<br />("";
<br />~
<br />C'J
<br />C'. '
<br />
<br />c.
<br />
<br />
<br />168 J. ENERGY, NAT. RESOURCES, & ENVTL. L. [VoL 13
<br />
<br />,
<br />'.f'
<br />
<br />implemented any significant reforms."
<br />Perhaps the clearest and most recent indication of the Bureau's
<br />resistance to change comes from Utah's attempt to reauthorize the
<br />CUP. During the construction of the CUP, the Bureau routinely
<br />funnelled CUP construction funds to several smaller projects throughout
<br />the West, including the Dallas Creek Project and McPhee Dam in
<br />Colorado, and the Yakima Project in Washington.'. This creative
<br />accounting technique allowed the Bureau to "borrow" spending
<br />authority to construct more ~ that Congress had refused to
<br />fund in the past. Furthermore, this practice has not been unique to
<br />Utah. In 1988 the Inspector General of the Interior Department issued
<br />a report, which found:
<br />
<br />f:
<br />
<br />'1.
<br />
<br />lTlhe Bureau failed to disclose hundreds of millions of dollars in cost
<br />overruns to the Congress; improperly extended the repayment
<br />period from 50 to 60 years in seven repayment contracts; revised
<br />cost allocations without Congressional approval, resulting in at least
<br />$400 million in lost interest; and overstated the project cost ceiling
<br />estimates to Congress by $388 million.'7
<br />
<br />~'
<br />>
<br />,
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />Interior Committee noted that the Bureau could have implemented this plan much earlier
<br />without this law from Congreu:
<br />
<br />Section 207 lays out a water conservation program that is more detailed and
<br />specific than the conservation requirement. previously enacted for the Reclamation
<br />program in Section 210 oithe [Reclamation Reform Act ofI982]. While most ifnot
<br />all oftha program elements authorized [in the CUP legislation) could be required
<br />by the Bureau under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, the Bureau's failure to
<br />make meaningful use or its conservation duties and authorities, together with the
<br />need for the Committee to take action on the terms and conditions for substantial
<br />additional federal funding to complete the Central Utah Project, prompted the
<br />inclusion of {the water management program] in the bilI,
<br />H,R. REp. No. 114, 102d Cong., 1st Sess, 109 (1991),
<br />.. The nature of administrative agencies ia one reason why the Bureau is hesitant to
<br />implement progressive programs without a mandate from Congreu, For example, Representa-
<br />tive Wayne Owen. met with Joe HaIl, Director of the Bureau of Reclamation, and Roland
<br />Robinson, Regional Director of the Bureau. to discuss the Bureau's -new direction,- Joe HaIl
<br />repeatedly stated that the Bureau could only cany out existing laws, and that the Bureau
<br />decisionmalten do not -use their best judgment.- Consequently, it waa very clear that the
<br />Bureau would only change ita direction if existing laws were changed. Authors Personal Notes
<br />from Meeting with Joe Hall and Roland Robinson, Directors of the Bureau of Reclamation, in
<br />Salt Lake City, Utah (Sept. 27, 1989).
<br />oM Before 1987 under federal law the Bureau could shia up to 15% of a project's yearly
<br />budget to another job without asking permission from Congreu. Steve Hinchman, Why Uwn
<br />Want. 't"" Bureau' Out, HIOH COUNTRY NEWS, July 15, 1991, at I, 13.
<br />" BUREAU OF REcLAMATION, U.S. DEP'T OF THE INTERIOR, REp, No, 88-45, REVIEW OF THE
<br />FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF THE CoLORADO RIvER SToRAGE PRoJEcT (1988), For a summary,
<br />- H.R. REp. No, 114, 102d Cong" 1st Sess. 71-72 (1991).
<br />
<br />
<br />oj
<br />.~
<br />j
<br />
|