WSP06085 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

038'", . . agree to the other cost reallocation recommendations, particularly the recommendation concerning non-reimbursable Fish and Wildlife costs calculations. He stated, "We do not believe that a reallocation of costs would be proper if based on fish and wildlife benefits derived from evaluation procedures which differ from those in use on the' Fryingpan-Arkansas Project at the time of authorization [i.e.. 1962J." It should be noted that the Department had discarded the Gross Sportsmen's Expenditures method of computing fish and wildlife benefits in 1961, substituting a new method developed by the Interagency Committee on Water Resources, of which BuRec was a member. Thus, in 1980, the Bureau was insisting on using a methodology it had considered obsolete since the year before the project was even authorized. In regard to the two recommendations for reallocation of Scenery Conservation costs, Higginson claimed that the relevant guidelines had been followed, "Therefore, we do not believe a reallocation of those costs as suggested by the draft report would be proper." Finally, in regard to allocation of joint costs to the second unit of the Mt. Elbert powerplant, Higginson stated, "Since the powerplant does not use any of the other project facilities and was approved by Congress as a separate facility, there is no reason this powerplant should share in joint costs." Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Water Resources Daniel Beard forwarded Higginson's comments .to the Inspector General on May 29, 1980. Although admitting he had not read the audit "thoroughly," Beard generally agreed with BuRec's positions. However, Beard stated, "The situation in regard to the Mt. Elbert powerplant is clearly one of choice as to what costs to include in the calculation. A good case can be made for the position taken in either the draft or by the WPRS [BuRecJ. Cost allocation rules are not so positive as the draft suggests. There is an understandable inclination by WPRS to consider an equitable arrangement as desirable an end as complete attribution of all conceivable costs." On November 14, 198U Inspector General Brown informed Assistant Secretary for Land and Water Resources Guy Martin that she could not accept BuRec's position. Brown concluded, "We seem. to be at an impasse on this audit report." Acting Assistant Secretary Beard responded on December 1, 1980 stating, "We just do not recognize the feasibility of changing the cost allocation so long after the project report and congressional authorization have been completed." Beard suggested that the matter be settled by the new Administration. 62