House subcommittee presses Corps, Reclamation on proposed FY2026 cuts to water programs

House Appropriations Subcommittee members pressed senior officials from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation at a hearing on the administration's fiscal 2026 discretionary funding requests, focusing on steep proposed reductions and how those would affect navigation, flood risk, dam safety and Indian water rights settlements.

The hearing matters because the Army Corps and Reclamation administer water infrastructure and services that affect navigation, agriculture, hydropower and tribal water settlements across large regions of the country; members warned that the proposed top-line reductions could delay or curtail critical projects. "The proposed cuts to the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation are not just misguided, they are dangerous," Rep. Marcy Kaptur, the panel's ranking member, said in her opening statement.

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Robin Colosimo summarized the administration's approach while noting the detailed FY2026 requests had not yet been released: "The president's top line discretionary funding request for fiscal year 26 includes 6,663,000,000 for the army civil works program," she said, adding that the full details would follow. Chief of Engineers Lieutenant General Butch Graham described the Corps' performance goals and said the Corps' top-line discretionary request was "nearly 6,700,000,000" and emphasized project planning and engineering maturity as priorities.

Members cited specific numbers included in the administration's materials and in the chairman's summary: the chairman said the administration proposed a total of $6,700,000,000 for the Corps, a reduction of about $2,000,000,000 (roughly 23%). For Reclamation, the chairman summarized a proposed top-line of $1,200,000,000, a stated reduction of $609,000,000 or about 35% below the enacted level; Senior Adviser Scott Cameron described the Reclamation request as a $1.2 billion "blueprint" focused on core mission activities.

Members on both sides pushed for detail. Rep. Mike Levin and others questioned why several California projects listed in prior congressional marks did not appear in the FY2025 work plan and whether the administration's allocations had been made on nonpartisan technical grounds. Colosimo and General Graham said agencies recommended priorities to OMB and the administration made final trade-offs; Colosimo said the administration's choices prioritized "life safety, flooding, and American prosperity" within constrained discretionary funds.

Lawmakers also warned against administrative discretion in work plans without full congressional appropriations. "I truly condemn the extreme politicization of critical Army Corps construction funding decisions as we saw in last week's work plan," Kaptur said. Several members asked the witnesses to commit to resisting politicization in future funding decisions; witnesses said they would advocate for their programs but that final budget and work plan decisions rested with OMB and the administration.

Members repeatedly sought written details and schedules. Chairman Fleischmann asked officials to provide the committee with requested materials and the panel set a four-week deadline for responses and for answers to questions for the record. The hearing record will include full written testimonies and witnesses were asked to summarize opening statements to allow question time.

Less-critical items from the hearing included numerous project-specific concerns raised later in questioning, which committee members said they would pursue in follow-up questions for the record.