[Final Audit Report on the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, Bureau of Reclamation]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 98-I-383

Title: Final Audit Report on the Central Valley Project Restoration
       Fund, Bureau of Reclamation

     Date:  March 31, 1998




                  **********DISCLAIMER**********

     This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report.  No attempt
     has been made to display graphic images or illustrations.  Some tables
     may be included, but may not resemble those in the printed version.

     A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the PDF
     file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division of
     Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 208-4599.

                  ******************************




  
     U.S. Department of the Interior
     Office of Inspector General                              
    
     AUDIT REPORT

     CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND,
     BUREAU OF RECLAMATION       

     REPORT NO. 98-I-383
     MARCH 1998            



     MEMORANDUM
  
     TO:  The Secretary
  
     FROM: Robert J. Williams
           Acting Inspector General
  
     SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Final Audit Report for Your Information -
                       "Central Valley Project Restoration Fund,
                       Bureau of Reclamation" (No. 98-I-383)
  
     Attached for your information is a copy of the subject final
     report. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the
     Bureau of Reclamation complied with requirements of the Central
     Valley Project Improvement Act as they related to Restoration
     Fund assessments, collections, and expenditures. Since inception
     of the Restoration Fund on October 30, 1992, the Bureau
     collected about $129 million from water and power users.
     Conversely, expenditures for restoration activities totaled
     about $175 million, of which $87 million was provided by the
     Restoration Fund and $88 million by direct Federal
     appropriations.
  
     Overall, we found that the Bureau was in compliance with the
     requirements of the Act as they pertained to Restoration Fund
     assessments, collections, and expenditures. However, we
     concluded that the Bureau's Mid-Pacific Region could improve its
     accounting for Restoration Fund activities by integrating the
     automated systems used to account for assessments and payments
     for water deliveries. We also found that the Region had not
     annually accounted for the costs incurred under an agreement
     with the State of California to identify the State's share of
     costs of restoration activities or negotiated additional task
     orders for repayment of California's share of ongoing
     restoration activities (which we estimated to be over $31.6
     million). Finally, we found that the Bureau had not submitted to
     the Congress the following reports: (1) the program report for
     fiscal year 1995 and the program and financial reports for
     fiscal year 1996, as required by the Act, and (2) the special
     reports for fiscal year 1996.
  
     In its response, the Bureau agreed with all three of our
     recommendations to address these issues. Based on the response,
     we considered one recommendation resolved and implemented and
     two recommendations resolved but not implemented.
  
     If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact
     me at (202) 208-5745.
  
     Attachment                                          W-IN-BOR-009-96 
  
     AUDIT REPORT
  
     Memorandum
  
     To:  Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation
  
     From:  Robert J. Williams
            Acting Inspector General
  
     Subject:  Final Audit Report on the Central Valley Project
               Restoration Fund,  Bureau of Reclamation (No. 98-I-383)
  
     INTRODUCTION
  
     This report presents the results of our review of the Bureau of
     Reclamation's Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. The Fund
     was established by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
     Title 34 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
     Adjustment Act (Public Law 102-575), enacted on October 30,
     1992. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the
     Bureau complied with requirements of the Central Valley Project
     Improvement Act as they related to Restoration Fund assessments,
     collections, and expenditures.
  
     BACKGROUND
  
     The Central Valley Project, authorized in 1935 and located in the
     Central Valley of California, is an integrated network that
     includes 16 storage dams and reservoirs, 3 diversion dams, over
     600 miles of canals and aqueducts, 2 pump-generating plants, 7
     hydroelectric power plants, and 3 fish hatcheries. It is the
     Bureau's largest multipurpose water project and has been
     operated primarily to provide flood control, water for
     irrigation and municipal and industrial use, and power
     generation. The Project provides water, through over 250 water
     service contracts with water districts and authorities, for
     irrigation of about 3 million acres of farmland and for more
     than 2 million urban residents and Federal, state, and private
     wildlife refuges.
  
     The Central Valley Project Improvement Act significantly expanded
     the Secretary of the Interior's authority to restore fish and
     wildlife and their habitats in the rivers and streams impacted
     by the Project. Specifically, the Act required the Secretary to
     develop and implement activities to protect, restore, and
     enhance fish and wildlife and their associated habitats in the
     Central Valley and in the Trinity River Basin. The Act
     identified over 40 specific restoration activities, which
     included (1) nonstructural actions such as acquiring water and
     land and improving habitat conditions in streams and tributaries
     and (2) structural actions such as constructing a temperature
     control device at Shasta Dam and fish passage facilities at Red
     Bluff Diversion Dam. Specific cost-sharing requirements by the
     State of California were included in 15 of the more than 40
     specific restoration activities.
  
     As specified in the Act, these restoration activities are funded
     by direct Federal appropriations, cost sharing from California,
     and the Restoration Fund. The Restoration Fund obtains revenues
     from annual charges of up to $50 million (October 1992 price
     levels) from Project water and power users. However, as required
     by Section 3404 of the Act, full annual charges cannot be
     collected from the water users until an environmental impact
     statement is completed on the Project. Until that time, water
     user charges are primarily limited to restoration payments and
     to surcharges on water delivered through the Project's Friant
     Division, as stipulated in Sections 3406(c)(1), 3407(c), and
     3407(d) of the Act. Restoration payments and surcharges are
     assessed based on the acre-feet of water delivered.
  
     The Bureau's Mid-Pacific Region, in Sacramento, California, is
     responsible for accounting for Restoration Fund revenues and
     expenditures. To account for these revenues and expenditures,
     the Region used the Governmentwide Federal Financial System,
     which accounts for financial statement and budget-related data
     Bureauwide; the Region's Water Payment, Delivery and Revenue
     Accounting System (referred to as the 705 Works System), which
     serves essentially as the customer billing and accounts
     receivable system for the Central Valley Project; and
     spreadsheet systems maintained by the Regional Office and area
     offices.  Since inception of the Restoration Fund on October 30,
     1992, to June 30, 1997, the Bureau collected about $129 million
     from water and power users. Restoration Fund collections totaled
     about $33.6 million for fiscal year 1995, $46.8 million for
     fiscal year 1996, and $18.7 million for fiscal year 1997
     (through June 30, 1997). Since passage of the Act on October 30,
     1992, through June 30, 1997, expenditures for restoration
     activities totaled about $175 million, of which $87 million was
     provided by the Restoration Fund and $88 million by direct
     Federal appropriations. Restoration Fund expenditures totaled
     $24.5 million for fiscal year 1995, $30 million for fiscal year
     1996, and $23 million for fiscal year 1997 (through June 30,
     1997).
  
     In accordance with Section 3406(h) of the Act, the Bureau of
     Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in June
     1994, entered into a cost-sharing agreement with the State of
     California in which California is required to pay up to $50
     million toward restoration activities contingent on available
     State funding and legislative authority. The agreement requires
     that individual task orders be executed for each restoration
     activity. Since June 1994, the State of California has signed
     one cost-sharing task order agreement to contribute $1.5 million
     for the restoration-related Georgiana Slough Control Barrier
     activity.
  
     On November 5, 1996, California voters passed Proposition 204,
     also known as the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act, which
     funds numerous environmental activities within the State,
     including restoration of the Bay-Delta (San Francisco
     Bay/Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta in California), levee
     rehabilitation, and assistance to California in meeting most of
     its cost-sharing commitment under the Act. The proposition
     provides for issuing bonds totaling $995 million. Under this
     proposition, $93 million of the $995 million of bond sales was
     to be used to meet California's cost-sharing requirements under
     Section 3406 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
     Since passage of the proposition, California has sold bonds
     totaling about $64.4 million to assist California in meeting a
     portion of its cost-sharing requirements under the Act. Regional
     officials told us that since June 1997, the Bureau's Mid-Pacific
     Region and the Service have been negotiating with California to
     finalize four task orders totaling about $30 million to fund
     restoration activities under the Act. Regional officials also
     stated that for fiscal year 1998, the Mid-Pacific Region and the
     Service also plan to negotiate additional task orders with
     California totaling about $30.4 million to fund additional
     restoration activities under the Act.
  
     SCOPE OF AUDIT
  
     We conducted our audit at the Bureau's Mid-Pacific Regional
     Office and at selected area offices within the Region (see
     Appendix 1). To accomplish our objective, we reviewed and
     analyzed documents, financial records, and activities of the
     Restoration Fund that occurred from October 30, 1992, through
     June 30, 1996. We also performed tests of Restoration Fund
     assessments, collections, and expenditures for fiscal years 1995
     and 1996 (through June 30, 1996). These tests included verifying
     the accuracy of assessments and collections based on the
     delivery of Project water for fiscal year 1995; confirming the
     validity of accounts receivable balances of non-Federal
     contractors as of March 31, 1996; and reviewing the propriety of
     selected expenditures. We also interviewed Bureau and Service
     program and administrative personnel and an assistant regional
     solicitor from the Office of the Solicitor's Pacific Southwest
     Regional Office, in Sacramento, concerning programmatic and
     legislative requirements of the Act. In addition, in July 1997,
     we discussed our preliminary findings with officials and updated
     the Fund's revenue and expenditures to reflect balances as of
     June 30, 1997.
  
     Our audit was made in accordance with the "Government Auditing
     Standards," issued by the Comptroller General of the United
     States. Accordingly, we included such tests of records and other
     auditing procedures that were considered necessary under the
     circumstances. As part of our audit, we reviewed the Department
     of the Interior's Annual Statement and Report for fiscal year
     1995, which is required by the Federal Managers' Financial
     Integrity Act, and the Departmental Report on Accountability for
     fiscal year 1996, which contains information required by the
     Act, and determined that none of the Department's reported
     weaknesses were related to the objective of this audit. We also
     evaluated the Mid-Pacific Region's system of internal controls
     related to Restoration Fund assessments, collections, and
     expenditures to the extent we considered necessary. The internal
     control weaknesses identified are discussed in the Results of
     Audit section of this report. Our recommendations, if
     implemented, should improve the internal controls.
  
     PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
  
     Neither the Office of Inspector General nor the General
     Accounting Office has issued any reports on the Restoration
     Fund.  However, in July 1995, the Office of Inspector General
     issued the advisory letter "Anadromous Fish Restoration
     Activities, Central Valley Project" (No. 95-AL-5), which related
     to restoration activities. The letter concluded that restoration
     funds were spent for approved purposes but noted that (1) the
     Mid-Pacific Region had not developed formalized cost allocation
     and repayment procedures for reimbursable restoration costs, (2)
     the State of California had not developed a revenue-collection
     mechanism to meet its cost-sharing commitment under the Central
     Valley Project Improvement Act, and (3) the Mid-Pacific Region
     had not developed procedures for applying reimbursement
     "credits." During our current audit, we found that the Mid
     -Pacific Region was taking actions to address the concerns noted.
  
     RESULTS OF AUDIT
  
     Overall, we found that the Bureau of Reclamation was in
     compliance with the requirements of the Central Valley Project
     Improvement Act as they pertained to Restoration Fund
     assessments, collections, and expenditures. In that regard, the
     Bureau had issued interim guidelines for assessing, collecting,
     and crediting payments from Central Valley Project water and
     power contractors and had involved stakeholder work groups in
     establishing priorities for uses of the Restoration Fund. In
     addition, in August 1996, Regional Office officials established
     a Restoration Fund Team to centralize financial activities
     associated with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and
     to function as a focal point for the Region's internal and
     external customers by providing assessment, collection, and
     expenditure data as the data pertained to the financial
     management of the Act and the Restoration Fund. However, we
     concluded that the Regional Office could improve its accounting
     for Restoration Fund activities by integrating the automated
     systems used to account for assessments and payments for water
     deliveries. The Regional Office also had not annually accounted
     for the costs incurred under the agreement with the State of
     California to identify the State's share of costs of restoration
     activities or negotiated additional task orders for repayment of
     California's share of ongoing restoration activities (which we
     estimated to be over $31.6 million). In addition, we found that
     the Bureau had not submitted to the Congress the following: (1)
     the program report for fiscal year 1995 and the program and
     financial reports for fiscal year 1996, as required by the Act,
     and (2) the special reports for fiscal year 1996.
  
     Accounting Systems
  
     The Mid-Pacific Regional Office used three independent systems to
     account for water deliveries, assessments, and payments. The
     General Accounting Office Policy and Procedures Manual for
     Guidance of Federal Agencies (Title 2) and the Treasury
     Accounting Manual require that accounting data be timely to be
     meaningful in managing Federal programs. Office of Management
     and Budget Circular A-127, "Financial Management Systems," also
     requires that financial management systems process and record
     financial transactions effectively and efficiently, including
     providing complete, timely, and reliable information to Federal
     decision makers and the public. In addition, Executive Order No.
     13011, dated July 17, 1996, which addresses Federal information
     technology, provides Federal agencies with the "clear authority
     and responsibility to make measurable improvements in mission
     performance and service delivery to the public" through
     implementation of integrated information systems. Instead of an
     integrated system, the Region tracked water deliveries through
     the Works System; recorded payment information in the Federal
     Financial System; and recorded combined information on water
     deliveries, assessments, and payments in a spreadsheet-based
     system maintained by the Regional Office. The maintenance of
     three separate systems resulted in the inefficient use of
     Regional Office resources (personnel and funds) and delayed the
     posting of payments in the system. In turn, the delayed posting
     of payments caused the receivables account identified in the
     Federal Financial System to be overstated.
  
     The Federal Financial System was designed to account for revenues
     and expenditures on a Bureauwide basis to produce annual
     consolidated financial statements that are required by the Chief
     Financial Officers Act of 1990. Although the system records
     revenues, it does not have an automated assessment and
     collection component to establish accounts receivable for the
     Restoration Fund. As a result, receivables are established in
     the Federal Financial System based on calculations made by
     regional finance personnel through their spreadsheet system.
  
     The Works System was designed to record, accumulate, and report
     on Project water deliveries, associated water charges, and the
     advance payment balances for the Project's water service
     contractors. The Works System was intended to provide historical
     water delivery and financial data such as monthly water
     contractor statements (Water Delivery Charges reports) and the
     monthly revenue-earned statements (Water Delivery Revenue
     reports). However, the Works System had not been modified to
     account for additional legislative requirements, such as the
     restoration water charges imposed by the Central Valley Project
     Improvement Act, since the system was developed in the 1970s and
     1980s. A June 1995 report prepared by an independent accountant
     on the Project's financial systems and rate-setting practices
     substantiated these and other deficiencies in the Works System.
     The report was requested by the Central Valley Project Water
     Association, an organization of Project water contractors. The
     report stated that the Works System "has not kept pace with the
     changing accounting environment and has not been properly
     maintained." The report also stated that "neither the Bureau nor
     the contractors placed a very high degree of reliance upon
     payment and advance account information obtained from the
     system" because information was not timely and reliable.
  
     The Mid-Pacific Region maintained a comprehensive spreadsheet
     system to assess and collect Restoration Fund revenues because
     neither the Federal Financial System nor the Works System
     adequately accounted for and reported water contractor payments.
     To assess charges for restoration activities, Regional personnel
     manually entered the contractor water deliveries recorded in the
     Works System into the Region's spreadsheet system, which
     automatically calculated the payments due. On a monthly basis,
     Regional personnel manually reconciled the payments due with the
     revenues from restoration payments from the water contractors
     recorded in the Federal Financial System. If payment was not
     received from a water contractor within the 30-day payment
     period, personnel sent a bill to the water contractor and
     identified the outstanding amount and manually established the
     accounts receivable in the Federal Financial System. We reviewed
     the $784,000 non-Federal accounts receivable balance as of March
     31, 1996, in the Federal Financial System and found that the
     amount was overstated by 25 percent. Of the 72 outstanding
     receivables that constituted the $784,000, we found that 37
     receivables, totaling about $200,000, were not valid because
     they either were paid or were not required to be paid. Delays in
     recording and reconciling water contractor payments in the
     Federal Financial System, the Works System, and the Regional
     spreadsheet system caused receivables to be overstated because
     invalid receivables were kept in the account.
  
     We also found that the process used by the Regional Office to
     record water contractor payments was not timely. According to a
     Regional official, water contractors send their payments to a
     bank lockbox in San Francisco, California, for deposit. Each
     day, the Regional Office receives a report from the bank
     identifying the checks received. The bank mails copies of the
     checks and supporting payment documents to the Regional Office.
     Water contractors can also take or send their payments to the
     Regional Office or to the nearest Regional field office in
     California. The field offices send the payments to the lockbox
     for deposit and the payment information to the Regional Office's
     accounts receivable personnel for recording into the Federal
     Financial System. Because there is no automated process to
     update the Restoration Fund account in the Federal Financial
     System, it is necessary to use the separate Regional system to
     calculate Restoration Fund revenues in order to record Fund
     revenues in the Federal Financial System.
  
     We also found that the Northern California Area Office and the
     Willows Construction Office had each developed systems which
     produced monthly water contractor statements that showed water
     deliveries, assessments, payments, and account balances. At both
     offices, personnel manually entered contractor water delivery
     and payment information into spreadsheet systems to account for
     the assessment and collection of Restoration Fund revenues. Both
     offices also requested that water contractors send or bring
     payments to the offices rather than send the payments to the
     bank so that they would have more timely and complete payment
     information. The area offices forwarded the payments either to
     the bank or to the Regional Office for recording in the
     accounting systems.  Officials at these offices told us that
     they had developed the separate systems because of the
     unreliable data in the Works System and because of the 1-month
     delay that it took for the Regional Office to completely record
     water contractor payments and to notify area and field offices
     that payment had been made.
  
     A Regional Office official acknowledged the lack of an integrated
     accounting system, stating that with the present system,
     Regional Office employees who should be performing analytical
     and review functions were used primarily as data entry clerks.
     We believe that an integrated accounting system which produces
     reliable monthly statements would improve the assessment and
     collection processes, provide better service to meet the water
     contractors' needs, and result in the more efficient use of
     Regional Office employees. According to Regional Office
     officials, the Region was implementing an integrated accounting
     system, which is referred to as the Reclamation Accounting
     Information Network (RAIN System). This system will (1) replace
     the Works System, including the function of accounting for
     additional legislative requirements that are not part of the
     Works System, such as the restoration water charges imposed by
     the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and (2) will be
     linked with the Federal Financial System. If implemented, the
     RAIN System should eliminate the need for multiple data entries
     and additional subsystems and better service the water
     contractors' needs by providing timely monthly statements. A
     Regional Office official said that the Region planned to have
     the Reclamation Accounting Information Network fully implemented
     by October 1, 1998.
  
     Cost Sharing
  
     As of June 1997, the State of California had not contributed
     $31.6 million of its $33.1 million share of restoration activity
     costs. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act identifies 15
     restoration activities that stipulate cost sharing by
     California. For example, Section 3406(b)(6) states that the
     Secretary of the Interior is directed and authorized to:
  
     . . . install and operate a structural temperature control
     device at Shasta Dam and develop and implement modifications in
     CVP [Central Valley Project] operations as needed to assist in
     the Secretary's efforts to control water temperatures in the
     upper Sacramento River in order to protect anadromous fish in
     the upper Sacramento River. Costs associated with planning and
     construction of the structural temperature control device shall
     be reimbursed in accordance with the following formula: 37.5
     percent shall be reimbursed as main project features, 37.5
     percent shall be considered a nonreimbursable Federal
     expenditure, and 25 percent shall be paid by the State of
     California.
  
     California's 25 percent share of the $77 million expended on the
     Shasta Dam Temperature Control Device, which was completed in
     May 1997, is approximately $19.2 million.
  
     Expenditures on all restoration activities totaled about $175.8
     million, which consisted of payments from the Restoration Fund
     of approximately $87.3 million and Federal appropriations of
     about $88.5 million. Of the $175.8 million, expenditures
     totaling $124 million were for 13 of the 15 sections of the Act,
     which required cost sharing from California (there were no
     reported expenditures on the other 2 restoration activities).
     Based on the cost-sharing percentages identified in the Act,
     California's share of the $124 million is approximately $33.1
     million (see Appendix 2).
  
     The Bureau and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service successfully
     negotiated a cost-sharing agreement with California on June 27,
     1994, under which California is required to pay up to $50
     million toward restoration activities. However, the agreement is
     contingent on available State funding and legislative authority
     and included additional provisions as follows:   One party may
     fund all, none, or any percentage of the cost of an individual
     restoration action, as long as the total amount expended by each
     party equals that party's overall cost allocation under Section
     3406 of the Act.  Individual task orders will subsequently be
     executed pursuant to this Agreement for each restoration action
     or element thereof and shall be made a part of this Agreement.
     The parties shall make an annual accounting, on a fiscal year
     basis, for their costs incurred under this agreement. The
     accounting shall include the dollar value of any in-lieu
     services as well as direct expenditure of funds.  Each party
     shall submit its accounting to the other party by February 1 of
     each year.  The parties shall jointly develop a work plan which
     includes a budget and schedule for carrying out the restoration
     actions. . . . The work plan will be used as the basis for
     negotiating task orders for the restoration actions, or elements
     thereof, and shall be updated at least annually.  As of June
     1997, the Mid-Pacific Region and the Service and California had
     signed only one task order for $1.5 million for the Georgianna
     Slough Control Acoustic Fish Repulsion Barrier Evaluation. The
     Regional Office also had not provided California with a formal
     accounting of expenditures for restoration activities requiring
     State cost sharing. Regional Office officials said that they had
     not performed an annual accounting of expenditures for
     restoration activities requiring California cost sharing because
     California had not identified sources of funds but that they
     were not concerned as long as California eventually met its
     cost-sharing obligations. However, by not executing task orders
     and obtaining California's share of the costs in conjunction
     with restoration activity construction, the Federal Government
     funds a disproportionate share of activity financing costs.
     Therefore, we believe that the Bureau should prepare and submit
     to California the annual cost summaries that identify the
     cumulative cost-sharing obligation and expenditures for
     restoration activities and negotiate task orders for ongoing and
     completed restoration activities. Subsequent to our review
     (since June 1997), the Mid-Pacific Region and the Service have
     been negotiating with California to finalize four task orders
     totaling about $30 million to fund restoration activities under
     the Act. For fiscal year 1998, the Mid-Pacific Region and the
     Service also plan to negotiate additional task orders totaling
     about $30.4 million to fund restoration activities under the
     Act.
  
     Reporting
  
     The Bureau had not submitted all of the annual program and
     financial reports required by the Central Valley Project
     Improvement Act and the special reports requested by the
     Committees on Appropriations, U.S. Senate and U.S. House of
     Representatives.
  
     Annual Reports. Section 3407(f) of the Act required the
     Secretary of the Interior to submit an annual financial report
     that described "all receipts to and uses made of monies within
     the Restoration Fund" for the prior fiscal year, including
     projections of receipts and uses of the Restoration Fund for the
     next fiscal year. Section 3408(f) of the Act required the
     Secretary to submit a program report that described significant
     actions taken to achieve "the intent, purposes and provisions of
     this title [Title 34]," including "recommendations for
     authorizing legislation or other measures" needed to implement
     the Act. These reports were to be submitted not later than
     September 30 of each year.
  
     We found that the Bureau had submitted only the financial report
     for September 30, 1995. The 1996 financial report had been
     drafted and the 1995 program report had been updated to include
     1996 program information. Although both reports were forwarded
     by the Commissioner's Office to the Assistant Secretary for
     Water and Science and the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
     Wildlife and Parks for review, they had not been approved for
     issuance and submittal to the Congress as of December 1997. A
     Regional Office official said that "numerous and diverse reviews
     throughout the entire report writing process" delayed the timely
     preparation and submission of the reports. The official further
     stated that planned changes in the review process should
     decrease the preparation and review time for the annual reports
     in the future. However, we did not obtain any details on the
     planned changes.
  
     Special Reports. In hearings held for fiscal year 1996 by the
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committees
     directed that the Bureau provide, by November 15, 1995, a report
     on the extent to which the State of California had met its cost
     -sharing obligations under the Act and that the Secretary
     provide, by February 1996, a report "display[ing] priorities and
     activities for a 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 1997,
     associated with the restoration requirements and goals of the
     CVPIA [Central Valley Project Improvement Act]." We found that
     as of December 1997, the Bureau had not submitted these reports.
     The Bureau Special Projects Officer attributed the delay of the
     cost-sharing and 5-year priority reports to the same lengthy
     review process required for the annual reports. As of December
     1997, the Secretary's report had been drafted and included
     public comments, but it was at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
     Service for completion.
  
     Recommendations
  
     We recommend that the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, direct
     the Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, to:
  
     1.  Integrate the Regional Office's and area offices' accounting
     systems with the Federal Financial System to provide timely and
     reliable water delivery and payment information to the Regional
     Office and water contractors.
  
     2.  Provide, to the State of California, a formal annual cost
     summary of restoration activities requiring cost sharing by the
     State, as required by the cost-sharing agreement. The cost
     summary should include cumulative expenditures for restoration
     activities that have occurred since enactment of the Central
     Valley Project Improvement Act and be used as the basis for
     negotiating additional task orders as appropriate.
  
     We recommend that the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation:
  
     3.  Ensure that the required program report for fiscal year 1995
     and the required program, financial, and special reports for
     fiscal year 1996 and future reports are submitted in a timely
     manner.
  
     Bureau of Reclamation Response and Office of Inspector General
     Reply
  
     The March 31, 1998, response (Appendix 3) from the Commissioner,
     Bureau of Reclamation, agreed with the three recommendations.
     Based on the response, we consider Recommendation 2 resolved and
     implemented and Recommendations 1 and 3 resolved but not
     implemented. Accordingly, Recommendations 1 and 3 will be
     referred to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
     Budget for tracking of implementation.
  
     Since the report's recommendations are considered resolved, no
     further response to the Office of Inspector General is required
     (see Appendix 4).
  
     The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector
     General requires semiannual reporting to the Congress on all
     audit reports issued, actions taken to implement audit
     recommendations, and identification of each significant
     recommendation on which corrective action has not been taken.
  
     We appreciate the cooperation of Bureau personnel in the conduct
     of our audit.                           APPENDIX 1
  
              OFFICES VISITED
  
               OFFICE                          Mid-Pacific Region
  
     Northern California Area Office
  
     South Central Area Office
  
     Willows Construction Office
  
     Office of the Solicitor's Pacific Southwest Regional Office   
     LOCATION                          Sacramento, California
  
     Redding, California
  
     Fresno, California
  
     Willows, California
  
     Sacramento, California         RESTORATION ACTIVITY
     EXPENDITURES AND    STATE OF CALIFORNIA COST-SHARING
     REQUIREMENTS     FROM OCTOBER 30, 1992, TO JUNE 30, 1997      
  
  
  
     Expenditures  by  Funding  Sources
  
  
     State Cost-Sharing Requirement by    Activity
  
     P.L. 102-575 Section
  
     Restoration Activity
  
     Restoration Fund
  
     Federal Appropriation
  
     Expenditure Total1
  
     Percent
  
     Amount2
  
     3406 (b) (1)
  
     Anadromous Fish Program  and other Central Valley  Project
     Impacts
  
  
     $7,013,089
  
  
     $7,013,089
  
  
     3406 (b) (2)
  
     Dedicated Project Yield
  
     2,680,670
  
     2,680,670
  
  
     3406 (b) (3)
  
     Water Acquisition
  
     11,905,482
  
     $1,516,835
  
     13,422,317
  
  
     3406 (b) (4)3
  
     Tracy Fish Facility Improv./ Evaluation
  
  
     0
  
     0
  
     0
  
     25
  
     0
  
     3406 (b) (5)3
  
     Contra Costa Canal Pumping
  
  
     310,005
  
     310,0054
  
     25
  
     $77,501
  
     3406 (b) (6)3
  
     Shasta Temperature Control Device
  
     34,293,988
  
     42,442,806
  
     76,736,7944
  
     25
  
     19,184,199
  
     3406 (b) (9)
  
     Flow Fluctuation Study
  
     170,632
  
     48,313
  
     218,945
  
  
     3406 (b) (10)3
  
     Fish Passage Program
  
     679,184
  
     1,616,050
  
     2,295,2344
  
     25
  
     573,809
  
     Demonstration Pumping Plant Evaluation
  
     1,104,066
  
     2,879,599
  
     3,983,6654
  
     25
  
     995,916
  
     Demonstration Pumping Plant
  
  
     20,472,555
  
     20,472,5554
  
     25
  
     5,118,139
  
     3406 (b) (11)
  
     Coleman National Fish Hatchery
  
     4,650,575
  
     4,650,575
  
  
  
     Keswick Fish Trap Modification
  
     16,359
  
     1,262,346
  
     1,278,705
  
  
     3406 (b) (12)3
  
     Clear Creek Restoration
  
     273,876
  
     7,008
  
     280,8844
  
     50
  
     140,442
  
     3406 (b) (13)3
  
     Restore Spawning Gravel
  
     75,822
  
     75,8224
  
     25
  
     18,956
  
     3406 (b) (14)3
  
     Delta Cross Channel Structure
  
     0
  
     0
  
     0
  
     25
  
     0
  
     Georgiana Slough Control Structure
  
  
     950,000
  
     950,0004
  
     25
  
     237,500
  
     3406 (b) (15)3
  
     Old River Barrier
  
     0
  
     0
  
     0
  
     25
  
     0
  
     South Delta Barrier
  
  
     230,766
  
     230,7664
  
     25
  
     57,692
  
     3406 (b) (16)3
  
     CVP Assessment/Monitoring Program
  
     1,497,980
  
     1,497,9804
  
     25
  
     374,495
  
     3406 (b) (17)3
  
     Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
  
     77,446
  
     77,4464
  
     50
  
     38,723
  
     3406 (b) (18)3
  
     Ecosystem and Water Modeling
  
     0
  
     0
  
     0
  
     50
  
     0
  
     3406 (b) (20)3
  
     Hamilton City Pumping Plant-Glenn Colusa Irrigation District
  
  
  
     4,584,126
  
     4,584,1264
  
     25
  
     1,146,032
  
     3406 (b) (21)3
  
     Anadromous Fish Screen Program
  
     689,586
  
     7,304,710
  
     7,994,2964
  
     50
  
     3,997,148
  
     3406 (b) (22)
  
     Agriculture Waterfowl Incentive Program
  
     76,370
  
     76,370
  
  
     3406 (c) (1)
  
     San Joaquin River Basin Resource Management Initiative
  
  
     1,571,830
  
     895,536
  
     2,467,366
  
  
     3406 (c) (2)
  
     American River/Folsom South Conjunction Use Optimal Study
  
  
  
     651,686
  
     651,686
  
  
     3406 (d) (1), (2), & (5)
  
     San Joaquin Basin Action Plan
  
     3,081,479
  
     311,302
  
     3,392,781
  
  
     3406 (d) (1-4)3
  
     Refuge Water Supply
  
     2,542,216
  
     52,988
  
     2,595,2044
  
     25
  
     648,801
  
     3406 (d) (5)
  
     Refuge Wheeling Costs
  
     5,551,171
  
     5,551,171
  
  
     3406 (d) (6)
  
     Private Wetlands/Joint Venture
  
     1,366,850
  
     1,366,850
  
  
     3406 (e)
  
     CVPIA Supporting Investigations
  
     653,655
  
     653,655
  
  
     3406 (f)
  
     Project Fisheries Impact
  
     1,416,341
  
     1,416,341
  
  
     3406 (g)3
  
     Ecosystem/Water Operations Models
  
     995,332
  
     1,031,415
  
     2,026,7474
  
     25
  
     506,687
  
     3408 (h)
  
     Land Retirement
  
     3,107,068
  
     1,404,756
  
     4,511,824
  
  
     3408 (i)
  
     Water Conservation
  
     50,834
  
     465,119
  
     515,953
  
  
     3408 (j)
  
     Water Augmentation
  
     1,788,305
  
   
  
     1,788,305
  
   
  
  
     Totals
  
     $87,330,20 6
  
     $88,437,921
  
     $175,768,127
  
     $33,116,040
  
     3406 (b) (14)
  
     Georgiana Slough Control Structures Task Order Agreement
  
  
  
  
  
     (1,513,426)5
  
     Total State's Cost-Sharing Obligation
  
  
  
     $31,602,614
  
     5California has not paid any of its cost-sharing obligation
     under the restoration activities requiring cost sharing under
     the Act; however, it did sign the first cost-sharing task order
     agreement to contribute $1,513,426 of in-lieu services for the
     Georgiana Slough Control Acoustic Fish Repulsion Barrier
     Evaluation.                               APPENDIX 3                  
     Page 1 of 2                               APPENDIX 3                  
     Page 2 of 2                               APPENDIX 4
  
          STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
  
  
                 Finding/            Recommendation   
     Reference 
  
                 Status 
  
               Action Required               1 and 3Resolved; not
     implemented.No further response to the Office of Inspector
     General is required. The recommendations will be referred to the
     Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for
     tracking of implementation.               2Implemented.No
     further action is required.
     

    ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE OFFICE OF
    INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:

    Sending written documents to:                 



    Within the Continental United States
    
    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General 
    1849 C Street,N.W.
    Mail Stop 5341
    Washington, D.C. 20240

    Calling:

    Our 24 hour
    Telephone HOTLINE
    1-800-424-5081 or
    (202) 208-5300
    
    TDD for hearing impaired                                                  
    (202) 208-2420 or
    1-800-354-0996



    Outside the Continental United States

    
    Caribbean Region
    
    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General
    Eastern Division- Investigations
    1550 Wilson Boulevard
    Suite 410
    Arlington, Virginia 22209

    Calling:
    (703) 235-9221


    North Pacific Region

    U.S. Department of the Interior
    Office of Inspector General
    North Pacific Region
    238 Archbishop F.C. F'lores Street
    Suite 807, PDN Building
    Agana, Guam 96910

    
    Calling:
    (700) 550-7428 or 
    COMM 9-011-671-472-7279