|
<br />~
<br />~
<br />C'J
<br />N
<br />C
<br />c.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />if,
<br />
<br />'sf
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />:;k;'
<br />,.~;~:::
<br /><!'.it..
<br />~:!:iFr~'
<br />~>
<br />i~r:
<br />It:,'.
<br />t'K:,.
<br />.
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />1993J
<br />
<br />CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT
<br />
<br />169
<br />
<br />The Bureau used other creative accounting techniques to maintain
<br />congressional authorization of CUP construction funds. When the CUP
<br />Completion Act moved through the Interior Committee in 1990, the
<br />Committee leadership requested a detailed breakdown of the cost ceiling
<br />information for the various Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
<br />programs, including the CUP." In response, the Bureau's report
<br />showed that the Bureau was under its authorized 1990 ceiling for the
<br />CUP by about $80 million, However, after the CUP legislation had
<br />moved through the Committee, the Bureau then admitted it had some-
<br />how failed to include the entire 1989 fiscal year appropriations in its
<br />calculations. The Bureau's new report indicated that the expenditures
<br />on the Bonneville Unit had exceeded the ceiling by $214,351,414".
<br />Moreover, the Bureau had ignored recommendations issued in 1988 by
<br />the Inspector General, which were designed to improve the financial
<br />management of the Bureau's Colorado River Storage Project.50 As an
<br />Interior Committee Report noted, "This information illustrates the
<br />difficulties the Committee has experienced in obtaining accurate and
<br />reliable figures from the Bureau.',.l
<br />By attempting to protect its traditional mission, the Bureau makes
<br />water reform more difficult. During the CUP negotiations, for example,
<br />the Utah delegation and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
<br />realized that they would have to redesign the massive project in order
<br />to secure congressional reauthorization. Nevertheless, the Bureau still
<br />clung to the project's old design. As the parties began modernizing the
<br />
<br />.. H.R, REP. No. 114, 102d Cong., lit Se88, 71-75 (1991).
<br />.. Id. at 75. This amount waa added to the $679,854,000 requeat in H.R, 3960, 101st Cong.,
<br />2d Ses.. (1990), which passed the Senate in an omnibus reclamation bill, H.R. 2567, 101st
<br />Cong., 2d Seas, (1990), on October 15, 1990.
<br />eo The Inspector General made the following four recommendations to eliminate the Bureau's
<br />improper calculation of authorization ceilings for participating projects and to ensure proper
<br />project repayments by water users: (1) To report updated project ceilings on a project.by-project
<br />baais; (2) to exclude deferred and completed projecte from tha ceiling determination; (3) to
<br />remove general legislation costa in the updated authorization ceiling, and upon completion of
<br />the prior three recommendations; and (4) to report to COngre88 the authorization ceiJing for each
<br />participating project within the Colorado River Storage Project, OmCE OF THE INSPECTOR
<br />GEN" U.S. DEP'T OF THE INTERIOR, REP. No. 88-45, AUDIT REPORT 7 (1986),
<br />The Bureau of Reclamation disagreed with the recommendations. Consequently, the
<br />policy dispute went to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Budget, and Administration, who
<br />directed the Bureau to implement the audit recommendations. Central Utah Project Completion
<br />Act: Heari7ll1 on H.R. 3960 &fore tlut Subcomm. on. Water~ Power. and Off.hore ElUJrgy &souroe.
<br />of 1M Ho.... Comm. on Interior and I...ula, A/foi,.., 10lst Cong" 2d Seee. 178-60 (1990)
<br />[hereinafter Hearing. on H.R, 3960J (testimony of Jam.. R. Richarde, Inspector General, U.S.
<br />Dep't of the Interior).
<br />11 H,R. REP. No. 114, 102d Cong., l.t Sess. 75 (1991),
<br />
|