S-4248-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
What it does
This bill would require the Army Corps of Engineers to give equal consideration to nonstructural flood risk solutions — such as elevating homes, floodproofing buildings, filling basements, and buying out flood-prone properties — alongside traditional structural approaches like levees and floodwalls. It would direct the Corps to resume any such projects paused or stopped since January 20, 2025, within 45 days of enactment. The bill would also increase the federal cost share for nonstructural projects (up to 100% for severely flood-damaged properties and 90% for economically disadvantaged communities), establish a new interagency working group and center of expertise, and expand eligible project costs to include items like asbestos abatement, temporary housing, and moving expenses for displaced homeowners.
Who benefits
Homeowners in flood-prone areas, particularly those in low-income and economically disadvantaged communities who would receive higher federal cost-share rates. Owners of repetitive and severe repetitive loss structures who would pay little or nothing out of pocket. Small rural communities and dense urban areas where structural solutions are impractical or cost-prohibitive. State and local governments (non-federal interests) who would receive more frequent project status updates and greater flexibility in project delivery. Nonprofit organizations involved in floodplain management who would gain formal advisory roles. The National Flood Insurance Program, which could see reduced claims from elevated or relocated structures. Contractors and construction firms performing elevation and floodproofing work. Floodplain ecosystems that benefit from land acquisition and demolition returning land to natural use.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would bear a higher federal share of project costs, particularly for the 90–100% federal cost-share categories. Structural flood control contractors (levee and floodwall builders) who may see reduced demand if nonstructural alternatives are prioritized. Property owners who prefer structural protection but whose communities choose nonstructural approaches. Local governments that may face administrative burdens from new reporting and notification requirements. Army Corps of Engineers district offices that would face new mandatory timelines, documentation requirements, and potential legal presumptions of violation if milestones are missed. Federal agencies (FEMA, HUD, USDA, Interior) whose staff would be drawn into the new interagency working group.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Corps of Engineers has identified over 88,000 structures already slated for elevation in authorized projects, and that pausing these programs leaves vulnerable communities exposed to preventable flood damage. They contend that nonstructural approaches are often more cost-effective than levees and floodwalls — requiring minimal long-term maintenance — and are sometimes the only viable option in small rural towns or densely built urban areas with multiple flood sources. Supporters further argue that Congress has required the Corps to consider nonstructural solutions since 1974, and that the bill simply enforces existing law while modernizing cost-sharing to make participation accessible to low-income homeowners who cannot afford even a 25–35% local match.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating the resumption of paused projects within 45 days and creating a legal presumption of violation for schedule delays exceeding 45 days imposes rigid timelines that may not account for legitimate administrative, budgetary, or logistical constraints facing the Corps. They contend that raising the federal cost share to 90–100% for broad categories of projects significantly shifts financial burden to federal taxpayers while reducing local governments' incentive to manage floodplain development responsibly. Opponents may also argue that the bill's directive to resume projects paused by the executive branch since January 20, 2025 intrudes on the President's authority to manage executive agencies and prioritize spending within appropriated funds.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to direct Army Corps of Engineers civil works projects rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as flood control on navigable waters has long been treated as interstate commerce regulation. The bill's directive to resume projects paused by the executive branch could raise separation of powers questions about Congress's ability to compel specific executive agency actions on a fixed timeline, though Congress's power of the purse and its authority to set conditions on appropriated funds provide a strong textual basis for these directives.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Army Corps of Engineers, under the Secretary of the Army) gains operational direction and funding flexibility, but is subject to mandatory reporting to Congress, fixed timelines with legal presumptions of violation, and a requirement that the National Nonstructural Committee's charter cannot be terminated without specific congressional authorization.
Historical precedent
The Water Resources Development Act of 1974 first required the Corps of Engineers to consider nonstructural alternatives in flood control projects; subsequent WRDAs have repeatedly reaffirmed and expanded this mandate, making this bill a continuation of a long legislative pattern rather than a novel departure.