The Army Corps of Engineers is failing to disburse port funding

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has nullified one of the most critical federal port funding equity reforms in decades, depriving some major ports of much-needed revenue. Congress needs to step in to correct this problem by appropriating the promised funds in an upcoming bill.

For years, the nation’s busiest ports have been caught in a funding paradox. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, for instance, contribute roughly half of all Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HTMF) revenue but historically received only about three percent back in federal investment. These naturally deep-water ports needed less maintenance dredging than their shallow-draft counterparts, so under the old formula, they were effectively subsidizing smaller harbors across the country.

Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2020 reduced the cross-subsidization of smaller, shallower ports by naturally deep ports. Section 102 guarantees donor ports at least 12% of annual Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures for expanded uses like berth improvements, wharf repairs, and slope stability projects. 

The 2020 reform represented a moment of bipartisan consensus on infrastructure policy. Congress recognized that forcing major trade gateways to subsidize less economically significant harbors was both unfair and strategically unwise. The legislation established a more equitable distribution formula that would continue to support smaller ports while ensuring that the nation’s most critical maritime infrastructure received adequate federal investment. In fiscal year 2024, approximately $332 million was allocated to donor and energy transfer ports under Section 102, demonstrating the program’s potential impact.

But through reinterpreting budget allocation rules, the Army Corps of Engineers is failing to disburse funds to ports that have been anticipating them. 

The Corps has exploited the vague statutory phrase “to the extent practicable” in Section 102 as the primary basis for reducing or eliminating allocations in subsequent years. According to the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), this will cost ports around $1 billion for the remainder of the Trump administration, and $417.6 million of what Section 102 would have had the Corps pay out currently. By interpreting this phrase to confer broad administrative discretion over the timing and amount of payments, the Corps frames Section 102 funding as subject to fiscal constraints and internal budget priorities rather than a mandatory appropriation. 

Furthermore, the Corps relies on its interpretation that Section 102 functions as a limitation on reimbursement and credit authority—not as an independent authorization to obligate funds. This means it will only pay out Section 102 funding when directed by clear appropriations language or when specific reimbursement authority exists elsewhere. Combined with restrictive budgeting practices and the absence of explicit mandatory payment directives in annual appropriations laws, this interpretation enables the Corps to treat Section 102 allocations as subject to change or elimination in the Corps’ internal work plans and fiscal execution. 

In letters to congressional leadership, the American Association of Port Authorities and 23 major port authorities have demanded restoration of Section 102 funding, warning that continued cuts will cost the port system over $1 billion in federal investment during the current presidential term. These port executives recognize that consistent, predictable funding is crucial for planning and implementing the infrastructure improvements necessary to maintain America’s position in global trade.

Congress should require the Corps to act in accordance with the legislative intent of Section 102 by appropriating the funds promised in Section 102 for the upcoming 2026 fiscal year Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The current situation illustrates why vague statutory language, such as “to the extent practicable,” invites bureaucratic misinterpretation.

Future WRDA reauthorizations should include more explicit funding guarantees and stricter reporting requirements to ensure the Army Corps of Engineers cannot simply ignore congressional directives. Appropriators should also include specific language in spending bills that compels Section 102 compliance rather than leaving it to agency discretion.

The broader principle at stake extends beyond port funding to the relationship between Congress and the executive branch. When federal agencies can effectively nullify legislation through administrative interpretation, they undermine the constitutional separation of powers and can evade accountability. Section 102 represented sound policy based on economic logic and the “user pays/user benefits” principle. Its circumvention by the Corps demonstrates how statutory vagueness can be exploited or used to avoid disbursing necessary funds.

American ports are critical infrastructure that facilitate over $2 trillion in annual trade. Ensuring their efficient operation and continued modernization should be a national priority. Congress created Section 102 to address fundamental inequities in federal port funding, and those inequities will only worsen if the Corps continues to ignore its statutory obligations. 

Congress needs to rectify this and has an opportunity to do so in the 2026 fiscal year’s Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Congress should allocate the funds that ports have planned for and were promised, as outlined in Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020, rather than allowing the Army Corps of Engineers to circumvent congressional intent. 

The post The Army Corps of Engineers is failing to disburse port funding appeared first on Reason Foundation.