House Subcommittee Opens WERDA 2026 Process; Members Warn DoD Memo Is Slowing Corps Communications

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment opened hearings to begin drafting the Water Resources Development Act (WERDA) of 2026, with members from both parties urging predictable two‑year reauthorizations and warning that new Department of Defense guidance is impeding the Army Corps of Engineers’ ability to share information with Congress and nonfederal sponsors.

Ranking Member Larson told the subcommittee that “we have started to hear concerns from members on both sides of the aisle that recent changes in the communication policies of the Corps have led to delays and denials of sharing even the most basic information about core projects in members' districts,” saying the policy was “ridiculous” and “short‑sighted.” Julie Offner, president and CEO of the National Waterways Conference, told lawmakers that her members are experiencing gaps in engagement ‘‘during feasibility studies, project delivery, and permitting’’ and that early, routine communication ‘‘often prevents issues that later become too costly or difficult to resolve.’’

Why it matters: Members and witnesses said timely Corps engagement is fundamental to the WERDA process because nonfederal sponsors — states, cities, ports and special districts — rely on Corps technical work to plan their local financing and construction. Several members warned that delays in information flow can impede emergency response and raise costs for projects already authorized but awaiting appropriations or Corps approvals.

Several lawmakers described the October DOD directive that requires additional headquarters review before some Corps district interactions with congressional staff or outside entities. Congresswoman Friedman said district offices ‘‘literally can’t talk to a member of Congress before getting sign‑off from the secretary of defense,’’ a constraint she called ‘‘deeply concerning.’’ Offner and other witnesses said the directive has created uncertainty for nonfederal sponsors seeking needs assessments, eligibility determinations, or real‑time project updates.

Members asked the panel where Congress should act in WERDA 2026 versus where implementation and oversight are more appropriate. Offner recommended a mix: use legislation where authorities or funding mechanisms are missing, but employ oversight where existing statutory authorities are not being implemented consistently. She noted that some problems may be resolved through clearer Corps guidance or executive‑branch direction rather than new authorization language.

Several members pressed witnesses on granular remedies: faster Corps responses on funding and real‑estate eligibility, clearer multiyear budgeting options, more predictable preconstruction schedules, and a continued emphasis on the two‑year reauthorization cadence that provides predictability for sponsors and the private sector. Witnesses repeatedly identified communication, permitting timelines, and the gap between authorization and appropriation as primary constraints.

Next steps: The subcommittee left the record open for written follow‑up from witnesses and said it will continue hearings and oversight as the committee crafts WERDA 2026 provisions. Several members signaled interest in targeted oversight of Corps implementation of WERDA 2024 provisions and in clarifying whether the DOD directive requires statutory change or administrative correction.