Water Resources Development Act of 2026
Sponsored By: Senator Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
In Committee
Summary
This bill would _accelerate Corps water projects and expand funding for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure_. It pairs a wide rewrite of Army Corps implementation rules with many new project authorizations and multi-year EPA funding for drinking water and wastewater programs.
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
38 provisions identified: 31 benefits, 2 costs, 5 mixed.
Major Corps project authorizations
If enacted, the bill would authorize many large Corps projects with detailed cost estimates and cost shares. Examples include the Central Everglades Planning Project (~$12.3 billion total), Kentucky Lock Addition (~$2.74 billion), Chickamauga Lock Replacement (~$1.56 billion), Gulfport Harbor (~$548 million total), Port of Long Beach (~$256 million), Rio de Flag flood project (~$245 million), and many others. Each authorization lists estimated Federal and non‑Federal shares and would let projects proceed if funds and required approvals are provided. These are project authorizations and do not by themselves appropriate the money.
More federal help for drinking water
If enacted, the bill would sharply expand federal support for drinking water systems. State drinking water loan funds (DWSRF) would be authorized at $3.75 billion for FY2027, $4.0 billion for FY2028, $4.25 billion for FY2029, and $4.5 billion for FY2030. The EPA would also run a point-of-use filter pilot with $10 million per year for 2027–2030 and expand program uses to pay for PFAS testing, lead service line replacement, and some wildfire-related projects. The Western Rural Water program would add Colorado and South Dakota and raise its authorization cap while allowing a 90% federal share for projects helping disadvantaged communities.
Big federal water funding boost
If enacted, the bill would authorize large new federal funding for state and local water projects. It would authorize $3.5 billion per year for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (FY2027–FY2030), $280 million per year for sewer overflow and stormwater reuse grants, $475 million per year for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, $30 million per year for Columbia River restoration, and $65 million per year for WIFIA loans (FY2027–FY2030). The bill also adds many named local environmental infrastructure authorizations (examples: Willamette Valley $33 million, Ogallala Aquifer $30 million, Rhode Island package $71 million). These are authorizations only and would be available if Congress appropriates the money.
Deauthorizations that shift local costs
If enacted, the bill would remove federal authorization for several named project areas. It would deauthorize two specific areas of the Harlem River, the Dos Rios Ranch levee system on the San Joaquin River, the North Topsail Beach portion of a coastal project, and parts of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (the LA changes take effect 18 months after enactment). The Secretary must try to get local agreements for perpetual operation and maintenance. These changes could shift upkeep and replacement costs to local governments and owners.
Lower local shares and new credit options
If enacted, the bill would give local sponsors new ways to lower their cash costs and speed projects. Non‑Federal sponsors could get credit for doing operation and maintenance work (up to 20% of construction costs) and seek reimbursements (capped at $10 million per sponsor and $30 million total per year, subject to appropriations). The bill also lets sponsors ask to pay up to 10% more than a project's maximum cost to expedite work, allows certain federal agency funds to count toward non‑Federal shares, and sets 90% federal shares or 10% non‑Federal shares for several named projects and programs. The Secretary may relieve specific contract payment obligations for an Okatibbee water district.
More drinking and wastewater funding
If enacted, the bill would authorize several new and expanded EPA and water grants for FY2027–FY2030. Examples: $140 million per year for assistance to small and disadvantaged communities including PFAS work; $100 million per year for lead reduction; $50 million per year for decentralized household wastewater grants for low‑ and moderate‑income households; $50 million per year for small public water systems; $35 million per year for the Lake Champlain program; $40 million and $25 million per year for Long Island Sound grants and stewardship grants; and a $7.5 million per year Southeast New England grants program. The bill also caps certain EPA research appropriations at $75 million per year with at least $50 million for specified activities.
More federal help for disadvantaged communities
If enacted, the bill would lower local cost shares for many projects that help economically disadvantaged communities. For the Rio Grande and for restoration near Cumberland, the Federal share would be 90 percent when a project benefits an economically disadvantaged community (WRDA 2020 section 160 definition applies). Certain West Tennessee and Upper Guyandotte projects would require a non‑Federal share of only 10 percent when they benefit such communities. The bill would authorize $15 million per year for small flood projects in West Virginia and allow up to $150 million in additional Federal funds to raise the Federal share to 90 percent for the Westminster/East Garden Grove plan when it benefits a disadvantaged community.
More lead testing money for schools
If enacted, the bill would authorize $50 million per year for FY2027–FY2030 for voluntary school and child care lead testing and reduction grants. It would increase the program set-aside from 4 percent to 15 percent. This would expand funding for testing and cleanup in schools and child care programs.
More nonstructural flood help for homeowners
If enacted, the bill would define nonstructural flood actions to include elevating structures, floodproofing, filling basements, and voluntary buyouts with demolition or relocation. It would extend temporary relocation assistance from 10 to 12 years for eligible elevation projects and add several named coastal projects to eligibility. For projects requested by a non-Federal sponsor, property acquisition and attendant demolition or relocation would have to be voluntary. The Secretary would also report encroachments in the Missouri part of Table Rock Lake within one year.
More water workforce and research money
If enacted, the bill would update the America's Water Sector Workforce Initiative within one year and add cybersecurity training. It would authorize $15 million per year for workforce development for FY2027–FY2030. The bill would add the University of Arkansas to Corps research partners. It would also authorize $16 million per year for Water Resources Research Institutes for FY2027–FY2030 and require 20 percent of that money to fund interstate water research and include the artificial intelligence industry as a participant.
Simpler small-project permits and reviews
If enacted, the bill would require rulemaking to turn Engineer Circular 1165-2-220 into a formal regulation and start frequent briefings until rulemaking begins. It would improve Section 14 pre-application steps, require pre-application discussions, and let the Corps offer technical help. The bill would also require the Corps to set a categorical NEPA exclusion for Continuing Authority Program or environmental-infrastructure projects with a Federal share of $50,000,000 or less.
Aquatic plant control expansion
If enacted, the bill would expand the federal aquatic plant control program and increase the federal cost share. It would set the Federal share at 65 percent, extend the program term through 2031 where specified, add certain river basins and include Eurasian watermilfoil on the covered species list. These changes would raise federal help for eligible plant control activities in the named basins.
Faster Corps project approvals for sponsors
If enacted, the bill would speed Army Corps project delivery and give more help to non-Federal sponsors. District commanders would be able to approve many Continuing Authority Program studies using simpler evaluation steps. Projects could use lower design maturity for class III cost estimates, and the Corps would set 180-day milestones with updated cost reports to Congress. Non-Federal sponsors could pay for and request milestone in-kind credit reviews, get pre-application technical help, and the Secretary would resume the Hoosic River study as directed.
Faster Corps studies and planning
If enacted, the bill would require the Army Corps to speed up many named feasibility studies, re‑evaluations, and technical reports. For listed projects (for example Charleston, Juneau glacial flooding, Buffalo Bayou, Greater Providence and other named studies), the Secretary could move directly to preconstruction planning if a completed report justifies a project. The Corps would also be required to provide timely project status to Members of Congress and deliver the latest hydropower expediting report to committees within 90 days.
Faster Corps studies, reports, and notices
If enacted, the bill would force the Army Corps to speed planning, finish many feasibility studies, and improve notice to local sponsors. District Engineers would have to send an initial status notice within 45 days, then updates at least every 60 days and 30 days' notice for schedule changes or pauses. The Secretary must resume most paused studies or projects unless specific exceptions apply and must expedite many named feasibility and reevaluation reports so projects can move to preconstruction planning if justified. The bill also sets deadlines for several reports and studies (locks condition report in 180 days; Mobile Harbor and hydrokinetic studies in one year; targeted permit documents by Feb 15, 2028 for Perkins County; and expedited Juneau glacial flood documentation).
Grants for small systems and tribes
If enacted, the EPA would get new targeted grant authority to help small and tribal water systems. The bill would authorize $15 million per year (FY2027–FY2030) for a competitive digital infrastructure grant program that prioritizes systems serving fewer than 3,300 people and caps critical water-supply area grants at $5 million per year. It would also authorize $75 million per year (FY2027–FY2030) for the Indian Reservation Drinking Water Program. These funds would be available only if Congress appropriates them.
More federal funding for local restoration
If enacted, the bill would raise or set federal authorizations and shares for many local restoration and water projects. Examples: a 90 percent federal share for C&O Canal restorations that benefit disadvantaged communities; Northeastern Minnesota authorization to $83 million; Chattahoochee program to $60 million; Lake Tahoe ceiling to $60 million; Puget Sound increases to $80 million and $15 million; Southern West Virginia to $220 million; South Central Pennsylvania pilot cap to $440 million; acequias authorization to $111.5 million; and a $20 million ceiling for certain shoreline projects. These changes authorize more federal support but do not itself appropriate funds.
More funding for water and habitat programs
If enacted, the bill would boost several environmental and coastal programs. It would raise freshwater mussel restoration authorization from $120 million to $150 million, increase the Harmful Algal Bloom program authorization to $45 million, add Mississippi Sound to the National Estuary Program (with a $50 million per year authorization for FY2027–FY2030 but guardrails limiting FY2027 and FY2028 use), and add named watersheds to a shoreline protection program. These actions expand who can apply for restoration and water quality grants.
More water infrastructure help
If enacted, the bill would let Clean Water loans pay for work to assess and monitor emerging contaminants like PFAS. It would add cybersecurity and natural-hazard grants to drinking-water resilience and authorize $25,000,000 per year for 2027–2030 for that program. The bill would let environmental infrastructure help be paid as grants or reimbursements instead of only design assistance. It would also authorize $60,000,000 per year for Alaska sanitation operations and require GAO and EPA reviews of clean-water technical assistance with EPA plans to respond.
Faster Corps delivery and transparency
If enacted, the bill would require the Army Corps to deliver a written implementation plan within 90 days and start recurring briefings and faster responses to congressional requests. It would create a new preconstruction planning authority with milestones and a separate account but would still require Congress to authorize construction. The bill orders GAO reviews of Corps cost-sharing, induced flooding, and engineering procurement within one year. It also sets deadlines for certain reports and study resumptions and directs the Corps to use earlier authorities for some ongoing studies.
Deeper, more reliable waterways for shippers
If enacted, the bill would direct the Secretary to keep the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Texas and Louisiana at its authorized depth and width when practicable. If the Secretary cannot maintain that depth, they would have to brief two Congressional committees within 30 days. The Inland Waterways Users Board would send its advice to Congress the same day it prepares it. The bill would also set the federal share at 90 percent for removing pilings from the Providence River.
Navigation, dredging, and port planning changes
If enacted, the bill would change how the Corps plans and manages dredging and port operations. Dredged material management plans must cover at least 20 years. The Corps would be directed to prefer alternative disposal methods at Mobile Harbor and minimize thin‑layer placement when practicable. The bill would add Ipswich River to environmental dredging eligibility, designate Pilottown Anchorage on the Mississippi River, allow widening of St. Mary’s River channel where needed, and require a Wilson Lock briefing to Congress on any technical or cost assistance. These steps aim to improve port operations and long‑range dredging planning.
Local reimbursements and new cost shares
If enacted, the bill would both help and add costs for local project sponsors. It would let the Secretary reimburse certain sponsors (Coos Bay reimbursements capped at $10 million per fiscal year and Brazos Island reimbursements to be paid promptly after each contract). At the same time, it would require local sponsors on the Lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers to pay 20% of the construction cost of required dredged material placement facilities (with credit for land and easement costs and up to 30 years to pay). These rules change timing and size of local cash needs for navigation and dredging work.
Dam and levee safety rule changes
If enacted, the bill would extend key dam and levee programs through 2031 and change program rules. It would extend the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Program and the Levee Safety Initiative reauthorizations to 2031. It would add "breachways" to emergency streambank and shoreline protection authorities so they are eligible for Corps emergency help. It would also exclude low‑head dams listed as State‑regulated in the national inventory from a specific federal allocation. These changes both preserve safety programs and narrow eligibility for some small dams.
Credit for local land purchases
If enacted, the bill would let the non‑Federal sponsor of the Pajaro River flood project in Watsonville, California, get full credit toward their non‑Federal cost share for required land acquired in fee title when they request it. The credit would reduce the sponsor's cash contribution or in‑kind financing obligation for that project.
New local flood projects and studies
If enacted, the bill would authorize and reshape several local flood and water studies and projects. It would authorize the initial Waccamaw River phase and the Beattyville flood project with listed Federal and non‑Federal cost estimates. The Secretary would be able to study Greater Providence flood risk, expand certain feasibility study scopes (including backup water supplies and ecosystem restoration), use Section 133 terms for eligible pump station rehab identified in reevaluations, and prepare contingency plans and emergency water supplies for downstream communities at Detroit and Green Peter dams. The Oceanside study would favor nature‑based plans and let the city pay excess costs for a locally preferred plan.
New nonstructural flood pilots and guidance
If enacted, the bill would create new nonstructural flood planning tools and tests. It would require a Nonstructural Working Group to form within 90 days and meet at least quarterly. It would start a 10‑year pilot to allow certain elevation and wind‑risk modifications for four named coastal projects and require reports to Congress. The bill would also let non‑Federal sponsors phase large nonstructural projects by neighborhood or type when requested.
More local restoration and monitoring
If enacted, the bill would make a noxious-weed pilot permanent and prioritize weed control in the Upper Missouri River Basin. It would direct federal invasive-species efforts in South Dakota and authorize a study on extending federal shoreline restoration at Assateague Island. The bill would extend several program authorization dates and add four basin assessments for regional water planning.
Arizona dam wildfire risk checks
If enacted, the bill would let the Corps periodically assess wildfire risk at federally authorized dams, reservoirs, and related infrastructure in Arizona. Assessments would look at wildfire exposure, risks to communities, post‑wildfire sediment and debris impacts, and mitigation strategies to reduce future recovery costs.
Faster local permits and leases
If enacted, the bill would direct the Corps to expedite local administrative actions. It would speed review of permits needed for a recreation project in South Charleston and expedite lease documentation review for the Town of Duck, North Carolina. The Corps would also be asked to coordinate and expedite actions to address risks at the Williston Levee in North Dakota.
Stronger dredging and port coordination
If enacted, the bill would require the Corps to coordinate operations and maintenance, including dredging, with federal agencies and local partners to reduce vessel and port disruptions. The Corps must consider adding a dredged material dewatering facility in the Ashtabula Harbor plan and may maintain Curtis Creek to 27 feet mean lower low water if specific environmental and security findings are met. The bill also directs staffing attention to the Alaska District and protects the Port of Nome project scope.
More study options on federal land
If enacted, the bill would stop the Secretary from excluding restoration measures just because they sit on land managed by another federal agency. Federal agencies could still pay to help analyze such measures, and their construction cost-share rules would remain in place. The bill would let the Corps use easements to meet real estate needs for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet restoration. It would also prevent rejecting Salton Sea study options solely for being on other-agency land.
Release of restrictions on Plymouth Island
If enacted, the bill would let the Secretary remove specified use restrictions on about 123 acres of Plymouth Island if those restrictions are not needed for the John Day Dam project. The Secretary could release limits on structures, fill, access road obligations, and certain reversionary interests. The Secretary may accept funds from the Port of Kennewick or the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to cover administrative costs.
Federal help to speed Port of Mobile
If enacted, the bill would direct the Secretary to coordinate with federal agencies to help goods move more safely and efficiently at the Port of Mobile and its connecting channels. The change aims to reduce delays for businesses that ship through that port.
Limits federal spending on Waterbury Dam
If enacted, the bill would cap the federal spending for the Waterbury Dam Spillway Project at $90,000,000 under the cited authority. That cap could limit federal funds for the project and shift costs or delays to local sponsors.
New rules for land and easements
If enacted, the bill would require an encroachment plan for Lake Eufaula and bar forcing removal of a covered encroachment unless Congress approves. The Secretary would be told to consider easements for owners next to Corps lands in North Dakota and could use easements for MRGO restoration. The bill would direct the Corps to seek an agreement for Los Angeles County to run certain channels in perpetuity at no cost to the United States and allow voluntary local funds to cover administrative costs. It also releases 375 acre-feet of water supply storage at Clarence Cannon Dam, shifting some state cost obligations.
Costs and relief for non-Federal sponsors
If enacted, the bill would require non-Federal sponsors to remove and pay for hazardous-substance cleanup at certain Great Lakes restoration project sites and keep those costs separate from the federal project total. If the Governor of Illinois asks to end a specific Rend Lake water contract, the Secretary would amend that contract within 90 days and Illinois would be relieved of the related operation, replacement, and rehabilitation payments after the amendment.
Changes to water program funding
If enacted, the bill would change several drinking-water program funding levels for FY2027–FY2030. Technical assistance for small public water systems would be authorized at $26 million per year. Emergency drinking water grants would be authorized at $30 million per year. The Midsize and Large drinking water grant program would be authorized at $40 million per year. The Alternative Water Source pilot program cap would be reduced to $5 million per year.
Sponsors & CoSponsors
Sponsor
Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
WV • R
Cosponsors
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
RI • D
Sponsored 7/13/2026
Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]
ND • R
Sponsored 7/13/2026
Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
CA • D
Sponsored 7/13/2026
Sen. Alsobrooks, Angela D. [D-MD]
MD • D
Sponsored 7/13/2026
Roll Call Votes
No roll call votes available for this bill.
View on Congress.gov