Letter to the Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, GAO - Federal Scheme to Fund Delta Tunnels Project

Letter

Dear Comptroller General Dodaro,

The Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General, (DOI OIG), recently issued a report regarding the Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) spending on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) -- a state-led effort involving the construction of new water diversion facilities benefitting select water contractors in the state of California. See DOI OIG, Report No. 2016‑WR‑040, The Bureau of Reclamation Was Not Transparent in its Financial Participation in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (Sept. 7, 2017) (DOI OIG Report). In its report, the DOI OIG found that USBR "did not fully disclose to Congress and other stakeholders the $84.8 million cost of its participation in the BDCP efforts." DOI OIG Report, at 1. The DOI OIG report (at 1) states further that:

[USBR] did not report [to Congress] $50 million derived from an appropriation, available for other general purposes, that it also used for the BDCP. USBR obtained this $50 million over a 7‑year span by using a complex, obscure process that was not disclosed in the annual congressional budget justifications, Office of Management and Budget Calfed Bay‑Delta certified annual financial reports, or numerous briefing documents on BDCP issues and status prepared by USBR for senior management officials.

The complex, obscure process cited by DOI OIG report involved USBR altering its standard funding process for operation and maintenance activities which, according to the DOI OIG report, "obscured the source of its funding and the total cost of [USBR's] participation in the BDCP." DOI OIG Report, at 8. The DOI OIG report states that "USBR supplemented its BDCP activities with $50 million derived from funds appropriated for "water and related resources' and authorized for application to reimbursable Federal [Central Valley Project Operation and Maintenance] activities and other purposes." DOI OIG Report, at 8. That is, USBR may have "written off" reimbursable expenses and converted them to expenses borne by the taxpayer.

Given these troubling findings, we respectfully request a GAO legal opinion as to whether USBR's actions with regard to the $50 million referenced above were consistent with, among other things, the rule against augmentation and the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, 31 U.S.C. § 3302 (b). For your convenience, please find the full OIG report enclosed.

If you have any questions, please contact Matthew Muirragui and Vic Edgerton, of the House Natural Resources Committee, at (202)-225-6065. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,