Laserfiche WebLink
<br />subsequently prepared; (2) laws pertaining to the Dolores and the Animas-La Plata <br />Projects, including the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, the Colorado River Storage <br />Project Act of 1956, the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, and the Colorado <br />Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988; (3) legislative histories and legal <br />memoranda of the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor, which <br />interpreted and clarified these laws; (4) agreements related to the Colorado Ute <br />Indian Water Rights Settlement; and (5) biological opinions of the U,S, Fish and <br />Wildlife. SeIVice regarding environmental impacts on the Animas-La Plata and the <br />Navajo Indian Irrigation Projects, issued on October 25 and 28. 1991, respectively. <br /> <br />.. <br />, <br />!~ <br /> <br />We interviewed Bureau management officials responsible for the economic, <br />repayment, power, operation, and program coordination aspects of the projects; <br />officials with the Dolores Water Conservancy District concerning water utilization <br />and repayment issues; and the Department's solicitors in Salt Lake City, Utab, and <br />Washington, D,C" concerning the legal issues associated with the projects' <br />development. The monetary amounts discussed in this report are based on the most <br />current cost and economic planning data as provided by the Bureau. Subsequent <br />revisions of estimated or actual costs, of economic benefits, and of water deliveries <br />could affect the cost estimates included in this report. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />'t <br /> <br />Our audit was made in accordance with the "Government Auditing Standards," issued <br />by the Comp:troller General of the United States, Accordingly, we included such <br />tests of records and other auditing procedures that were considered necessary under <br />the circumstances. As part of our audit, we evaluated the Bureau's internal controls <br />over cost allocations, repayment policies, and project planning procedures, Our <br />review disclosed that management controls for computing project irrigation benefits <br />and recovering reimbursable operation and maintenance expenses should be <br />strengthened, as discussed in the Finding and Recommendations section of this <br />report. However, we were unable to quantify the effects of irrigation benefit <br />overstatements on the projects' cost allocations using the Bureau's traditional <br />policies, since elimination of the overstatements reduced overall benefits of both <br />projects to less than the estimated cost of construction. Such a condition indicates <br />that a project is not economically justified. <br /> <br />We also reviewed the Department of the Interior's Annual Statement and Report, <br />required by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, for fiscal year 1992 and <br />determined that the Department had also reported deficiencies in the Bureau's <br />policies and procedures for the recovery of operation and maintenance expenses on <br />partially completed projects. In October 1993, the Bureau issued policy guidance <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />! i <br />I <br />