $192;
FY2002: $203;
FY2003: $176;
FY2004: $160;
FY2005: $173;
FY2006: $183;
FY2007: $219;
FY2008: $209;
FY2009: $214.
Construction:
FY1980: $1,684;
FY1990: $1,521;
FY2000: $2,021;
FY2001: $2,288;
FY2002: $2,426;
FY2003: $2,578;
FY2004: $2,376;
FY2005: $2,391;
FY2006: $2,803;
FY2007: $3,413;
FY2008: $5,161;
FY2009: $5,404.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries:
FY1980: $219;
FY1990: $322;
FY2000: $334;
FY2001: $405;
FY2002: $377;
FY2003: $365;
FY2004: $350;
FY2005: $348;
FY2006: $493;
FY2007: $460;
FY2008: $439;
FY2009: $634.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE):
FY1980: $240;
FY1990: $105;
FY2000: $35;
FY2001: $82;
FY2002: $76;
FY2003: $86;
FY2004: $459;
FY2005: $1,705;
FY2006: $4,884;
FY2007: $1,378;
FY2008: $2,314;
FY2009: $1,754.
Operations & Maintenance:
FY1980: $931;
FY1990: $1,381;
FY2000: $1,963;
FY2001: $1,583;
FY2002: $1,721;
FY2003: $1,757;
FY2004: $1,562;
FY2005: $1,617;
FY2006: $1,723;
FY2007: $1,357;
FY2008: $2,663;
FY2009: $4,453.
Regulatory Program:
FY1980: [Empty];
FY1990: $64;
FY2000: $112;
FY2001: $129;
FY2002: $134;
FY2003: $143;
FY2004: $142;
FY2005: $144;
FY2006: $157;
FY2007: $163;
FY2008: $186;
FY2009: $202.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program:
FY1980: [Empty];
FY1990: [Empty];
FY2000: $181;
FY2001: $170;
FY2002: $151;
FY2003: $151;
FY2004: $143;
FY2005: $161;
FY2006: $141;
FY2007: $141;
FY2008: $151;
FY2009: $203.
Expenses:
FY1980: $76;
FY1990: $128;
FY2000: $150;
FY2001: $171;
FY2002: $162;
FY2003: $154;
FY2004: $181;
FY2005: $174;
FY2006: $179;
FY2007: $184;
FY2008: $202;
FY2009: $227.
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works);
FY1980: [Empty];
FY1990: [Empty];
FY2000: [Empty];
FY2001: [Empty];
FY2002: [Empty];
FY2003: [Empty];
FY2004: 0;
FY2005: $4;
FY2006: $4;
FY2007: $4;
FY2008: $5;
FY2009: $5.
Total obligations;
FY1980: $3,290;
FY1990: $3,653;
FY2000: $4,986;
FY2001: $5,020;
FY2002: $5,250;
FY2003: $5,410;
FY2004: $5,373;
FY2005: $6,717;
FY2006: $10,567;
FY2007: $7,319;
FY2008: $11,330;
FY2009: $13,096.
Total obligations (FY2009 dollars);
FY1980: $7,725;
FY1990: $5,599;
FY2000: $6,199;
FY2001: $6,097;
FY2002: $6,273;
FY2003: $6,332;
FY2004: $6,131;
FY2005: $7,423;
FY2006: $11,291;
FY2007: $7,600;
FY2008: $11,498;
FY2009: $13,096.
Source: GAO analysis of the Budget of the United States Government for
fiscal years 1980, 1990, and 2000 to 2009.
Note: This figure only includes the Corps' nine appropriations funding
accounts. Other accounts may have been included in the Budget of the
United States.
[End of table]
Table 5: Army Corps of Engineers' District-and Division-Level Civil
Works Full-Time Equivalent Data, by Fiscal Year:
Great Lakes & Ohio River Division;
FY 2000: 4,348;
FY 2001: 4,321;
FY 2002: 4,274;
FY 2003: 4,222;
FY 2004: 4,014;
FY 2005: 3,672;
FY 2006: 3,490;
FY 2007: 3,363;
FY 2008: 3,347;
FY 2009: 3,605.
Division Office;
FY 2000: 97;
FY 2001: 86;
FY 2002: 88;
FY 2003: 83;
FY 2004: 79;
FY 2005: 73;
FY 2006: 68;
FY 2007: 64;
FY 2008: 68;
FY 2009: 70.
Huntington;
FY 2000: 916;
FY 2001: 909;
FY 2002: 900;
FY 2003: 896;
FY 2004: 862;
FY 2005: 821;
FY 2006: 792;
FY 2007: 759;
FY 2008: 730;
FY 2009: 802.
Louisville;
FY 2000: 760;
FY 2001: 770;
FY 2002: 763;
FY 2003: 768;
FY 2004: 744;
FY 2005: 703;
FY 2006: 673;
FY 2007: 620;
FY 2008: 619;
FY 2009: 667.
Nashville;
FY 2000: 761;
FY 2001: 760;
FY 2002: 764;
FY 2003: 755;
FY 2004: 733;
FY 2005: 697;
FY 2006: 669;
FY 2007: 659;
FY 2008: 653;
FY 2009: 686.
Pittsburgh;
FY 2000: 882;
FY 2001: 863;
FY 2002: 824;
FY 2003: 789;
FY 2004: 692;
FY 2005: 534;
FY 2006: 547;
FY 2007: 544;
FY 2008: 573;
FY 2009: 629.
Buffalo;
FY 2000: 264;
FY 2001: 278;
FY 2002: 278;
FY 2003: 278;
FY 2004: 279;
FY 2005: 260;
FY 2006: 249;
FY 2007: 229;
FY 2008: 225;
FY 2009: 233.
Chicago;
FY 2000: 196;
FY 2001: 203;
FY 2002: 207;
FY 2003: 204;
FY 2004: 198;
FY 2005: 178;
FY 2006: 149;
FY 2007: 153;
FY 2008: 154;
FY 2009: 167.
Detroit;
FY 2000: 474;
FY 2001: 452;
FY 2002: 450;
FY 2003: 449;
FY 2004: 427;
FY 2005: 406;
FY 2006: 343;
FY 2007: 335;
FY 2008: 325;
FY 2009: 351.
Mississippi Valley Division;
FY 2000: 5,419;
FY 2001: 5,357;
FY 2002: 5,345;
FY 2003: 5,335;
FY 2004: 5,052;
FY 2005: 4,920;
FY 2006: 4,845;
FY 2007: 4,622;
FY 2008: 4,502;
FY 2009: 4,805.
Division Office;
FY 2000: 142;
FY 2001: 140;
FY 2002: 134;
FY 2003: 132;
FY 2004: 105;
FY 2005: 94;
FY 2006: 90;
FY 2007: 89;
FY 2008: 86;
FY 2009: 86.
Memphis;
FY 2000: 560;
FY 2001: 560;
FY 2002: 542;
FY 2003: 520;
FY 2004: 493;
FY 2005: 488;
FY 2006: 490;
FY 2007: 455;
FY 2008: 438;
FY 2009: 449.
New Orleans;
FY 2000: 1,276;
FY 2001: 1,284;
FY 2002: 1,293;
FY 2003: 1,310;
FY 2004: 1,283;
FY 2005: 1,235;
FY 2006: 1,140;
FY 2007: 1,140;
FY 2008: 1,179;
FY 2009: 1,311.
St Louis;
FY 2000: 715;
FY 2001: 678;
FY 2002: 682;
FY 2003: 670;
FY 2004: 612;
FY 2005: 601;
FY 2006: 609;
FY 2007: 587;
FY 2008: 575;
FY 2009: 638.
Vicksburg;
FY 2000: 1,187;
FY 2001: 1,172;
FY 2002: 1,168;
FY 2003: 1,169;
FY 2004: 1,117;
FY 2005: 1,083;
FY 2006: 1,107;
FY 2007: 981;
FY 2008: 901;
FY 2009: 941.
Rock Island;
FY 2000: 867;
FY 2001: 855;
FY 2002: 858;
FY 2003: 850;
FY 2004: 814;
FY 2005: 809;
FY 2006: 816;
FY 2007: 805;
FY 2008: 779;
FY 2009: 828.
St. Paul;
FY 2000: 674;
FY 2001: 668;
FY 2002: 668;
FY 2003: 684;
FY 2004: 628;
FY 2005: 610;
FY 2006: 593;
FY 2007: 565;
FY 2008: 544;
FY 2009: 552.
North Atlantic Division;
FY 2000: 2,417;
FY 2001: 2,352;
FY 2002: 2,334;
FY 2003: 2,284;
FY 2004: 2,186;
FY 2005: 2,075;
FY 2006: 2,009;
FY 2007: 1,809;
FY 2008: 1,889;
FY 2009: 1,822.
Division Office;
FY 2000: 75;
FY 2001: 79;
FY 2002: 76;
FY 2003: 74;
FY 2004: 72;
FY 2005: 51;
FY 2006: 60;
FY 2007: 57;
FY 2008: 79;
FY 2009: 52.
Baltimore;
FY 2000: 655;
FY 2001: 634;
FY 2002: 633;
FY 2003: 610;
FY 2004: 545;
FY 2005: 493;
FY 2006: 465;
FY 2007: 387;
FY 2008: 361;
FY 2009: 354.
New York;
FY 2000: 471;
FY 2001: 456;
FY 2002: 459;
FY 2003: 475;
FY 2004: 458;
FY 2005: 443;
FY 2006: 424;
FY 2007: 405;
FY 2008: 377;
FY 2009: 361.
Norfolk;
FY 2000: 230;
FY 2001: 224;
FY 2002: 242;
FY 2003: 243;
FY 2004: 233;
FY 2005: 216;
FY 2006: 221;
FY 2007: 184;
FY 2008: 166;
FY 2009: 170.
Philadelphia;
FY 2000: 523;
FY 2001: 509;
FY 2002: 481;
FY 2003: 442;
FY 2004: 446;
FY 2005: 451;
FY 2006: 422;
FY 2007: 388;
FY 2008: 380;
FY 2009: 360.
New England;
FY 2000: 463;
FY 2001: 447;
FY 2002: 438;
FY 2003: 434;
FY 2004: 425;
FY 2005: 413;
FY 2006: 392;
FY 2007: 383;
FY 2008: 376;
FY 2009: 376.
Europe;
FY 2000: 0;
FY 2001: 3;
FY 2002: 5;
FY 2003: 6;
FY 2004: 7;
FY 2005: 8;
FY 2006: 25;
FY 2007: 5;
FY 2008: 2;
FY 2009: 5.
Washington Aquaduct;
FY 2000: [Empty];
FY 2001: [Empty];
FY 2002: [Empty];
FY 2003: [Empty];
FY 2004: [Empty];
FY 2005: [Empty];
FY 2006: [Empty];
FY 2007: [Empty];
FY 2008: 148;
FY 2009: 144.
Northwestern Division;
FY 2000: 3,840;
FY 2001: 3,830;
FY 2002: 3,908;
FY 2003: 3,920;
FY 2004: 3,771;
FY 2005: 3,695;
FY 2006: 3,685;
FY 2007: 3,541;
FY 2008: 3,453;
FY 2009: 3,557.
Division Office;
FY 2000: 156;
FY 2001: 147;
FY 2002: 144;
FY 2003: 156;
FY 2004: 149;
FY 2005: 147;
FY 2006: 137;
FY 2007: 130;
FY 2008: 107;
FY 2009: 106.
Portland;
FY 2000: 1,163;
FY 2001: 1,162;
FY 2002: 1,181;
FY 2003: 1,195;
FY 2004: 1,128;
FY 2005: 1,108;
FY 2006: 1,088;
FY 2007: 1,059;
FY 2008: 1,051;
FY 2009: 1,075.
Seattle;
FY 2000: 539;
FY 2001: 557;
FY 2002: 588;
FY 2003: 591;
FY 2004: 564;
FY 2005: 552;
FY 2006: 584;
FY 2007: 548;
FY 2008: 545;
FY 2009: 567.
Walla Walla;
FY 2000: 618;
FY 2001: 642;
FY 2002: 654;
FY 2003: 672;
FY 2004: 682;
FY 2005: 682;
FY 2006: 683;
FY 2007: 650;
FY 2008: 625;
FY 2009: 671.
Kansas City;
FY 2000: 578;
FY 2001: 579;
FY 2002: 589;
FY 2003: 594;
FY 2004: 569;
FY 2005: 553;
FY 2006: 528;
FY 2007: 509;
FY 2008: 508;
FY 2009: 512.
Omaha;
FY 2000: 787;
FY 2001: 743;
FY 2002: 752;
FY 2003: 712;
FY 2004: 679;
FY 2005: 653;
FY 2006: 665;
FY 2007: 645;
FY 2008: 617;
FY 2009: 626.
Pacific Ocean Division;
FY 2000: 312;
FY 2001: 288;
FY 2002: 279;
FY 2003: 270;
FY 2004: 283;
FY 2005: 299;
FY 2006: 294;
FY 2007: 266;
FY 2008: 253;
FY 2009: 244.
Division Office;
FY 2000: 15;
FY 2001: 17;
FY 2002: 19;
FY 2003: 19;
FY 2004: 20;
FY 2005: 19;
FY 2006: 17;
FY 2007: 16;
FY 2008: 18;
FY 2009: 19.
Honolulu;
FY 2000: 130;
FY 2001: 97;
FY 2002: 82;
FY 2003: 82;
FY 2004: 83;
FY 2005: 91;
FY 2006: 85;
FY 2007: 70;
FY 2008: 59;
FY 2009: 56.
Alaska;
FY 2000: 167;
FY 2001: 174;
FY 2002: 178;
FY 2003: 169;
FY 2004: 180;
FY 2005: 186;
FY 2006: 179;
FY 2007: 178;
FY 2008: 172;
FY 2009: 167.
Japan;
FY 2000: 0;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
FY 2003: 0;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 3;
FY 2006: 3;
FY 2007: 0;
FY 2008: 1;
FY 2009: 1.
Korea;
FY 2000: 0;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
FY 2003: 0;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 10;
FY 2007: 2;
FY 2008: 3;
FY 2009: 1.
South Atlantic Division;
FY 2000: 2,715;
FY 2001: 2,807;
FY 2002: 2,860;
FY 2003: 2,903;
FY 2004: 2,798;
FY 2005: 2,681;
FY 2006: 2,538;
FY 2007: 2,398;
FY 2008: 2,327;
FY 2009: 2,397.
Division Office;
FY 2000: 72;
FY 2001: 73;
FY 2002: 76;
FY 2003: 76;
FY 2004: 65;
FY 2005: 66;
FY 2006: 60;
FY 2007: 57;
FY 2008: 54;
FY 2009: 54.
Charleston;
FY 2000: 132;
FY 2001: 134;
FY 2002: 139;
FY 2003: 139;
FY 2004: 134;
FY 2005: 122;
FY 2006: 100;
FY 2007: 99;
FY 2008: 105;
FY 2009: 119.
Jacksonville;
FY 2000: 745;
FY 2001: 823;
FY 2002: 851;
FY 2003: 890;
FY 2004: 884;
FY 2005: 845;
FY 2006: 793;
FY 2007: 735;
FY 2008: 725;
FY 2009: 765.
Mobile;
FY 2000: 971;
FY 2001: 983;
FY 2002: 973;
FY 2003: 989;
FY 2004: 930;
FY 2005: 899;
FY 2006: 861;
FY 2007: 808;
FY 2008: 771;
FY 2009: 775.
Savannah;
FY 2000: 420;
FY 2001: 419;
FY 2002: 418;
FY 2003: 405;
FY 2004: 402;
FY 2005: 385;
FY 2006: 350;
FY 2007: 326;
FY 2008: 302;
FY 2009: 295.
Wilmington;
FY 2000: 375;
FY 2001: 375;
FY 2002: 403;
FY 2003: 404;
FY 2004: 383;
FY 2005: 364;
FY 2006: 374;
FY 2007: 373;
FY 2008: 370;
FY 2009: 389.
South Pacific Division;
FY 2000: 1,818;
FY 2001: 1,782;
FY 2002: 1,763;
FY 2003: 1,750;
FY 2004: 1,683;
FY 2005: 1,597;
FY 2006: 1,623;
FY 2007: 1,579;
FY 2008: 1,522;
FY 2009: 1,559.
Division Office;
FY 2000: 94;
FY 2001: 99;
FY 2002: 95;
FY 2003: 90;
FY 2004: 67;
FY 2005: 56;
FY 2006: 52;
FY 2007: 55;
FY 2008: 53;
FY 2009: 57.
Los Angeles;
FY 2000: 553;
FY 2001: 540;
FY 2002: 527;
FY 2003: 523;
FY 2004: 504;
FY 2005: 471;
FY 2006: 471;
FY 2007: 437;
FY 2008: 407;
FY 2009: 423.
Sacramento;
FY 2000: 663;
FY 2001: 640;
FY 2002: 619;
FY 2003: 600;
FY 2004: 581;
FY 2005: 545;
FY 2006: 541;
FY 2007: 545;
FY 2008: 540;
FY 2009: 572.
San Francisco;
FY 2000: 273;
FY 2001: 265;
FY 2002: 279;
FY 2003: 295;
FY 2004: 297;
FY 2005: 283;
FY 2006: 289;
FY 2007: 286;
FY 2008: 276;
FY 2009: 275.
Albuquerque;
FY 2000: 235;
FY 2001: 238;
FY 2002: 243;
FY 2003: 242;
FY 2004: 234;
FY 2005: 242;
FY 2006: 270;
FY 2007: 256;
FY 2008: 246;
FY 2009: 232.
Southwestern Division;
FY 2000: 2,375;
FY 2001: 2,369;
FY 2002: 2,388;
FY 2003: 2,285;
FY 2004: 2,203;
FY 2005: 2,099;
FY 2006: 2,065;
FY 2007: 1,985;
FY 2008: 1,915;
FY 2009: 1,973.
Division Office;
FY 2000: 93;
FY 2001: 88;
FY 2002: 85;
FY 2003: 75;
FY 2004: 61;
FY 2005: 59;
FY 2006: 59;
FY 2007: 71;
FY 2008: 60;
FY 2009: 59.
Fort Worth;
FY 2000: 499;
FY 2001: 498;
FY 2002: 516;
FY 2003: 498;
FY 2004: 507;
FY 2005: 482;
FY 2006: 504;
FY 2007: 466;
FY 2008: 455;
FY 2009: 482.
Galveston;
FY 2000: 351;
FY 2001: 364;
FY 2002: 376;
FY 2003: 394;
FY 2004: 399;
FY 2005: 381;
FY 2006: 364;
FY 2007: 337;
FY 2008: 310;
FY 2009: 309.
Little Rock;
FY 2000: 726;
FY 2001: 717;
FY 2002: 721;
FY 2003: 705;
FY 2004: 668;
FY 2005: 627;
FY 2006: 620;
FY 2007: 598;
FY 2008: 581;
FY 2009: 599.
Tulsa;
FY 2000: 705;
FY 2001: 702;
FY 2002: 690;
FY 2003: 613;
FY 2004: 568;
FY 2005: 550;
FY 2006: 518;
FY 2007: 513;
FY 2008: 509;
FY 2009: 524.
Total;
FY 2000: 23,244;
FY 2001: 23,106;
FY 2002: 23,151;
FY 2003: 22,969;
FY 2004: 21,990;
FY 2005: 21,038;
FY 2006: 20,549;
FY 2007: 19,563;
FY 2008: 19,208;
FY 2009: 19,962.
Source: GAO analysis of Army Corps of Engineers data.
[End of table]
Table 6: Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Construction and
Operations and Maintenance Project Expenditures, by Fiscal Year:
Buffalo;
FY 1980: $30,119,162;
FY 1990: $23,491,777;
FY 2000: $29,610,750;
FY 2001: $28,445,897;
FY 2002: $26,090,611;
FY 2003: $31,206,326;
FY 2004: $31,313,091;
FY 2005: $29,586,616;
FY 2006: $22,517,145;
FY 2007: $26,122,187;
FY 2008: $47,965,385.
Chicago;
FY 1980: $5,380,002;
FY 1990: $16,409,894;
FY 2000: $55,506,110;
FY 2001: $59,523,236;
FY 2002: $69,007,887;
FY 2003: $65,263,134;
FY 2004: $71,575,810;
FY 2005: $75,448,517;
FY 2006: $66,454,906;
FY 2007: $73,396,504;
FY 2008: $99,034,025.
Detroit;
FY 1980: $59,935,163;
FY 1990: $45,563,197;
FY 2000: $63,828,966;
FY 2001: $63,796,725;
FY 2002: $65,188,019;
FY 2003: $65,225,033;
FY 2004: $85,737,038;
FY 2005: $61,052,458;
FY 2006: $57,605,707;
FY 2007: $48,998,013;
FY 2008: $66,692,204.
Huntington;
FY 1980: $67,713,272;
FY 1990: $118,127,437;
FY 2000: $110,425,806;
FY 2001: $121,019,663;
FY 2002: $160,023,847;
FY 2003: $151,929,600;
FY 2004: $153,075,157;
FY 2005: $150,169,902;
FY 2006: $141,748,531;
FY 2007: $134,497,083;
FY 2008: $132,654,183.
Louisville;
FY 1980: $71,860,847;
FY 1990: $48,885,472;
FY 2000: $137,719,071;
FY 2001: $128,921,158;
FY 2002: $127,250,996;
FY 2003: $130,732,992;
FY 2004: $145,633,118;
FY 2005: $153,734,511;
FY 2006: $150,181,718;
FY 2007: $154,301,619;
FY 2008: $161,812,655.
Nashville;
FY 1980: $169,773,087;
FY 1990: $76,981,417;
FY 2000: $99,120,962;
FY 2001: $98,015,669;
FY 2002: $91,267,655;
FY 2003: $90,727,823;
FY 2004: $96,119,494;
FY 2005: $94,766,978;
FY 2006: $107,014,234;
FY 2007: $144,072,427;
FY 2008: $185,079,205.
Pittsburgh;
FY 1980: $29,236,084;
FY 1990: $70,738,446;
FY 2000: $118,185,833;
FY 2001: $114,929,020;
FY 2002: $104,969,372;
FY 2003: $100,533,727;
FY 2004: $87,863,628;
FY 2005: $78,522,213;
FY 2006: $101,003,983;
FY 2007: $94,314,575;
FY 2008: $103,934,645.
Vicksburg;
FY 1980: $113,641,299;
FY 1990: $238,259,444;
FY 2000: $209,944,628;
FY 2001: $208,588,663;
FY 2002: $216,385,818;
FY 2003: $216,274,751;
FY 2004: $190,829,599;
FY 2005: $169,795,538;
FY 2006: $223,811,701;
FY 2007: $226,523,834;
FY 2008: $201,179,066.
Memphis;
FY 1980: $54,052,765;
FY 1990: $73,677,869;
FY 2000: $85,166,014;
FY 2001: $107,963,019;
FY 2002: $101,517,424;
FY 2003: $101,226,480;
FY 2004: $102,663,151;
FY 2005: $115,874,369;
FY 2006: $99,068,886;
FY 2007: $93,454,204;
FY 2008: $86,779,761.
New Orleans;
FY 1980: $261,054,252;
FY 1990: $251,160,643;
FY 2000: $321,246,652;
FY 2001: $362,044,102;
FY 2002: $324,748,999;
FY 2003: $313,673,609;
FY 2004: $300,063,935;
FY 2005: $332,470,235;
FY 2006: $301,802,256;
FY 2007: $351,163,252;
FY 2008: $363,852,408.
St. Paul;
FY 1980: $44,225,287;
FY 1990: $89,185,686;
FY 2000: $83,590,898;
FY 2001: $88,133,113;
FY 2002: $112,323,530;
FY 2003: $124,267,767;
FY 2004: $102,673,848;
FY 2005: $91,172,340;
FY 2006: $94,567,960;
FY 2007: $81,963,584;
FY 2008: $75,117,898.
Rock Island;
FY 1980: $54,396,137;
FY 1990: $86,031,082;
FY 2000: $98,172,275;
FY 2001: $99,500,398;
FY 2002: $91,152,965;
FY 2003: $96,677,425;
FY 2004: $93,133,614;
FY 2005: $100,656,214;
FY 2006: $95,065,204;
FY 2007: $100,602,285;
FY 2008: $122,283,314.
St. Louis;
FY 1980: $102,397,996;
FY 1990: $128,190,783;
FY 2000: $104,460,231;
FY 2001: $90,603,859;
FY 2002: $95,260,406;
FY 2003: $36,109,543;
FY 2004: $93,458,074;
FY 2005: $97,100,068;
FY 2006: $98,126,158;
FY 2007: $87,968,407;
FY 2008: $108,779,068.
Baltimore;
FY 1980: $64,250,003;
FY 1990: $48,179,105;
FY 2000: $93,101,144;
FY 2001: $119,023,754;
FY 2002: $139,496,437;
FY 2003: $103,255,652;
FY 2004: $86,914,204;
FY 2005: $72,007,335;
FY 2006: $79,865,965;
FY 2007: $75,553,184;
FY 2008: $74,590,398.
New England;
FY 1980: $49,735,960;
FY 1990: $34,130,446;
FY 2000: $56,595,860;
FY 2001: $60,109,302;
FY 2002: $68,335,970;
FY 2003: $87,175,589;
FY 2004: $74,300,364;
FY 2005: $61,775,887;
FY 2006: $46,190,030;
FY 2007: $51,215,542;
FY 2008: $55,202,149.
New York;
FY 1980: $33,361,622;
FY 1990: $57,152,971;
FY 2000: $82,668,679;
FY 2001: $100,288,175;
FY 2002: $139,088,204;
FY 2003: $156,204,724;
FY 2004: $142,743,060;
FY 2005: $150,641,890;
FY 2006: $141,704,005;
FY 2007: $104,189,407;
FY 2008: $139,800,710.
Norfolk;
FY 1980: $22,116,484;
FY 1990: $29,416,231;
FY 2000: $48,368,228;
FY 2001: $37,020,269;
FY 2002: $49,268,518;
FY 2003: $57,041,309;
FY 2004: $45,309,875;
FY 2005: $34,452,085;
FY 2006: $30,815,862;
FY 2007: $34,306,999;
FY 2008: $36,740,425.
Philadelphia;
FY 1980: $34,100,311;
FY 1990: $51,852,565;
FY 2000: $65,193,601;
FY 2001: $69,226,582;
FY 2002: $70,905,348;
FY 2003: $75,758,092;
FY 2004: $89,099,427;
FY 2005: $93,791,647;
FY 2006: $62,674,604;
FY 2007: $81,265,451;
FY 2008: $78,870,974.
Kansas City;
FY 1980: $103,173,940;
FY 1990: $46,936,286;
FY 2000: $58,399,338;
FY 2001: $63,599,219;
FY 2002: $73,736,155;
FY 2003: $75,253,641;
FY 2004: $88,245,858;
FY 2005: $74,758,152;
FY 2006: $87,535,829;
FY 2007: $95,527,116;
FY 2008: $134,586,898.
Omaha;
FY 1980: $38,807,523;
FY 1990: $48,886,322;
FY 2000: $93,751,849;
FY 2001: $98,667,944;
FY 2002: $103,447,119;
FY 2003: $109,221,981;
FY 2004: $124,622,408;
FY 2005: $116,786,855;
FY 2006: $107,415,151;
FY 2007: $112,653,840;
FY 2008: $124,381,582.
Portland;
FY 1980: $260,324,886;
FY 1990: $120,166,404;
FY 2000: $176,311,113;
FY 2001: $201,370,825;
FY 2002: $198,862,373;
FY 2003: $221,569,302;
FY 2004: $169,398,548;
FY 2005: $164,707,032;
FY 2006: $160,988,583;
FY 2007: $163,692,211;
FY 2008: $211,491,523.
Seattle;
FY 1980: $54,917,572;
FY 1990: $64,303,161;
FY 2000: $78,650,927;
FY 2001: $67,622,595;
FY 2002: $72,221,821;
FY 2003: $71,755,968;
FY 2004: $66,348,297;
FY 2005: $62,716,478;
FY 2006: $64,738,096;
FY 2007: $67,903,779;
FY 2008: $68,252,184.
Walla Walla;
FY 1980: $56,806,828;
FY 1990: $59,575,887;
FY 2000: $95,854,854;
FY 2001: $111,475,607;
FY 2002: $112,566,312;
FY 2003: $102,011,350;
FY 2004: $89,892,803;
FY 2005: $101,377,293;
FY 2006: $100,976,231;
FY 2007: $113,511,102;
FY 2008: $108,858,749.
Alaska;
FY 1980: $22,711,643;
FY 1990: $26,953,551;
FY 2000: $27,787,414;
FY 2001: $21,308,616;
FY 2002: $24,776,699;
FY 2003: $15,934,356;
FY 2004: $70,316,248;
FY 2005: $60,556,841;
FY 2006: $41,316,532;
FY 2007: $38,086,495;
FY 2008: $36,167,629.
Honolulu;
FY 1980: $13,097,325;
FY 1990: $7,547,184;
FY 2000: $2,813,540;
FY 2001: $2,583,263;
FY 2002: $4,200,234;
FY 2003: $2,822,489;
FY 2004: $3,644,654;
FY 2005: $9,243,291;
FY 2006: $11,954,538;
FY 2007: $11,862,286;
FY 2008: $13,884,393.
Charleston;
FY 1980: $52,140,239;
FY 1990: $38,288,906;
FY 2000: $60,728,922;
FY 2001: $48,954,517;
FY 2002: $28,695,566;
FY 2003: $35,400,034;
FY 2004: $25,126,391;
FY 2005: $33,419,246;
FY 2006: $25,619,944;
FY 2007: $26,648,938;
FY 2008: $29,982,760.
Jacksonville;
FY 1980: $87,022,792;
FY 1990: $104,229,340;
FY 2000: $184,242,182;
FY 2001: $236,143,015;
FY 2002: $245,952,889;
FY 2003: $222,718,597;
FY 2004: $220,025,898;
FY 2005: $278,334,003;
FY 2006: $242,418,211;
FY 2007: $245,626,072;
FY 2008: $266,114,294.
Mobile;
FY 1980: $210,933,774;
FY 1990: $156,460,421;
FY 2000: $173,278,783;
FY 2001: $185,648,219;
FY 2002: $211,525,919;
FY 2003: $219,040,858;
FY 2004: $202,896,246;
FY 2005: $199,944,011;
FY 2006: $185,842,640;
FY 2007: $170,173,386;
FY 2008: $172,676,326.
Savannah;
FY 1980: $91,655,927;
FY 1990: $53,275,409;
FY 2000: $73,857,537;
FY 2001: $60,623,356;
FY 2002: $65,912,573;
FY 2003: $69,812,080;
FY 2004: $76,024,629;
FY 2005: $70,014,767;
FY 2006: $53,854,776;
FY 2007: $86,135,108;
FY 2008: $49,439,723.
Wilmington;
FY 1980: $47,361,709;
FY 1990: $43,001,625;
FY 2000: $63,344,825;
FY 2001: $115,068,240;
FY 2002: $126,623,865;
FY 2003: $99,715,406;
FY 2004: $76,393,503;
FY 2005: $78,653,558;
FY 2006: $84,989,673;
FY 2007: $93,192,377;
FY 2008: $78,447,465.
Albuquerque;
FY 1980: $20,850,249;
FY 1990: $19,205,602;
FY 2000: $21,166,755;
FY 2001: $29,747,652;
FY 2002: $29,253,968;
FY 2003: $32,179,348;
FY 2004: $42,783,139;
FY 2005: $41,043,853;
FY 2006: $33,258,347;
FY 2007: $32,978,091;
FY 2008: $48,665,128.
Sacramento;
FY 1980: $25,817,762;
FY 1990: $69,324,692;
FY 2000: $82,932,412;
FY 2001: $93,237,168;
FY 2002: $106,043,785;
FY 2003: $122,071,489;
FY 2004: $108,926,907;
FY 2005: $100,990,521;
FY 2006: $111,531,880;
FY 2007: $157,121,874;
FY 2008: $149,385,634.
Los Angeles;
FY 1980: $39,615,132;
FY 1990: $64,047,455;
FY 2000: $162,429,712;
FY 2001: $104,572,636;
FY 2002: $108,946,613;
FY 2003: $136,149,383;
FY 2004: $135,713,338;
FY 2005: $107,628,117;
FY 2006: $99,234,264;
FY 2007: $122,745,776;
FY 2008: $151,061,055.
San Francisco;
FY 1980: $57,420,841;
FY 1990: $24,850,279;
FY 2000: $43,090,864;
FY 2001: $42,267,271;
FY 2002: $51,433,915;
FY 2003: $73,970,789;
FY 2004: $65,532,610;
FY 2005: $57,485,528;
FY 2006: $86,237,573;
FY 2007: $99,274,580;
FY 2008: $103,328,297.
Fort Worth;
FY 1980: $70,703,795;
FY 1990: $106,674,537;
FY 2000: $56,074,798;
FY 2001: $64,057,440;
FY 2002: $61,361,586;
FY 2003: $66,010,987;
FY 2004: $80,068,679;
FY 2005: $63,311,802;
FY 2006: $86,481,595;
FY 2007: $89,291,653;
FY 2008: $90,300,325.
Galveston;
FY 1980: $52,800,941;
FY 1990: $61,505,956;
FY 2000: $168,357,758;
FY 2001: $152,423,675;
FY 2002: $145,651,557;
FY 2003: $165,378,505;
FY 2004: $161,503,492;
FY 2005: $121,154,850;
FY 2006: $124,420,546;
FY 2007: $175,764,015;
FY 2008: $145,526,599.
Little Rock;
FY 1980: $47,201,895;
FY 1990: $70,126,377;
FY 2000: $110,042,403;
FY 2001: $130,699,308;
FY 2002: $135,486,288;
FY 2003: $108,597,863;
FY 2004: $100,805,442;
FY 2005: $83,192,130;
FY 2006: $82,022,791;
FY 2007: $97,690,890;
FY 2008: $118,084,746.
Tulsa;
FY 1980: $110,400,901;
FY 1990: $92,154,486;
FY 2000: $88,117,468;
FY 2001: $89,620,637;
FY 2002: $91,692,664;
FY 2003: $93,891,360;
FY 2004: $88,768,529;
FY 2005: $82,468,519;
FY 2006: $70,665,755;
FY 2007: $71,254,168;
FY 2008: $89,513,429.
Source: GAO analysis of Corps of Engineers data.
[End of table]
Table 7: Army Corps of Engineers' Number of Civil Works Construction
and Operations and Maintenance Projects, by Fiscal Year:
Buffalo;
FY 1980: 38;
FY 1990: 34;
FY 2000: 33;
FY 2001: 34;
FY 2002: 34;
FY 2003: 33;
FY 2004: 31;
FY 2005: 33;
FY 2006: 34;
FY 2007: 34;
FY 2008: 34.
Chicago;
FY 1980: 10;
FY 1990: 16;
FY 2000: 24;
FY 2001: 24;
FY 2002: 24;
FY 2003: 24;
FY 2004: 24;
FY 2005: 24;
FY 2006: 28;
FY 2007: 28;
FY 2008: 28.
Detroit;
FY 1980: 83;
FY 1990: 67;
FY 2000: 74;
FY 2001: 80;
FY 2002: 71;
FY 2003: 73;
FY 2004: 63;
FY 2005: 70;
FY 2006: 55;
FY 2007: 38;
FY 2008: 58.
Huntington;
FY 1980: 32;
FY 1990: 28;
FY 2000: 35;
FY 2001: 36;
FY 2002: 38;
FY 2003: 39;
FY 2004: 39;
FY 2005: 40;
FY 2006: 43;
FY 2007: 43;
FY 2008: 43.
Louisville;
FY 1980: 36;
FY 1990: 27;
FY 2000: 35;
FY 2001: 40;
FY 2002: 41;
FY 2003: 41;
FY 2004: 38;
FY 2005: 38;
FY 2006: 38;
FY 2007: 38;
FY 2008: 39.
Nashville;
FY 1980: 12;
FY 1990: 13;
FY 2000: 15;
FY 2001: 15;
FY 2002: 15;
FY 2003: 15;
FY 2004: 16;
FY 2005: 16;
FY 2006: 16;
FY 2007: 16;
FY 2008: 16.
Pittsburgh;
FY 1980: 26;
FY 1990: 24;
FY 2000: 28;
FY 2001: 31;
FY 2002: 27;
FY 2003: 29;
FY 2004: 29;
FY 2005: 29;
FY 2006: 30;
FY 2007: 35;
FY 2008: 33.
Vicksburg;
FY 1980: 9;
FY 1990: 13;
FY 2000: 9;
FY 2001: 9;
FY 2002: 9;
FY 2003: 9;
FY 2004: 9;
FY 2005: 9;
FY 2006: 10;
FY 2007: 7;
FY 2008: 7.
Memphis;
FY 1980: 13;
FY 1990: 4;
FY 2000: 4;
FY 2001: 8;
FY 2002: 8;
FY 2003: 9;
FY 2004: 1;
FY 2005: 1;
FY 2006: N/A;
FY 2007: 1;
FY 2008: 1.
New Orleans;
FY 1980: 39;
FY 1990: 10;
FY 2000: 15;
FY 2001: 15;
FY 2002: 16;
FY 2003: 13;
FY 2004: 13;
FY 2005: 12;
FY 2006: 13;
FY 2007: 13;
FY 2008: 13.
St. Paul;
FY 1980: 29;
FY 1990: 41;
FY 2000: 21;
FY 2001: 23;
FY 2002: 25;
FY 2003: 17;
FY 2004: 16;
FY 2005: 16;
FY 2006: 12;
FY 2007: 14;
FY 2008: 19.
Rock Island;
FY 1980: 24;
FY 1990: 17;
FY 2000: 11;
FY 2001: 11;
FY 2002: 11;
FY 2003: 12;
FY 2004: 11;
FY 2005: 10;
FY 2006: 10;
FY 2007: 9;
FY 2008: 11.
St. Louis;
FY 1980: 24;
FY 1990: 8;
FY 2000: 7;
FY 2001: 7;
FY 2002: 8;
FY 2003: 8;
FY 2004: 9;
FY 2005: 12;
FY 2006: 12;
FY 2007: 13;
FY 2008: 18.
Baltimore;
FY 1980: 53;
FY 1990: 53;
FY 2000: 63;
FY 2001: 70;
FY 2002: 71;
FY 2003: 74;
FY 2004: 72;
FY 2005: 66;
FY 2006: 61;
FY 2007: 54;
FY 2008: 56.
New England;
FY 1980: 70;
FY 1990: 62;
FY 2000: 76;
FY 2001: 71;
FY 2002: 75;
FY 2003: 77;
FY 2004: 74;
FY 2005: 69;
FY 2006: 69;
FY 2007: 72;
FY 2008: 79.
New York;
FY 1980: 37;
FY 1990: 26;
FY 2000: 33;
FY 2001: 34;
FY 2002: 36;
FY 2003: 47;
FY 2004: 47;
FY 2005: 47;
FY 2006: 45;
FY 2007: 47;
FY 2008: 46.
Norfolk;
FY 1980: 25;
FY 1990: 32;
FY 2000: N/A;
FY 2001: N/A;
FY 2002: N/A;
FY 2003: 48;
FY 2004: 48;
FY 2005: 28;
FY 2006: 28;
FY 2007: 26;
FY 2008: 25.
Philadelphia;
FY 1980: 30;
FY 1990: 24;
FY 2000: 28;
FY 2001: 29;
FY 2002: 31;
FY 2003: 34;
FY 2004: 37;
FY 2005: 37;
FY 2006: 36;
FY 2007: 35;
FY 2008: 39.
Kansas City;
FY 1980: 30;
FY 1990: 26;
FY 2000: 28;
FY 2001: 28;
FY 2002: 29;
FY 2003: 29;
FY 2004: 29;
FY 2005: 29;
FY 2006: 29;
FY 2007: 29;
FY 2008: 28.
Omaha;
FY 1980: 28;
FY 1990: 26;
FY 2000: 41;
FY 2001: 41;
FY 2002: 43;
FY 2003: 43;
FY 2004: 42;
FY 2005: 40;
FY 2006: 41;
FY 2007: 43;
FY 2008: 38.
Portland;
FY 1980: 49;
FY 1990: 43;
FY 2000: 44;
FY 2001: 43;
FY 2002: 43;
FY 2003: 43;
FY 2004: 43;
FY 2005: 43;
FY 2006: 43;
FY 2007: 43;
FY 2008: 43.
Seattle;
FY 1980: 30;
FY 1990: 24;
FY 2000: 30;
FY 2001: 30;
FY 2002: 29;
FY 2003: 32;
FY 2004: 33;
FY 2005: 34;
FY 2006: 33;
FY 2007: 31;
FY 2008: 34.
Walla Walla;
FY 1980: 17;
FY 1990: 16;
FY 2000: 12;
FY 2001: 11;
FY 2002: 7;
FY 2003: 11;
FY 2004: 12;
FY 2005: 12;
FY 2006: 13;
FY 2007: 13;
FY 2008: 13.
Alaska;
FY 1980: 14;
FY 1990: 12;
FY 2000: 18;
FY 2001: 16;
FY 2002: 16;
FY 2003: 19;
FY 2004: 20;
FY 2005: 20;
FY 2006: 21;
FY 2007: 21;
FY 2008: 21.
Honolulu;
FY 1980: N/A;
FY 1990: N/A;
FY 2000: 3;
FY 2001: 2;
FY 2002: 3;
FY 2003: 4;
FY 2004: 5;
FY 2005: 5;
FY 2006: 5;
FY 2007: 5;
FY 2008: 4.
Charleston;
FY 1980: 16;
FY 1990: 14;
FY 2000: 20;
FY 2001: 19;
FY 2002: 15;
FY 2003: 15;
FY 2004: 13;
FY 2005: 13;
FY 2006: 14;
FY 2007: 14;
FY 2008: 15.
Jacksonville;
FY 1980: 39;
FY 1990: 49;
FY 2000: 65;
FY 2001: 71;
FY 2002: 71;
FY 2003: 72;
FY 2004: 72;
FY 2005: 72;
FY 2006: 73;
FY 2007: 73;
FY 2008: 73.
Mobile;
FY 1980: 47;
FY 1990: 64;
FY 2000: 53;
FY 2001: 54;
FY 2002: 53;
FY 2003: 53;
FY 2004: 53;
FY 2005: 53;
FY 2006: 53;
FY 2007: 53;
FY 2008: 53.
Savannah;
FY 1980: 12;
FY 1990: 12;
FY 2000: 10;
FY 2001: 10;
FY 2002: 11;
FY 2003: 11;
FY 2004: 12;
FY 2005: 12;
FY 2006: 12;
FY 2007: 12;
FY 2008: 12.
Wilmington;
FY 1980: 31;
FY 1990: 28;
FY 2000: 27;
FY 2001: 34;
FY 2002: 33;
FY 2003: 33;
FY 2004: 31;
FY 2005: 29;
FY 2006: 29;
FY 2007: 28;
FY 2008: 27.
Albuquerque;
FY 1980: 17;
FY 1990: 17;
FY 2000: 19;
FY 2001: 19;
FY 2002: 18;
FY 2003: 18;
FY 2004: 18;
FY 2005: 19;
FY 2006: 20;
FY 2007: 20;
FY 2008: 22.
Sacramento;
FY 1980: 20;
FY 1990: 26;
FY 2000: 32;
FY 2001: 38;
FY 2002: 44;
FY 2003: 44;
FY 2004: 42;
FY 2005: 48;
FY 2006: 52;
FY 2007: 48;
FY 2008: 49.
Los Angeles;
FY 1980: 26;
FY 1990: 66;
FY 2000: 40;
FY 2001: 46;
FY 2002: 52;
FY 2003: 54;
FY 2004: 54;
FY 2005: 50;
FY 2006: 53;
FY 2007: 53;
FY 2008: 53.
San Francisco;
FY 1980: 18;
FY 1990: 22;
FY 2000: 12;
FY 2001: 12;
FY 2002: 14;
FY 2003: 14;
FY 2004: 14;
FY 2005: 15;
FY 2006: 15;
FY 2007: 15;
FY 2008: 15.
Fort Worth;
FY 1980: 34;
FY 1990: 29;
FY 2000: 31;
FY 2001: 31;
FY 2002: 29;
FY 2003: 29;
FY 2004: 28;
FY 2005: 30;
FY 2006: 30;
FY 2007: 34;
FY 2008: 34.
Galveston;
FY 1980: 25;
FY 1990: 24;
FY 2000: 25;
FY 2001: 25;
FY 2002: 25;
FY 2003: 26;
FY 2004: 26;
FY 2005: 25;
FY 2006: 26;
FY 2007: 22;
FY 2008: 22.
Little Rock;
FY 1980: 15;
FY 1990: 23;
FY 2000: 28;
FY 2001: 24;
FY 2002: 24;
FY 2003: 24;
FY 2004: 24;
FY 2005: 26;
FY 2006: 49;
FY 2007: 48;
FY 2008: 49.
Tulsa;
FY 1980: 53;
FY 1990: 45;
FY 2000: 52;
FY 2001: 52;
FY 2002: 52;
FY 2003: 54;
FY 2004: 55;
FY 2005: 55;
FY 2006: 55;
FY 2007: 55;
FY 2008: 55.
Source: GAO analysis of Annual Report of Civil Works Activities.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Department Of The Army:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary:
Civil Works:
108 Army Pentagon:
Washington DC 20310-0108:
August 18, 2010:
Ms. Anu Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal,
This is the Department of Defense response to the GAO draft report,
GAO-10819, 'Army Corps Of Engineers: Organizational Realignment Could
Enhance Effectiveness, but Several Challenges Would have to Be
Overcome,' dated July 21, 2010 (GAO Code 361125).
Responses to the report recommendations report are enclosed. In
summary, DoD concurs with recommendation two and concurs in part with
recommendations one, three, and four. The Corps of Engineers will work
to improve the effectiveness of its Centers of Expertise and to
increase the overall efficiency of the Army Civil Works program, to
the extent consistent with the program of the President and
appropriations provided by Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your comments.
Very truly yours,
Signed by:
Claudia Tornblom, for:
Jo-Ellen Darcy:
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works):
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated July 21, 2010:
GA0-10-819 (GAO Code 361125):
"Army Corps Of Engineers: Organizational Realignment Could Enhance
Effectiveness, But Several Challenges Would Have To Be Overcome"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to review and revise as necessary the roles and
responsibilities of each component level of the organization and
ensure that they are clearly articulated in agency guidance. (See page
34/GAO Draft Report.)
DoD Response: Partially concur. DoD believes that the roles and
responsibilities of each component of the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) organization (Headquarters, Divisions and Districts) are
appropriate. The Corps will work to increase understanding, within and
outside of the organization, of the roles of the respective
components. DoD concurs that confusion exists about the roles and
responsibilities of the Communities of Practice, particularly with
regard to review of certain decision documents. The Corps will review
all existing guidance, corporate governance documents and other
publications and will clarify these as appropriate.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to re-evaluate the Centers of Expertise and develop
a process to help ensure that they are consistently used across the
agency. (See page 34/GAO Draft Report.)
DoD Response: Concur. DoD supports the development and maintenance of
Corps Centers of Expertise as an important means to strengthen and
maintain core areas of technical expertise. DoD agrees that the
Centers of Expertise need to be periodically reviewed for workload,
competency, and relevance to the Corps' mission. DoD also agrees that
the Corps should improve its guidance and information on the types of
services available and qualifications of the experts in the Centers.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to determine the extent to which the agency's
technical guidance needs to be updated, create a schedule for
completing these updates, and if additional funding is needed to
accomplish these updates, provide this information to Congress. (See
page 34/GAO Draft Report.)
DoD Response: Partially concur. The requirement for development and
maintenance of technical guidance and the associated costs are
identified by technical experts within the Corps. As with many
technical needs and project needs, however, budget decisions regarding
the development and maintenance of guidance take place within the
framework of all needs and priorities of the Army Civil Works program.
However, it is not appropriate for the Corps to inform Congress of
requirements for funding beyond those included in the President's
Budget, unless that information is specifically requested by Congress.
The Corps will continue to budget for modernization of technical
guidance to the extent overall budget levels allow and will prioritize
guidance development within available funds appropriated by Congress
for this purpose.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to work with Congress to develop a more stable
project funding approach that facilitates project implementation and
that provides more efficient and effective use of funds. (See page
34/GAO Draft Report.)
DoD Response: Partially Concur. DoD agrees that many studies and some
projects are not funded for the most efficient execution. However, the
Administration and Congress are generally aware of this fact. There
are many constraints to the budgeting and appropriation of funding for
efficient execution of projects. The Corps will continue to promote
efficient funding during the budget process. However, once budget
decisions are made, the Corps will support the Administration
decisions.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, key contributors to this
report included Vondalee R. Hunt (Assistant Director), Kevin Bray,
Jennifer Bryant, Kirsten Lauber, Justin L. Monroe, Anne Rhodes-Kline,
Holly Sasso, and Ben Shouse.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The Corps has both a Military and a Civil Works Program. The
Military Program provides, among other things, engineering and
construction services to other U.S. government agencies and foreign
governments, while the Civil Works Program is responsible for
investigating, developing, and maintaining water resource projects.
This report only discusses the Civil Works Program.
[2] GAO, Army Corps of Engineers: Budget Formulation Process
Emphasizes Agencywide Priorities, but Transparency of Budget
Presentation Could Be Improved, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-453] (Washington, D.C.: April 2,
2010).
[3] The "support for others" business line covers the Corps'
activities related to interagency and international support.
[4] Our definition of organizational alignment is based on previous
GAO work including: GAO, Small Business Administration: Current
Structure Presents Challenges for Service Delivery, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-17] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 26,
2001), and Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[5] An FTE consists of one or more employed individuals who
collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a given year. Therefore,
both one full-time employee and two half-time employees equal one FTE.
[6] Issued by the Office of Management and Budget, the Budget of the
United States Government is a collection of documents that contains
the budget message of the President, information about the President's
budget proposals for a given fiscal year, and other budgetary
publications that have been issued throughout the fiscal year.
[7] Although division-level FTE data are available back to 1990, we
only report data from 2000 through 2009 because the alignment of
divisions changed in 1997.
[8] The investigations account funds studies to determine the
necessity, feasibility, and returns to the nation for potential
solutions to water resource problems, as well as design, engineering,
and other work.
[9] The Corps' support for others business line provides interagency
and international technical assistance and management expertise on a
reimbursable basis so that funding does not appear in the Corps'
annual appropriations.
[10] Appropriations provide legal authority for federal agencies to
incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for
specified purposes. Because the Corps generally receives "no-year"
appropriations through the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, we also included obligations, which is the definite commitment
for the payment of goods and services.
[11] Historical documents do not give information on the previous
number of divisions or what the previous division boundaries were
based upon.
[12] The Hoover Commission, officially named the "Commission on
Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government," was a body
established by Congress with members appointed by President Truman in
1947 to investigate the organization and method of operation of the
executive branch and recommend what changes, in their opinion, are
necessary. The commission was chaired by former President Herbert
Hoover.
[13] GAO, Hurricane Katrina: Strategic Planning Needed to Guide Future
Enhancements Beyond Interim Levee Repairs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-934] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6,
2006).
[14] GAO has identified key practices that can help enhance and
sustain federal agency collaboration in its prior report, GAO, Results-
Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005).
[15] The USACE 2012 realignment plan refers to 41 districts. However,
this report refers only to the 38 districts that carry out the Corps'
domestic Civil Works Program.
[16] GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist For Agency
Leaders, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-99-179]
(Washington, D.C.: September 1999).
[17] The Office of Water Project Review conducts the policy compliance
review and analysis on decision documents such as draft and final
feasibility reports; documents not delegated for approval at the
division or district; and other documents that require Washington-
level review. The Institute for Water Resources provides analysis and
research for developing planning methodologies to aid the Civil Works
Program and provides assistance to Corps headquarters by helping to
scope review requirements and procedures.
[18] WRDA 2007 includes many nonproject specific requirements for many
aspects of the Civil Works Program, such as planning, independent peer
review of certain Corps projects, and mitigation for fish and wildlife
and wetlands losses. According to recent testimony by the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Corps is approaching 80
percent completion of WRDA implementation guidance.
[19] While we received division-level FTE data back to 1990, divisions
were realigned in 1998, and therefore FTE data was not comparable from
1990 to 2000 to 2009.
[20] Act of Apr. 30, 1824, ch. xlvi, § 2, 4 Stat. 22, 23.
[21] Act of May 24, 1824 ch. cxxxix, 4 Stat. 32.
[22] Act of May 20, 1826, ch. 47, 4 Stat. 175, ch. xccviii.
[23] Act of Jan. 21, 1927, ch. 47, § 1, 44 Stat. 1010, 1015 (1927);
Act of Mar. 3, 1925, § 3, ch. 467, 43 Stat. 1186, 1190.
[24] Act of Sept. 30, 1850, ch. xc, § 1, 9 Stat. 523, 539.
[25] Act of June 28, 1879, ch. 43, 21 Stat. 37 (codified as amended at
33 U.S.C. §§ 641-647.
[26] Act of Mar. 1, 1917, ch. 144 § 3, 39 Stat. 948, 950.
[27] Act of Jan. 21, 1927, ch. 47, § 1, 44 Stat. 1010, 1015; Act of
Mar. 3, 1925, § 3, ch. 467, 43 Stat. 1186, 1190.
[28] Act of May 15, 1928, ch. 569, 45 Stat. 534 (codified as amended
at 33 U.S.C. § 702a).
[29] Act of June 22, 1936, ch. 688, 49 Stat. 1570.
[30] Act of Aug. 18, 1941, ch. 377, § 2, 55 Stat. 638, 650.
[31] Pub. L. No. 86-645 § 206, 74 Stat. 480, 500 (1960).
[32] Pub. L. No. 93-251, 88 Stat. 12 (1974).
[33] Act of Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 425 §§ 10, 11, 15, 19, 30 Stat. 1121,
1151, 1152, 1154, 1155; Act of Sept. 19, 1890, ch. 907 §§ 7, 8, 10, 26
Stat. 426, 454.
[34] Pub. L. No. 92-500 § 2, 86 Stat. 816, 884, amending Act of June
30, 1948, ch. 758, adding §324 (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. §
1344).
[35] Pub. L. No. 95-535 § 103, 86 Stat. 1052, 1055 (codified as
amended at 33 U.S.C. § 1413).
[36] Act of Mar. 3, 1909, ch. 264, § 13, 35 Stat. 815, 822.
[37] Act of Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 467, § 3, 43 Stat. 1186, 1190.
[38] Act of Dec. 22, 1944 § 4, 58 Stat. 887, 889.
[39] Pub. L. No. 87-874 § 207, 76 Stat. 1173, 1195 (1962).
[40] Pub. L. No. 89-70 § 1, 79 Stat. 213, 213 (1965).
[41] H.J.R. 9, 47th Cong., 22 Stat. 378 (1882).
[42] Act of August 18, 1941, ch. 377 § 5, 55 Stat. 638, 650 (codified
as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 701n).
[43] Act of May 17, 1950, Tit. II, § 210, 64 Stat. 170, 183 (codified
as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 701n).
[44] Act of September 30, 1950, ch 1125, 64 Stat. 1109.
[45] Act of June 28, 1955, ch. 194, 69 Stat. 186 (codified as amended
at 33 U.S.C§ 701n).
[46] Pub. L. No. 93-288, § 201, 88 Stat. 143.
[47] Pub. L. No. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4689 (1988) (codified as amended
at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5208).
[48] Pub. L. No. 85-100, tit. III, § 301, 72 Stat. 319 (codified as
amended at 43 U.S.C. § 3906).
[49] Act of Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 425 §§ 10, 11, 15, 19, 30 Stat. 1121,
1151, 1152, 1154, 1155; Act of Sept. 19, 1890, ch. 907 §§ 7, 8, 10, 26
Stat. 426, 454.
[50] Pub. L. No. 85-624, 72 Stat. 563 (codified as amended at 16
U.S.C. 661).
[51] Pub. L. No. 91-190, § 102, 83 Stat. 852, 853 (codified as amended
at 42 U.S.C. § 4332).
[52] Pub. L. No. 92-500 § 2, 86 Stat. 816, 884, amending Act of June
30, 1948, ch. 758, adding §324 (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. §
1344).
[53] Pub. L. No. 99-662, 100 Stat. 4082.
[54] Pub. L. No. 101-640 § 306, 104 Stat. 4604, 4635 (codified at 33
USCA § 2316).
[55] Pub. L. No. 105-62, 111 Stat. 1320, 1326 (1997).
[56] Act of Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 142, § 4, 38 Stat. 1049, 1053.
[57] Pub. L. No. 87-195 § 607, 75 Stat. 424, 441.
[58] Pub. L. No. 89-298 § 219, 79 Stat. 1073, 1089 (1965) superseded
by Pub. L. No. 92-295 § 1(38), 96 Stat. 1287, 1296 (1982).
[59] Pub. L. No. 90-577 § 301, 82 Stat. 1098, 1102 superseded by Pub.
L. No. 92-295 § 1(38), 96 Stat. 1287, 1296 (1982).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
