Budgeting federal dollars to operate, maintain, and modernize the nation’s vast network of inland waterways has always been a messy affair in Washington. Keeping aging locks and dams in working order for commercial and recreational navigation is an expensive and demanding job, and Congress has historically done a sloppy job supporting it.
Over the years, lawmakers have allocated money inconsistently to important infrastructure projects, leading to costly slowdowns, shutdowns, and restarts that have added years and millions to the completion of many modernization projects along the river system. And the frequent inability of Congress to meet budget deadlines and instead work under stopgap funding measures doesn’t help either.
The Army Corps of Engineers shares the blame due to cost miscalculations, unexpected design changes, incomplete planning, and lack of contingency planning and field studies that have produced projects with cost overruns and delays.
There have been some positive moves, however. Congress is updating project authorizations and making needed policy changes on a two-year cycle through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) and has given the Corps’ civil works program significant budget boosts over recent years.
But the Trump administration has aimed to cut federal spending and reduce the workforce. In June, it proposed a “skinny budget” for fiscal year 2026, allocating $6.66 billion for the Corps’ civil works program — $2 billion less than Congress had provided in each of the previous two years.
Although exact figures are unclear, estimates suggest up to 3,000 workers were lost through firings and voluntary buyouts, including probationary employees. This has raised concerns about public safety, infrastructure maintenance, and the loss of institutional knowledge and technical expertise.
Congressional hearings in the House and Senate in June and September highlighted concerns shared by Republicans and Democrats about staffing cuts, lack of consistent harbor dredging, and the Corps’ ability to fulfill missions and carry out spending directives passed by Congress.
“You have been dealt a terrible hand by the president,” Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told Corps officials at a House Transportation and Infrastructure hearing. “You are in one serious mess.”
At the same hearing, committee chairman Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., said his goal “is to get the Corps to complete its projects on time, under budget, and correctly. I understand some of the budgetary problems the Corps faces, but these are not excuses for study delays, yearlong dredging backlogs, and mismanagement of repairs to vital locks and dams on our inland waterways system.”
Some Democratic members also expressed anger at a reported shift of funding that favors projects in Republican states.
Meanwhile, there are signs that Congress will reject these deep cuts as it has with previous budget proposals. In July, the Republican-controlled House approved a FY 2026 budget of $9.88 billion for energy and water programs that includes the Corps of Engineers, which is more than $3 billion over the president’s request. The bill prioritizes ongoing work and provides funding above the budget request for inland river projects.
But while this bill “represents a step forward for funding the Corps’ important work to modernize the nation’s inland waterways, challenges of maintenance, rising construction costs, workforce shortages and extended completion timelines remain vexing,” Tracy Zea, president and CEO of the Waterways Council, which advocates for inland funding, wrote in the group’s September newsletter.
