Federal civil works planning, design, and delivery are entering a new era—one that carries important implications for how resilience projects are conceived, prioritized, and advanced across the country. Recent policy direction from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works reflects a deliberate shift toward leaner federal execution, clearer prioritization, and expanded participation by non-federal partners. Together, these changes are reshaping the pathway for moving resilience projects from concept to construction. According to a February memorandum from the Army Office of the Assistant Secretary Civil Works, projects that will be prioritized will tie to life safety, economic resilience, and supply-chain reliability, elevating flood risk management, coastal protection, and navigation projects linked to nationally significant infrastructure.
At the center of this shift is a new directive often described as “build infrastructure, not paperwork.” The guidance acknowledges a growing reality across the civil works enterprise: USACE districts are managing increasingly complex and expansive program portfolios with finite internal staff capacity. In response, districts have been directed to sharpen their focus, prioritize outcomes, and rethink how resilience projects are delivered.
A New Focus on Outcomes That Matter Most
The renewed focus on life safety, economic resilience, and supply-chain reliability has direct relevance for resilience-focused investments—particularly flood risk management, coastal storm risk reduction, navigation reliability, and large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts tied to nationally or regionally significant infrastructure.
By aligning internal resources with these priorities, USACE is signaling where direct federal attention will be most concentrated. At the same time, the policy underscores that resilience projects outside a district’s highest-priority list remain important—but may advance through different delivery pathways.
What District Prioritization Means for Resilience Programs
Under the new direction, each USACE district identified a limited number of top civil works priorities, with internal staff capacity now concentrated on executing those efforts. For the broader resilience portfolio, this approach changes the traditional sequencing of work. Rather than relying primarily on corps-led planning and design, many resilience initiatives may move forward through alternative, collaborative delivery models.
This represents a structural shift—not a slowdown. The message is clear: resilience projects can continue to advance, but increasingly through mechanisms that distribute responsibility across federal, state, local, and private-sector participants.
Successful resilience programs will be those that align early with federal priorities, strategically leverage available authorities, and embrace collaborative approaches to planning, design, and implementation.Brian Hallberg
Expanded Authorities to Advance Resilience Projects
Existing statutory authorities are now being actively encouraged to accelerate delivery of resilience solutions at multiple scales:
Section 203 allows non-federal entities to lead feasibility studies and submit them directly for federal consideration—an especially valuable tool for advancing flood, coastal, and watershed resilience concepts aligned with community priorities.
Section 204 enables non-federal sponsors to design and construct discrete elements of authorized projects, offering flexibility for advancing near-term resilience improvements within larger systems.
Section 1043 further expands these opportunities by allowing qualified sponsors to design and construct entire authorized projects under corps oversight—supporting comprehensive, sponsor-led resilience delivery where capacity exists.
Collectively, these authorities provide a clearer on-ramp for resilience initiatives to progress without waiting for full corps-led execution.