Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001132 <br /> <br />held by the Bureau. I also served on a task force which drafted agreements to be in place <br />when construction was completed. During this time I attended almost all of the' Project <br />meetings. As several contracts were let for segments of the construction activity, we <br />became aware that some of the price tags for these segments were higher than we <br />expected. However, the Bureau did not have its construction activity segmented in a <br />fashion that would permit us to easily compare cost segments in the FSEIS. I, personally, <br />questioned the Durango Area Office director regarding the cultural resources contract the <br />Bureau awarded, and was told that, yes, the price was higher than anticipated, but that <br />was because it covered additional work, such as compliance with the Native American <br />Graves Repatriation Act and other added costs resulting from a higher density of <br />archeological sites in the Project area. <br /> <br />Let me emphasize at this point that the Animas-LaPlata Water Conservancy District did <br />not employ independent engineering consultants to review or oversee the work of the <br />Bureau of Reclamation. We, as many sponsors, relied upon the Bureau's expertise in <br />Pr6ject.construction. Let me also emphasize that because we had elected tti pay our share <br />of the project costs up front, we had placed significant reliance upon our contractual <br />agreements with the Bureau which required full consultation on Project construction <br />decisions and which limited any further or additional payments towards Project <br />construction costs to those which were reasonable and unforeseen. Despite the fact that <br />there were numerous meetings of the Project Construction Committee during the period <br />from November 2001 until July 2003, little, if any, consultation took place. At no time <br />were we informed that there was overall concern about the construction cost estimates <br />against which we were operating. <br /> <br />As a result, we were shocked when the July 31,2003 letter from Regional Director, Rick <br />Gold, arrived announcing that the cost estimate for completion of the greatly reduced <br />Animas-LaPlata Project would have to be increased by approximately $162 million. The <br />reasons given by the Bureau for the estimated cost increase are a matter of record that I <br />will not detail in this statement. I have read the report the Bureau prepared for the <br />Secretary on the issue. Our District believes that report was candid, and evidenced a <br />detailed effort to investigate and explain the reason for the cost increases. Several factors <br />included in the report, however, did not accurately state the conditions that we believe <br />existed at the time the 1999 estimates were made and used by the Bureau. <br /> <br />I will mention a few instances. The bedrock at the pumping plant site was, or should <br />have been, known to a high degree of accuracy, as some three dozen test wells had been <br />drilled by the Department of Energy (DOE) and monitored by, among others, the Bureau. <br />From these test wells the Bureau had the information to accurately assess the materials to <br />be excavated but, inexplicably did not use it. The fault line which the Bureau states <br />required realignment of the pumping plant subsequent to cost estimating was a known <br />feature long before the original estimate was approved by the BaR and, in fact, was cited <br />in the 2000 FSEIS. DOE's UMTRA (Uranium Mill Tailings Recovery) team had stated, <br />at a public meeting it conducted in Durango, that the ground water recovery on the 46 <br />acres where the pumping plant is sited was progressing naturally, and that it did not need <br />any special remedial treatment. Despite that statement the BaR letter suggests that <br />