New Dredging Rules Prioritize Commercial Shipping Over Recreation, Granting Army Corps Broad Emergency Power

The newly proposed Dredging Coordination Improvement Act sets clear, and frankly, strict, new rules for how the Secretary of the Army (via the Chief of Engineers) manages maintenance dredging contracts. Essentially, if your local waterway needs to be dredged—cleared of built-up sediment—this bill dictates exactly who gets to the front of the line and who has to wait.

The New Priority List: Commerce First, Recreation Last

Under this bill, when the Army Corps of Engineers is scheduling maintenance dredging, they have to follow a specific, four-tiered priority list. This is the biggest change, and it’s a game-changer for how our ports and waterways are managed. The bill explicitly states that the Corps must prioritize work in this order: first, waters used for commercial and navigation activities (think massive container ships and barges); second, dredging needed for emergencies; third, work needed to accommodate environmental windows (like protecting fish spawning cycles); and only then, fourth, dredging that supports other activities with an important national interest.

Here’s the kicker: this prioritization must happen before completing dredging in waters used primarily for recreation or other non-commerce purposes (SEC. 2). If you’re a small business owner who runs fishing charters or ferries tourists on a recreational channel, your needs just got pushed to the very back of the queue. If a commercial port needs deepening, that work jumps ahead of clearing the channel leading to your marina, potentially leaving recreational boaters or small local businesses stranded until the big ships are satisfied.

The 'Important National Interest' Clause

The bill does mandate that the Secretary consult with local stakeholders, including the non-Federal sponsor (the local entity paying for part of the work), to determine the scope and timeline. However, there’s a massive exception: the Secretary can decide the contract scope and timeline without consulting stakeholders if they determine an emergency exists or there is an important national interest at stake (SEC. 2).

This is where things get vague. While timely consultation is good practice, the term “important national interest” is not defined. This grants the Secretary significant, unchecked power to bypass local input entirely, as long as they can justify the project under this broad umbrella. For a busy local port director or a county official who needs to plan their budget, this lack of clarity regarding when their input might be ignored adds a layer of uncertainty to critical infrastructure planning.

A Little Bit of Transparency for Sponsors

On the positive side, the bill does mandate better communication for the non-Federal sponsors—the local partners who put up money for these projects. If the Secretary receives information that is “reasonably likely” to affect the contract timeline, they must notify the sponsor within three business days. This is a practical improvement that helps local governments manage their expectations and finances. Furthermore, the Secretary must now make the respective capability numbers—the technical metrics used to determine the project’s scope and feasibility—available to the non-Federal sponsor upon request (SEC. 2). This small provision increases transparency and gives the local partners the data they need to hold the federal government accountable for the work being done.