The absence of explicit reimbursement authority under Section 219 creates a fundamental delivery constraint that distinguishes this program from other successful USACE environmental infrastructure authorities and limits the efficient use of federal appropriations.
Under current practice, USACE must act as the construction manager for Section 219 projects regardless of local capacity or capability. This means the Corps must directly manage design, contracting, and construction using federal procurement processes even when local governments are fully equipped to deliver the same work more quickly and at lower cost using existing local contractors, established delivery methods, and streamlined procurement vehicles.
This statutory limitation produces several inefficiencies that undermine the program's effectiveness:
Capacity Constraints Lead to Project Delays or Cancellations. USACE districts operate with finite staffing and contracting resources. When the agency must directly manage every aspect of Section 219 project delivery, Corps personnel and administrative capacity become bottlenecks. In practice, USACE has declined to move forward on otherwise shovel-ready projects simply because district offices lack the internal capacity to execute them through federal procurement. This can result in critical infrastructure projects experiencing significant delays in initiation and completion, or projects never advancing despite having secured congressional authorization.
Federal Procurement Requirements Increase Costs. Federal procurement processes, while designed to ensure competition and transparency, add cost premiums and administrative overhead compared to local government contracting. Local governments routinely deliver similar infrastructure projects at lower total costs by leveraging existing relationships with regional contractors, utilizing competitive local bidding processes, and employing streamlined project delivery methods. When USACE must procure all services federally for Section 219 projects, these cost efficiencies are lost, reducing the number of projects that can be completed with available appropriations.
Appropriated Funds Remain Unobligated. Congress regularly appropriates funding for environmental infrastructure assistance with the expectation that these federal dollars will translate into completed projects serving communities. However, when USACE lacks the administrative capacity to manage projects through federal procurement, appropriated funds can remain unobligated or be obligated more slowly than necessary. This represents an inefficient use of taxpayer resources and delays the delivery of critical infrastructure improvements.
Inconsistency with Proven Delivery Models. The Section 219 limitation is particularly problematic because numerous other USACE environmental infrastructure authorities successfully use grants and reimbursements as delivery mechanisms. Regional, state, and multi-state environmental infrastructure programs have demonstrated for decades that allowing nonfederal sponsors to lead project delivery—with federal reimbursement of eligible costs—accelerates timelines, reduces costs, and improves outcomes. Section 219's procurement-only restriction prevents the program from benefiting from these proven efficiencies.
The current statutory framework effectively requires USACE to do more with less while preventing the agency from using delivery mechanisms that would allow appropriated funds to accomplish more projects. This creates an untenable situation where both federal and local partners face unnecessary obstacles to delivering infrastructure improvements that Congress has explicitly authorized and funded.