    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

          STUDY BY THE STAFF OF THE U. S.

          General Accounting Office

          Water Issues Facing The Nation:

          An Overview

          The Federal Government has a tremendous
          stake in water resources in terms of capital
          investment and the physical and economic
          well being of the Nation. Traditionally, the
          United States has built, maintained, and
    le ~operated massive public works projects to
          solve its water problems. But, this solution
          is becoming too expensive. The Nation now
          faces the dilemma of ensuring adequate
          supplies of fresh water in the face of deteri-
          orating facilities, inflating costs, and decreas-
          ing budgets.
          This study discusses the issues and prob-
          lems relating to water resources and the
          perspective used by GAO in organizing its
          related audit efforts.

       TC

       1 982                                                                                   GAO/CED-82-83

    Request for copies of GAO reports should be
    sent to:

         U.S. General Accounting Office
         Document Handling and Information
           Services Facility
         P.O. Box 6015
         Gaithersburg, Md. 20760

         Telephone (202) 275-6241

    The first five copies of individual reports are
    free of charge. Additional copies of bound
    audit reports are $3.25 each.   Additional
    copies of unbound re-port (i.e., letter reports)
    and most other publications are $1.00 each.
    There will be a 25% discount on all orders for
    100 or more copies mailed to a single address.
    Sales orders must be prepaid on a cash, check,
    or money order basis. Check should be made
    out to the "Superintendent of Documents".

    Property of CSC Library

                                FORE WORD

         Adequate supplies of clean water have always been vital to
    the physical and economic health of our Nation. Yet, because it
    is becoming more scarce, water has been described by many experts
    as the "next American crisis." In addition, many of the Nation's
    water projects, including those associated with navigation, are
    getting older and will soon need major rehabilitation. Operating
    and maintaining existing projects now costs about $1.5 billion
    a year, and the combination of inflation and age will surely
    drive the'cost even higher in the future. The Nation faces a
    dilemma. it must find ways to meet the challenges presented by
    an increasing demand for a limited supply of fresh water, dete-
    riorating facilities, skyrocketing inflation, and decreasing
    budgets. How it solves these problems will impact on the Nation's
    future for decades to come.

         This study is a part of a continuing assessment of areas of
    national concern and interest. It identifies the problems and
    issues faced by water planners, managers and users, as well as,
    focuses GAO's audit efforts of the Federal Government's direct
    and indirect involvement with water-related matters, The dis-
    cussions may be helpful to other groups in planning their activ-
    ities and obtaining a better understanding of the crucial issues
    facing decisionmakers.

         Questions regarding the content of the study should be
    directed to Robert S. Procaccini or Andrew J. Pasden on (202)
    376-8200.

       .S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA  DrcoCmuiyadEooi
    COASTAL SERV'ICE'? CENTER          Directrlommunity adivisonoi
    2234 SOUTH HiOeON AVENUE DvlpetDvso
    CH1ARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

                            C on ten t s

                                                                Page

    CHAPTER

       1       OVERVIEW--WATER AND WATER-RELATED PROGRAMS I
                   Issues needing attention I
                  Long-term trends                                  2
                  Scope of this study                               5

       2       WHAT CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO TO HELP
                MEET THE NATION'S WATER NEEDS AND MAKE
                OPTIMAL USE OF ITS EXISTING WATER RESOURCES         6

       3       ARE WATER PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED AND REHABIL-
                ITATED IN THE MOST ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT
                MANNER?                                            11

       4       ARE WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS EFFICIENTLY,
                 EFFECTIVELY, ECONOMICALLY, AND SAFELY
                OPERATED AND MAINTAINED?                           14

       5       HOW CAN THE NATION'S NAVIGATION SYSTEM BE DEVEL-
                OPEDF OPERATED, AND MAINTAINED IN MORE
                EFFECTIVE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT WAYS?         17

       6       ARE COST ALLOCATIONS, REPAYMENT, AND FINANCING
                POLICIES FOR FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
                EFFECTIVELY MEETING TODAY'S NEEDS?                 22

    APPENDIX

       I       Water-related GAO reports issued between
                May 1980 and April 1982                            27

      II       Congressional committees with water-related
                 responsibilities                                   30

                            ABBREVIATIONS

     GAO      General Accounting Office

     0MB      Office of management and Budget

                                CHAPTER I

                           OVERVIEW--WATER AND

                         WATER-RELATED PROGRAMS

         Water and water-related programs are those programs and
    activities for planning, developing, and managing our Nation's
    water resources, including the development, operation, and main-
    tenance of the national waterway system. While the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior's Bureau
    of Reclamation are the two principal agencies involved in water
    programs, many activities of the Departments of Agriculture,
    Transportation, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban
    Development, as well as the Tennessee Valley Authority, also
    involve water issues. In addition, certain activities of the
    Environmental Protection Agency,, the Water Resources Council,
    the Cabinet Council on Natural Resources and the Environment,
    and several river basin organizations significantly affect water
    matters.

    ISSUES NEEDING ATTENTION

         Basic water issues never really change. What does change,
    however, is their relative importance. Presently, five issues
    have been identified as requiring immediate attention--these
    are presented in detail in chapters 2 through 6. Each chapter
    focuses on a related set of problems and trends and reflects
    the strong desire of the Congress and the administration to
    reduce Federal spending and increase the efficiency of Federal
    operations. Also, the discussions in those chapters recognize
    the concern many experts have expressed that our Nation soon
    may be facing a serious water supply crisis. The issues needing
    attention are as follows.

         --What can the Federal Government do to help meet the
           Nation's water needs and make optimal use of its exist-
           ing water resources?

         --Are water projects being developed and rehabilitated
           in the most economical and efficient manner?

         --Are water resources projects efficiently, effectively,
           economically, and safely operated and maintained?

         --How can the Nation's navigation system be developed,
           operated, maintained, and managed in more effective,
           economical, and efficient ways?

         --Are cost allocations, repayment, and financing
           policies for Federal water resources projects
           effectively meeting today's needs?

    LONG-TERM TRENDS

        During the next decade the following four factors will greatly
    impact on water resources matters in the United States.

         1. The emphasis on reducing Federal spending.

         2. The movement toward greater cost recovery from water
            project users and also toward a greater State, local,
             and private role in developing, maintaining, and
             financing water resources and navigation projects.

         3. The increasing threat (reality in many instances) of
            major water shortages.

         4. The impact of the energy crisis.

    Impact of the Federal budget

         Possibly the factor with the greatest impact on water
    resources matters is the current direction of the administration
    and the Congress concerning Federal spending. Given the billions
    of dollars needed to construct new projects; the increasing funds
    needed for operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation; and the
    commitment to reduce the Federal budget, it becomes evident that
    some significant changes must occur in the way this Nation ap-
    proaches its water resources problems.

         Traditionally, our Nation's approach to solving water problems
    has been to build more and more projects. The Corps, the Bureau
    of Reclamation, and the Department of Agriculture have over $50
    billion in projects already authorized by the Congress. in addi-
    tion, hundreds of additional projects are presently under study
    which, if built, could cost billions more. Considerable debate in
    the Congress has centered on why these projects are needed and
    whether the Nation can continue to spend its resources on expensive
    water projects.

         Operation and maintenance costs are also skyrocketing, thereby,
    taking a larger portion of the budget. For example, the Corps in
    fiscal year 1967 spent approximately $180 million (approximately
    $503 million in fiscal year 1982 dollars) to operate and maintain
    water projects. In fiscal year 1982 that cost is expected to
    exceed $1 billion or almost one-third of the Corps' civil works
    budget. While such costs are already staggering, they can only
    increase. Studies have shown that a large number of the Nation's
    water projects are getting old and will soon need major rehabil-
    itation. This, coupled with the past emphasis on constructing new
    projects rather than maintaining existing ones, will result in
    increased expenditures to rehabilitate existing projects.

                                   2

    Greater cost recovery

        The same forces--the push to reduce Federal spending and
    balance the budget--are also providing impetus for legislative
    changes. Several bills have been introduced in the Congress to
    recover from the users much of the cost traditionally borne by
    the Federal Government. While similar proposals have been intro-
    duced in the past, the Congress now appears determined to enact
    legislation making more equitable cost sharing a reality.

         In the past, water projects have been financed and subsidized
    by the Federal Government. As a result, specific water users often
    paid only a fraction of the cost to produce the water or, in the
    case of navigation projects, waterway users paid little of the
    cost of developing, operating, and maintaining the waterways.

         Regarding navigation, the Congress has passed or has bills
    pending to recover money the Federal Government spends on the
    Nation's waterways and ports. In fiscal year 1979, for the first
    time, the Congress passed legislation establishing a fuel tax on
    users of 26 inland and/or intracoastal waterways. The proceeds
    of this tax are to be used to defray the cost of constructing and
    rehabilitating these waterways. Several other bills have been
    introduced in the 97th Congress to recover from users the costs
    of developing, operating, and maintaining other waterways and
    ports.

    impending shortages

        Water shortages, particularly in the arid West and Southwest,
    have become a reality. The one factor most experts agree on is
    that water shortages will get worse, not better. A popular finan-
    cial newsletter recently predicted that the Nation in the next two
    decades will have a water crisis with the potential to be far more
    devastating than the "energy crisis."

         There are numerous reasons for the impending crisis. First,
    and probably the most important, is the continual shifting of our
    population from the more water abundant Northeast to the West and
    Southwest. Second, agriculture is assuming a more critical role
    in the Nation's drive to increase exports. Because irrigation is
    so important to the success of agriculture in the West, there is
    a continually increasing demand for water. Third, vast quanti-
    ties of water will be needed to develop additional energy sources.

         The water crisis is not something that experts are just
    talking about: it is a reality. Some examples of the problems
    experienced include

         --the water shortages of a few years ago in California;

         --the inability of farmers in the Texas Panhandle to
           continue irrigation at past levels;

                                    3

          --the recent drought in the Midwest which had considerable
            impact on water levels in the Mississippi; and

          --the recent drought in the Northeast.

         Another factor that could dramatically affect the Nation's
    water supply, particularly in the West, is the question of Indian
    water rights. A 1980 GAO I/ report commented that the current
    Indian litigation and potential redistribution of water resources
    make it almost impossible for potential water users and State
    administrators to determine what, if any, water is available for
    new projects and uses. Further, it raises the possibility that
    existing water right holders may be unable to retain their rights.
    Presently, there are over 50 lawsuits in the courts involving
    Indian water rights, and it is very uncertain as to how and when
    the courts will rule on them.

         Basically, there are two ways to overcome water shortages--
    neither of which is simple. The first is to increase available
    supplies and the second is to reduce consumption. Increasing
    supplies entails building more projects, such as reservoirs and
    pipelines to create additional holding and delivery capacity, or
    finding technologies whereby water that was formerly unusable can
    be used. However, water projects are costly and take years to
    complete. Also, they often are undertaken as if they were ends
    in themselves, instead of parts of an overall program to meet the
    Nation's needs. The other answer is stretching available supplies
    either by conserving or augmenting them through such technologies
    as wastewater reuse, seawater desalination, and cloud seeding.
    Thus far, conservation and augmentation efforts have not been
    very successful because they are either too costly or socially
    unacceptable.

         There is no doubt that when a community or an area experiences
    a water crisis enormous pressure will be put on the Congress to do
    something. Given that such a crisis will probably occur in several
    places during the next decade, this Nation could be in a situation
    where its limited resources will go toward stopgap solutions rather
    than more efficient and effective long-term solutions.

    Impact of the energy crisis

         The energy crisis also poses tremendous implications for
    water resources. Not only will water be needed to generate hydro-
    electric power, but vast quantities will be needed for other
    energy-related efforts, such as steam electric powerplants, shale
    oil recovery, coal gasification and liquification, and coal-
    slurry pipelines. These will require vast amounts of water.

    l/1'Water Supply Should Not Be An Obstacle To Meeting Energy
      Development Goals" (CED-80-30, Jan. 24, 1980).

                                   4

         Many reports predict that the Nation's quest for energy and
    mineral independence will stimulate the need for water and will
    almost exhaust all unused water in the mineral-rich, water-short
    West. Other reports indicate that there will be adequate water
    for new energy sources until the year 2000. The one area in
    which no disagreement exists is that water is needed for these
    new energy sources and that when it is needed heavily depends
    upon how quickly the Nation decides to move to alternate sources
    of energy.

    SCOPE OF THIS STUDY

         We obtained the opinions and concerns of many congressional
    representatives and a wide range of experts and organizations.
    The organizations involved in the water area included, among
    others, the Congressional Research Service, Office of Technology
    Assessment, Congressional Budget Office, Urban institute,
    Northeast-Midwest Institute, Environmental Policy Center, National
    Governor's Association, Water Resources Council, National Academy
    of Sciences, Resources for the Future, Water Resources Congress,
    and the Virginia Water Control Board.

         We held extensive discussions with the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) as well as with senior officials of the Corps of
    Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition, we solicited
    input from other Federal agencies with water resource responsibili-
    ties, such as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy,
    Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation and the
    Environmental Protection Agency.

         Also, we conducted a 2-day symposium in August 1981 at which
    the Nation's major water-related problems were identified and
    discussed. Besides many GAO staff members who have considerable
    experience evaluating water programs and activities, represent-
    atives from the Congress, 0MB, Departments of the Army and the
    Interior, Water Resources Council, and the Environmental Policy
    Center also participated.

                                   5

                                CHAPTER 2

                WHAT CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO TO HELP

                  MEET THE NATION'S WATER NEEDS AND MAKE

               OPTIMAL USE OF ITS EXISTING WATER RESOURCES

    MAJOR ISSUES

         Water is critical to the very existence of the United States.
    Adequate supplies of high-quality water are essential for develop-
    ing domestic energy supplies; for maintaining an industrial, manu-
    facturing, and agricultural base; and most important, for sustain-
    ing a healthy population. However, many experts predict that a
    water supply crisis potentially more serious than the energy
    crisis looms in the country's future. The crisis, should it occur,
    would not be the result of inadequate quantities of water, for as
    a Nation we have an abundant supply. It would be the result of
    poor management of this resource.

         To meet the Nation's water needs, effective planning must
    be carried out at all government levels, supplies must be made
    available where and when they are needed, and programs must be
    implemented to conserve our existing water sources.

    Planning policies, mechanisms,
    and institutional arrangements

         Water resources planning encompasses analyzing existing and
    potential water problems and preparing solutions to such problems.
    Planning policies and procedures differ from region to region and
    among agencies. Each region has different water resources prob-
    lems and each agency has different missions.

         Traditionally, the Federal Government's primary role in water
    resources planning has been related to public works activities,
    such -as flood control, navigation, irrigation, and watershed activ-
    ities. Federal involvement generally came about in response to
    (1) interstate needs (2) State and local governments' inability
    to finance massive projects, and (3) the desire to foster national
    objectives. Federal agencies, created to execute the programs?
    generally operate independently of the States and are responsible
    for program and project implementation decisions.

         States have defined their own policies relative to water
    quantity and quality management and developed laws and practices
    for allocating and using water supplies. In addition, they carry
    out water resources planning and development. Local governments
    generally have primary responsibility for local water supply and
    wastewater treatment and disposal.

         Unfortunately, political boundaries do not coincide with
    natural river basin boundaries. The Congress, recognizing the

                                   6

    rights of States to manage their own water and the need for
    coordination among the States, passed the Water Resources Planning
    Act of 1965 to encourage comprehensive regional planning. The act
    also established the Water Resources Council to coordinate water
    management nationwide. This effort, however, has been largely
    ineffective because the Council and the regional planning bodies
    had neither the level of responsibility nor the authority neces-
    sary to enforce their planning decisions. In September 1981,
    President Reagan signed two Executive orders that changed the
    way water resources planning is done. Executive Order 12319
    terminated the River Basin Commissions' activities, and Executive
    Order 12322 directed that water resources project plans be sent
    to 0MB for the technical reviews formerly performed by the Council.
    In addition, the Congress is considering several proposals to
    reestablish a regional planning structure.

         Water experts believe that nearly every water resources
    problem, with the exception of physical unavailability, is an
    institutional one. They have said that the water resources agen-
    cies may need to be reorganized to effectively integrate their
    diverse but related activities. Problems have arisen in the past.
    For example, agencies charged with protecting the environment or
    conserving fish and wildlife often disagreed with those responsible
    for water resources development. In other cases, the objectives
    of those primarily responsible for or concerned with one purpose,
    such as flood control, conflicted with the objectives of those
    concerned with another, such as hydropower electric generation from
    the same project. Such conflicts sometimes resulted in project
    completion delays and decreased project benefits.

    Ensuring an adequate water
    supply for all uses

         Many problems must be overcome to assure an adequate water
    supply. First, needed quantities of water must be located and
    authority to use them obtained. International treaties, inter-
    state compacts, and court decisions sometimes affect the quanti-
    ties of water available for use in a particular area. Likewise,
    the ultimate resolution of Indian reserved water rights claims
    will affect the amount of water available to users. Similarly,
    maintaining minimum instream flows for hydroelectric power
    generation, navigation, and other purposes, such as fish and
    wildlife habitat, can significantly reduce the quantity of water
    available for water supply uses.

         In some areas, surface water stream flows are not reliable;
    in other areas, the available surface water has been appropriated
    and additional demand on existing sources cannot be met. Also,
    ground water aquifers (porous, water-bearing geological formations)
    are being overdrafted in many areas nationwide, especially where
    a shortage of surface water exists. This condition causes land
    subsidence, increased energy costs to pump water from lower levels,
    and other problems. Continued overdrafting could deplete a ground
    water source to the point where it can no longer supply water.

                                   7

         In addition to quantity problems, some sources of water have
    serious quality problems tha'- restrict their use or increase the
    cost of treatment before use. Surface water supplies are being
    polluted by municipal and industrial sources which are not yet
    in compliance with Federal clean water regulations and by numer-
    ous nonpoint sources of pollution. Ground water pollution from
    waste disposal on land and from saltwater intrusion into fresh-
    water supplies are major problems.

         Besides finding additional water sources, existing supplies
    can be augmented using such technologies as weather modification,
    desalinization, and wastewater reuse and recycling. However, many
    of these technologies are still in the research and development
    stage, are too costly, or are socially unacceptable.

         The Federal Government has a tremendous stake in ensuring
    that no part of the country runs out of water. If such a catas-
    trophe should occur, the costs in terms of human suffering and
    economic losses would be intolerable and, the Congress undoubtedly
    would be under extreme pressure to provide financial and technical
    assistance. Therefore, the Federal Government needs assurances
    that our Nation's water resources are being managed wisely. It
    seems certain that, in the future, greater emphasis will be placed
    on managing our existing water supplies more effectively. Now is
    the time to take action. If the Nation waits until the shortage
    reaches crisis proportions, the remedies are likely to be stopgap
    in nature and too late to be of real benefit.

    Conservation

         Conservation programs primarily involve agricultural, muni-
    cipal, and industrial use of ground and surface waters. However,
    the greatest potential, as well as the greatest need, for better
    water management and conservation is the irrigated areas of the
    West. Nationwide, irrigation accounts for over 80 percent of the
    consumptive use of water, most of which occurs in the arid and
    semiarid areas of the West.

         Using present practices, irrigation is relatively inefficient
    because the crops actually consume less than half of the water
    applied to them. The remaining water oversaturates the land, caus-
    ing drainage problems; is absorbed by weeds; or is returned to the
    supply system for further uses at a downstream location, degraded
    in quality by minerals, fertilizers, sediment, and pesticides.

         There are several known irrigation techniques which could
    lead to water savings, for example, lining water conveyance and
    distribution systems, properly scheduling water deliveries,
    avoiding overdeliveries, and using water-saving methods such as
    drip and sprinkler irrigation systems. Other measures include
    reducing reservoir evaporation, controlling unwanted vegetation,
    and increasing yields without additional water through better
    crop varieties, fertilizers, and management.

                                   8

         Although most water used nationwide is for irrigation, about
    75 percent of the Nation's population lives in metropolitan areas
    constituting less than 2 percent of the Nation's land area. By
    the year 2000 as much as 85 percent of the population may live
    in these areas. in addition, much of the Nation's industry is
    located in or around these areas.

         While new supplies for many of these areas can be developed,
    increased emphasis on more efficient use and conservation of
    existing municipal and industrial water supplies is important.
    Reasons include the following.

         --In some areas access to new supplies may not be readily
           attainable or the supplies may be located long distances
           from where they are needed.

         --The cost of developing new supplies is often high and can
           be a financial burden to many communities.

         --Developing new supplies by constructing dams and reservoirs
           has often been questioned or opposed for environmental rea-
           sons.

         Water conservation can also save energy. When less water is
    used, less has to be treated and pumped through the distribution
    system. Also, there is less wastewater to be handled by sewage
    treatment plants. Additional energy is saved by conserving water
    that has been heated because according to one study, hot water
    accounts for 41 percent of all household water usage.

         In short, the benefits of conserving water, even in water
    rich areas, are many and may exceed the costs of conservation
    techniques. These techniques include water-saving devices,
    meters, leakage control, water pressure control, and educational
    campaigns.

         The Congress has consistently held that municipal and indus-
    trial supply and water use regulations are the responsibility of
    State and local governments. However, various Federal programs
    offer numerous opportunities for encouraging and implementing
    water conservation programs.

    ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED

         The following issues or questions need to be addressed to
    determine what the Federal Government can do to help meet the
    Nation's water needs and make optional use of its resources.

         1. How effective is the Federal organizational structure
             for addressing water resources issues?

         2. What should the Federal Government's role be in water
             resources planning?

                                   9

         3. Is there effective integration and coordination of
            planning efforts between Federal, regional, and State
            agencies?

        4. What are the organizational impediments and institutional
            constraints to effective planning and what actions are
            necessary to resolve such problems?

         5. What is being done to ensure that water is available to
            satisfy all competing uses? Are alternatives available;
             if so, are they acceptable to the region, State, and user?

         6. How can conservation practices be encouraged? What
             factors are inhibiting instituting the practices; how
            can they be overcome?

    GAO ASSIGNMENTS IN PROGRESS

         --Overview of Federal efforts to improve water conservation--
           summary of past GAO work.

                                   10

                               CHAPTER 3

         ARE WATER PROJECTS BEING DEVELOPED AND REHABILITATED

              IN THE MOST ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT MANNER?

    MAJOR ISSUES

         The Federal Government has been extensively involved in
    constructing, managing, and operating water projects. As of
    1981, the Federal Government has invested over $54 billion in
    water resources projects that are either completed or still under
    construction. This investment includes the ownership of over
    2,000 dams. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers
    are the two principal agencies that build and manage most of the
    Nation's water projects. The Tennessee Valley Authority and the
    Soil Conservation Service are also heavily involved in water proj-
    ect development. These projects can range in size from small pump-
    ing plants to huge, multipurpose projects, such as the $6 billion
    Central Valley Project in California. Most large projects are
    multipurpose and provide water for a variety of users. In addi-
    tion to providing water for irrigation and municipal and indus-
    trial uses, projects also can provide hydroelectric power gener-
    ation, fish and wildlife enhancement, outdoor recreation, flood
    control, and navigation.

         Each year the United States spends billions of dollars to
    construct and rehabilitate water resources projects. In fiscal
    years 1981 and 1982, appropriations for water project construction
    and rehabilitation by the Corps and the Bureau totaled about $1.7
    and $1.9 billion, respectively. These agencies are requesting
    about the same funding for fiscal year 1983. In addition, they
    have a backlog of over $50 billion in congressionally authorized
    projects. These projects range from those that have been author-
    ized but have no construction or land acquired to ones that are
    almost completed.

         In the past, water projects have met little opposition in
    the Congress. However, with the present emphasis on tightening
    the purse strings, water resources project funding is beginning
    to receive intense scrutiny within the Congress and the executive
    branch. The Congress today appears more willing to reevaluate the
    desirability of Federal funding for many water resources projects
    and has focused increased attention on project selection, authori-
    zation, and construction. There is likely to be increased con-
    gressional interest in this area as cancellation or deferral of
    projects offer the opportunity for substantial budget savings.

         The following are the major issues related to construction
    and rehabilitation which must be addressed.

         --Do the methodologies used in computing project benefits
           and costs result in the most economical and efficient
           projects?

                                   1.1

         --Given the escalating cost to build water projects, what
           actions can be taken to control rising project costs?

         --Can the lengthy planning, design, and construction periods
           for most projects be reduced?

         --How can the Nation be sure that funds spent for rehabilita-
           tion are used most effectively and efficiently?

         The issues listed above will probably receive considerable
    congressional attention during the next few years because of
    heightened concern over Government spending and the administra-
    tion's recent action to use 0MB rather than the Water Resources
    Council to review water projects. Specifically, President Reagan
    directed (Executive Order 12322, Sept. 17, 1981) that any proposal
    or plan for a Federal or federally assisted water resources project
    be submitted to 0MB before it is introduced in the Congress. 0MB
    is to assess the plan for consistency with (1) the administration's
    policies and programs, (2) the Principles and Standards for Water
    and Related Land Resources Planning, or other such guidelines that
    may be issued, and (3) other applicable laws or regulations rele-
    vant to the planning process.

         The Congress and the administration need water project infor-
    mation that is pertinent and accurate so they can set national
    spending priorities and direct water resources programs. To pro-
    perly evaluate and stay abreast of projects being built, the
    Congress needs such information at various stages of a project's
    development--that is, at initial authorization and during the
    planning, design, and construction phases.

         Lengthy planning, design, and construction periods compounded
    by rising prices due to inflation have driven up project costs.
    Both the Congress and the administration have expressed concern
    about the seemingly excessive time--as much as 31 years--required
    for a project to move from conception to reality. With the in-
    creased emphasis on reducing Federal spending, the Congress will
    have to make some difficult decisions regarding funding ongoing
    projects as well as any new projects which may be proposed for
    funding. Identifying steps that could shorten development periods
    could be a key to holding down overall project costs.

         Inflation is adding to the total price of water projects.
    For example, the Corps, as of fiscal year 1982, lists 439 "active"
    water projects, bearing a price tag of $52 billion, that have
    been authorized by the Congress. So far, only about $19 billion
    of that amount has actually been spent. Applying an inflation
    rate of 10 percent would result in an annual increase of $3.3 bil-
    lion for inflation--which is greater than the Corps' annual con-
    struction budget of approximately $2 billion.

                                   12

         many reservoirs and dams are over 50 years old and are in
    need of renovation and replacement of major equipment. Corps and
    Bureau officials have said rehabilitation is, and will continue
    to be, a very important activity. With the current emphasis on
    saving money, it becomes more important to rehabilitate and
    replace equipment, thus lengthening the life of existing proj-
    ects and related equipment. Timely action can also help limit
    the deterioration of existing structures which would later pre-
    clude unnecessary spending to make needed repairs.

    ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED

         To identify and highlight ways to select, construct, and
    rehabilitate water projects in the most economical and efficient
    manner, the following issues and questions must be addressed.

         1. Are the methodologies used to compute project benefits
             and costs adequate? Do they require sufficient documen-
             tation and periodic updating so that the Congress can
            make informed decisions? Are projects still economically
             justified or have conditions or purposes changed since
             they were initially authorized?

         2. Are effective actions being taken to rehabilitate facil-
             ities and replace equipment and are feasible alternative
             solutions fully considered? Do procedures exist to help
             identify when and where rehabilitative measures are
             needed?

         3. Does the Federal Government design and construct water
             projects economically and efficiently? Are there steps
             that can speed up the entire project development and
             construction process?

    GAO ASSIGNMENTS IN PROGRESS

         --Review of Federal policies and practices in performing
           general investigations for new water projects.

         --Review of economies that can be achieved in the
           construction of water resources projects.

         --Review of the Corps of Engineers'I small projects
           program.

                                   13

                                 CHAPTER 4

         ARE WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS EFFICIENTLY, EFFECTIVELY,

            ECONOMICALLY, AND SAFELY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED?

    MAJOR ISSUES

         The Federal Government has an investment of over $26 billion
    in completed water resources projects. To protect this investment
    in an era of tight fiscal constraints, it becomes more essential
    that existing projects be operated and maintained optimally--
    greatest benefits at minimum cost. Excluding navigation which is
    addressed in chapter 5, the Corps and the Bureau are spending over
    one-half billion dollars annually to operate and maintain water
    resources projects. This figure is projected to increase more
    than 300 percent in the next decade.

         The major issues within this area of water resources
    activity are concerned with

         --whether water project operations are effectively and
           efficiently meeting modern-day needs and

         --whether water project maintenance programs are ensuring
           adequate service, prolonged life, and safe operations
           at the lowest possible costs.

         In the past, the Congress and Federal water agencies have
    concentrated their attention on the very costly water project
    construction programs. Comparatively, less attention has been
    paid to operating and maintaining existing facilities. Because
    of limited funding, these activities have often been managed by
    the agencies using a philosophy that requires taking shortcuts
    and postponing needed expenditures. Consequently, there are
    projects in need of hundred's of millions--perhaps even billions--
    of dollars to repair the inadequate, leaking, or deteriorating
    structures.

         Operational decisions to balance the diverse services of water
    projects is becoming increasingly difficult and controversial.
    Water projects generally provide one or more of the following
    services--irrigation water storage, hydroelectric power generation,
    municipal and industrial water supply, flood control, recreation,
    and fish and wildlife enhancement. How best to allocate the avail-
    able water supply and how best to conduct water project operations
    to meet present-day demands of competing water interests are
    questions of considerable public interest and interagency rivalry.

         In many cases operations are conducted in accordance with
    laws, regulations, and circumstances which were applicable at the
    time a project was placed in operation rather than what may pro-
    vide the most beneficial or efficient use today. For example,
    modern-day needs may call for higher priorities on power

                                   14

    generation and municipal and industrial water use rather than on
    irrigation, which had the highest priority when the project was
    constructed decades ago. Recreation and fish and wildlife pur-
    poses have also taken on new and demanding importance. Reorder-
    ing priorities later in a project's life can be controversial,
    emotional, and difficult to do. Nevertheless, operations need to
    be reevaluated in the context of today's needs and appropriate
    policy and legislative changes made.

         Another essential element to effective operations is main-
    tenance. Without adequate maintenance, facilities deteriorate
    and their operations become less effective and efficient. Many
    existing projects are beginning to age. It has been estimated
    that by the year 2000, the age of over one-third of the dams will
    exceed 50 years. Yet, keeping them functioning at peak efficiency
    and production is becoming critical because of the increasing
    demand for water and decreasing affordability of new projects.
    Maintenance is also crucial to the safety of water project oper-
    ations. Safety is a paramount concern because unsafe operations
    or possible dam collapse can cause the loss of thousands of lives
    and millions of dollars in property damages.

         Water resources agencies face a dilemma. They now claim they
    are at the crossroad of continuing or curtailing normal, routine
    operations and maintenance activities. Replacements, additions,
    and extraordinary maintenance work have already been delayed.
    According to the agencies, eliminating these services over the
    long run will seriously jeopardize water deliveries or power pro-
    duction in areas vitally dependent on them.

         Funding levels to a great degree dictate the type of program
    undertaken. Effective planning and management also have their
    effects. Inadequate funding and poor management generally result
    in (1) curtailing operations although peak production may be
    needed and (2) shifting from a more cost-effective preventive
    maintenance program to a repair as needed program which may be
    both dangerous and uneconomical in the long run.

    ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED

         To bring about improvements in operating and maintaining
    projects, the following questions must be addressed.

         1. Are water resources projects being maintained properly
             to provide the most cost-effective and safe operations
             of the facilities?

         2. Are the original purposes of water resources projects
            meeting current needs and priorities, and what steps
             could be taken to optimize project benefits today?

                                   15

         3. Are the diverse functions of multipurpose projects
             adequately balanced to fulfill the project's intended
             purposes?

    GAO ASSIGNMENTS IN PROGRESS

         --Survey of opportunities to improve the management of
          water project operations.

                                   16

                                CHAPTER 5

          HOW CAN THE NATION'S NAVIGATION SYSTEM BE DEVELOPED,

               OPERATED, AND MAINTAINED IN MORE EF'FECTIVE,

                     ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT WAYS?

    MAJOR ISSUES

         An effectively managed and maintained waterways system is
    vital to supporting the national goals of energy self sufficiency,
    improved balance of payments--primarily through export of grain
    and coal.--economic growth, and national defense. Since 1824, the
    Corps of Engineers has been responsible for assuring the integrity
    of the system at Federal expense.

         As part of its activities, the Corps constructs, operates,
    and maintains navigation improvement projects in U.S. harbors
    and inland waterways. In total, the Corps operates and maintains
    about 219 lock and dam facilities and other control structures
    on some 25,000 miles of inland and intercoastal waterways and
    maintains over 100 commercial harbors and 416 small boat harbors.

         The cost of providing these navigation services is high.
    In each of fiscal years 1981 and 1982, the Corps was appropriated
    about $1.2 billion to carry out its navigation functions.--about
    one-third of its total civil works budget.

         Three of the major issues involving the navigation system
    are as follows.

         --What can be done to help assure that only the most eco-
           nomical and effective navigation projects are constructed?

         --Given the escalating cost to operate, maintain, and
           rehabilitate aging facilities, what actions can be
           taken to ensure that funds are spent in the most effi-
           cient and effective manner?

         --Should user fees or other cost-sharing provisions be
           instituted for navigation improvement projects?

         These issues will receive considerable congressional atten-
    tion during the next few years because of heightened concern over
    Government spending, the results of two recent studies, and recent
    cost recovery proposals. Specifically:

         --Development of large specialized ships that take advantage
           of the economies available through large-scale movement of
           cargo has significantly affected port operations and
           development. The trend to larger and deeper vessels has
           prompted many ports to request the Corps to deepen their
           harbors and channels.

                                   17

         --The Corps recently completed a congressionally mandated
           review and assessment of the national waterways system.
           The study draft .1/ which was released for public comment
           in mid-1981 contained specific recommendations for improve-
           ment which, if implemented, would cost about $32 billion
           (1981 dollars).

         --In March 1981 the administration proposed that users of
           the Nation's harbors and waterways assume a share of the
           cost of developing and maintaining ports, waterways, and
           navigation locks. This, coupled with the publication
           (February 1982) of the inland waterway user taxes and
           charges study, will undoubtedly continue to generate consid-
           erable debate in the Congress. Until user fees of 4 cents
           a gallon on fuel were imposed selectively on specified
           inland and intracoastal waterways in October 1980, use
           of waterways had been free to barges and ships.

    Economical and effective construction
    of navigation improvement projects

         in fiscal year 1983 the Corps requested $452 million to
    finance construction work on 28 navigation projects. This amount
    represents less than 10 percent of the latest projected total cost
    of these projects. Among the more costly projects for which fiscal
    year 1983 funds have been requested are the Tennessee-Tombigbee
    Waterway ($186 million), Lock and Dam Number 26 ($68 million), the
    R~ed River Waterway ($30 million), and deepening channels at 7
    export port locations ($43 million).

         Given the enormous cost overruns experienced on some navi-
    gation projects, inflation, and efforts to reduce Federal spending,
    the Congress appears willing to reevaluate the need to construct
    many projects. For currently authorized projects, questions that
    will be asked by the Congress include (1) are the projects still
    economically justified, (2) have conditions changed since the
    project was initially authorized, and (3) is this the best use
    of the tax dollar. In reviewing proposed projects, considerable
    congressional attention probably will be focused on the need for
    the projects, the accuracy of the benefit-cost analyses, and
    whether only the most economical and effective projects are being
    constructed.

    I/According to Corps representatives, considerable changes have
      been made to the draft since it was first released, but they
      were not specific about what the changes are. The final
      report is expected in May 1982.

                                   18

         Probably the most urgent navigation issue before the Congress
    is the need to deepen our ports. According to the Corps, over the
    next 20 years, 10 to 12 ports will be deepened to the 50- to 55-foot
    range, and the cost would probably range from $200 million to $500
    million per port. The National Waterways Study draft recommended
    that to improve our Nation's waterways system three deep draft
    ports should be developed at an estimated cost of $1.7 billion
    (1981 dollars). These high costs will necessitate selectivity
    from among the various alternative port locations and may require
    imposing some form of cost recovery.

    Reducing costs of rehabilitating,
    operating, and maintaining navigation projects

         Since World War II, resources have been directed to extending
    the waterway system rather than intensively developing the exist-
    ing system. Consequently, needed maintenance, including rehabili-
    tation, has often been postponed. Priorities are now shifting to
    upgrading our existing waterways. As we enter a period of fiscal
    restraint, all needed improvements in the navigation system cannot
    be made or will be made only after considerable scrutiny by the
    Congress.

         The most serious constraint to handling navigation traffic
    efficiently is that key facilities in the inland waterway system
    are getting old and may be technologically outdated. For example,
    the average age of the system's 184 principal locks is 40 years,
    and some are approaching 80. The National Waterways Study draft
    predicted that the annual cost to rehabilitate our existing facil-
    ities would increase fourfold by the year 2000. The Corps' appro-
    priation for rehabilitation was $63 million in fiscal year 1982,
    but it has only requested $23 million for fiscal year 1983.

         Next to construction, operations and maintenance of existing
    facilities is the largest cost item in the Corps' navigation bud-
    get. This activity includes dredging, constructing bulkheads,
    repairing channel and canal stabilization works and harbor jetties,
    and replacing parts for day-to-day functioning. Besides increased
    operation and maintenance costs due to the age of the facilities,
    the costs will also continually be driven up by inflation and the
    added cost of complying with environmental regulations, particularly
    those associated with disposing of dredged material in an environ-
    mentally safe manner.

         In fiscal year 1982 the Corps received about $507 million
    for navigation-related operation and maintenance--about one-sixth
    of its total civil works budget. In an effort to hold down an
    ever increasing Corps budget, the administration's fiscal year 1983
    budget request proposes discontinuing, or drastically reducing
    operation and maintenance of lower use, lower priority navigation
    projects. The Corps estimates that this action alone would save
    about $150 million in fiscal year 1983.

                                   19

         Costs could increase dramatically in the years ahead, partic-
    ularly for rehabilitation, operation, and maintenance because (1)
    existing navigation facilities are becoming old and will require
    significant rehabilitation in order to handle traffic efficiently
    and (2) necessary routine operation and maintenance activities,
    which keep inland waterways navigable, are becoming increasingly
    more expensive.

    User fees and cost sharing

         The inland waterways were traditionally constructed and
    maintained at Federal expense by the Corps. However, beginning
    in fiscal year 1981, a fuel tax was imposed on commercial cargo
    vessels operating on 26 specific inland and intracoastal water-
    ways--about 40 percent of the navigable miles of all such water-
    ways. Beginning at 4 cents a gallon, the tax will eventually
    increase to 10 cents a gallon in fiscal year 1986. Revenues
    collected will be made available--after authorization and
    appropriation--for constructing and rehabilitating these water-
    ways. The intent, however, is not to recover the full cost of
    operating, maintaining, and developing the inland waterways.

         As costs continue to escalate, a movement to recover more of
    the costs from waterway users can be anticipated. Along these
    lines, the administration, in March 1981, proposed assessing ships
    and barges for a share of the full cost of improving ports, water-
    ways, and navigation locks. Also, several bills introduced in the
    97th Congress have provisions for up-front financing or repayment.

    ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED

         To ensure that the Congress has the vital information it needs
    on (1) whether adequate measures are being taken to preserve the
    existing navigation system and (2) whether the system is being
    administered to effectively meet changing demands, the following
    questions or issues must be addressed.

         1. Are the methodologies used to compute navigation
             improvement benefits and costs adequate? Do they require
             sufficient documentation and periodic updating so that
             the Congress can make informed decisions? Are the proj-
             ects still economically justified or have conditions or
             purposes changed since they were initially authorized?

         2. Are effective actions being taken to rehabilitate
             navigation facilities and replace equipment and are
             feasible alternative solutions fully considered? Do
            procedures exist to help identify when and where
            rehabilitative measures are needed?

                                   20

         3. Are navigation improvement projects being maintained
             in such a way as to provide the most cost-effective
            operation of the facilities?

         4. Are there alternative ways of financing navigation
            project development and operation and maintenance
            activities?

    GAO ASSIGNMENTS IN PROGRESS

        --Survey of operation and maintenance activities of the
          Nation's inland waterways.

                                   21

                                 CHAPTER 6

            ARE COST ALLOCATIONS, REPAYMENT, AND FINANCING

             POLICIES FOR FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

                   EFFECTIVELY MEETING TODAY'S NEEDS?

    MAJOR ISSUES

         "Water (supplied from Federal reservoirs] is cheaper than
    dirt" according to some economists. In a recent Senate floor
    debate, a Senator said

         "A larger share of the burden of subsidizing Fed-
         eral water projects should be shifted from the
         backs of taxpayers to the pocketbooks of those
         who benefit most from their construction."

    Supporters of cheap water argue that the national return on
    investment from subsidies in terms of food production, exports,
    and contributions to urban and rural development offset the cost.
    Excessively cheap or heavily subsidized water has long been the
    winning position of this country's national water policy. Times
    are changing. With construction costs and interest rates sky-
    rocketing, the Federal Government may no longer be able to afford
    the lion's share of financing water resource projects.

         Reclamation, flood control, and water supply laws have
    established policy for cost sharing, financing, and repayment
    terms which may no longer be valid in today's conditions. These
    laws contained generous features, such as interest-free financing,
    liberal contract terms, and long-term (up to 60 years) fixed price
    repayment periods. While these laws were enacted for specific
    purposes--such as, settlement of the West through providing cheap
    water--substantial changes in the economy and population patterns
    have occurred since these laws were passed. These antiquated
    policies are or will be applied to future projects--unless changed.

         Who puts up the money and who repays how much over time are
    major issues that the Congress faces in deliberating water policy
    reform. Existing Federal water project repayment laws and
    policies have been questioned for heavily subsidizing water users.
    Congressional committees, Presidential task forces, and advisory
    committes have concluded that reforms are needed to match the
    growing concern for fiscal austerity. With a new administration
    and many changes in the Congress, a debate over the future of
    Federal water repayment policy is taking shape. These issues may
    take years to resolve, but it seems clear that the day of
    unquestioned low-cost or free water and generous repayment terms
    may be over.

         In 1981 Senators Domenici (New Mexico) and Moynihan
    (New York) introduced S. 621, the National Water Resources Policy

                                   22

    Act of 1981, which proposes to completely change the manner in
    which water resource development projects are authorized, funded,
    and repaid. The bill calls for annual water project construction
    appropriations that would be apportioned among the individual
    States based on their area and population. States would also be
    required to pay, or contribute in kind, 25 percent of construction
    costs and 50 percent of operation and maintenance costs. Currently,
    the Federal Government finances almost 100 percent of these costs.

         Similarly, the Water Pricing Reform Act of 1981 (H.R. 2606)
    was introduced to establish an improved water-pricing system to
    reduce "unjustified subsidies" and to more rapidly recover costs.
    The legislation proposes that users pay (1) all construction costs
    properly allocable to irrigation, municipal and industrial, and
    power purposes, (2) all operation and maintenance costs, and (3)
    interest on these charges. In contrast, present laws now allow
    interest-free or low-interest rates, no reimbursement for flood
    control costs, repayment of only a small percentage of construction
    cost by the irrigators, and less than actual operation and mainte-
    nance cost due to existing allocation procedures.

         These legislative proposals, similar to bills introduced in
    previous sessions of the Congress and never acted upon, reflect
    an increasing concern for reform.

         Major issues within this area of water resources include

         --more equitable cost-sharing arrangements among water users,

         --full cost recovery from water users,

         --strengthening repayment terms, and

         --alternative financing methods.

    Cost-sharing arrangments--who should pay?

         The law generally requires that project costs be recovered
    from irrigation, municipal and industrial, and hydroelectric
    users. Costs for other purposes such as flood control, fish and
    wildlife, and recreation are absorbed (nonreimbursable) by the
    Federal Government because they are considered to have national
    benefits. Costs for repayment are apportioned to the purposes
    served by a complex web of rules established over the years by
    congressional acts and administrative decisions. These rules
    and decisions have allowed for a lot of flexibility and inter-
    pretation into how much cost is to be recovered.

         Consequently, critics repeatedly cite examples of users
    paying too little and argue for new cost-allocation policies to
    increase fairness in distributing financial burdens. For

                                   23

    example, on six irrigation projects we recently reviewed, I/ the
    Federal Government's cost to provide the water ranged from $54 to
    $130 per acre-foot(325,851 gallons). Yet, the users paid only
    $0.27 to $9.82.

    Pricing--should water
    prices be increased?

        Water projects are largely financed by the Federal Government.
    Funds are advanced for project construction and upon completion,
    the Government requires the water users to repay the Federal costs
    in installments over periods of up to 60 years.

         The prices paid, however, vary tremendously. Irrigation
    users can pay far less than total cost ($0.27 versus $54 per acre-
    foot). Existing rates charged municipal and industrial water
    customers--$2 to $50 per acre-foot--are extremely low because of
    subsidized low-interest loans. Realistically, charges of $0.27
    to $50 per acre-foot equate to only 8 hundredths of a cent to 2
    cents per 100 gallons--far less than the true water service cost.

         Pricing for water programs--ability to pay, willingness to
    pay, full cost, or market value--is sure to be one of the major
    issues in the future. The answers will not be easy because they
    involve a complex, delicate, and controversial balance between
    other issues--pricing farmers out of business, increasing cost of
    food to consumers, and diverting farmlands. It may, however, no
    longer be justified, as it once may have been, to make water
    available at less than its full cost. Water is too valuable to
    be given away or priced way below cost in today's or tomorrow's
    environment.

    Repayment terms--tough or generous,
    fixed or adjustable?

         Over $5 billion in repayment contracts are now in effect.
    Costs are not being recovered on these contracts signed in the
    1950's and 1960's. For example, in the Bureau of Reclamation's
    California Central Valley Project, the practice of marketing muni-
    cipal and industrial water at inadequate rates and with contract
    provisions which do not permit periodic rate adjustments are con-
    tributing to deficits which will reach over $130 million by the
    year 1995--over $2 billion by the year 2020, if not corrected.

    1/"Federal Changes for Irrigation Projects Reviewed Do Not Cover
      Costs" (PAD-81-07, Mar. 13, 1981).

                                   24

         Even though existing contracts are long term, as many as 40
    or 50 contracts per year may be renegotiated at various times to
    incorporate something the water user may want (increase in water
    deliveries, etc.). Such renegotiations provide the opportunity
    for the Federal Government to pursue greater cost recovery, if
    it so desires.

    Financing-- is there a better way?

         Existing water resources projects were built and financed
    almost totally by long-term U.S. Treasury borrowing. The fiscal
    year 1983 'request for water project construction funding is about
    $1.9 billion. The magnitude of future capital expenditures has
    not been and probably cannot be estimated with any degree of
    certainty. However, with rising construction costs, inflation,
    and interest rates, the price will be high.

         Current budget constraints raise doubts about the availability
    of adequate financial resources or the willingness of users to
    increase their contributions. Alternative means of raising capital
    (greater State participation, Federal grants, State bonds, revenue
    sharing, property taxes, user charges, joint ventures, etc.) will
    need to be explored.

    ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED

         Issues that need to be addressed include Federal cost
    allocations, repayment policies, and financing methods in light
    of today's conditions and whether they are fair and equitable
    to identifiable users and taxpayers. Specific questions are:

         1. Should identifiable beneficiaries be required to assume
             a larger share of the costs of water provided by Federal
             water resources projects?

         2. Are the debt repayment provisions such as interest rates
             and repayment schedules and procedures reasonable and
             consistent with legislative requirements, and do they
             need revision?

         3. Is the Federal Government actually recovering the money
             due it under existing repayment agreements?

         4. Should the water resources agencies require more realistic
             charges for water?

         5. Are viable alternatives available which would reduce
             financial burdens now borne by taxpayers?

                                   25

    GAO ASSIGNMENTS IN PROGRESS

          -Review of contracting procedures and water releases from
           Lake Tahoe.

         --Review of the nonrecovery of Federal expenditures for
           operation and maintenance on major Federal water projects.

         --Survey of the effect of proposed interest rate formulas
           on recovering the true cost to the Government of loaning
          money for reclamation projects.

                                   26

    APPENDIX I                                                APPENDIX I

                    WATER RELATED GAO REPORTS ISSUED

                    BETWEEN MAY 1980 AND APRIL 1982

    "Contracts To Provide Space in Federal Reservoirs for Future Water
    Supplies Should Be More Flexible" (CED-80-78, May 16, 1980)

    "Accounting for Collection for Operation and Maintenance Expenses"
    (Denver Regional Office, May 28, 1980)

    "Financial Implications of a Proposed Monthly Water Service
    Repayment Change Under the Federal Reclamation Act" (CED-0-253,
    June 5, 1980)

    "Managerial Changes Needed To Speed Up Processing Permits for
    Dredging Projects" Request of Chairman, House Committee on Merchant
    Marine and Fisheries (CED-80-71, June 9, 1980)

    "The Bureau of Reclamation Penalty Rates for Delinquent Payments
    Do Not Comply with U.S. Treasury Requirements" (San Francisco
    Regional Office, Aug. 19, 1980)

    "Rural Water Problems: An Overview" (CED-80-120, Aug. 20, 1980)

    "Improvements Are Needed in USDA's Soil and Water Resources
    Conservation Act Reports" (CED-80-132, Sept. 3, 1980)

    "Savings Available By Eliminating Duplicate Bonding Requirements"
    (Seattle Regional Office, Sept. 3, 1980)

    "California Westlands Water District's Contract for Distribution
    and Drainage System" (CED-0-264, Oct. 10, 1980)

    "Congressional Guidance Needed on Federal Cost Share of Water
    Resource Projects When Project Benefits Are Not Widespread"
    (CED-81-12, Nov. 13, 1980)

    "Additional Federal Aid for Urban Water Distribution Systems
    Should Wait Until Needs Are Clearly Established" (CED-81-17,
    Nov. 24, 1980)

    "Federal Water Resources Agencies Should Assess Less Costly Ways
    To Comply With Regulations" (CED-81-36, Feb. 17, 1981)

    "Legal question on the Department of the Interior's compliance
    with law requiring a valid repayment contract as conditions for
    water deliveries to Westlands Water District" (Office of General
    Counsel, B-199162, Feb. 18, 1981)

    "Federal-Interstate Compact Commissions: Useful Mechanisms for
    Planning and Managing River Basin Operations" (CED-81-34,
    Feb. 20, 1981)

    "Federal Charges for Irrigation Projects Reviewed Do Not Cover
    Costs" (PAD-81-07, Mar. 13, 1981)

                                   27

    APPENDIX I                                                 APPENDIX I

    "Information on the Resale of Water Provided Under Contract by
    the Federal Government in California" Request of Congressman
    George Miller (CED-81-95, Apr. 21, 1981)

    "Impact Uncertain Reorganization of the Water and Power
    Resources Service" Request of Senator Dennis DeConcini and nine
    other Senators (CED-81-80, Apr. 29, 1981)

    "To Continue or Halt the Tenn-Tom Waterway? Information To Help
    the Congress Resolve the Controversy" Request of the Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Senate Committee
    on Appropriations, and five other Members of Congress (CED-81-89,
    May 15, 1981)

    "Information on the Resale of Federal Project Water Supplies
    Intermediaries" Request of Congressman George Miller (CED-81-102,
    May 27, 1981)

    "Information on the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission's
    Master Plan Contracting Procedures" Request of the Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, House Committee
    on Appropriations (CED-81-106, May 27, 1981)

    "River Basin Commissions Have Been Helpful, But Changes Are
    Needed" (CED-81-69, May 28, 1981)

    "Congressional Action Needed To Provide a Better Focus On Water-
    Related Research Activities" (CED-81-87, June 5, 1981)

    "The Corps' Penalty Rates for Late Payments Are Not Based on
    Treasury's Current Value of Funds" (Kansas City Regional Office,
    July 15, 1981)

    "Changes in Federal Water Project Repayment Policies Can Reduce
    Federal Costs" (CED-81-77, Aug. 7, 1981)

    "Eliminating Contractor Inspections of Federal Water Projects
    Could Save Millions" (CED-81-146, Sept. 29, 1981)

    "Reforming Interest Provisions in Federal Water Laws Could Save
    Millions" (CED-82-3, Oct. 22, 1981)

    "Information on the Army Corps of Engineers' Contracting
    for Dredging Work on the Great Lakes" Request of Senator
    Donald W. Reigle, Jr. (CED-82-10, Nov. 10, 1981)

    "Information on California Delta Water Quality Standards" (CED-
    82-30, Jan. 18, 1982)

    "Corps of Engineers Should Reevaluate the Elk Creek Project's
    Benefits and Costs" (CED-82-53, Mar. 15, 1982)

                                   28

    APPENDIX I                                                APPENDIX I

    "Information on Corps of Engineers Deauthorization Program for
    Water Projects" (CED-82-55, Mar. 23, 1982)

    "Information on Federal Funding of Portions of the San Luis Unit
    of the California Central Valley Project" (CED-82-64, Apr. 13,
    1982)

                                  29

     APPENDIX II                                            APPENDIX II

                           CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

                    WITH WATER-RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES

    Senate

         Committee on Appropriations
              Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
              Subcommittee on Interior
              Subcommittee on Transportation

         Committee on the Budget

         Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
              Subcommittee on Public Lands and Reserved Water
              Subcommittee on Water and Power

         Committee on Environment and Public Works
              Subcommittee on Transportation
              Subcommittee on Water Resources

    House of Representatives

         Committee on Appropriations
              Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
              Subcommittee on Interior
              Subcommittee on Transportation

         Committee on the Budget

         Committee on Energy and Commerce
              Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation and Tourism
              Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power

         Committee on Government Operations
              Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and
                Natural Resources

         Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
              Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment
              Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources

         Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
              Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation

        Committee on Public 'Works and Transportation
              Subcommittee on Water Resources

        Committee on Science and Technology
              Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture,
                Research and Environment

    (995025)

                                   30

    PRIORITY                                  GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
    DELIVERY                DOCUMENT HANDLING AND INFORMATION SERVICES FACILITY
    RECEIPT                                 BOX 6015, GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 20760
    DATE    /' ."i'TELEPHONE (202) 275-6241

                                                               F-
    REQUEST NO.:     O v     ,    : . .. .             .

              DOCUMENT NO.             ACCESSION NO,  hif  QTY.

                                                               L