The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not seek to mitigate environmental damage for more than 50 projects over the past five years and did not provide detailed explanations to Congress, a government watchdog found.
Measures to prevent environmental damage were proposed in only 22 of 74 civil works projects the Corps submitted to Congress for approval from 2020 to 2025, according to a report published Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office.
The Corps deemed that no such measures were needed for the remaining 52 projects and failed to provide detailed evidence as to why, the watchdog alleges.
The agency regularly works to improve water navigation channels to prevent flooding and restore aquatic habitats around the country through its civil works program. It is required by statute to make detailed reports to Congress outlining whether its projects will require measures to prevent possible harm to fish, wildlife and the environment.
The engineers are expected “to plan for environmental mitigation — that is, to take actions to avoid, minimize, or compensate for expected losses to fish and wildlife and damage to ecological resources,” which could include reinforcing riverbanks or restoring wetland areas to create new habitats for fish and wildlife, according to the report.
The Corps of Engineers may decide not to undertake conservation measures if it deems certain projects will not cause harm. However, the Army is expected to provide Congress with clear explanations for those decisions.
A chart published by GAO shows a sharp decline in the Corps’ decisions to make mitigation plans for wildlife and habitat protection from 2022 to 2025. In 2024, for example, the agency decided that only one of 13 projects would require measures to safeguard the environment.
The GAO’s chart shows zero mitigation plans made in 2025.
In its findings, the GAO alleges that the Corps failed to provide necessary details to Congress demonstrating the reasons behind its decision-making in cases when it deemed no environmental protection measures were needed.
The watchdog said the vast majority of documents sent to Congress during those five years contained broad and general language that failed to clarify how the Corps reached its decisions.
The GAO recommended that the Army establish clear guidance for the Corps to document how it reaches decisions to keep Congress and the public better informed.
The Army disputed the GAO’s recommendations in a Sept. 16 letter signed by D. Lee Forsgren, the senior official performing the duties of the Army’s assistant secretary for civil works.
“We do not concur with the recommendation in the draft that we need to create more guidance about mitigation decision making on Civil Works projects,” Forsgren wrote.
“The water resources project reports (including associated Chief’s Reports) produced by USACE have sufficient technical information for decision makers and the public and resource agencies to understand when habitat mitigation is or is not included in a final recommendation.”
Zita Ballinger Fletcher previously served as editor of Military History Quarterly and Vietnam magazines and as the historian of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. She holds an M.A. with distinction in military history.
