litigation over the project confirm that the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was coated with a multi-layer epoxy and polyurea waterproofing system more commonly associated with industrial infrastructure than decorative water features.
The Reflecting Pool is receiving what amounts to a giant spray-applied waterproof membrane system using Rhino products — not the spray-on truck bedliner familiar to most consumers, but an industrial-grade waterproofing system built around products from Rhino Linings, the company best known for its truck bedliner coatings.
According to National Park Service project documents, the project will 'install a polyurea liner on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool to waterproof and protect the concrete pool surface.'
Those documents identify Rhino CCW polyurea, Rhino 11-35 polyurea, Rhino 406 epoxy primer, and Rhino Pipeliner 5000 as components of the specified coating system. Together, the products form a waterproofing system intended to extend the life of the existing basin without reconstructing it.
In other words, the Reflecting Pool is not simply receiving a coat of blue paint. It is receiving a commercial-grade waterproof lining system.
That distinction matters because the Reflecting Pool is no ordinary water feature.
Stretching approximately 2,000 feet between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and holding roughly 6.75 million gallons of water, the basin has struggled with leaks and maintenance challenges for years. Federal records have documented chronic water loss, deteriorating expansion joints, aging infrastructure, and treatment-system deficiencies. Recent reports indicate the pool has required tens of millions of gallons of replacement water annually.
The blue appearance that has generated so much attention comes primarily from the epoxy component of the system. According to project documents, 'the Rhino 406 – epoxy primer will serve as the primary coating to provide the color (blue) for the new liner.'
That technical reality has largely been overshadowed by controversy.
Critics have questioned both the project's appearance and the process by which it was approved. Preservation advocates argue that the bright blue surface alters the historic character of one of the nation's most recognizable landscapes. The decision to use what President Trump has called 'American Flag Blue,' they argue, changes the visual relationship between the Reflecting Pool, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Washington Monument.
The controversy extends well beyond aesthetics.
Critics have also raised concerns about the project's cost. President Trump initially described the work as a roughly $1.5 million to $2 million undertaking that could be completed in weeks. Contract records show that Atlantic Industrial Coatings LLC of New Canton, Virginia, received a contract worth approximately $6.9 million, while subsequent reporting has placed total project costs in the range of $13 million to $15 million.
The procurement process has generated additional scrutiny. The project was awarded through a noncompetitive contract. Wood has characterized the award as a sole-source procurement rather than what critics have described as a no-bid contract. Supporters argue the expedited process was necessary to complete the work before America's 250th anniversary celebrations. Critics argue the approach limited competition and public oversight and relied on an emergency justification that they believe was unwarranted.
The dispute has moved into federal court.
On May 11, 2026, The Cultural Landscape Foundation — a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization focused on the preservation of historic landscapes and public spaces — and other plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, and federal officials.
The lawsuit alleges that the government failed to follow required historicpreservation procedures before moving forward with the project.
Notably, the plaintiffs do not argue that the Reflecting Pool should remain unrepaired. Rather, they contend that the project should have undergone a more extensive preservation review before work began.
The controversy is fueled in part by language contained in the National Park Service's own review document. The author wrote that consultation with the District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Office 'would probably result in non-concurrence' and acknowledged
