Early in September, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR’s) behavior related to funding of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. In it, the OIG generally found the USBR had misused and mis-categorized funds, and taken steps to obscure how much it spent and the sources of that funding from official records.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (Plan) is a Californian effort to protect and use the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The Delta is “a significant ecosystem” described by OIG as “declining.” Among other species, it is home to the endangered Delta smelt. It also provides water for much of the state of California.
The Plan is a state-led, cooperative effort authorized under the Delta Reform Act of 2009. Under the act, the Plan was originally supposed to:
- Provide a more reliable water supply for California; and
- Protect, restore, and enhance the Delta ecosystem.
The Act also required beneficiaries of the Plan’s efforts to pay for them; the “beneficiaries pay” principle. This generally referred to the various state water contractors like the Federal Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project.
In 2014, the direction of the Plan changed with “California WaterFix.” This preferred alternative focused on the water supply goal set forth in the Delta Reform Act, almost to the exclusion of the conservation goals.
Findings
The OIG made a few major findings in investigating the USBR’s funding involvement with the Plan:
- It understated its financial involvement with the Plan by $50 million;
- It categorized this money as non-reimbursable, meaning the federal government had to shoulder the costs of the state project in violation of relevant laws, without sufficient legal standing to do so;
- It did not distribute funds in accordance with the law following the WaterFix change; and
- Its accounting and reporting behavior was not transparent.
“We found that USBR did not disclose the full cost of its participation in the [Plan], subsidized CVP water contractors, and converted $50 million in federal funds from reimbursable to non-reimbursable without documentation to support its determination that the funds should be non-reimbursable. Further, while USBR had the legal authority for its financial agreements, USBR’s use of funds for one agreement was not consistent with its authority under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,” summarized OIG.
OIG made several recommendations to amend this issue in the future. Most of them were met by USBR’s agreement to no longer provide funds for the Plan unless funds were specifically appropriated for that purpose. The OIG report did note some lasting worries however, saying:
“We are concerned that the absence of transparency displayed by USBR during the planning phase of the [Plan] will be perpetuated in the future.” — WLJ
