Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Reclamation - Rural Water Supply Projects Assessment

Follow Up Action: Pursuant to Title I of P.L. 108-451, Publish Rule in the Federal Register to develop Programmatic and Eligibility Criteria as required in Sections 103, 105 and 106.

Develop performance measures for the new Rural Water Supply program's activities which are related to the development and review of appraisal and feasibility studies carried out and/or funded under Title I. The performance measures should be developed in concert with the IG report from its assessment.

Working with Congress to ensure that Administration priorities for this program are addressed in authorizing legislation that the Senate recently passed, and which has been introduced in the House.

Evaluate the Planning Construction measures developed for the Planning and Construction PART review, for use with the rural water projects that are authorized for design and construction often referred to as the "Pre-PL 109-451 Projects."

Focusing budgetary resources on completing ongoing rural water projects.

Address systematic program weaknesses such as non-existent guidelines for eligibility, local cost planning.

Work with Congress to ensure that Administration priorties for this program are addressed in authorizing legislation that the Senate recently passed, and which has been introduced in the House.

Evaluate the Planning & Construction program performance measures for use with the rural water projects that are authorized for design and construction -- often referred to as the "pre-PL 109-451 projects."

Measure: Percent of targeted population served with reliable, safe drinking water This measure is being considered for inclusion in Interior's Strategic Plan, and Reclamation's Performance Plan, and is not finalized. (Measure under development)

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of acre-feet of water delivered on time as defined in contracts This measure is currently being considered for inclusion in Interior's Strategic Plan, and Reclamation's Performance Plan, and is not finalized. (Measure under development)

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program purpose is not clear because each individual project was authorized with its own goals, which may differ from those of other projects. Reclamation does not have a rural water program per se. The projects are not organized in any coherent plan to unite these projects toward a common goal. Although Reclamation does not have a rural water program, one of Reclamation's purposes is to deliver water in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner. Congress has directed Reclamation to fund 11 rural water projects with differing requirements and cost sharing arrangements with the general purpose of providing potable water to communities, tribes, and areas of need. Reclamation serves as the oversight agency in each of these projects and approaches them in a similar manner: to provide the technical and administrative oversight needed to complete the planning, design, and construction of its projects.

Evidence: In each rural water project in which it serves as the oversight agency, Reclamation enters into cooperative agreements with the project sponsors to provide funds for planning, designing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and replacing their respective systems. The cooperative agreements and Indian Self-determination Act (Public Law. 93-638) agreements with the project sponsors specify the responsibilities for Reclamation and the project sponsors.

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Congress has chosen Reclamation to fill a void for projects which are larger and more complex than other rural water projects, and which do not meet the criteria of other rural water programs. Reclamation's involvement in rural water stems from its reputation as one of the few Federal agencies that has large project management skills as well as the capability to carry a large project to completion.

Evidence: Congress is seeking to take advantage of Reclamation's 100 years of experience and expertise in providing administrative oversight over the design of most of the major water development and delivery systems in the West. The 11 rural water projects that Congress authorized for Reclamation involvement typically include more than one local entity, cover a large regional area serving multiple local utilities, cost from $100-400 million or more, and take 5 to 10 years to build.

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Congress has chosen Reclamation to fill a void for projects that are larger and more complex than other rural water projects. These projects will provide an adequate supply of safe water to geographically dispersed communities and tribes.

Evidence: Reclamation invests more Federal dollars in rural water projects of greater magnitude than any other Federal agency. Of the 11 rural water projects in which Reclamation is involved, 7 have combined estimated construction costs totaling $2 billion. The Federal contribution for each Indian component of a project is 100% and as much as 85% for non-Indian projects. For example, the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project has a total estimated cost of $400 million and ultimately will serve 50,000 people, including 40,000 Indians on 3 reservations. By comparison, programs of the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Health and Human Services' Indian Health Service (IHS) serve smaller systems and have overall much lower costs.

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: Congress has chosen Reclamation to fill a void for projects which are larger and more complex than other rural water projects, and which do not meet the criteria of other rural water programs. Reclamation's involvement stems from its reputation as one of the few Federal agencies that has large project management skills as well as the capability to carry a large project to completion.

Evidence: Each of the 11 rural water projects that Congress authorized for Reclamation involvement serves a specific purpose and population. These projects are generally larger and more complex than rural water projects undertaken by other agencies. For example, the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project has a total estimated cost of $400 million and includes a water treatment plant, 4500 miles of pipeline, 60 booster pump stations, and 35 water storage reservoirs, and will serve 50,000 people, including 40,000 Indians on 3 reservations. By comparison, RUS, which assists rural communities to develop drinking water supplies and solid waste disposal, funds small projects limited to systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. The RUS program is primarily a loan and grant program for individual systems with little technical assistance provided by RUS itself. Rural water programs at EPA and at IHS are typically quite small compared to the dollars spent and the number of people served by Reclamation projects.

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Reclamation's involvement in rural water is not optimally designed to take advantage of Reclamation's experience and expertise. Congress has directed Reclamation to fund individual projects with specific requirements and cost sharing arrangements which differ from traditional Reclamation projects, often without involving the Bureau in the design and planning phase of a project.

Evidence: Reclamation's role in rural water has been dictated by Congress and project sponsors who are frustrated by current Reclamation law and policy, which requires project-specific authority for feasibility studies and construction, and full repayment of municipal water project construction costs with interest. As a result, project sponsors often pre-judge the analyses of alternatives and dictate the desired outcome. The resulting studies seldom undergo Reclamation and Administration review, and are not prepared in accordance with current Federal planning and engineering standards. As such, these studies provide a poor basis for the project planning, design and construction. Also, the Federal cost-share for current projects has been enacted without regard to the project sponsors' repayment capabilities. Further, the trend toward Reclamation covering all tribal operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of project infrastructure in perpetuity will have increasingly significant budget impacts well into the future.

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Reclamation does not have a rural water program, and does not have long-term goals adequate for managing its rural water projects in a comprehensive fashion. Although Reclamation has long-term performance goals to deliver water in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner, they are not satisfactory for long-term management of a program whose goals and project purpose are unclear. Congress has directed Reclamation to fund 11 rural water projects designed with specific and different requirements and capabilities. Reclamation serves as the oversight agency in each of these projects and approaches them in a similar manner: to provide the technical and administrative oversight needed to complete the planning, design, and construction of its projects.

Evidence: Congress has authorized 11 rural water projects for Reclamation involvement. Reclamation enters into cooperative agreements with the project sponsors to provide funds for planning, designing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and replacing their respective systems. The cooperative agreements and Public Law 93-638 agreements with the project sponsors specify the responsibilities for Reclamation and the project sponsors to furnish timely and reliable project performance information. Reclamation's oversight includes reviewing and approving reports, construction plans, specifications, work schedules, fund requests, and change orders. Project sponsors provide detailed schedules in support of fund requests to allow for effective tracking of expenses and budgets.

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: Annual goals are established and performance measured based on construction contracts completed by the project sponsors under cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the project sponsors. These annual goals help guide program management, even though long-term goals for the program are inadequate.

Evidence: The project sponsors develop the project work plan and schedule and are responsible for accomplishing the activities with the given amount of funding for that year. The construction contracts generally are fixed-price contracts with a specific completion date and specified performance requirements. Reclamation monitors the sponsors' progress in construction within the parameters of the cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the sponsors. Reclamation's approval of funding requests depends on the project sponsors' accounting of costs and project performance. Annual performance goals are: (1) Execution of all necessary cooperative agreements and obligation of appropriated funds; (2) Number score of satisfaction for rural water customers served by Reclamation; and (3) Percent of acre-feet delivered on time as defined in contracts.

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All partners do not support program planning efforts. Reclamation's rural water program came into existence due to the successful efforts of project sponsors to circumvent Administration oversight of project development. Current Reclamation law and policy requiring project-specific authority for feasibility studies and construction, and full repayment of municipal and industrial water project construction costs with interest does not appear to be compatible with or responsive to the needs and expectations of rural water users. The water users circumvented these guidelines when they developed their projects. Additionally, there is no rural water program per se, and each project sponsor has its own agenda for long-term goals.

Evidence: The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and the Water Conservation and Utilization Act of 1939 require 100% repayment, with interest, of construction costs allocated to municipal water supply. The 1939 Act also requires that each proposed project be studied for feasibility as directed by Congress and then subsequently be authorized by a separate act of Congress. These and other Reclamation law provisions have led project sponsors to formulate projects and negotiate project financing terms with Congress in one step. The projects are justified through studies which are not prepared in accordance with current Federal planning and engineering standards and that do not consider ability-to-pay. The resulting authorizations provide as little as 15% cost-share for non-Indian project components, and no cost-share for tribes.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: The four agencies that have rural water programs (BOR, USDA, HUD, and EPA) do not effectively coordinate with one another.

Evidence: USDA, HUD, and EPA signed a Joint Memorandum of Understanding to foster cooperation among rural water and wastewater programs at the Federal, State, and local level, which in turn will encourage more efficient use of funds and reduce administrative inefficiencies. Due to Reclamation lacking a formal authorized program, the other rural water agencies refused Reclamation's request to participate.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: The Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and independent auditors review each project for appropriateness of costs charged. Project accountability and controls are included in the annual statement of accountability audit which is performed by an independent auditor.

Evidence: Independent evaluations are performed on an as-needed basis. The OIG audited the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project and produced reports on the 4 project components in May-June 1999. Reclamation routinely performs Value Engineering studies to identify cost-saving measures related to project design. For example, Reclamation and the Lewis and Clark project performed a Value Engineering study and identified more than $10 million in savings.

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: As the project oversight agency, Reclamation develops master plans for each project that allows Reclamation to assess the collective impacts of changes in annual funding, policy or legislation. Annual goals for this program reflect impacts to performance due to changes in funding, policy, and legislation.

Evidence: Master plans often indicate situations where funding shortfalls will have long-term repercussions. For example, there currently is an amendment pending before Congress to increase the construction ceiling and extend the authorized construction period for the Mni Wiconi Project. The amendment is needed due to increased construction costs prompted in part by successive years of annual appropriations which were less than anticipated in the project master plan.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Reclamation is working a proposal through the Department of the Interior intended to address concerns regarding project design, planning, and authorization.

Evidence: The Reclamation proposal would address current and future needs for domestic and municipal water supplies in rural areas of the West. The program would provide the ability to conduct appraisal and feasibility level studies for proposed rural water supply systems, the development of common/suitable criteria and designs to guide the implementation of resulting projects, a mechanism for recommending the resulting proposals to Congress for construction authorization, funding strategies for construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement, and coordination between the many Federal, State, and other entities involved in rural water supply systems.

Are acquisition program plans adjusted in response to performance data and changing conditions?

Explanation: Project sponsors adjust their goals for contracting for components of the project on a contract-by-contract basis based on the results of its competitive bidding process.

Evidence: Project sponsors award construction contracts based on competitive bidding that provides for obtaining the required projects at the lowest price. As bids come in on the contract, project sponsors must adjust the Master Plan accordingly -- up or down. Reclamation will not approve contract awards unless project sponsors can demonstrate that letting the contract will not over-obligate funds which have been identified in the project master plan for a given year.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule and performance goals?

Explanation: Project sponsors work with Congress to authorize projects without going through the normal Administration process of considering project alternatives. Alternatives to projects are normally considered as part of the authorization process, but once authorized it is not feasible to regularly reconsider alternatives. Reclamation routinely balances long-term funding requirements for all authorized projects against the potential for cost savings through accelerating completion of portions of construction for select projects.

Evidence: As projects near completion of construction, Reclamation has increased funding allocations for those projects before starting construction on newly authorized projects. For example, the Mid Dakota project is 58% complete and has received about a 50% increase in funding in recent years.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Reclamation serves as the oversight agency. Reclamation monitors the construction activities of the project sponsors on a regular basis as established in each project's cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the project sponsor. Operation and maintenance of the system is the responsibility of the non-Indian project sponsors and is not monitored. Operation and maintenance of the Indian systems is the responsibility of the Tribe and also is not monitored.

Evidence: The cooperative agreements with the project sponsors and Public Law. 93-638 specify the responsibilities for Reclamation and the project sponsors to furnish timely and reliable project performance information. This occurs during the funding process with monthly payment requests being reviewed by Reclamation along with the construction progress of the project. Reclamation also has periodic progress meetings with the project sponsors. The project sponsors provide inspection reports and progress reports at specific intervals as specified in the cooperative agreement. Reclamation conducts site visits to monitor performance.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers' performance evaluations generally include a rating based on the management and control of projects under their purview. Project funding is based, in part, on the project sponsors' progress in completing individual project components of the overall project.

Evidence: The project sponsors develop the project work plan and schedule, and are responsible for accomplishing the activities with the given amount of funding for that year. The construction contracts generally are fixed-price contracts with a specific completion date and specified performance requirements. Reclamation monitors the sponsors' progress in construction within the parameters of the cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the sponsors. Reclamation's approval of funding requests depends on the project sponsors' accountability of the costs and project performance. Reclamation also monitors and audits the project sponsors' administration and overhead expenses.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funding is dedicated to specific contract accomplishments achieved by the project sponsors. Annual funding for Reclamation's rural water projects is obligated through multi-year cooperative agreements and Indian Self-determination Act (Public Law. 93-638) agreements that specify what the funds will be used for by the project sponsors as they construct their projects.

Evidence: To date, annual funding coming to Reclamation for the authorized rural water projects has not exceeded the construction capability of the project sponsors, therefore all funding has been expended in a timely manner. Expenditure of funds on individual projects on an annual basis depends on the ability of the project sponsors to plan, design, and award contracts. Overall, this process has occurred without major delays.

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Projects are reviewed and monitored to ensure cost efficient practices are employed by the project sponsors. Exceptional cases recognize statutory requirements for Indian Self-determination Act (Public Law. 93-638) agreements which Reclamation cannot control. This Act gives priority to tribal contractors to work on projects for tribal purposes.

Evidence: Project sponsors award construction contracts based on competitive bidding, which provides for obtaining the required projects at the lowest price. Reclamation and the project sponsors regularly conduct Value Engineering studies on the projects and parts thereof to develop more cost effective construction of the systems.

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: Present cost accounting systems of the Department comply with Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board #4 - Managerial Cost Accounting. Full costs are reported at the segment level from the Departmental perspective and also from the bureau perspective. This includes full cost reporting by Department strategic goals in the Department's Annual Accountability Report and by bureau mission goals in bureau-level annual financial statements. Cost accounting at lower levels, as requested by individual PART reviews, does not currently accumulate full costs as defined in the PART instructions and OMB Circular A-11; for example, "the full employer share of the annual accruing cost of retiree pension and health benefits is not included."

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Construction oversight and contracts management practices by Reclamation are in place and effective based on audit findings.

Evidence: An audit conducted during May-June 1999 on the Mni Wiconi Project by the Inspector General found no material weaknesses in Reclamation's oversight capacity that directly related to the audit. The OIG recommended that the project sponsors undertake several actions in order to ensure that costs incurred by them were expended in accordance with Federal law, regulations, and funding agreements. Reclamation concurred or proposed acceptable alternative solutions in all of the recommendations. Reclamation also develops annual assurance statements on management controls and complies with all Department requirements on financial accountability.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Reclamation is working a proposal through the Department intended to address concerns regarding project design, planning, and authorization.

Evidence: The Reclamation proposal would address current and future needs for domestic and municipal water supplies in rural areas of the West. The program would provide the ability to conduct appraisal and feasibility level studies for proposed rural water supply systems, the development of common/suitable criteria and designs to guide the implementation of resulting projects, a mechanism for recommending the resulting proposals to Congress for construction authorization, funding strategies for construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement, and coordination between the many Federal, State, and other entities involved in rural water supply systems.

Does the program define the required quality, capability, and performance objectives for deliverables?

Explanation: Reclamation provides quality control and oversight for all design and construction activities for its rural water projects in accordance with Federal law, regulations, and funding agreements.

Evidence: The WEB, Mid Dakota, and Mni Wiconi projects are delivering water to project beneficiaries in compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act standards and consistent with industry standards. Other rural water projects are not as far along in the planning/construction stage (three are still studies), but each will be monitored according to project-specific construction and water delivery schedules.

Has the program established appropriate, credible, cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: Reclamation dedicates funding to specific contract accomplishments achieved by the project sponsors. Multi-year cooperative agreements and Indian Self-determination Act (Pub. L. 93-638) agreements specify how the project sponsors will obligate annual funds as they construct their projects.

Evidence: To date, annual funding coming to Reclamation for the authorized rural water projects has not exceeded the construction capability of the project sponsors, therefore all funding has been expended in the timely manner. Expenditure of funds on individual projects on an annual basis depends on the ability of the project sponsors to plan, design, and award contracts in a timely manner. Overall, this process has occurred without major delays.

Has the program conducted a recent, credible, cost-benefit analysis that shows a net benefit?

Explanation: Congress has directed Reclamation to fund 11 individual projects with specific requirements and cost sharing arrangements which differ from traditional Reclamation projects often without involving the Bureau in the design and planning phase of a project. As a result, Reclamation cannot revisit the cost-benefit analysis after project authorization.

Evidence: Reclamation's role in rural water has been dictated by Congress and by project sponsors who are unhappy with current Reclamation law and policy requiring project specific authority for feasibility studies and construction, and full repayment of municipal water project construction costs with interest. As a result, project sponsors facing Safe Drinking Water standard violations often pre-judge the analyses of alternatives and dictate the desired outcome to meet those standards. The resulting studies seldom have been developed with Reclamation's input, are not prepared in accordance with current Federal planning and engineering standards, and do not consider the project sponsors' repayment capabilities.

Does the program have a comprehensive strategy for risk management that appropriately shares risk between the government and contractor?

Explanation: Reclamation enters into cooperative agreements with the project sponsors to provide funds for planning, designing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and replacing their respective systems. The cooperative agreements and Public Law. 93-638 agreements with the project sponsors clearly specify the responsibilities for Reclamation and the project sponsors, and allocate risk accordingly.

Evidence: The project sponsors develop the project work plan and schedule and are responsible for accomplishing the activities with the given amount of funding for that year. The construction contracts generally are fixed-price contracts with a specific completion date and specified performance requirements. Reclamation monitors the sponsors' progress in construction within the parameters of the cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the sponsors. Reclamation's approval of funding requests depends on the project sponsors' accountability of the costs and project performance.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: The program does not have adequate long-term performance measures, therefore it has no basis for evaluating long-term progress. In particular, those measures it has lack clear timeframes. However, project data indicates that Reclamation is achieving results in delivering water in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner.

Evidence: Several projects are providing an adequate supply of safe water to the target population. The WEB Project is 100% complete. The Mid-Dakota Project is 58% complete. The Mni Wiconi Project is 43% complete. The Garrison Project is 61% complete. Other rural water projects are not as far along in the planning/construction stage (three are still studies), but each will be monitored according to project-specific construction and water delivery schedules.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Annual goals are established and performance measured based on construction contracts completed by the project sponsors under cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the project sponsors.

Evidence: The project sponsors develop the project work plan and schedule and are responsible for accomplishing the activities with the given amount of funding for that year. The construction contracts generally are fixed-price contracts with a specific completion date and specified performance requirements. Reclamation monitors the sponsors' progress in construction within the parameters of the cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the sponsors. Reclamation's approval of funding requests depends on the project sponsors' accountability of the costs and project performance. Of the three performance measures listed below, Interior is developing Key Goals 2 and 3 as part of its new Strategic Plan. However, Key Goal 1 is not currently part of this process.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Construction schedules are modified where efficiencies and cost benefits can be derived by the modifications. Not all possible savings can be recognized due to shortfalls in funding.

Evidence: In a May 1999 Audit Report, the OIG found that if the West River/Lyman Jones Rural Water System (part of Mni Wiconi) completed their portion as currently designed, their portion of the project would be $6.6 million less than the indexed costs projected by Reclamation.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Although project construction has proceeded as scheduled based on dollars appropriated, the magnitude of Reclamation's projects make comparisons with other programs with significantly smaller projects difficult. Reclamation's rural water projects were part of the common measures exercise for rural water projects. Based on the outcome of this exercise, Reclamation's rural water projects do not compare very favorably. However, Reclamation's project exist because they failed to meet the criteria of other rural water programs. Their poor performance seems to be from the nature of the projects that Congress authorizes, and not due to poor project management.

Evidence: At first glance, Reclamation's rural water program does not compare favorably to the other programs compared in the common measures exercise. As part of the Rural Water Project Common Measures exercise, OMB compared the rural water programs of BOR, EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, RUS, and IHS, using two measures: Water Connections per $ million, and Population Served per $ million. Reclamation's project did not compare favorably for either of these metrics (21 connections per $ million for BOR vs. 212 (IHS), 649 (RUS), and 764 (EPA). For Population Served per $ Million the story was similar: 363 for BOR vs. 933 (IHS), 1779 (RUS), and 1655 (EPA). BOR's projects are generally larger and more complex than other rural water projects. RUS' program funds relatively small projects limited to systems serving less than 10,000 persons, with an average project cost for 87 projects in 38 states of about $1.8 million. Rural water programs at EPA and at IHS are typically quite small compared to the dollars spent and the number of people served by Reclamation projects.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Based on the independent evaluations performed, Reclamation is working with its project sponsors to improve project effectiveness. The Mni Wiconi Project is 43% complete and currently providing some project water to project beneficiaries in a relatively effective manner according to OIG auditors.

Evidence: An audit conducted during May-June 1999 on the Mni Wiconi Project by the Inspector General found no material weaknesses in Reclamation's oversight capacity that directly related to the audit. The OIG recommended that the project sponsors undertake several actions in order to ensure that costs incurred by them were expended in accordance with Federal law, regulations, and funding agreements. Reclamation concurred or proposed acceptable alternative solutions in all of the recommendations. Reclamation also develops annual assurance statements on management controls and complies with all Department requirements on financial accountability.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Reclamation is achieving results in delivering water in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner.

Evidence: Several projects are providing an adequate supply of safe water to the target population. The WEB Project is 100% complete. The Mid-Dakota Project is 58% complete. The Mni Wiconi Project is 43% complete. The Garrison Project is 61% complete. Each are currently providing some project water to project beneficiaries.