FFA: The Bureau of Reclamation’s Capability to Fulfill Its Core Mission: The Customer’s Perspective

The Family Farm Alliance ( Alliance ) recently asked its members to comment on the performance of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), with an eye towards developing specific recommendations for an ongoing study underway by the National Research Council (NRC). NRC, via the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, has appointed a committee to advise Reclamation on the organizational, management, and resource configurations that will provide Reclamation with the capability to fulfill its core mission. In addition, the committee has been tasked with identifying any additional capabilities that Reclamation should possess in order to fulfill its core mission.

The Alliance specifically asked irrigation districts and organizations of farmers to provide examples of: 1) poor or exemplary project management by Reclamation; 2) management of Reclamation projects by non-federal authorities; and 3) instances where Reclamation is operating beyond its traditional mission. Nine individual case studies were developed for irrigation districts served by six Reclamation projects in five Western states. Key findings include:

Several contributors to this report observed that Reclamation has carried out few major new construction projects during the past decade, and as a consequence, the agency’s engineers and construction management staff lack practical construction experience. The designers and builders of Reclamation’s most impressive works have long since retired, and the current generation of engineers, planners and managers has not had the opportunity to develop the skills of their predecessors. Moreover, many contributors believe that Reclamation has too few licensed engineers.

Despite these negative findings, there is also evidence that Reclamation staff members from regional and area offices can play a key role in helping to find the right path to make multi-agency processes and projects work. When strong relationships are developed between Reclamation employees (especially in area or regional offices) and local water users, strong, cooperative and innovative solutions can be reached. There are other models in the West – such as implementation of water project grant and loan programs by California’s Department of Water Resources – where successful projects have been completed. A template for success might be one where state and federal agency regulators establish criteria, funding agencies write the checks, and local districts and their consultants implement and satisfy regulatory criteria and funding eligibility requirements.

Meeting the challenge of modernizing the West’s aging water infrastructure will require a corps of highly qualified professionals serving in the public and private sectors. The Bureau of Reclamation must either hire skilled and experienced engineers and managers, or turn to the private sector to provide the human resources necessary to maintain and improve the Bureau’s facilities.

The Family Farm Alliance looks forward continuing to work with the Committee, and the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure that water users who pay for Reclamation's services get real value for their investment.

Local entities take the lead on projects and come in under-budget and on time.

The National Research Council (NRC) has been asked by the U.S. Interior Department to advise the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) on the organizational, management, and resource configurations that will provide Reclamation with the capability to fulfill its core mission. A committee of the NRC Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment is actually conducting the study. The committee is comprised of academics, agency officials, and engineers from the private and public sector, and is chaired by Dr. James K. Mitchell, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The committee has also been tasked with identifying any additional capabilities that Reclamation should possess in order to fulfill its core mission. The Family Farm Alliance has prepared nine case studies and related observations in hopes that this process may help to ensure that water users are being served in a most cost-efficient manner.

The Bureau Reclamation’s core mission is to provide for the delivery of water and power from its facilities in a manner that meets applicable requirements of state and federal law. Essential Components of the core mission are: 1) providing for the operation and maintenance of existing facilities that are likely to remain in federal ownership; 2) providing for the rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure that is likely to remain in federal ownership; and 3) possessing the ability to manage the construction of new projects that Congress may fund through Reclamation.

The Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment Committee on Organizing to Manage Construction and Infrastructure in the 21^st Century – Bureau of Reclamation has been tasked with the following:

This study is sponsored by the Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. It started November 15, 2004 and is scheduled for completion with publication of a final report November 15, 2005 .

The Family Farm Alliance is a nonprofit organization composed of family farmers and those in related industries throughout the Western states dedicated to the preservation of irrigated agriculture. The organization was formed to ensure that its members are afforded an opportunity to air their views and concerns to the public, to legislators, and to regulators. The Alliance is a grassroots organization, and therefore works directly with individual farmers in order to preserve the tradition of farming which has developed in the Western states and which provides the country with a majority of its food and fiber. The principal objective of the Alliance is to help ensure the continued availability of adequate irrigation water supplies to Western farmers.

The Family Farm Alliance strongly supports the focus of Reclamation on fulfilling its core mission of delivering water and power in accordance with applicable contracts, water rights, interstate compacts, and other requirements of state and federal law. Inherent in this definition of core mission is the need to prioritize the expenditure of federal funds and other resources of the Department of the Interior. Reclamation’s Water 2025 Program, so long as it continues to recognize that transfers and the use of market mechanisms must be voluntary and pursuant to state law, provides a strong foundation for defining the role of the Bureau in meeting future water needs of the West.

In the late 1990’s, the Family Farm Alliance took a lead role in an effort that was designed to address concerns of districts that contract with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding expenses and overhead that were assigned by Reclamation to work that was paid for by the water users. With the cooperation of the Bureau of Reclamation in general, and Jack Garner in particular, great progress was made in this regard. While that effort was a partial success, several water districts in the West have recently experienced one or more problems, some of which are detailed in the following case study examples. There are also instances where Reclamation has strongly contributed leadership as well as funding assistance that led to effective local solutions to water management challenges. Finally, we have several examples of success stories that have taken place, with local irrigation districts taking the lead on major construction projects. There are important lessons that may be learned by studying these examples that may apply to how Reclamation does business in the future. The case studies that follow provide further detail on this matter.

Staff members from Reclamation regional and area offices played key roles in helping to find the right path to make this process work.

The Sacramento River Basinwide Management Plan (BWMP) was prepared by the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (SRSC) with assistance and input from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The BWMP was prepared to meet the requirements of the January 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between the Settlement Contractors and the

United States

Staff members from Reclamation regional and area offices in northern California played a key role in helping to find the right path to make this process work. Extensive coordination among the SRSCs, Reclamation, DWR and the consultant team took place throughout the preparation of the BWMP. This coordination included monthly meetings to review project status and issues, preparation and review of draft technical memoranda and reports, and follow-up meetings to discuss review comments and other project issues among the project participants. The BWMP originated as a settlement to a lawsuit, so Reclamation and other participants literally helped turn an adversarial process into a positive outcome.

The BWMP process has been a successful, cooperative effort among the SRCSs, Reclamation, and DWR, as evidenced by the following:

v The BWMP process provided for an open dialogue and increased understanding of the water resources issues facing the Sacramento River Basin .

v The BWMP process provided a technical forum for addressing the different methodologies of water resources management and the associated technical issues.

v The BWMP process provided the necessary data and background to allow the ultimately successful completion of the contract renewal process.

v The BWMP process provided the framework for the subsequent development of the successful Phase 8 negotiations to the Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearings.

The BWMP process was a lengthy endeavor (1998-2004). However, the project objectives that were established for the BWMP process were successfully met. Sufficient background information has been developed on the water resources management issues affecting the Sacramento Valley to help promote the successful completion of he negotiations process for contract renewal of the Sacramento Valley Settlement Contracts. The framework of cooperation and understanding developed through the BWMP process has assisted in providing the backdrop for ongoing regional water resources solutions, such as the regional water management program and the successful Phase 8 settlement negotiations.

Appropriate measurement practices, drainwater management, system improvement, and conjunctive management projects are being developed in cooperation with DWR and Reclamation and submitted for potential funding. The data and relationships developed in the preparation of the BWMP are continuing to foster improved water management across the Sacramento Valley . A major accomplishment of the continued cooperation between the SRSCs, Reclamation and DWR was the movement away from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to water conservation criteria to an approach that has endorsed regional or basin-specific criteria, partnerships, and solutions.

Absent cooperative efforts of Reclamation staff, much of the land served by the Water Company would not have been able to continue in agricultural production.

The Water Company was organized on March 25, 1987 , to represent the water users diverting water from the Colusa Basin Drain (Drain) and entered into a contract with Reclamation dated July 12, 1988 . The Drain was originally constructed because the Sacramento River irrigation return flows as well as natural runoff were causing considerable flooding of the lower lands in the Colusa Basin . Although historically, the water supply was physically available in the Colusa Basin Drain during the irrigation season and was sufficient to meet the maximum diversions of most Drain water users, a major portion of that water supply had to satisfy senior rights downstream along the Sacramento River and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Diversion of this water supply by the water users along the Colusa Basin Drain required the United States to increase releases of stored water from the Central Valley Project (CVP) into the Sacramento River to replace and meet the requirements of those downstream users with water rights senior to those of the Drain users, including the water rights of the United States.

The Water Company’s contract is a replacement contract that does not provide for direct delivery of CVP water to the Water Company members. The contract authorizes the Water Company to divert water from the Colusa Basin Drain during those times when the Water Company’s and its members’ water rights are deficient in exchange for payment to the United States for CVP water released to the Sacramento River on behalf of the Water Company to ensure senior downstream water right holders remain whole. Unfortunately for the Water Company, there has been a significant reduction in return flows accruing to the Drain as a result of upstream environmental restrictions on water diversions and implementation of water conservation programs by neighboring Settlement Contractors. As a result, in many years the Water Company suffers from inadequate water supplies during the summer months and has had to arrange, through annual transfer agreements with neighboring Settlement Contractors, for other supplemental water supplies to be delivered to the Colusa Basin Drain. The inadequate water supplies resulted in reduced yields due to the high salt content of the water in the Colusa Basin Drain.

The impact of the transfers with neighboring Settlement Contractors is essentially a change in the way the Water Company pays for its water. If there were sufficient flows in the Colusa Basin Drain, the Water Company would pay the United States in accordance with the terms and conditions of its existing CVP contract. Because the neighboring Settlement Contractors have the capability of controlling the return flows into the Colusa Basin Drain, the Water Company now makes arrangements for transfers with the Settlement Contractors to assure water is physically available in the Colusa Basin Drain for diversion. The result of these arrangements is that the Water Company has to pay for the supplemental water provided by the Settlement Contractors to the Colusa Basin Drain. The quantity of water provided by the neighboring Settlement Contractors is credited against the quantity of Project water the Water Company would otherwise have had to purchase from the United States .

Since 1997, Reclamation has worked cooperatively with the Water Company and neighboring Settlement Contractors to effect these annual transfers. These transfers have provided the Water Company with a reliable, affordable, and quality supply of water. Absent these cooperative efforts, much of the land served by the Water Company would not have been able to continue in agricultural production.

After an unsatisfactory experience working with the TSC, the District has concluded that it will contract with qualified private civil engineers for work on a reservoir outlet project.

The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (District) since 1999 has been working to complete a project that would add an outlet to Carter Lake Reservoir. The objective of the District has been to complete this project by April 2007 in the most cost-effective manner possible with a total cost not to exceed $10 million. The District has spent considerable time and resources working with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Technical Services Center (TSC) in Denver on this project. As a result of this experience, the District has reluctantly concluded that the completion of this project on time and within a budget based on reasonable engineering standards and practices will require that it contract with qualified private civil engineers for the design, contract administration, and construction management of this project.

There are four reasons why the District is requesting that TSC no longer have a lead role in the engineering, design and construction management of this project:

This latter concern raises several policy questions. Is it the policy of Reclamation to require that TSC perform design work? If so, is this a Reclamation-wide policy? From a policy perspective, the District believes there is no reason to depart from the historic model that has existed for projects of this nature associated with the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project. The Carter Lake project is not extraordinary in nature and is well within the demonstrated capacity of the District and its consultants to perform, particularly when compared to the District’s successful completion of the entire Windy Gap Project and the construction of over 100 miles of water supply pipelines and related facilities in recent years. There is no reason why this work cannot and should not be performed by qualified, private consulting engineers in accordance with accepted engineering standards, under the review and approval of Reclamation.

While title transfers are viewed as a positive means of strengthening control of local water resources, the District continues to meet challenges with Reclamation in this process.

Pershing County Water Conservation District (District) is located in Lovelock, in northwestern Nevada . On October 17, 2002 , the U.S. Senate passed House Bill H.R.5200 by unanimous consent. The President signed the bill (Public Law 107-282) into law on November 6, 2002 . The law is intended to transfer title of the Humboldt Project from the

United States

to the Pershing County Water Conservation District, the State of Nevada , Lander County and Pershing County .

While title transfers are viewed by many as a positive means of strengthening control of water resources at the local level, the District continues to meet challenges with the Bureau of Reclamation in this process. Many of the District’s concerns are similar to other case studies in the West which revolve around design-and-build functions of Reclamation. Key concerns and observations of the District include:

1. Reclamation required that design work be performed by Reclamation staff and an apparent unwillingness to consider allowing this work to be performed in conjunction with the Districts or qualified consultants. For example, neither the District nor it’s consultant were permitted to be involved in the process of developing the cultural resources compliance required as part of the title transfer. Reclamation after two years has outlined a process that for the initial phase alone will cost $960,000. Notably, this is after the District had already completed an extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

2. Cost estimates for work that are significantly over the reasonably anticipated costs, including estimates from qualified consultants (see above). This is particularly true for cultural resources activities.

3. A need to improve contract management. In the District title transfer, a portion of the lands will be conveyed to the State of Nevada , and two counties. The District made an agreement to cover the costs of the two counties and Reclamation agreed to make a similar agreement with the State. Reclamation has not delivered on this. As a result, the District advanced the State costs so that the transfer could proceed.

4. Lack of recourse by the District to fully understand and engage in decision-making and related cost estimates. The District believes it has little control of what Reclamation will decide to spend title transfer funds on with respect to cultural resources, even though the District is responsible for one-half of these costs.

5. A need to improve "turn-around" times for design work or decisions. For example, relative to the EIS mentioned above, Reclamation promised a one-year turn around. The District is now into the process at least two years, and that time period may have been even more prolonged if the District had not bid out the National Environmental Protection Act contractor under State law. As to the aforementioned cultural resources initial process document, the District was initially promised it would be wrapped up within months; the process has now extended to over a year and a half.

The District is proud of its partnership and working relationship with Reclamation, and is hopeful that these challenges can be constructively and timely addressed as the title transfer moves to conclusion.

Over the past nine years, the District has been faced with the challenge of absorbing unanticipated expenditures caused by Reclamation cost overruns on the Cachuma Project.

The Santa Ynez Water Conservation District (District) serves rural agricultural, domestic and commercial customers on 10,850 acres in Santa Barbara County , California . Agricultural water represents over half of the demand for the District, which equates to a substantial portion of District revenues. Agricultural water serves a range of uses, from field crops like peppers and strawberries, to vineyards. Additional costs required by the District to address design and build functions ultimately into higher water rates, which cuts into already thin profit margins.

The District has four water sources: the major source is the federally-owned Cachuma Project, which provides 43% of supplies. The District’s heavy dependence on the Cachuma Project requires that it be vigilant about protecting that water source and the costs incurred by it. The District has four other local partners in the Cachuma Project: the City of Santa Barbara and three water districts. The District’s share of the Cachuma Project is 10.31%. If a Cachuma Project expense runs over budget, the District is required to pay 10.31% of overrun, which poses great problems for the District, given the small size of its budget and customer base.

Over the past nine years, the District has been faced with the challenge of absorbing unanticipated expenditures caused by cost overruns on the Cachuma Project. These cost overruns have been significant and, in the District’s opinion, avoidable. The District has gone so far as to request Congressional assistance in two objectives: (i) bringing about structural reforms in the Bureau of Reclamation to improve that agency’s ability to plan and carry out water projects, and (ii) providing financial relief to the local water customers who end up paying for Reclamation’s miscalculations. Four specific examples of cost overruns follow:

Bradbury Dam Seismic Strengthening Project – Between 1994 and 2001, Reclamation designed and substantially completed a major project to strengthen Bradbury Dam at the downstream end of Lake Cachuma to assure the structure could withstand a maximum credible earthquake. When Reclamation originally informed the District that the dam needed to be strengthened, the District was skeptical about the accuracy of the engineering and seismic analyses. An independent consultant was hired at the expense of the Cachuma member units to peer review Reclamation’s test data and findings. The independent conclusions reinforced the District’s views about necessity to proceed, but additional tests to validate Reclamation’s analysis would have been expensive and Reclamation declined to fund those tests under the Safety of Dams (“SOD”) Act program. Rather than take issue with the federal government’s technical reports, the District swallowed hard and agreed that the project could proceed.

Congress allocated $41.5 million for the project, based on a report submitted by Reclamation. The construction cost for the project was completed 15% below the budget amount. Yet, amazingly, total costs were 18% over budget, caused entirely by an 82% overrun in the Contract Administration and Design & Specification functions. The latter cost more than doubled, from $2.5 million to $6.24 million.

Hilton Creek Project – When Reclamation designed the Bradbury Dam SOD modifications (see above), environmental mitigation was expected to cost $500,000. During construction, the scope of mitigation increased to include the Hilton Creek Project, and the cost estimate has now escalated to over $3,928,000. The original Hilton Creek Project as designed and constructed by Reclamation did not work as engineered and had to be redesigned.

Hilton Creek is a small tributary that enters the main stem of the Santa Ynez River just downstream of the “stilling basin” located at the base of Bradbury Dam. The Hilton Creek Project is a mitigation measure for the loss of habitat (a fraction of an acre) in the stilling basin caused by the Seismic Strengthening project. It has also proved essential to Cachuma Project operations.

The Hilton Creek project is simple in design: water gravity flows or is pumped from Lake Cachuma into a pipeline that feeds into Hilton Creek and thence to the main stem of the Santa Ynez River. However, Reclamation’s original design for the Hilton Creek pipeline did not meet the specified operating criteria for flow at various lake levels because of engineering miscalculation. Modifications to the pipeline to increase its flow capacity are currently pending. The final cost to complete the work may exceed the projected cost estimate.

Release Gate Maintenance Project –As the owner and operator of the Cachuma Project, Reclamation makes decisions about the maintenance of these facilities. However, the maintenance costs are paid by the water users that receive Cachuma water. Since these expenses constitute O&M (not capital costs), these expenses cannot be capitalized and repaid over a term of years. Thus, a cost overrun in a maintenance project can have a significant adverse impact on a small contracting agency’s annual budget.

Water spills from the Cachuma Project through a set of large radial gates and a spillway. In 1997, Reclamation determined that the radial gates needed to be repainted. The work was recently completed at a cost of $3.0 million, which is 67% higher than its original cost estimate of $1.8 million. Part of the increase resulted from the fact that extensive areas on the gates were found to have asbestos-based paint, which required far greater effort and cost for removal due to OSHA and environmental regulations.

The District has one key, outstanding question: Since Reclamation applied the original asbestos-based paint to the gates in 1976, why wasn’t this fact known to Reclamation when it designed the repainting job and the technical specifications for the project?

Flashboard Installation Project – Reclamation has completed additional structural improvements to the Bradbury Dam radial gates which make it possible for Reclamation to utilize three feet of the flashboard extension to surcharge and accumulate a larger quantity of water in the lake during high flow periods. These flows ultimately benefit public trust resources, specifically endangered steelhead / rainbow trout downstream of Bradbury Dam. Other benefits included reduced flood risks to downstream properties and urban areas.

This project has also experienced a cost overrun. The original Reclamation estimated cost for this project was $118,650. The actual cost is $531,700, which is 448% above the original estimate.

The District has incurred costs from flawed Reclamation design work, and now that the District has hired it’s own engineers, Reclamation wants the District to pay for plan review.

In the mid 1990’s, Hermiston Irrigation District (District) participated in a safety of dams update to its facilities in northeastern Oregon . Included in that update process was a requirement by Reclamation to install a new backflow structure. Despite objection from the District to Reclamation’s proposed design – which the District felt was not acceptable from an operations standpoint – Reclamation proceeded with final design and construction of the facility.

As predicted by the District, numerous operational problems over the next three years led to a revised design of the structure, which the District was required to pay for as part of the safety of dams expense. The cost of the modification was $115,000, including engineering design. Importantly, 55 percent of the price tag was attributed to engineering costs generated by Reclamation staff.

More recently, Reclamation has required that the District replace an inlet drop structure that feeds the District reservoir. Although the District has hired registered professional engineers to perform the analysis and engineering for this replacement, Reclamation insists that the District contract with them to have these plans reviewed – at District cost. Finally, the District to date has not received a detailed cost accounting for Reclamation’s expenses incurred in the safety of dams process.

Local water users believe that Reclamation has been sensitive to keeping operation and maintenance costs to a minimum.

The Idaho Water Users Association report that operations and maintenance costs of dams and pumping plants by the Bureau of Reclamation Snake River Area Office ( Boise , Idaho ) are consistently performed below budget. Water users served by the Minidoka Project in eastern Idaho have similar compliments for Reclamation.

Consider the following close-out operations and maintenance expenditures for Calendar Year 2004 in the Snake River Area Office:

Note #1: A five percent overrun occurred to accommodate expedited work on the installation of electronic security monitoring at the facility.

Note #2: The overrun was attributed to unforeseen chimney, foundation and roof stabilization required on the main cabin and generator / storage building.

Because the Snake River Area Office came in $235,617 (or 11.5 %) under budget on these O&M items, the local irrigation districts received a substantial credit for the calendar year.

Similar experiences have been reported by Minidoka Project spaceholders, which include Twin Falls Canal Company, Northside Canal Company, Milner Irrigation District, and American Falls Reservoir District. Local water users believe that the Bureau of Reclamation has been very sensitive to keeping operation and maintenance costs to a minimum for its stakeholders.

For example, at American Falls Reservoir, spaceholders have an obligation to pay erosion control costs for work at the Reservoir. Reclamation arranged for contracts with water user entities to accomplish the work rather than bid the work to private contractors. The annual saving to the spaceholders exceeds $100,000 in most years.

Elsewhere in the region, spaceholders in the late 1990’s were advised that the channel of Pilgrim Creek, a tributary of Jackson Lake Reservoir, was shifting. Because of Clean Water Act regulations, and due to a change in jurisdiction to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ St. Louis office, Reclamation was prohibited from performing O&M work which had previously been conducted annually. Reclamation was required to conduct an engineering and environmental assessment of alternatives to fix the Pilgrim Creek problem. Early estimates put the price of the assessment at $1 million and the possible cost of the fix at $3 million. After evaluation and peer review of the alternatives and complete dialogue with spaceholders, Reclamation was able to select an alternative which was least cost, and was further able to re-categorize the cost as non-reimbursable.

The Bureau of Reclamation has also been proactive in working with local interests to facilitate O&M work. Reclamation cooperated with local water users to reduce flows so private owners of the Banbury Springs Pipeline owners in the Hagerman Reach of the Snake River could undertake operations and maintenance. Reclamation also coordinated flow reductions in the Milner-Burley reach so adjacent landowners could evaluate damage to retaining walls, riprap, and docks as a result of high flows in the late 1990s.

These programs might provide a model that Reclamation should consider employing: less bureaucracy and more on-the-ground improvements.

In recent years, driven primarily by voter-approved bond measures, the State of California has developed various levels of grant and loan funding available for just about every aspect of water management in California . For example, the Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program is a grant program authorized under Chapter 8, Article 5 of the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act (Proposition 13). It provides assistance to poor communities, and funds construction projects and feasibility studies to fix or replace failing water distribution systems that threaten the health, safety, and economy of the communities. The program is competitive, and in fact, the demand for funding exceeds the amount of money allocated under Proposition 13. Since the program began in 2001, it received more than 71 proposals representing about $124 million during three funding cycles. Of these requests, it awarded $56.4 million for 22 feasibility studies and 20 construction projects. Although all program funds have been committed, the interest generated in the program underscores a recognized need for more program funding. The link to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) web site with information about the various grant and loan programs is: http://www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov/choose/index.cfm.

Many California agricultural water agencies are familiar with the Proposition 13 and Assembly Bill 303 (AB 303) loan programs. In both of these programs, applications are filed annually (as long as funding is available), using criteria that is established by the original state legislation. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) staff and stakeholder advisory panels help interpret the legislative intent, set up the program, and help select projects that best match up to the established criteria. Applicants and participants in the program believe this process to be fair, overall.

Central Valley irrigation districts are complimentary of programs like these, because they meet

their specific needs and can incrementally improve water supply without drawing the attention of environmental show-stoppers like major new storage projects. In a similar federal program, there has been a tremendous level of interest West-wide in the Water 2025 Grant Program administered by Reclamation, and it is disappointing to many that Congress this year may zero those funds out.

In California , Central Valley water users interact with DWR as an entity responsible for implementing several directives from the legislature to assist in providing improved water management. Instead of being responsible for the actual design and construction of projects, DWR uses their expertise and limited staff to design appropriate criteria, processes and reviews to implement and leverage billions of dollars of improvements to get good quality, needed projects on the ground. They perform virtually none of the design or construction, with the majority being accomplished by the individual local agencies and their consultants.

Water users in the Central Valley have benefited extensively from these programs, particularly those dealing with groundwater management and water use efficiency. The report back from local water agencies who have participated in these programs has generally been positive, and some of these water users believe that the structure of these programs, and the corresponding administrative role of the state agencies, could provide a template that might be applied to future Bureau of Reclamation activities. Reclamation’s 2025 program, which has generated incredible interest by irrigation districts, is one particular Reclamation activity that could be expanded and further emphasized in a manner that mimics the California loan and grant programs.

The DWR programs might provide a model that Reclamation should consider employing: less bureaucracy and more on-the-ground improvement. California legislation in recent years has included caps on administrative costs to encourage that more money actually goes into planning and construction documents and actual construction versus the program overhead and administrative costs. In many of the DWR administered programs, this cap is set at 5% of the construction cost. In conversations with DWR staff, it appears that a cap of 5 to 10 % would best cover actual state administrative costs. This is the type of administrative cost range that western water users can afford.

CASE STUDY #9: Sacramento Valley Fish Passage and Screening Projects

Local entities take the lead on projects and come in under-budget and on time.

An impressive array of ecosystem restoration activities has been undertaken in the Sacramento Valley over the past decade to improve the health of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta (Bay-Delta) ecosystem. Most of these actions have been implemented to benefit and ultimately recover anadromous fish species, including salmon and steelhead. Sacramento Valley environmental mitigation, protection and enhancement have been focused on issues such as fish screens and related fish passage and upstream-related fishery habitat issues.

Sacramento Valley water users for the past decade have been implementing projects to provide upstream solutions. The Sacramento Valley ’s initiative and effort to help protect salmon and other aquatic species may be unprecedented and is now recognized as one of the most exciting and progressive voluntary salmon restoration efforts in the

United States

~~[1]~~. The use of water within the Sacramento Valley itself contributes to habitat improvement, including the creation and enhancement of habitat for waterfowl.

As remarkable as this broad array of completed projects is, what is also impressive is the high level of performance shown by local water districts to deliver these projects in a timely manner, and often under budget. In the instances shown below, ample evidence supports the argument that local districts and their consultants demonstrate superior project management performance when viewed in terms of project delivery parameters like time from start to finish, estimated vs. actual costs, achievement of regulatory compliance goals, avoidance of long-term impacts on water users, disputes and lawsuits, etc. A few examples of Northern California projects delivered with local agencies taking the lead include the following:

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District (ACID), Redding , California – completed a 450 cubic feet per second (cfs) fish screen, two fish ladders, and ancillary facilities. Alternatives analysis, design, environmental documentation, and permitting were completed within 18 months. The total project life, from grant application to dedication, was four years, which was ahead of the original project schedule. The completed cost of $11.6 million was also within the limits of available grant funding.

Western Canal Water District Butte Creek Project, near Chico , California- with the district and its consultant team in the lead, this $9.1 million project was completed with 66% of the project cost secured from outside funding sources. Of note, allowable construction periods were restricted to address endangered species and flood control issues, and to provide ongoing water deliveries to farmers. The final project included an inverted siphon, new or enlarged canals, pipelines, pump stations, check structures, and removal of four diversion dams and 12 unscreened diversions over an area covering 60 square miles. The Butte Creek Project received awards for excellence from the Association of California Water Agencies and the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California.

Reclamation District 108 Fish Screen, Sacramento River – RD 108, acting as lead on this project, secured 99% of the $11 million cost with outside funding. The final project was completed $1 million under budget and on schedule. Feasibility study, preliminary design, final design, cost estimates, and implementation plan were completed by the district’s consultants in ten months.

Under CALFED and state matching funds programs, much of the project work outlined above was performed through district-led efforts, because several grant sources were used to fund individual projects. In each of these cases, the districts took the lead, engaging their own resources and those of their consultants in a way that best suited their needs, and taking on the coordination role with the funding and regulatory agencies. A unifying theme noted in all of these examples is this: results that are compatible with local needs are more readily achievable when there is local control.

The responsibilities and accountabilities (by the involved parties and specific individuals) when federal agencies are involved with water projects often change over time, whereas local irrigation districts can accept responsibility and accountability for completing projects from Day One. When responsibilities shift from desk to desk within agencies, it is difficult to achieve efficiency or sustained progress toward a solution. On the other hand, if a local entity and specific person can provide continuity, leadership, and is motivated to sustain progress and accountability in achieving a defined outcome, real project management efficiency can be realized. If federal agencies are changing roles and responsibilities, and if agency personnel change over time, it is difficult to maintain progress on projects that can take several years to complete.

In the examples noted above, the agency regulators set the criteria, the funding agencies wrote the checks, and local districts and their consultant and contractors addressed and satisfied the regulatory criteria and funding eligibility requirements. Keeping the accountability and responsibility centralized is key to getting projects done on time, and under budget.

The case studies in Colorado , Oregon and Nevada illustrate several criticisms that irrigation districts throughout the West have recently expressed relative to Reclamation’s role in design and construction projects:

The Family Farm Alliance is committed to constructively working with Reclamation, the Department of Interior, and Congress to address these concerns. As illustrated in the Idaho example and the three California case studies, Reclamation officials at the regional and area office levels have demonstrated a willingness to “think outside of the box” and to take calculated risks that ultimately benefit the federal government, local water users, and the public interest. Some of these positive observations can provide lessons that might be employed as “good practice” tools and techniques in areas where customer dissatisfaction has occurred:

As is recognized by Secretary Norton’s Water 2025 Initiative, it is imperative that Reclamation provide for the operation, maintenance, and modernization of existing water supply infrastructure. Many Reclamation facilities are approaching the end of their design life, and some are well past that point. Many of these facilities need to be replaced with modern designs that provide for greater water management efficiency. Sound business practice dictates that this existing infrastructure, and the water supply it conveys, be preserved prior to the dedication of scarce resources to the development of new supplies.

The lack of engineering experience and expertise within Reclamation is cited by several contributors to this report as the primary cause of the problems outlined in the case studies. It is also the reason why some irrigation districts are increasingly opting to pay additional money to outside consultants who do have that experience and professional training.

Now, in some cases, Reclamation employees are insisting that they review plans that have already been developed by professional engineers, and water users are being asked to pay for these reviews after already having paid outside consultants to develop the plans. Reclamation’s approach in this regard is seen as archaic by water users. They question why they must continue to pay people to look over their shoulder.

As demonstrated in the Sacramento Valley , local districts can take the lead, engaging their own resources and those of their consultants in a way that best suited their needs, and taking on the coordination role with the funding and regulatory agencies. This has not always been the case in other areas of the country, especially when funding has been provided through a line-item appropriation under Reclamation's budget. When projects are tied solely to Bureau of Reclamation funding, Reclamation generally insists that it retain more control.

It is not wise to offer up recommendations that can be applied “across the board”, especially when water resources issues are so diverse and distinct, depending on the location. However, the management approaches noted in some of the positive examples included in this summary should be considered as options that might be employed, where applicable, in other parts of the West.

Contributors to this report have offered a number of additional recommendations that are outside the scope of this Committee’s charge. Nevertheless, these recommendations, if carried out, would substantially improve the Bureau of Reclamation’s performance. They include:

1. Congressional committees should conduct oversight hearings to review Reclamation’s project planning operations, with particular attention to the design and construction management functions based in Denver ;

2. Expand the Water 2025 matching grant program to provide additional opportunities for the investment in water conservation and efficiency measures; and

3. Develop additional funding mechanisms that will enable water users to access alternative sources of capital in order to repair and modernize existing infrastructure:

v Allow entities with annual repayment obligations to shift those obligations to operation, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) reserve accounts.

For a more complete assessment of the myriad of fish passage projects undertaken in the Sacramento Valley, please refer to “Status of Fishery Programs in the Sacramento Valley”, February 2002, Northern California Water Association, Sacramento, California.

Facility	CY 2004 Budget	CY 2004 Actual Expenditures
Anderson Ranch Dam	$ 403,311	$ 392,311
Arrowrock Dam	$ 496,044	$ 519,413 (Note #1)
Black Canyon Dam	$ 308,030	$ 254,350
Cascade Dam	$ 537,292	$ 318,079
Deadwood Dam	$ 237,230	$ 292,821 (Note #2)
Primary Pump	$ 75,028	$ 44,344
TOTAL	$2,056,935	$1,821,318