Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />