This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-764 
entitled 'Bureau of Reclamation: Availability of Information on 
Repayment of Water Project Construction Costs Could Be Better 
Promoted' which was released on September 9, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2014: 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Availability of Information on Repayment of Water Project Construction 
Costs Could Be Better Promoted: 

GAO-14-764: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-764, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since 1902, Reclamation has financed and built water projects to 
provide water for irrigation and various other uses in 17 western 
states. The costs to construct the water projects including irrigation 
as a project purpose—-a combined total of more than $20 billion—-were 
primarily financed by the federal government, but irrigation districts 
and other water users that receive project water are obligated to 
repay the government for their allocated share of construction costs. 
Reclamation typically enters into multiyear contracts with irrigation 
districts that establish water delivery and repayment of their share 
of construction costs over time. 

GAO was asked to provide information on the status of irrigation 
repayments. This report examines (1) the extent to which Reclamation 
collects and reports information on construction costs and the status 
of repayment and (2) the extent to which irrigation districts can 
repay early and the implications of early repayment. GAO reviewed laws 
and policies; fiscal year 2012 construction cost repayment and early 
repayment data; and interviewed Reclamation officials and 
nonprobability samples of eight irrigation districts and nine 
individuals knowledgeable about water projects. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation collects 
information on water project construction costs and the status of 
repayment by irrigation districts-—entities that have entered into 
contracts with the agency to receive project water for irrigation 
purposes—-but has not publicly reported repayment information since 
the 1980s. Reclamation's data on water project construction cost 
repayments indicate that, of the $6.4 billion in costs allocated to 
irrigation as of the end of fiscal year 2012, $1.6 billion remains 
outstanding. The remaining $4.8 billion has been repaid by irrigation 
districts or through other revenue sources or will be provided in 
financial assistance to the districts. Reclamation's policy is to make 
the statements it prepares annually on repayment available to the 
public upon request, but the agency does not make it readily known to 
the public that it prepares these statements or that they are 
available. GAO interviewed individuals knowledgeable of Reclamation 
water projects who indicated that this information would be useful for 
their work, such as in considering funding arrangements for the 
expansion of water projects; some individuals were not aware that 
Reclamation prepares repayment statements annually, or that the agency 
would make them available upon request. By more widely disseminating 
information to the public that construction cost and repayment data 
are available, Reclamation may increase interested parties' 
opportunities to obtain cost and repayment information. This, in turn, 
could further enable Congress, water users, and the public to assess 
past funding arrangements and enhance their ability to make informed 
decisions for funding potential new work, such as to expand water 
storage capacity. 

The authority for irrigation districts--or for landholders who own or 
lease land for agricultural purposes within those districts--to repay 
their allocated share of construction costs early is limited to a 
small number of districts, and its use has various financial and other 
implications. Early repayment authority allows irrigation districts or 
landholders to repay their total outstanding repayment obligations in 
advance of the date specified in the districts' contracts. As of 
December 2013, 87 irrigation districts—representing about 15 percent 
of all districts with contracts—had authority for the district or its 
landholders to repay early. Of those authorized, 69 irrigation 
districts either repaid early, or had some landholders who repaid 
early, with those payments totaling more than $238.9 million. GAO 
found that early repayment's effect on the financial return to the 
federal government largely depends on whether a discount may be 
authorized, such as calculating the present value of the outstanding 
repayment obligation to determine the amount to be repaid early, and 
the size of that discount. If no discounts are authorized, any early 
repayments that occur would be worth more to the government because 
the repayments do not bear interest. In addition, early repayment 
accelerates the elimination of certain restrictions and requirements 
for landholders that are in place until their repayment obligation is 
fulfilled. For example, once landholders have fully repaid their 
construction cost obligations, they are no longer subject to acreage 
limits on the amount of land they can own or lease for agricultural 
purposes and irrigate with project water and may be able to receive 
project water on additional land. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Reclamation better promote to the public that 
information on water projects' construction costs and repayment status 
is available. The Department of the Interior concurred with the 
recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-764]. For more 
information, contact Steve D. Morris at (202) 512-3841 or 
morriss@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Reclamation Collects Information on Water Project Construction Costs 
and the Status of Repayment by Irrigation Districts but Could Better 
Promote the Public Availability of This Information: 

Early Repayment Authority Is Limited, and Its Use Has Financial and 
Other Implications: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Cost Allocation and Repayment Information for 54 Projects 
for Which Irrigation Districts Have Fulfilled Obligations: 

Appendix III: Cost Allocation and Repayment Information for 76 
Projects with Ongoing Repayments by Irrigation Districts: 

Appendix IV: Irrigation Districts with Contractual or Statutory 
Authority for Early Repayment of Construction Cost Obligations: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Construction Costs Allocated to Irrigation and the Status of 
Their Repayment for 76 Reclamation Water Projects with Ongoing 
Repayments by Irrigation Districts, as of the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

Table 2: Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation-Related Projects and 
Contract Information: 

Table 3: Construction Cost Allocation by Project Purpose for 54 Bureau 
of Reclamation Water Projects for Which Irrigation Districts Have 
Fulfilled Their Repayment Obligations, as of the End of Fiscal Year 
2012: 

Table 4: Repayment Status of Construction Costs Allocated to 
Irrigation for 54 Bureau of Reclamation Water Projects for Which 
Irrigation Districts Have Fulfilled Their Repayment Obligations, as of 
the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

Table 5: Construction Cost Allocation by Project Purpose for 76 Bureau 
of Reclamation Water Projects with Ongoing Repayments by Irrigation 
Districts, as of the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

Table 6: Repayment Status of Construction Costs Allocated to 
Irrigation for 76 Bureau of Reclamation Water Projects with Ongoing 
Repayments by Irrigation Districts, as of the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

Table 7: Irrigation Districts with Contractual Authority for 
Landholders to Repay Outstanding Construction Cost Obligations Early, 
and Early Repayments Made, as of December 2013: 

Table 8: Irrigation Districts with Statutory Authority for the 
Districts or Landholders to Repay Outstanding Construction Cost 
Obligations Early, and Early Repayments Made, as of December 2013: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Bureau of Reclamation Regional Boundaries: 

Figure 2: Typical Construction Cost Repayment Obligations for Bureau 
of Reclamation Water Project Uses: 

Figure 3: Construction Cost Allocation Amounts for 76 Reclamation 
Water Projects with Ongoing Repayments by Irrigation Districts, as of 
the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 8, 2014: 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Natural Resources: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Water and Power: 
Committee on Natural Resources: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jared Huffman: 
House of Representatives: 

Since 1902, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation has 
financed and built more than 180 water projects--comprising dams, 
reservoirs, canals, and other features to store and deliver water--to 
provide water to various users in 17 western states. Initially, water 
projects were intended to make previously arid and semiarid land 
productive and were built almost solely for irrigation. Over the 
years, water projects grew in size and purpose, often providing water 
for irrigation, as well as hydroelectric power generation, municipal 
and industrial water supplies, recreation, flood control, and fish and 
wildlife enhancement, among other uses. Today, Reclamation's water 
projects vary substantially in size, ranging from a 5,000-acre water 
project in southeastern Idaho consisting of a single canal, to the 
roughly 500-mile long Central Valley Project in California consisting 
of 20 dams and reservoirs, and hundreds of miles of canals. 
Collectively, Reclamation's projects provide water for about 10 
million acres of farmland and nearly 31 million people. The costs to 
construct the water projects including irrigation as a project 
purpose--a combined total of more than $20 billion--were primarily 
financed by the federal government, but irrigation districts,[Footnote 
1] power users,[Footnote 2] and municipal and industrial users 
(collectively called water users) that receive project water are 
obligated to repay the federal government for their allocated share of 
construction costs. Water users are also obligated to pay the 
government for ongoing operation and maintenance performed by 
Reclamation.[Footnote 3] 

Reclamation typically enters into multiyear contracts with water users 
that are agreements between the federal government and the user on the 
delivery of water, the repayment of construction costs, and other 
terms and conditions. Repayment requirements vary depending on the 
type of water use and contract. For example, irrigation districts with 
repayment contracts are generally required to repay their allocated 
construction costs over a period of up to 40 years, and they do not 
pay interest on their allocated construction costs. In contrast, power 
and municipal and industrial users are required to repay their 
allocated share of construction costs over a period of up to 40 years 
as well, but they are also required to pay interest that accrues on 
those costs over time. 

As congressional authorization for new water projects slowed by the 
1970s, Reclamation shifted its focus from constructing to managing 
water projects, including providing maintenance, repair, and 
modernization of existing infrastructure. Going forward, however, as 
population, agricultural production, and development in the West are 
projected to continue to increase, Reclamation may be called upon to 
expand existing capacity for water storage or delivery or to support 
additional conservation measures for fish and wildlife enhancement. 
For instance, severe drought conditions in California in 2014 have led 
some Members of Congress to call for increasing the water storage 
capabilities of water projects located in the state and have 
highlighted the importance of effective water management across the 
West. There has also been congressional interest in broadly 
authorizing the early repayment of construction costs--that is, 
allowing irrigation districts to pay off their allocated construction 
costs before the due date specified in their contracts.[Footnote 4] 
Unless expressly authorized in their contracts or by statute, 
irrigation districts are not authorized to repay their construction 
cost obligations early. 

In this context, you asked us to provide information on the status of 
irrigation districts' repayments of their allocated water project 
construction costs. This report examines (1) the extent to which 
Reclamation collects and reports information on water project 
construction costs and the status of repayment by irrigation districts 
and (2) the extent to which irrigation districts can repay their 
allocated water project construction costs early and the implications 
of early repayment. 

To conduct our work, we reviewed relevant laws, Reclamation policies 
and directives, and other Reclamation documents on water project 
construction cost allocation, repayment, and early repayment. We also 
reviewed our July 1996 report on the status of construction cost 
allocations and repayments at that time.[Footnote 5] To determine the 
extent to which Reclamation collects and reports information on water 
project construction costs and the status of repayment by irrigation 
districts, we reviewed data from Reclamation's Statements of Project 
Construction Cost and Repayment for fiscal year 2012, the most current 
data available at the time of our review.[Footnote 6] To examine the 
extent to which irrigation districts can repay water project 
construction costs early and the implications of early repayment, we 
collected data from Reclamation on irrigation districts that have 
authority to repay early, districts that have exercised such 
authority, and the amounts of early repayments through December 2013. 
To assess the reliability of Reclamation repayment and early repayment 
data, we took steps such as identifying the sources of data included 
in the Statements of Project Construction Cost and Repayment, which 
are generally tied to audited accounting records, and the agency's 
review process. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our 
purposes. In addition, for both objectives, we conducted interviews 
with knowledgeable Reclamation officials at the agency's central 
office in Denver, Colorado, and all five regional offices (Great 
Plains, Lower Colorado, Mid-Pacific, Pacific Northwest, and Upper 
Colorado) about issues related to the status of repayment and early 
repayment. We also interviewed officials from a nonprobability sample 
of eight irrigation districts and two landholders--who own or lease 
land for agricultural purposes--from five water projects located in 
California, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wyoming to collect information on 
the repayment of construction costs and related issues. We selected 
these irrigation districts and landholders using criteria such as the 
type of contracts the districts held with Reclamation, the district's 
status of repayment, and whether or not the districts had early 
repayment authority.[Footnote 7] We also interviewed a nonprobability 
sample of nine individuals knowledgeable about Reclamation water 
projects and the status of repayments, early repayment authority, or 
both, including staff from the Congressional Research Service, 
Congressional Budget Office, and attorneys who have represented 
irrigation districts or environmental organizations. Appendix I 
presents a more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and 
methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to September 2014 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Reclamation has carried out its mission to manage, develop, and 
protect water and related resources in 17 western states since 1902. 
The agency has led or provided assistance in constructing most of the 
large dams and water diversion structures in the West for the purpose 
of developing water supplies for irrigation, as well as for other 
purposes, including hydroelectric power generation, municipal and 
industrial water supplies, recreation, flood control, and fish and 
wildlife enhancement. Reclamation is organized into five regions, with 
technical and policy support provided by its central office in Denver. 
Each regional office oversees the water projects located within its 
regional boundaries (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Bureau of Reclamation Regional Boundaries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map] 

Denver office: Denver, Colorado. 

Region: Pacific Northwest; 
Regional office: Boise, Idaho. 

Region: Mid-Pacific; 
Regional office: Sacramento, California. 

Region: Upper Colorado; 
Regional office: Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Region: Lower Colorado; 
Regional office: Boulder City, Nevada. 

Region: Great Plains; 
Regional office: Billings, Montana. 

Sources: Bureau of Reclamation; Map Resources (map). GAO-14-764. 

[End of figure] 

The federal statutes authorizing individual water projects and the 
statutes generally applicable to all water projects--known 
collectively as reclamation law--govern Reclamation's water projects. 
Reclamation law determines how the costs of constructing water 
projects are allocated and how repayment responsibilities are assigned 
among the projects' users. Cost allocation is the process of assigning 
an equitable share of the total cost to each use in a multipurpose 
project. Under reclamation law, Reclamation allocates a share of the 
project's total construction costs to each of the authorized project 
purposes based on the proportion of benefits each purpose receives 
from the project, and the costs allocated to each purpose are deemed 
to be reimbursable or nonreimbursable. Reimbursable costs are those 
that are to be repaid by certain water users, including irrigation 
districts, power, and municipal and industrial water suppliers. 
Nonreimbursable costs are those that are not repaid by water users and 
are instead generally borne by the federal government because certain 
project purposes are viewed by Congress as being national in scope, 
such as costs allocated to flood control and navigation, fish and 
wildlife enhancement, and recreation. At the time each water project 
is authorized and designed, Reclamation estimates the total 
construction costs and allocates these costs among the project uses. 
Once project construction is completed, and the actual construction 
costs are determined, Reclamation performs a final construction cost 
allocation. 

The cost allocation serves as a basis for the repayment terms in water 
users' contracts. The amount of reimbursable costs that water users 
are responsible for repaying is based on the type of project purpose 
(see figure 2). Power and municipal and industrial users are 
responsible for repaying their allocated share of the construction 
costs, plus the interest that accrues on those costs during 
construction and the repayment period. For irrigation districts, 
however, reclamation law does not require the districts to pay 
interest on the construction costs allocated to irrigation, resulting 
in federally subsidized financing for irrigation districts responsible 
for repayment. In addition, irrigation districts may receive the 
following two types of financial assistance in repaying their 
allocated construction costs: 

* Irrigation assistance. The amount of construction costs allocated to 
irrigation that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be above 
the irrigation districts' ability to pay for a given project is repaid 
from other revenue sources, where available. These other revenues are 
primarily earned from the sale of power generated by the project (or 
other related projects), or from the sale of municipal and industrial 
water, among other revenue sources. Ability-to-pay determinations are 
based on Reclamation's financial analysis of a given geographic area, 
and determinations generally occur before construction begins on a 
project.[Footnote 8] 

* Credits. Credits can relieve part or all of irrigation districts' 
repayment obligations. Types of credits include congressionally 
authorized repayment reductions, or "charge-offs," and construction 
expenses determined to be nonreimbursable. Charge-offs are credits 
that are often enacted through legislation in response to special 
circumstances, such as a determination that the land is unproductive, 
or the settlement of Indian water rights claims.[Footnote 9] 

Figure 2: Typical Construction Cost Repayment Obligations for Bureau 
of Reclamation Water Project Uses: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Uses to which costs are allocated: 
Reimbursable construction costs: 
Irrigation; 
Power generation; 
Municipal and industrial uses; 
Nonreimbursable construction costs[C]: 
Fish and wildlife enhancement; 
Recreation; 
Flood control and navigation. 

What users pay: 

Irrigation: Share of construction costs based on ability to pay; 
Power generation: Construction costs; plus Interest[A]; plus 
Irrigation assistance[B]. 
Municipal and industrial uses: Construction costs; plus Interest[A]; 
plus Irrigation assistance[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation information. GAO-14-764. 

[A] This includes interest during construction and the repayment 
period. 

[B] Irrigation assistance may be provided to an irrigation district in 
instances when the Secretary of the Interior determines there is an 
amount of construction costs allocated to irrigation above the 
district's ability to pay for a given project, and there are revenue 
sources available. The amount determined to be above the irrigation 
district's ability to pay is repaid from other revenues, which are 
primarily earned from the sale of power generated by the project (or 
other related projects) or from the sale of municipal and industrial 
water, among other revenue sources. These costs do not accrue interest 
and are generally paid with power revenues at the end of the repayment 
period. 

[C] Under reclamation law, nonreimbursable costs are those that are 
generally borne by the federal government because the project purposes 
are viewed as being national in scope. 

[End of figure] 

To establish an agreement between the federal government and 
irrigation districts on the delivery of water from a project and to 
collect payments, Reclamation generally enters into one of the 
following two types of contracts with irrigation districts: 

* Repayment contracts: Section 9(d) of the Reclamation Project Act of 
1939 authorizes permanent contracts for water delivery with repayment 
of construction costs allocated to irrigation to be paid in fixed 
dollar amounts in annual or other regular increments, over a period of 
up to 40 years, by the irrigation district to Reclamation.[Footnote 10] 

* Water service contracts: Section 9(e) of the Reclamation Project Act 
of 1939 authorizes contracts to furnish water for irrigation purposes 
for up to 40-year periods. Reclamation generally enters into water 
service contracts with irrigation districts when construction of the 
water project has not been completed, final construction costs are 
uncertain, or the irrigation district does not want a permanent 
contract, among other reasons. By law, Reclamation must charge rates 
for water delivered under water service contracts that are at least 
sufficient to cover an appropriate share of fixed charges the 
Secretary of the Interior deems proper, taking into consideration the 
construction costs allocated to irrigation, as well as an appropriate 
share of annual operation and maintenance costs.[Footnote 11] A water 
service contract can contain a provision providing for its renewal--
through negotiations between Reclamation and the irrigation district--
once the contract's term ends, or the contract may contain a provision 
allowing for its conversion to a repayment contract.[Footnote 12] 

Depending on the size of the water project, which varies substantially 
across projects, Reclamation may have contracts with a number of 
irrigation districts within that project's service area.[Footnote 13] 
Irrigation districts then enter into separate agreements with 
landholders to provide project water.[Footnote 14] For example, for 
water projects servicing a relatively small geographic area, 
Reclamation may have only one or two contracts with irrigation 
districts for that water project, which provides water to a small 
number of landholders. On the other hand, for water projects covering 
a larger area, Reclamation may have contracts with multiple irrigation 
districts servicing hundreds of landholders within a project. 

Reclamation Collects Information on Water Project Construction Costs 
and the Status of Repayment by Irrigation Districts but Could Better 
Promote the Public Availability of This Information: 

Reclamation collects data on water project construction costs and the 
status of repayment by irrigation districts, but it has not publicly 
reported this information since the 1980s. Reclamation's regional 
offices collect repayment data annually for each water project with an 
outstanding construction cost repayment obligation and then compile 
them in Statements of Project Construction Cost and Repayment 
(repayment statements). These repayment statements indicate that $1.6 
billion of the $6.4 billion in costs allocated to irrigation was 
outstanding, as of the end of fiscal year 2012. It is Reclamation 
policy to make the repayment statements available to the public upon 
request, but it could better promote to the public that it prepares 
repayment statements annually and that these statements are available. 

Reclamation's Data Indicate an Outstanding Repayment Obligation of 
$1.6 Billion Allocated to Irrigation: 

Reclamation's data on water project construction cost repayments 
indicate that, of the $6.4 billion in costs allocated to irrigation as 
of the end of fiscal year 2012, $1.6 billion remains outstanding. 
Every fiscal year, Reclamation's five regional offices collect 
repayment data and compile them in repayment statements for each water 
project that has construction costs with repayments outstanding. 
[Footnote 15] These repayment statements include data on the total 
construction costs for the water project; the construction costs 
allocated to each project purpose, including irrigation; repayment 
information for costs allocated to each project purpose, including the 
amount irrigation districts have repaid as of the end of the fiscal 
year; and any financial assistance granted to irrigation districts. 

Reclamation's repayment statements and other documents show that, of 
130 water projects that provide water to irrigators, 54 projects have 
irrigation districts that have fulfilled their construction cost 
repayment obligations (see appendix II),[Footnote 16] and 76 projects 
have outstanding repayment obligations from irrigation districts, as 
of the end of fiscal year 2012 (see appendix III).[Footnote 17] 
Reclamation's repayment statements for the 76 projects show that the 
total construction cost for these projects was more than $19.7 
billion,[Footnote 18] of which $6.4 billion was allocated to 
irrigation (see figure 3). 

Figure 3: Construction Cost Allocation Amounts for 76 Reclamation 
Water Projects with Ongoing Repayments by Irrigation Districts, as of 
the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Cost allocated to irrigation: $6.4 billion; 
Cost allocated to power: $3.9 billion; 
Cost allocated to municipal and industrial: $3.7 billion; 
Cost allocated to nonreimbursable purposes: $5.8 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation data. GAO-14-764. 

Note: The sum of these numbers exceeds the actual total because of 
rounding. In addition, this figure does not include construction cost 
allocation amounts for the Klamath project in the Mid-Pacific region, 
as Reclamation has not prepared a final repayment statement for this 
project since fiscal year 2001 because it is in the process of 
crediting revenues from leasing land, among other things, according to 
Reclamation officials. According to a draft repayment statement 
prepared for the Klamath project for fiscal year 2010, the total cost 
of the project was approximately $121.2 million, of which $101.2 
million in costs were allocated to irrigation. 

[End of figure] 

According to Reclamation's repayment statements, as of the end of 
fiscal year 2012, of the $6.4 billion in construction costs allocated 
to irrigation, the outstanding repayment obligations totaled $1.6 
billion--or 25 percent--after accounting for nearly $4.8 billion in 
repayments made by irrigation districts, other repayments received, 
and financial assistance to irrigation (see table 1). Outstanding 
repayment obligations ranged across Reclamation's regions, from 
approximately $91.7 million in the Upper Colorado region to more than 
$1.0 billion in the Mid-Pacific region (accounting for 64 percent of 
the total outstanding construction costs allocated to irrigation). 
[Footnote 19] 

Table 1: Construction Costs Allocated to Irrigation and the Status of 
Their Repayment for 76 Reclamation Water Projects with Ongoing 
Repayments by Irrigation Districts, as of the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Great Plains; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation: $1,030,054,000; 
Repayments received through contracts with irrigation districts: 
$155,250,000; 
Other repayments received[A]: 32,120,000; 
Financial assistance to irrigation[B]: $696,553,000; 
Outstanding repayment obligations: $146,715,000. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Lower Colorado[C]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation: $1,155,069,000; 
Repayments received through contracts with irrigation districts: 
$60,477,000; 
Other repayments received[A]: 42,759,000; 
Financial assistance to irrigation[B]: $848,876,000; 
Outstanding repayment obligations: $202,957,000. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Mid-Pacific[D]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation: $1,983,386,000; 
Repayments received through contracts with irrigation districts: 
$788,272,000; 
Other repayments received[A]: 93,510,000; 
Financial assistance to irrigation[B]: $68,298,000; 
Outstanding repayment obligations: $1,033,306,000. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Pacific Northwest; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation: $1,163,083,000; 
Repayments received through contracts with irrigation districts: 
$253,961,000; 
Other repayments received[A]: 125,667,000; 
Financial assistance to irrigation[B]: $654,090,000; 
Outstanding repayment obligations: $129,364,000. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Upper Colorado; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation: $1,070,893,000; 
Repayments received through contracts with irrigation districts: 
$95,372,000; 
Other repayments received[A]: 57,754,000; 
Financial assistance to irrigation[B]: $826,613,000; 
Outstanding repayment obligations: $91,666,000. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Total[E]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation: $6,402,485,000; 
Repayments received through contracts with irrigation districts: 
$1,353,332,000; 
Other repayments received[A]: 351,812,000; 
Financial assistance to irrigation[B]: $3,094,431,000; 
Outstanding repayment obligations: $1,604,008,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation data. GAO-14-764. 

[A] Other repayments received include payments received from sources 
other than repayment from irrigation districts pursuant to contracts 
with Reclamation, such as miscellaneous water sales and land-use 
leases. 

[B] Financial assistance includes irrigation assistance and credits. 
Irrigation assistance may be provided when the Secretary of the 
Interior determines that irrigation districts are unable to pay the 
full amount of construction costs allocated to irrigation, and 
responsibility for those costs is then repaid from other revenue 
sources, such as power, where available. Credits relieve water users 
from a portion of their allocated repayment obligations. Types of 
credits include congressionally authorized repayment reductions, or 
"charge-offs," and construction expenses determined to be 
nonreimbursable. 

[C] The Lower Colorado region has one project, the Central Arizona 
Project, with an outstanding irrigation repayment obligation as of the 
end of fiscal year 2012. The Arizona Water Settlements Act, the 
Arizona Water Settlement Agreement, which the act ratified, and a 
stipulated judgment that ended multiyear litigation fixed the 
allocation of the project's water and repayment obligations without 
regard to specific water uses such as irrigation, which is the typical 
practice. The amounts reflected in the Central Arizona Project 
Statement of Project Construction Cost and Repayment for specific 
project purposes are inferred based on assumptions made by Reclamation 
officials. See Arizona Water Settlements Act, Pub. L. No. 108-451, 
tit. I, 118 Stat. 3478 (2004), the Arizona Water Settlement Agreement, 
and Cent. Ariz. Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, No. CIV 95-
625, No. CIV 95-1720. 

[D] Amounts presented do not include construction cost allocation 
amounts for the Klamath project in the Mid-Pacific region, as 
Reclamation has not prepared a final repayment statement for this 
project since fiscal year 2001 because it is in the process of 
crediting revenues from leasing land, among other things, according to 
Reclamation officials. According to a draft repayment statement 
prepared for the Klamath project for fiscal year 2010, $101.2 million 
in costs were allocated to irrigation, $9.0 million was repaid by 
irrigation districts, $46.2 million was repaid from other sources, 
$33.1 million was provided in financial assistance, and the 
outstanding repayment obligation was $12.8 million. 

[E] Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Also, the sum 
of repayments received, financial assistance, and outstanding 
repayment obligations may add up to slightly more than the 
construction costs allocated to irrigation because some projects 
expect an excess of repayment over cost, as of the end of fiscal year 
2012. 

[End of table] 

Reclamation's repayment statements as of the end of fiscal year 2012 
further show that, of the $1.6 billion outstanding repayment 
obligation for irrigation, irrigation districts are expected to repay 
approximately $1.1 billion through repayment or water service 
contracts. Of the remaining $490.4 million, approximately $287.4 
million is expected to be recovered through other revenue sources, 
such as the sale of surplus project water for irrigation, and roughly 
$203.0 million is being repaid, pursuant to federal law, a settlement 
agreement, and stipulated judgment, by a municipal corporation that 
operates and maintains the Central Arizona Project.[Footnote 20] 
Irrigation districts have repaid nearly $1.4 billion of their 
allocated costs primarily through repayment or water service contracts 
as of the end of fiscal year 2012 and, according to Reclamation 
officials, irrigation districts are generally current in their 
repayments.[Footnote 21] According to Reclamation officials, across 
the 76 water projects with outstanding repayment obligations, 
Reclamation holds 72 repayment contracts for irrigation and 304 water 
service contracts for irrigation. We found that, across Reclamation's 
regions, the number of water projects with outstanding repayment 
obligations as of the end of fiscal year 2012 and the types of 
contracts vary, as described in table 2. 

Table 2: Bureau of Reclamation Irrigation-Related Projects and 
Contract Information: 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Great Plains; 
Total irrigation-related projects: 39; 
Irrigation-related projects with outstanding repayment obligations: 25; 
Repayment contracts: 12; 
Water service contracts: 81[A]. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Lower Colorado; 
Total irrigation-related projects: 7; 
Irrigation-related projects with outstanding repayment obligations: 1; 
Repayment contracts: 0[B]; 
Water service contracts: 0. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Mid-Pacific; 
Total irrigation-related projects: 10; 
Irrigation-related projects with outstanding repayment obligations: 6; 
Repayment contracts: 1; 
Water service contracts: 218[C]. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Pacific Northwest; 
Total irrigation-related projects: 33; 
Irrigation-related projects with outstanding repayment obligations: 18; 
Repayment contracts: 34[D]; 
Water service contracts: 5. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Upper Colorado; 
Total irrigation-related projects: 41; 
Irrigation-related projects with outstanding repayment obligations: 26; 
Repayment contracts: 25; 
Water service contracts: 0. 

Bureau of Reclamation region: Total; 
Total irrigation-related projects: 130; 
Irrigation-related projects with outstanding repayment obligations: 76; 
Repayment contracts: 72; 
Water service contracts: 304. 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation. GAO-14-764. 

Note: The information on projects is as of the end of fiscal year 
2012, and the information on contracts is as of November 2013 for the 
Great Plains region and as of July 2014 for the other regions. 

[A] This number includes 65 water service contracts with landholders. 

[B] One of the seven Lower Colorado region water projects that 
includes irrigation--the Central Arizona Project--has ongoing 
repayment of construction costs allocated to irrigation, which are 
being repaid, pursuant to federal law, a settlement agreement, and 
stipulated judgment, by a municipal corporation that operates and 
maintains the Central Arizona Project. The United States had entered 
into repayment contracts with irrigation districts for the repayment 
of Central Arizona Project irrigation distribution system construction 
costs. Under the Central Arizona Project Settlement Act of 2004 and 
the Arizona Water Settlement Agreement, however, irrigation districts 
that voluntarily relinquished Central Arizona Project water to which 
they were entitled by the terms of their contracts received relief 
from their repayment obligations, among other things. 

[C] Six of these contracts are San Joaquin River Settlement water 
service contracts with landholders. In addition, 139 of these 
contracts (119 of which are contracts with landholders) are Sacramento 
River Settlement contracts, which according to officials from the Mid-
Pacific regional office, are similar to water service contracts in 
that they repay the same rate set for water service contracts for the 
Central Valley Project. 

[D] Of these 34 repayment contracts, 5 are with landholders. 

[End of table] 

Reclamation Could Better Promote That Information on Water Project 
Construction Costs and Repayments Is Publicly Available: 

Reclamation has not publicly reported the information it collects on 
water project construction costs and repayment since the 1980s, and we 
found that Reclamation does not make it readily known to the public 
that it prepares repayment statements annually or that they are 
available.[Footnote 22] Reclamation officials said that the purpose of 
the repayment statements is generally for internal management use, 
such as when the agency is preparing for contract negotiations, or to 
provide information to certain power users on the amounts of 
irrigation assistance power may be responsible for paying. Reclamation 
officials told us they had considered publishing the repayment 
statements on the agency's website in the mid-2000s as part of an 
internal management review, but they decided not to do so.[Footnote 
23] Instead, in 2007, Reclamation developed an internal policy 
document on the preparation of repayment statements that states that 
such statements will be provided to any interested party upon request. 
This policy document is posted on the section of the agency's website 
that contains program and administrative policies that apply to 
Reclamation's management of its water projects. Information on the 
availability of the repayment statements is not otherwise posted 
online or made public. 

We interviewed staff from legislative branch agencies and several 
other individuals knowledgeable about Reclamation water projects who 
indicated that public availability to the information contained in the 
repayment statements would be helpful. Some individuals we interviewed 
were not aware that Reclamation prepares repayment statements 
annually, or that the agency would make them available upon request. 
Several individuals we interviewed indicated that making the repayment 
statements directly accessible on the agency's website would be 
helpful and, in some cases, better inform their work. For example, a 
staff member from the Congressional Research Service said that to be 
able to respond to congressional committee requests in a timely 
manner, it would be helpful to have repayment information on the 
agency's website, similar to information posted online by 
Reclamation's Mid-Pacific regional office on its water rates (which 
are based in part on construction cost allocation and repayment 
information) for the Central Valley Project. In addition, some 
individuals noted that, as Reclamation considers modifying or 
expanding existing water storage capacity or delivery, Congress and 
others may want to assess information on how costs were allocated and 
how funding and repayment arrangements were established in the past to 
inform potential future funding arrangements. For instance, an 
environmental consultant told us that having repayment information 
readily accessible for water projects developed in the past would help 
inform decisions on future funding arrangements and other policy 
considerations for federal, state, and other parties considering the 
expansion of a water project in the Pacific Northwest. A senior 
Reclamation official we interviewed agreed that increasing public 
awareness that cost allocation and repayment information is available 
upon request could better position the public to obtain information 
that could help inform their decision making on related water project 
issues. In addition, the official stated that there may be additional 
opportunities to make the public aware of its policy beyond posting 
the information on the policy section of its website. 

According to the Office of Management and Budget's open government 
directive, the federal government should publish information online 
about what the government is doing to promote transparency, 
accountability, and informed participation by the public, and federal 
agencies should proactively use modern technology to disseminate 
useful information.[Footnote 24] By further disseminating information 
to the public that cost allocation and repayment data are available 
through the repayment statements, Reclamation would promote 
transparency and potentially increase informed participation by the 
public. 

Early Repayment Authority Is Limited, and Its Use Has Financial and 
Other Implications: 

The authority for irrigation districts, or for landholders within 
those districts, to repay their allocated construction costs early is 
limited to a small number of districts across Reclamation's water 
projects. Based on our analysis, early repayment affects the financial 
return to the federal government, and it accelerates the elimination 
of certain restrictions and requirements for landholders that are in 
place until their repayment obligations are fulfilled, among other 
things. Reclamation and irrigation district officials told us that 
early repayment may not appeal to many districts or landholders, but 
some districts or landholders may be incentivized to seek and exercise 
the authority to repay early, depending on their particular 
circumstances. 

Early Repayment Authority Is Limited to a Small Number of Irrigation 
Districts: 

The authority for irrigation districts, or for landholders within 
those districts, to repay their allocated water project construction 
costs early--that is, repay outstanding repayment obligations, either 
through lump-sum or accelerated payments, in advance of the date 
specified in the districts' contracts--is limited. Unless expressly 
authorized in their contracts or by statute, irrigation districts and 
landholders are not authorized to repay their construction cost 
obligations early. According to Reclamation data, of the estimated 585 
irrigation districts that had repayment or water service contracts 
with Reclamation, as of December 2013,[Footnote 25] 87 districts--or 
about 15 percent--had authority for the district, or for landholders 
within the district, to repay their construction cost obligations 
early. Of those 87 irrigation districts, 69 districts exercised their 
authority and repaid early, or had some landholders who repaid early, 
as of December 2013, with early repayments totaling more than $238.9 
million, according to Reclamation data. 

Contractual authority for early repayment is limited because only a 
small number of contracts that predate the Reclamation Reform Act of 
1982--which prohibited new contracts after October 12, 1982, from 
authorizing early repayment--contain terms expressly authorizing early 
repayment.[Footnote 26] Reclamation data indicate that of the 87 
irrigation districts with early repayment authority, 55 districts had 
contracts that authorized landholders to repay their outstanding 
construction cost obligations early; these districts are located 
largely in the Pacific Northwest region. Some or all landholders 
within 39 of those 55 irrigation districts exercised this contractual 
authority and made early repayments totaling approximately $18.7 
million as of December 2013,[Footnote 27] according to Reclamation 
data (see appendix IV). 

In addition, we identified seven statutes enacted since 2000 that 
authorize some irrigation districts--or, in some cases, landholders 
within those districts--to repay their construction cost obligations 
early. Specifically, we identified 32 irrigation districts that sought 
and received statutory authority for early repayment by the district 
or landholders.[Footnote 28] Our analysis of Reclamation data shows 
that, of those 32 irrigation districts with statutory authority, 30 
districts repaid early or had some landholders within the district who 
repaid early, with their early repayments totaling $220.2 million, as 
of December 2013 (see appendix IV). Twenty-two irrigation districts 
that receive water from the Central Valley Project and received 
statutory authority in 2009 comprised most of those early repayments, 
totaling nearly $200.1 million. 

Early Repayment Affects the Financial Return to the Federal Government 
and Accelerates the Elimination of Certain Restrictions and 
Requirements for Landholders: 

Early repayment affects the financial return to the federal government 
and accelerates the elimination of certain restrictions and 
requirements for landholders that are in place until their repayment 
obligations are fulfilled. While only a limited number of irrigation 
districts and landholders have early repayment authority, there has 
been consideration in Congress of expanding early repayment authority 
more broadly, such as to all irrigation districts.[Footnote 29] 
Reclamation documents and officials we interviewed indicated that the 
agency has and would likely continue to support additional 
authorization for early repayment, so long as the financial return to 
the federal government was not negatively affected, but that the 
unique aspects of most water projects support authorizing early 
repayment on a case-by-case basis.[Footnote 30] 

Reclamation officials and irrigation district officials told us that 
early repayment may not appeal to many districts or landholders, given 
that their repayments are otherwise due in fixed, interest-free 
amounts spread over many years. In addition, some noted, the districts 
or landholders may not be in a financial position to repay their 
outstanding repayment obligations on a lump-sum or accelerated basis. 
On the other hand, as described above, of the 87 irrigation districts 
that had early repayment authority, most of the districts, or at least 
some of the landholders within those districts, exercised such 
authority and repaid their obligations early. Based on our analysis, 
we found that early repayment more quickly eliminates certain 
restrictions and requirements for a landholder, which may provide an 
incentive for the landholder or the district to seek and exercise 
early repayment authority, depending on their circumstances. 
Specifically, we found that early repayment has various implications 
for the federal government, irrigation districts, and landholders, as 
follows. 

Early Repayment Affects the Financial Return to the Federal Government: 

Early repayment affects the financial return to the federal 
government, largely depending on whether a discount may be authorized, 
such as calculating the present value of the outstanding repayment 
obligation to determine the amount to be repaid early, and the size of 
that discount. If no discounts are authorized, any repayments that 
occur earlier than the due date specified in the contract would be 
worth more to the government because irrigation districts' repayments 
do not bear interest. By receiving lump-sum or accelerated payments 
early for the outstanding repayment obligations, the government avoids 
the loss in value that would otherwise occur with repayments made over 
time. For example, if in 2014 an irrigation district were to make a 
lump-sum payment of $100,000 that would otherwise be due in annual 
installments through 2030 (e.g., about $5,882 per year for 17 years), 
the government would receive that money sooner. Looked at another way, 
if the irrigation district were to continue making annual repayments 
over time, rather than repay early, the value to the government of 
$100,000 paid in full after annual installments ending in 2030 would 
be approximately $74,220 in 2014 dollars.[Footnote 31] Reclamation 
officials told us that in most instances where irrigation districts or 
landholders exercised their authority to repay early, the early 
repayment amounts reflected their outstanding repayment obligations, 
and the agency did not apply any discounts. 

If early repayment authority provides a discount toward the 
outstanding repayment obligation, however, the value of the return to 
the government is reduced compared with repayment of the full 
outstanding amount. In recent years, a few statutes have granted 
certain irrigation districts a discount. For example, legislation 
enacted in 2009 required certain Central Valley Project irrigation 
districts to repay their outstanding repayment obligations early, at a 
discount of half the 20-year Treasury rate. This discount was intended 
to offset the irrigation districts' borrowing costs in obtaining loans 
to facilitate their early repayments, according to an attorney who 
represented the districts. In this example, the discount may have 
incentivized the irrigation districts to repay early, but it also 
reduced the financial return to the federal government compared with 
early repayment without a discount. Specifically, Reclamation data 
indicate that, if no discount had been applied, the early return to 
the government would have been $236.7 million, rather than the $200.1 
million that was repaid based on the discount.[Footnote 32] On the 
other hand, if such a discount had not been provided, fewer irrigation 
districts may have exercised their early repayment authority, and a 
larger discount would have resulted in a smaller return to the 
government. 

Based on past early repayments, some irrigation districts and 
landholders may be motivated to repay early without a discount, but 
Reclamation officials told us that they believe some kind of discount 
would be needed to incentivize many irrigation districts to consider 
early repayment, were it to be authorized. Under certain scenarios, 
authorizing a discount could result in early repayment ultimately 
being worth much less to the federal government compared with 
repayment of the full outstanding amount. For example, in 2012, the 
Congressional Budget Office analyzed proposed legislation that would 
have expanded early repayment authority to all irrigation districts in 
the Central Valley Project.[Footnote 33] Had it been enacted, 
according to that analysis, the proposed legislation would have 
permitted early repayments at levels approximating the present value, 
by applying the 20-year Treasury rate, of the irrigation districts' 
outstanding repayment obligations. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimated that if this legislation were enacted and early repayment 
authority were exercised by the majority of those irrigation 
districts, it would result in a net loss of $176 million to the 
government over the long-term. 

Early Repayment Eliminates Acreage and Pricing Limitations for 
Landholders: 

Early repayment eliminates statutory acreage and pricing limitations 
for landholders sooner than if repayment is made by the due date 
specified in the contract. Under reclamation law, landholders who 
receive Reclamation project water are subject to limits on the amount 
of land they can own or lease for agricultural purposes and irrigate 
with project water, as well as the amount of land they can irrigate at 
subsidized rates, until they fulfill their repayment obligations. 
[Footnote 34] Generally, until that time, landholders may not receive 
project water at any rate on land in excess of ownership limits and 
are charged full-cost water rates on land irrigated in excess of the 
amount subject to the pricing limitations. Full-cost water rates 
include interest charges on the landholders' remaining allocated 
portion of construction costs and can be substantially higher than the 
subsidized rates charged for acres under the statutory pricing 
limitations.[Footnote 35] For instance, officials in one irrigation 
district told us their full-cost water rates were roughly double and, 
in another district, about 30 times higher than the subsidized rates. 
Once irrigation districts or landholders have repaid their 
construction cost obligations in full--whether early, or as scheduled 
by the terms of their contract--the landholders are no longer subject 
to these acreage and pricing limitations. As a result, landholders may 
be able to receive project water, to the extent it is available, on 
additional land or at a subsidized rate once they have fulfilled their 
repayment obligations. 

Reclamation officials told us that any foregone income in future years 
from full-cost water rates would reduce the return to the federal 
government associated with early repayment. According to Reclamation 
officials, the agency collected approximately $146.8 million from 
January 1988 through December 2013 in full-cost water rates from 
landholders who were irrigating land in excess of the amount subject 
to the statutory pricing limitations. Thus, if early repayment 
authority were exercised by those landholders, then the loss of full-
cost water rate revenue in future years would at least partially 
offset the return to the government from early repayments. In 
addition, Reclamation officials and others we interviewed stated that 
early repayment would allow for the possibility of larger entities 
receiving project water at subsidized rates on larger landholdings 
sooner than intended under reclamation law--one of Reclamation's early 
goals in developing water projects throughout the western United 
States was to promote farming opportunities for small, family-owned 
operations. Other irrigation district officials told us, however, that 
even though their districts had landholders with excess acres who may 
be interested in early repayment, the elimination of acreage and 
pricing limitations would not likely serve as an incentive for the 
districts as a whole to repay early. For example, one official stated 
that her district would have to finance a loan to make early 
repayments on a lump-sum or accelerated basis, which did not make 
sense compared with making annual, interest-free repayments under the 
terms of the contract. 

Early Repayment Eliminates Reporting Requirements for Landholders: 

Early repayment also eliminates annual reporting requirements for 
landholders earlier than if repayment was made by the due date 
specified in the contract. Until their construction cost obligations 
are repaid, landholders are subject to annual reporting requirements 
to ensure landholders' compliance with acreage and pricing 
limitations. According to irrigation district officials and 
landholders we interviewed, completing these reports can be difficult 
and time-consuming for landholders and for districts, which must 
complete a form for Reclamation summarizing the reports submitted by 
landholders. For example, one landholder in Oregon said that it repaid 
its construction cost obligation early, after receiving statutory 
authority to do so in 2005, in part to eliminate the need to submit 
the annual reports. On the other hand, some irrigation district 
officials told us that while the reporting requirements were 
burdensome, eliminating the reporting requirements would not be a 
sufficient reason for the district to repay early, if granted the 
authority, without other incentives. 

Early Repayment Potentially Provides Irrigation Districts with Greater 
Assurance of Project Water in Perpetuity: 

Early repayment potentially provides irrigation districts with a 
greater assurance of receiving available project water on a permanent 
basis. The right to water is generally determined by state law--which 
varies by state and can be complex--so repayment and water service 
contracts do not provide a right to water under state law. Under 
federal reclamation law, however, these contracts give irrigation 
districts assurance of a specified amount of water from the project's 
available water supply, which becomes permanent upon completion of 
repayment of the construction costs allocated to the districts. 
[Footnote 36] Securing a permanent right to project water in a 
geographic area where water supply is uncertain was a key motivation 
in the Central Valley Project irrigation districts' desire to convert 
their contracts and repay their construction costs early, according to 
an attorney who represented those districts in pursuing and receiving 
such authority in 2009. In addition, for irrigation districts that 
receive and exercise authority to convert their water service 
contracts to repayment contracts and repay early, the need for 
Reclamation and the districts to renegotiate water service contracts 
when they expire is eliminated, according to agency officials. 
[Footnote 37] Reclamation officials and the attorney representing the 
Central Valley Project irrigation districts told us that renegotiating 
the terms of water service contracts can be time-consuming and 
unpredictable for landholders and their agricultural businesses and, 
therefore, repayment contracts may be preferable over water service 
contracts. On the other hand, the agency's flexibility for responding 
to water shortages, drought, and climate change-related issues could 
be limited as a result of fixing the amount of water an irrigation 
district receives under a repayment contract in perpetuity, according 
to a statement made by Reclamation's Commissioner in 2011.[Footnote 38] 

Conclusions: 

With population, agricultural production, and development in the West 
projected to continue to increase, Reclamation may be called upon to 
modify or expand existing capacity for water storage or delivery. In 
considering potential new work and affiliated funding arrangements, 
Congress, as well as water users and the public, may benefit from 
evaluating information on past water projects. In particular, Congress 
and others may want to assess information on how costs were allocated 
and how funding and repayment arrangements were established among 
various water users in the past. Reclamation compiles such information 
in the repayment statements it prepares annually for each water 
project with outstanding repayment obligations. However, Reclamation 
does not make it readily known to the public that this information is 
available upon request. By further disseminating information to the 
public that construction cost and repayment data are available, 
Reclamation may increase interested parties' opportunities to obtain 
cost and repayment information, and Reclamation would promote 
transparency and potentially increase informed participation by the 
public. This, in turn, could further enable Congress, water users, and 
the public to assess past funding arrangements and enhance their 
ability to make informed decisions for funding potential new work, 
such as to expand water storage capacity. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Consistent with Reclamation's policy to make construction cost 
repayment statements available to the public upon request, and to 
promote transparency and increase informed participation by Congress, 
water users, and the public, the Secretary of the Interior should 
direct Reclamation to better promote to the public that annual 
statements of project construction cost and repayment are available. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior 
for review and comment. On August 13, 2014, the department's audit 
liaison indicated in an e-mail that the department concurred with the 
recommendation and did not have any other comments. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the 
Interior, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Steve D. Morris: 
Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This appendix provides information on the scope of our work and the 
methodology used for the following objectives: examine (1) the extent 
to which Reclamation collects and reports information on water project 
construction costs and the status of repayment by irrigation districts 
and (2) the extent to which irrigation districts can repay their 
allocated water project construction costs early and the implications 
of early repayment. 

In conducting our work, we reviewed the Reclamation Act of 1902, the 
Reclamation Project Act of 1939, the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 
and other relevant laws. We reviewed Reclamation policies and 
directives and other Reclamation documents on water project 
construction cost allocation, repayment, and early repayment of 
construction costs. We also reviewed our July 1996 report on the 
status of construction cost allocations and repayments.[Footnote 39] 
In addition, we conducted interviews with knowledgeable Reclamation 
officials at the agency's central office in Denver, Colorado, and all 
five regional offices (Great Plains, Lower Colorado, Mid-Pacific, 
Pacific Northwest, and Upper Colorado) about issues related to the 
status of repayment and early repayment. For our interviews with 
officials from each of the regional offices, we developed a set list 
of open-ended questions to obtain information and documentation on 
information they maintain on water project construction cost 
allocation and repayment information and the use and availability to 
the public of this information, as well as the opportunities for and 
potential implications of early repayment, among other things. 

To determine the extent to which Reclamation collects and reports 
information on water project construction costs and the status of 
repayment by irrigation districts, we analyzed Reclamation's 
Statements of Project Construction Cost and Repayment (repayment 
statements) for fiscal year 2012, the most current data available at 
the time of our review. Reclamation provided repayment statements for 
76 projects with outstanding repayment obligations with irrigation 
districts, and provided repayment statements for 43 of 54 projects 
with irrigation that no longer had outstanding obligations with 
irrigation districts (Reclamation policy calls for repayment 
statements to be prepared annually for all water projects with 
construction cost repayments outstanding. This policy does not apply 
to water projects where all water users, including irrigation 
districts, have repaid their construction cost allocations, and per 
Reclamation policy, preparing repayment statements for these projects 
is optional). The data contained in repayment statements are generally 
tied to audited accounting records.[Footnote 40] The repayment 
statements are prepared annually by the regional offices for each 
water project that has construction costs allocated to one or more 
water users with an outstanding repayment obligation. The repayment 
statements contain information on total costs for the water project, 
including construction costs incurred as of the end of the fiscal 
year; estimated future construction costs, and other costs that 
Reclamation includes in its repayment analysis for construction costs, 
such as capitalized operation and maintenance costs; the allocation of 
construction costs among project purposes, including irrigation; and 
the status of repayment for costs allocated to each project purpose, 
including repayment realized, anticipated future repayment, and any 
financial assistance granted to irrigation districts, such as credits, 
which relieve water users from a portion of their allocated repayment 
obligations. To analyze and interpret the data contained in the 
repayment statements, we relied, in part, on the relevant financial 
standards section on repayment statements in the Reclamation Manual, 
which provides guidance on the content and format for repayment 
statements. When the data in a repayment statement included estimated 
future construction costs, we subtracted these estimated costs from 
the projects' total costs because such costs have not yet been and, in 
some cases, may never be, incurred. To assess the reliability of 
Reclamation repayment data, we took steps such as reviewing the 
guidance for developing repayment statements in the Reclamation 
Manual; interviewing Reclamation officials from all five regional 
offices who were involved in preparing the repayment statements, as 
well as officials from Reclamation's central finance office in Denver; 
identifying the sources of data included in the repayment statements 
and the agency's review process; and following up with Reclamation 
officials to obtain clarifying information in instances where we 
identified discrepancies in the data. On the basis of these steps, we 
found the repayment statements to be sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report. 

We reviewed information from each of the five regional offices on the 
number of repayment and water service contracts in their respective 
regions where irrigation districts were making repayments on their 
allocated construction cost obligations, as of July 2014, for the 
Lower Colorado, Mid-Pacific, Pacific Northwest and Upper Colorado 
regions and, as of November 2013, for the Great Plains region. To 
assess the reliability of the data provided by the regions concerning 
the number of contracts of each type, we asked Reclamation officials a 
standard set of questions concerning the reliability of the data and 
reviewed corresponding documentation, and we found the data 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We also reviewed 
Reclamation's policies and practices on making cost allocation and 
repayment information--specifically, its repayment statements--
available to the public, as well as the Office of Management and 
Budget's open government directive and associated documentation 
related to ensuring the transparency of government information to the 
public.[Footnote 41] 

To examine the extent to which irrigation districts can repay their 
allocated water project construction costs early, and the implications 
of early repayment, we reviewed applicable laws, policies, and other 
relevant documents. We also collected data from Reclamation's regional 
offices on irrigation districts that have contractual or statutory 
authority to repay early, districts that have exercised such 
authority, and the dates and amounts of early repayments through 
December 2013. To assess the reliability of the data provided by 
Reclamation concerning early repayment, we asked Reclamation officials 
a standard set of questions concerning the reliability of the data and 
reviewed corresponding documentation, and we found the data 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. In addition, we 
conducted legal research to identify statutes that provide irrigation 
districts with the authority to repay their construction cost 
obligations early. To help identify the implications of early 
repayment, we reviewed the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 and other 
laws and regulations that establish acreage and pricing limitations 
and reporting requirements for landholders until their repayment 
obligations are fulfilled. We also reviewed testimonies and a 
statement for the record by Reclamation on draft legislation that 
would have authorized early repayment for additional irrigation 
districts, and we reviewed Congressional Budget Office cost estimates 
of various bills since 2005 that proposed expanding early repayment 
authority to certain irrigation districts. 

For both objectives, we conducted interviews with officials from a 
nonprobability sample of eight irrigation districts and two 
landholders from five water projects located in California, Nebraska, 
Oregon, and Wyoming to collect information on the repayment of 
construction costs and related issues.[Footnote 42] We selected these 
irrigation districts and landholders using criteria such as the type 
of contracts the districts held with Reclamation (repayment or water 
service contracts), their status of repayment, and whether or not the 
districts had early repayment authority. We also interviewed a 
nonprobability sample of nine individuals knowledgeable about 
Reclamation water projects on the status of repayments, early 
repayment authority, or both.[Footnote 43] Using the "snowball 
sampling" technique, we identified these individuals by asking for 
referrals to others knowledgeable about Reclamation water projects and 
their repayment from others whom we had previously interviewed. 
Specifically, we interviewed staff from the Congressional Research 
Service and Congressional Budget Office, attorneys who have 
represented irrigation districts pursuing enactment of legislation 
authorizing early repayment, an attorney who has represented 
environmental organizations in litigation concerning Reclamation water 
projects, an environmental consultant, former congressional staff, and 
officials from the Family Farm Alliance and Taxpayers for Common Sense. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to September 2014 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Cost Allocation and Repayment Information for 54 Projects 
for Which Irrigation Districts Have Fulfilled Obligations: 

The following two tables provide information on construction cost 
allocations by project purpose (table 3) and repayment status of 
construction costs allocated to irrigation (table 4) for 54 Bureau of 
Reclamation water projects for which irrigation districts have 
fulfilled their repayment obligations, as of the end of fiscal year 
2012. 

Table 3: Construction Cost Allocation by Project Purpose for 54 Bureau 
of Reclamation Water Projects for Which Irrigation Districts Have 
Fulfilled Their Repayment Obligations, as of the End of Fiscal Year 
2012: 

Region: Great Plains; 

Project: Angostura; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $20,556,000; 
Power: $346,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $8,908,000; 
Total: $29,810,000. 

Project: Colorado River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $12,071,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $11,375,000; 
Total: $23,446,000. 

Project: Fort Clark Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,426,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $1,426,000. 

Project: Glendo Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $13,329,000; 
Power: $43,328,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $11,573,000; 
Total: $68,230,000. 

Project: Heart Butte Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $2,948,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $5,332,000; 
Total: $8,280,000. 

Project: Intake; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $94,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $94,000. 

Project: Kendrick; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $19,147,000; 
Power: $31,281,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $2,978,000; 
Total: $53,406,000. 

Project: Lower Rio Grande, Mercedes Division; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $11,817,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $11,817,000. 

Project: Lower Rio Grande, La Feria Division; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $5,774,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $5,774,000. 

Project: Lower Yellowstone; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,281,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $36,000; 
Total: $6,317,000. 

Project: Mirage Flats; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $3,102,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $112,000; 
Total: $3,214,000. 

Project: Savage Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,231,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $1,231,000. 

Project: Sun River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $19,104,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $9,764,000; 
Total: $28,868,000. 

Project: W.C. Austin; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $10,613,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $1,080,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $3,426,000; 
Total: $15,119,000. 

Region: Lower Colorado; 

Project: Boulder Canyon[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Gila[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Palo Verde Diversion Dam[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Salt River[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Yuma Auxiliary[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Yuma[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Region: Mid-Pacific; 

Project: Humboldt; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $2,814,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $6,618,000; 
Total: $9,432,000. 

Project: Santa Maria; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $9,586,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $2,068,000; 
Total: $11,654,000. 

Project: Solano; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $35,505,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $5,274,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $10,050,000; 
Total: $50,829,000. 

Project: Truckee Storage; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,643,000; 
Power: $33,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $1,676,000. 

Region: Pacific Northwest; 

Project: Arnold[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Avondale; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $573,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $573,000. 

Project: Burnt River[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Dalton Gardens; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $564,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $564,000. 

Project: Frenchtown[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Grants Pass; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $809,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,073,000; 
Total: $1,881,000. 

Project: Lewiston Orchards; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $2,331,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $1,046,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $5,310,000; 
Total: $8,687,000. 

Project: Little Wood River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,053,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,418,000; 
Total: $2,471,000. 

Project: Mann Creek; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $3,763,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $440,000; 
Total: $4,203,000. 

Project: Missoula Valley[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Okanogan; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $15,819,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $8,098,000; 
Total: $23,918,000. 

Project: Palisades; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $29,963,000; 
Power: $35,511,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $34,807,000; 
Total: $100,281,000. 

Project: Ririe[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Spokane Valley; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $5,132,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $970; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $6,102,000. 

Project: Wapinitia; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $509,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,154,000; 
Total: $1,663,000. 

Region: Upper Colorado; 

Project: Balmorhea; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $437,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $437,000. 

Project: Brantley; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,779,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $200,365,000; 
Total: $202,144,000. 

Project: Carlsbad; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $11,584,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,220,000; 
Total: $12,804,000. 

Project: Fruitgrowers Dam; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $2,262,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $2,262,000. 

Project: Grand Valley; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $10,898,000; 
Power: $214,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $11,112,000. 

Project: Middle Rio Grande; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $19,189,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $27,577,000; 
Total: $46,766,000. 

Project: Moon Lake; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,801,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $1,801,000. 

Project: Newton; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $755,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $2,454,000; 
Total: $3,210,000. 

Project: Pine River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,754,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,797,000; 
Total: $3,551,000. 

Project: Rio Grande; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $27,301,000; 
Power: $17,592,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $4,090,000; 
Total: $48,983,000. 

Project: Sanpete; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $434,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $434,000. 

Project: Seedskadee; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,603,000; 
Power: $7,649,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $14,118,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $74,289,000; 
Total: $97,658,000. 

Project: Strawberry Valley; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $11,589,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $17,998,000; 
Total: $29,587,000. 

Project: Uncompahgre; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $18,401,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $18,401,000. 

Project: Weber River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $3,197,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $34,000; 
Total: $3,231,000. 

Project: Total[D]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $350,542,000; 
Power: $135,953,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $22,488,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $454,364,000; 
Total: $963,347,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation data. GAO-14-764. 

[A] The construction costs do not include any estimated future costs 
that Reclamation anticipates may occur to complete projects. 

[B] Under reclamation law, nonreimbursable costs are those that are 
generally borne by the federal government because certain project 
purposes are viewed as being national in scope. 

[C] Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

[D] Statements of Project Construction Cost and Repayment were not 
available for these projects; per Reclamation policy, it is optional 
to prepare repayment statements for projects that do not have ongoing 
repayments. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: Repayment Status of Construction Costs Allocated to 
Irrigation for 54 Bureau of Reclamation Water Projects for Which 
Irrigation Districts Have Fulfilled Their Repayment Obligations, as of 
the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

Region: Great Plains; 

Project: Angostura; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $20,556,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $718,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $176,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $19,661,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Colorado River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $12,071,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,799,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: $8,272,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Fort Clark Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $1,426,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $72,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $12,000; 
Credits[D]: $4,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $1,338,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Glendo Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $13,329,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $814,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $5,716,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $6,799,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Heart Butte Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $2,948,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $145,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $1,470,000; 
Credits[D]: $10,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $1,323,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Intake; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $94,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $47,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: $43,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: $4,000. 

Project: Kendrick; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $19,147,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $750,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $4,776,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $11,533,000; 
Other[F]: $2,088,000. 

Project: Lower Rio Grande, Mercedes Division; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $11,817,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $8,110,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $23,000; 
Credits[D]: $3,684,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Lower Rio Grande, La Feria Division; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $5,774,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $5,749,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $24,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Lower Yellowstone; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $6,281,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,929,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $47,000; 
Credits[D]: $654,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: $1,651,000. 

Project: Mirage Flats; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $3,102,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $842,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $22,000; 
Credits[D]: $2,238,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Savage Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $1,231,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $144,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $231,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $857,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Sun River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $19,104,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $12,873,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $113,000; 
Credits[D]: $6,195,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: $5,000. 

Project: W.C. Austin; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $10,613,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,182,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $73,000; 
Credits[D]: $7,979,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: $378,000. 

Region: Lower Colorado; 

Project: Boulder Canyon[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Gila[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: Irrigation 
districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Palo Verde Diversion Dam[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Salt River[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Yuma Auxiliary[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Yuma[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Region: Mid-Pacific; 

Project: Humboldt; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $2,814,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,976,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $49,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Santa Maria; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $9,586,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $9,516,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $67,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: $3,000. 

Project: Solano; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $35,505,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,947,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $19,534,000; 
Credits[D]: $982,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $15,407,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Truckee Storage; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $1,643,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,000,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $1,000; 
Credits[D]: $642,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Region: Pacific Northwest; 

Project: Arnold[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Avondale; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $573,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $347,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $42,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $184,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Burnt River[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Dalton Gardens; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $564,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $356,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $208,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Frenchtown[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Grants Pass; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $809,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $809,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Lewiston Orchards; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $2,331,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,101,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $230,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Little Wood River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $1,053,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $957,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: $96,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Mann Creek; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $3,763,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $811,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $2,952,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Missoula Valley[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Okanogan; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $15,819,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $4,246,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $95,000; 
Credits[D]: $11,478,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Palisades; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $29,963,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $8,440,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $16,651,000; 
Credits[D]: $1,021,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $3,852,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Ririe[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayment realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Spokane Valley; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $5,132,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,667,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $50,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $2,358,000; 
Other[F]: $57,000. 

Project: Wapinitia; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $509,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $509,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Region: Upper Colorado; 

Project: Balmorhea; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $437,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $256,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: $182,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Brantley; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $1,779,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,247,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $1,000; 
Credits[D]: $532,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Carlsbad; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $11,584,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $6,173,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $1,109,000; 
Credits[D]: $4,705,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Fruitgrowers Dam; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $2,262,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $198,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $3,000; 
Credits[D]: $2,061,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Grand Valley; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $10,898,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $5,844,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $72,000; 
Credits[D]: $4,982,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Middle Rio Grande; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $19,189,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $15,709,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: 0; 
Credits[D]: $3,506,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Moon Lake; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $1,801,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,592,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $8,000; 
Credits[D]: $201,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Newton; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $755,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $350,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $43,000; 
Credits[D]: $362,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Pine River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $1,754,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,334,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $75,000; 
Credits[D]: $348,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Rio Grande; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $27,301,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $13,855,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $6,621,000; 
Credits[D]: $6,268,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $558,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Sanpete; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $434,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $373,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $1,000; 
Credits[D]: $59,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Seedskadee; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $1,603,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: 0; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $411,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $1,192,000; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Strawberry Valley; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $11,589,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $10,909,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $293,000; 
Credits[D]: $426,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Uncompahgre; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $18,401,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $9,946,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $185,000; 
Credits[D]: $8,373,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Weber River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $3,197,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,185,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $31,000; 
Credits[D]: 0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: 0; 
Other[F]: 0. 

Project: Total[H]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $350,542,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $147,827,000; 
Other repayment realized[C]: $61,159,000; 
Credits[D]: $75,301,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $65,318,000; 
Other[F]: $4,186,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation data. GAO-14-764. 

[A] Numbers may not sum to total because of rounding. In addition, 
construction cost allocation information does not include any 
estimated future costs to complete projects or any anticipated future 
repayment for those costs. Furthermore, an excess of repayment over 
costs is expected for the Brantley, Carlsbad, Humboldt, Middle Rio 
Grande, Pine River, Strawberry Valley, Sun River, Uncompahgre, and 
Weber River projects, so in some instances the repayment of irrigation 
costs, credits, and anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to 
irrigation may exceed the costs allocated to irrigation. 

[B] Repayments that have been made pursuant to repayment, water 
service, or rehabilitation and betterment contracts, according to the 
Statements of Project Construction Cost and Repayment. 

[C] Other repayments realized include contributions and revenues that 
Reclamation calls "incidental revenues," such as excess water sold to 
irrigation districts or revenue from land leased for grazing. 

[D] Credits relieve water users from a portion of their allocated 
repayment obligations. Types of credits include congressionally 
authorized repayment reductions, or "charge-offs," and construction 
expenses determined to be nonreimbursable. 

[E] Irrigation assistance is the amount of construction costs 
allocated to irrigation that the Secretary of the Interior determines 
that irrigation districts are unable to pay for a given project, which 
is repaid from other revenue sources, where available. 

[F] Other anticipated future repayment includes repayment anticipated 
through future repayment contracts and contracts that have been 
deferred, among other things. 

[G] Statements of Project Construction Cost and Repayment were not 
available for these projects; per Reclamation policy, it is optional 
to prepare repayment statements for projects that do not have ongoing 
repayments. 

[H] Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Cost Allocation and Repayment Information for 76 
Projects with Ongoing Repayments by Irrigation Districts: 

The following two tables provide information on construction cost 
allocations by project purpose (table 5) and repayment status of 
construction costs allocated to irrigation (table 6) for 76 Bureau of 
Reclamation water projects with ongoing repayments by irrigation 
districts, as of the end of fiscal year 2012. 

Table 5: Construction Cost Allocation by Project Purpose for 76 Bureau 
of Reclamation Water Projects with Ongoing Repayments by Irrigation 
Districts, as of the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

Region: Great Plains; 

Project: Ainsworth Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $25,265,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,378,000; 
Total: $26,643,000. 

Project: Almena Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,270,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $368,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $14,872,000; 
Total: $21,510,000. 

Project: Belle Fourche; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $72,925,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $8,556,000; 
Total: $81,482,000. 

Project: Bostwick Division; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $68,767,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $39,495,000; 
Total: $108,262,000. 

Project: Buffalo Rapids; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $5,264,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $5,264,000. 

Buford-Trenton; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,294,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $1,294,000. 

Project: Colorado-Big Thompson; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $118,616,000; 
Power: $162,081,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $72,936,000; 
Total: $353,633,000. 

Project: Crow Creek Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $3,798,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $3,798,000. 

Project: East Bench Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $19,245,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $119,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $6,139,000; 
Total: $25,503,000. 

Project: Frenchman-Cambridge Division; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $64,885,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $41,749,000; 
Total: $106,634,000. 

Project: Fryingpan-Arkansas; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $75,321,000; 
Power: $151,356,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $167,572,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $217,780,000; 
Total: $612,029,000. 

Project: Glen Elder Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $4,068,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $263,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $53,246,000; 
Total: $57,577,000. 

Project: Hanover-Bluff; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $9,534,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $9,534,000. 

Project: Helena Valley Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $17,347,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $1,025,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $995,000; 
Total: $19,367,000. 

Project: Huntley; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $4,312,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $4,312,000. 

Project: Keyhole Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $3,713,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $4,942,000; 
Total: $8,655,000. 

Project: Kirwin Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $11,677,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $7,918,000; 
Total: $19,595,000. 

Project: Milk River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $15,004,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $96,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $3,569,000; 
Total: $18,669,000. 

Project: North Loup Division; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $321,010,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $39,808,000; 
Total: $360,818,000. 

Project: North Platte; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $33,268,000; 
Power: $16,222,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $7,769,000; 
Total: $57,258,000. 

Project: Riverton Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $76,157,000; 
Power: $1,059,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $787,000; 
Total: $78,003,000. 

Project: San Angelo; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $17,057,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $6,643,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $68,273,000; 
Total: $91,973,000. 

Project: Shoshone; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $38,753,000; 
Power: $7,025,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $10,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $461,000; 
Total: $46,250,000. 

Project: Trinidad; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,436,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $6,436,000. 

Project: Webster Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $10,068,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $8,561,000; 
Total: $18,629,000. 

Region: Lower Colorado; 

Project: Central Arizona[C]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,155,069,000; 
Power: $606,616,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $1,231,980,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,401,053,000; 
Total: $4,394,717,000. 

Region: Mid-Pacific; 

Project: Cachuma; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $28,145,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $26,479,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $45,394,000; 
Total: $100,017,000. 

Project: Combined Projects; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $29,151,000; 
Power: $2,148,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $82,437,000; 
Total: $113,737,000. 

Project: Central Valley; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $1,870,814,000; 
Power: $946,475,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $633,797,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,403,153,000; 
Total: $4,854,238,000. 

Project: Lahontan Basin; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $20,233,000; 
Power: $3,445,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $67,104,000; 
Total: $90,782,000. 

Project: Orland; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $12,898,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $28,431,000; 
Total: $41,329,000. 

Project: Ventura River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $22,146,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $18,265,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $56,406,000; 
Total: $96,818,000. 

Region: Pacific Northwest; 

Project: Baker; 
Irrigation: $5,475,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $3,909,000; 
Total: $9,384,000. 

Project: Bitter Root; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $2,087,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $2,087,000. 

Project: Boise; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $76,737,000; 
Power: $36,520,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $61,657,000; 
Total: $174,914,000. 

Project: Chief Joseph Dam; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Power: [Empty]; 
Municipal and industrial: [Empty]; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: [Empty]; 
Total: [Empty]. 

Project: Foster Creek Division; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $4,115,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $18,000; 
Total: $4,132,000. 

Project: Greater Wenatchee Division; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $8,664,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $745,000; 
Total: $9,410,000. 

Project: Manson Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $18,823,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $18,823,000. 

Project: Whitestone-Coulee Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $8,380,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $202,000; 
Total: $8,582,000. 

Project: Columbia Basin; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $685,770,000; 
Power: $1,632,688,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $2,285,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $84,182,000; 
Total: $2,404,925,000. 

Project: Crescent Lake Dam; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $3,827,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $3,827,000. 

Project: Crooked River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $12,152,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $38,360,000; 
Total: $50,512,000. 

Project: Deschutes; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $18,749,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $25,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $31,843,000; 
Total: $50,616,000. 

Project: Michaud Flats; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $5,009,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $252,000; 
Total: $5,262,000. 

Project: Minidoka; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $62,781,000; 
Power: $96,466,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $177,584,000; 
Total: $336,831,000. 

Project: Owyhee; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $20,873,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $217,000; 
Total: $21,090,000. 

Project: Rathdrum Prairie; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $9,941,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $147,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $558,000; 
Total: $10,645,000. 

Project: Rogue River Basin; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $17,850,000; 
Power: $14,892,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $6,926,000; 
Total: $39,668,000. 

Project: The Dalles; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,824,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $26,000; 
Total: $6,850,000. 

Project: Tualatin; 
Irrigation: $31,540,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $4,713,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $20,592,000; 
Total: $56,845,000. 

Project: Umatilla Basin; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,063,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $74,352,000; 
Total: $80,415,000. 

Project: Vale; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $8,001,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,849,000; 
Total: $9,850,000. 

Project: Yakima; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $149,420,000; 
Power: $14,857,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $122,206,000; 
Total: $286,483,000. 

Region: Upper Colorado; 

Project: Bonneville Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $359,249,000; 
Power: $145,665,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $1,175,631,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,019,704,000; 
Total: $2,700,249,000. 

Project: Bostwick Park; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,656,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $3,843,000; 
Total: $10,499,000. 

Project: Collbran; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,186,000; 
Power: $17,296,000; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $8,602,000; 
Total: $32,084,000. 

Project: Dallas Creek; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $11,188,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $97,566,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $80,123,000; 
Total: $188,876,000. 

Project: Dolores; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $365,268,000; 
Power: $36,372,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $15,244,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $163,508,000; 
Total: $580,392,000. 

Project: Eden; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $13,916,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $84,000; 
Total: $14,000,000. 

Project: Emery County; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $8,768,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $3,791,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $4,119,000; 
Total: $16,679,000. 

Project: Florida; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $9,730,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,699,000; 
Total: $11,429,000. 

Project: Fort Sumner; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $2,433,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $2,433,000. 

Project: Hammond; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $7,215,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $225,000; 
Total: $7,439,000. 

Project: Hyrum; 
Irrigation: $3,299,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,954,000; 
Total: $5,253,000. 

Project: Jensen Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $5,763,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $46,916,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $17,595,000; 
Total: $70,274,000. 

Project: Lyman; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $27,239,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $1,118,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $15,264,000; 
Total: $43,621,000. 

Project: Mancos; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $5,144,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $5,144,000. 

Project: Ogden River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $20,574,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $6,588,000; 
Total: $27,162,000. 

Project: Paonia; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $7,632,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $1,023,000; 
Total: $8,655,000. 

Project: Preston Bench; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $690,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $690,000. 

Project: Provo River; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $60,503,000; 
Power: $1,601,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $133,987,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $27,330,000; 
Total: $223,463,000. 

Project: San Juan-Chama; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $28,800,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $38,966,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $15,827,000; 
Total: $83,594,000. 

Project: Scofield; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $2,101,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $619,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $13,824,000; 
Total: $16,544,000. 

Project: Silt; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,964,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $9,898,000; 
Total: $16,862,000. 

Project: Smith Fork; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $4,300,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $5,478,000; 
Total: $9,777,000. 

Project: Tucumcari; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $18,506,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: 0; 
Total: $18,506,000. 

Project: Vermejod; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $2,340,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: 0; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $253,000; 
Total: $2,593,000. 

Project: Vernal Unit; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $11,030,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $716,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $9,311,000; 
Total: $21,056,000. 

Project: Weber Basin; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $75,398,000; 
Power: 0; 
Municipal and industrial: $48,592,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $76,817,000; 
Total: $200,807,000. 

Project: Total[E]; 
Construction costs[A]: 
Reimbursable: 
Irrigation: $6,402,485,000; 
Power: $3,892,785,000; 
Municipal and industrial: $3,656,932,000; 
Nonreimbursable[B]: $5,791,759,000; 
Total: $19,744,000,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation data. GAO-14-764. 

[A] The construction costs do not include any estimated future costs 
that Reclamation anticipates may occur to complete projects. 

[B] Under reclamation law, nonreimbursable costs are those that are 
generally borne by the federal government because certain project 
purposes are viewed as being national in scope. 

[C] Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

[D] The Arizona Water Settlements Act, the Arizona Water Settlement 
Agreement, which the act ratified, and a stipulated judgment that 
ended multiyear litigation fixed allocation of the project's water and 
repayment obligations without regard to specific water uses such as 
irrigation, which is a typical practice. The amounts reflected in the 
Central Arizona Project Statement of Project Construction Cost and 
Repayment for specific project purposes are inferred based on 
assumptions made by Reclamation officials. See Arizona Water 
Settlements Act, Pub. L. No. 108-451, tit. I, 118 Stat. 3478 (2004), 
the Arizona Water Settlement Agreement, and Cent. Ariz. Water 
Conservation Dist. v. United States, No. CIV 95-625, No. CIV 95-1720. 

[E] Cost allocation and repayment information for Vermejo was last 
updated in 2007 because, since that time, repayment of the projects 
has been indefinitely deferred. 

[F] Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Also, these 
figures do not include construction cost allocation information for 
one water project that provides irrigation, the Klamath project in the 
Mid-Pacific region. Reclamation has not prepared a final repayment 
statement for this project since fiscal year 2001 because it is in the 
process of crediting revenues from leasing land, among other things, 
according to Reclamation officials According to a draft repayment 
statement prepared for the Klamath project for fiscal year 2010, the 
total cost of the project was $121.9 million, of which $101.2 million 
in costs were allocated to irrigation, and $20.7 million were 
allocated to nonreimbursable purposes. 

[End of table] 

Table 6: Repayment Status of Construction Costs Allocated to 
Irrigation for 76 Bureau of Reclamation Water Projects with Ongoing 
Repayments by Irrigation Districts, as of the End of Fiscal Year 2012: 

Region: Great Plains; 

Project: Ainsworth Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 25,265,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $6,007,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $305,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $4,159,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $14,794,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Almena Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 6,270,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: Irrigation districts[B]: $519,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Other repayments realized[C]: $60,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $392,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $5,304,000; 
Other[F]: -$5,000. 

Project: Belle Fourche; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 72,925,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $5,487,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $4,196,000; 
Credits[D]: $2,375; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,795,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $57,503,000; 
Other[F]: $570,000. 

Project: Bostwick Division; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 68,767,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $16,119,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $1,385,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $7,285,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $43,977,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Buffalo Rapids; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 5,264,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,332,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $39,000; 
Credits[D]: $3,846,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $47,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Buford-Trenton; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 1,294,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $35,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $115,000; 
Credits[D]: $402,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $552,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $190,000. 

Project: Colorado-Big Thompson; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 118,616,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $29,942,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $10,432,000; 
Credits[D]: $1,969,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $677,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $75,525,000; 
Other[F]: $71,000. 

Project: Crow Creek Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 3,798,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $143,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $72,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $8,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $3,577,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: East Bench Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 19,245,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,557,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $1,813,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $187,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $15,688,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Frenchman-Cambridge Division; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 64,885,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $8,544,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: -$360,000; 
Credits[D]: $2,682,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,345,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $51,675,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Fryingpan-Arkansas; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 75,321,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $158,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $0,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $74,191,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $972,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Glen Elder Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 4,068,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $0,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $1,294,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $8,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $2,766,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Hanover-Bluff; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 9,534,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,272,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $204,000; 
Credits[D]: $26,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $258,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $7,774,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Helena Valley Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 17,347,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $857,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $368,000; 
Credits[D]: $94,000,000; 
Irrigation districts[B]: $57,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $15,971,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Huntley; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 4,312,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,740,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $168,000; 
Credits[D]: $410,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $152,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $1,843,000. 

Project: Keyhole Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 3,713,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $219,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $370,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $140,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $2,985,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Kirwin Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 11,677,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,318,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $449,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $537,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $9,373,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Milk River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 15,004,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $8,348,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $1,331,000; 
Credits[D]: $3,375,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $899,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $1,050,000. 

Project: North Loup Division; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 321,010,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $10,502,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $391,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $24,135,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $285,982,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: North Platte; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 33,268,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $24,345,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $2,643,000; 
Credits[D]: $3,299,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $923,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $825,000; 
Other[F]: $1,232,000. 

Project: Riverton Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 76,157,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $5,052,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $5,121,000; 
Credits[D]: $17,502,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,946,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $45,113,000; 
Other[F]: $422,000. 

Project: San Angelo; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 17,057,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $13,507,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $24,000; 
Credits[D]: $224,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,302,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Shoshone; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 38,753,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $15,536,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $1,541,000; 
Credits[D]: $11,705,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $9,708,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $433,000; 
Other[F]: $415,000. 

Project: Trinidad; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 6,436,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,761,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $0,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $4,675,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Webster Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 10,068,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $949,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $159,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $551,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $8,408,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Region: Lower Colorado; 

Project: Central Arizona[G]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 1,155,069,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $60,477,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $42,759,000; 
Credits[D]: $848,876,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $202,957,000[H]; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Region: Mid-Pacific; 

Project: Cachuma; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 28,145,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,938,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $16,731,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,484,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $3,991,000. 

Project: Combined Projects; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 29,151,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $28,358,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $777,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $16,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Central Valley; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 1,870,814,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $729,568,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $73,290,000; 
Credits[D]: $16,695,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $829,230,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $47,026,000; 
Other[F]: $175,004,000. 

Project: Lahontan Basin; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 20,233,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $4,946,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $2,045,000; 
Credits[D]: $4,578,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $166,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $8,498,000. 

Project: Orland; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 12,898,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,489,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Other repayments realized[C]: $279,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $0,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $9,129,000. 

Project: Ventura River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 22,146,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $17,973,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $388,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,027,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $1,758,000. 

Region: Pacific Northwest; 

Project: Baker; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 5,475,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $969,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $7,000; 
Credits[D]: $52,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $383,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $4,065,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Bitter Root; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 2,087,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,071,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $7,000; 
Credits[D]: $2,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $7,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Boise; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 76,737,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $33,782,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $31,169,000; 
Credits[D]: $90,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $8,449,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $3,248,000. 

Project: Chief Joseph Dam; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: [Empty]; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Other repayments realized[C]: [Empty]; 
Credits[D]: [Empty]; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: [Empty]; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: [Empty]; 
Other[F]: [Empty]. 

Project: Foster Creek Division; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 4,115,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,165,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $10,000; 
Credits[D]: $743,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $208,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $1,799,000; 
Other[F]: $189,000. 

Project: Greater Wenatchee Division; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 8,664,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,689,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $23,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $988,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $3,964,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Manson Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 18,823,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,330,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $0,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,330,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $16,163,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Whitestone-Coulee Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 8,380,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $561,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $0,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $349,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $7,470,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Columbia Basin; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 685,770,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $59,205,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $68,370,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $13,661,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $494,327,000; 
Other[F]: $50,208,000. 

Project: Crescent Lake Dam; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 3,827,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,789,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $0,000; 
Credits[D]: $30,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $0,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $8,000. 

Project: Crooked River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 12,152,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,633,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $870,000; 
Credits[D]: $296,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,909,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $3,552,000; 
Other[F]: $1,892,000. 

Project: Deschutes; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 18,749,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $7,282,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Other repayments realized[C]: $403,000; 
Credits[D]: $1,700,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $9,364,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: -$1,000. 

Project: Michaud Flats; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 5,009,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,557,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $31,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $341,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $2,081,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Minidoka; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 62,781,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $41,757,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $11,662,000; 
Credits[D]: $178,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,810,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $7,373,000. 

Project: Owyhee; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 20,873,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $10,678,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $282,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $9,913,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Rathdrum Prairie; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 9,941,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,004,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $1,860,000; 
Credits[D]: $174,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $62,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $5,840,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Rogue River Basin; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 17,850,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $5,727,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $158,000; 
Credits[D]: $9,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,296,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $9,660,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: The Dalles; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 6,824,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,744,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $70,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $806,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $4,204,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Tualatin; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 31,540,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,881,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $15,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,993,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $25,316,000; 
Other[F]: $335,000. 

Project: Umatilla Basin; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 6,063,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,863,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $977,000; 
Credits[D]: $2,289,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $935,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Vale; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 8,001,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $5,468,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $200,000; 
Credits[D]: $412,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,921,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Yakima; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 149,420,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $61,808,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $9,553,000; 
Credits[D]: $56,023,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $4,998,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $13,652,000; 
Other[F]: $3,387,000. 

Region: Upper Colorado; 

Project: Bonneville Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 359,249,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,271,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Other repayments realized[C]: $629,000; 
Credits[D]: $62,129,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $6,266,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $280,116,000; 
Other[F]: $8,839,000. 

Project: Bostwick Park; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 6,656,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $734,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $92,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $347,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $5,483,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Collbran; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 6,186,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,004,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $5,097,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $85,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Dallas Creek; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 11,188,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $4,810,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $186,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,456,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $4,736,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Dolores; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 365,268,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $5,021,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $487,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $19,022,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $335,293,000; 
Other[F]: $5,445,000. 

Project: Eden; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 13,916,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $935,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $123,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $381,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $12,478,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Emery County; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 8,768,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,960,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $26,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $389,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $6,393,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Florida; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 9,730,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,456,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $138,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $320,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $7,692,000; 
Other[F]: $125,000. 

Project: Fort Sumner; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 2,433,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,807,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $42,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $602,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $23,000. 

Project: Hammond; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 7,215,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $356,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $42,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $180,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $6,637,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Hyrum; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 3,299,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,644,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $12,000; 
Credits[D]: $107,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $536,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Jensen Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 5,763,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $420,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $9,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $330,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $5,005,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Lyman; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 27,239,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,651,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $60,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,802,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $23,727,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Mancos; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 5,144,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $870,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $3,000; 
Credits[D]: $4,169,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $103,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Ogden River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 20,574,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $13,735,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $159,000; 
Credits[D]: $504,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $6,241,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Paonia; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 7,632,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,365,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $142,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $955,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $5,170,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Preston Bench; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 690,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $582,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $0,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $108,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Provo River; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 60,503,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $6,871,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $49,775,000; 
Credits[D]: $137,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $4,129,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: San Juan-Chama; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 28,800,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $3,515,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $429,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $70,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $24,686,000; 
Other[F]: $100,000. 

Project: Scofield; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 2,101,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,291,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $8,000; 
Credits[D]: $32,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $769,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Silt; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 6,964,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $787,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $33,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $173,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $5,971,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Smith Fork; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 4,300,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $923,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $81,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $103,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $3,194,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Tucumcari; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 18,506,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $4,878,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $18,000; 
Credits[D]: $11,816,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,795,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Vermejoi; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 2,340,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $43,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $0,000; 
Credits[D]: $232,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $2,065,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Vernal Unit; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 11,030,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,381,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $81,000; 
Credits[D]: $0; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $959,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $8,608,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Weber Basin; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: 75,398,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $35,065,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $84,000; 
Credits[D]: $12,299,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to Irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $27,950,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $0,000; 
Other[F]: $0. 

Project: Total[J]; 
Construction costs allocated to irrigation[A]: 
Irrigation: $6,402,485,000; 
Repayment of irrigation costs: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,353,332,000; 
Other repayments realized[C]: $351,812,000; 
Credits[D]: $1,071,483,000; 
Anticipated future repayment of costs allocated to irrigation: 
Irrigation districts[B]: $1,318,668,000; 
Irrigation assistance[E]: $2,022,948,000; 
Other[F]: $285,340,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation data. GAO-14-764. 

[A] Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. In addition, 
construction cost allocation information does not include any 
estimated future costs to complete projects or any anticipated future 
repayment for those costs. For the Upper Colorado region, anticipated 
future repayment as reported assumes that the Bonneville Unit and 
Mancos projects will be completed. Furthermore, an excess of repayment 
over costs is expected for the Fort Sumner, Ogden River, Provo River, 
and Shoshone projects, so in some instances the repayment of 
irrigation costs, credits, and anticipated future repayment of costs 
allocated to irrigation will exceed the costs allocated to irrigation. 

[B] Amounts include repayments that have been made or are anticipated 
pursuant to repayment or water service contracts, as well as some 
repayments made through rehabilitation and betterment contracts, 
according to the Statements of Project Construction Cost and Repayment. 

[C] Other repayments realized include contributions and revenues that 
Reclamation calls "incidental revenues," such as excess water sold to 
irrigation districts or revenue from land leased for grazing. 

[D] Credits relieve water users from a portion of their allocated 
repayment obligations. Types of credits include congressionally 
authorized repayment reductions, or "charge-offs," and construction 
expenses determined to be nonreimbursable. 

[E] Irrigation assistance is the amount of construction costs 
allocated to irrigation that the Secretary of the Interior determines 
that irrigation districts are unable to pay for a given project, which 
is repaid from other revenue sources, where available. 

[F] Other anticipated future repayment includes repayment anticipated 
through future repayment contracts and contracts that have been 
deferred, among other things. 

[G] The Arizona Water Settlements Act, the Arizona Water Settlement 
Agreement, which the act ratified, and a stipulated judgment that 
ended multiyear litigation fixed allocation of the project's water and 
repayment obligations without regard to specific water uses such as 
irrigation, which is the typical practice. The amounts reflected in 
the Central Arizona Project repayment statement for specific project 
purposes are inferred based on assumptions made by Reclamation 
officials. See Arizona Water Settlements Act, Pub. L. No. 108-451, 
tit. I, 118 Stat. 3478 (2004), the Arizona Water Settlement Agreement, 
and Cent. Ariz. Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, No. CIV 95-
625, No. CIV 95-1720. 

[H] This $203.0 million in anticipated future repayment for the 
Central Arizona Project is being repaid, pursuant to federal law, a 
settlement agreement, and stipulated judgment, by a municipal 
corporation that operates and maintains the Central Arizona Project. 
The United States had entered into repayment contracts with irrigation 
districts for the repayment of Central Arizona Project irrigation 
distribution system construction costs. Under the Central Arizona 
Project Settlement Act of 2004 and the Arizona Water Settlement 
Agreement, however, irrigation districts that voluntarily relinquished 
Central Arizona Project water to which they were entitled by the terms 
of their contracts received relief from their repayment obligations, 
among other things. 

[I] Repayment information for Vermejo was last updated in 2007 
because, since that time, repayment of the projects has been 
indefinitely deferred. 

[J] Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Also, these 
figures do not include repayment information for one water project 
that provides irrigation, the Klamath project in the Mid-Pacific 
region. Reclamation has not prepared a final repayment statement for 
this project since fiscal year 2001 because it is in the process of 
crediting revenues from leasing land, among other things, according to 
Reclamation officials. According to a draft repayment statement 
prepared for the Klamath project for fiscal year 2010, $101.2 million 
in costs were allocated to irrigation, $9.0 million was repaid by 
irrigation districts, $46.2 million was repaid from other sources, and 
$33.1 million was provided in financial assistance. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Irrigation Districts with Contractual or Statutory 
Authority for Early Repayment of Construction Cost Obligations: 

The following two tables provide information on irrigation districts 
with contractual authority for landholders to repay their outstanding 
construction cost obligations early, and early repayments made (table 
7) and irrigation districts with statutory authority for the districts 
or landholders to repay their outstanding construction cost 
obligations early, and early repayments made (table 8), as of December 
2013. 

Table 7: Irrigation Districts with Contractual Authority for 
Landholders to Repay Outstanding Construction Cost Obligations Early, 
and Early Repayments Made, as of December 2013: 

Region: Great Plains; 

Project: North Platte; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 2; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 2; 
Early repayments made: $15,637,349. 

Project: Huntley; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 1; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 1; 
Early repayments made: unavailable[B]. 

Region: Pacific Northwest; 

Project: Boise; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 1; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 1; 
Early repayments made: $62,282. 

Project: Deschutes; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 1; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 1; 
Early repayments made: $199,703. 

Project: Michaud Flats; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 1; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 1; 
Early repayments made: $94,924. 

Region and project: Minidoka; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 1; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 0; 
Early repayments made: $0. 

Project: Minidoka and Palisades[C]; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 40; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 25; 
Early repayments made: $418,056. 

Project: Owhyee; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 3; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 3; 
Early repayments made: $622,614. 

Project: Rogue River Basin; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 1; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 1; 
Early repayments made: $380,048. 

Project: Umatilla Basin; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 1; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 1; 
Early repayments made: $9,406. 

Project: Yakima; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 3; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 3; 
Early repayments made: $1,242,022. 

Project: Total; 
Irrigation districts with contractual authority for early repayment by 
landholders: 55; 
Irrigation districts in which the district or landholders repaid 
early[A]: 39; 
Early repayments made: $18,666,403[D,E]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation data. GAO-14-764. 

[A] In most of the 39 irrigation districts with landholders who 
exercised their contractual early repayment authority, all of the 
landholders repaid early, and therefore the districts as a whole 
repaid early. 

[B] According to Reclamation data, 487 landholders in this irrigation 
district repaid their construction cost obligations early, from 1940 
through 2000, but Reclamation could not readily provide the amounts of 
those early repayments. 

[C] According to Reclamation officials, these irrigation districts 
have contractual authority for landholders within their districts to 
repay their construction cost obligations early for two projects, 
Minidoka and Palisades. 

[D] Numbers may not sum to total because of rounding. 

[E] Total does not include early repayments for the Huntley project. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Irrigation Districts with Statutory Authority for the 
Districts or Landholders to Repay Outstanding Construction Cost 
Obligations Early, and Early Repayments Made, as of December 2013: 

Region: Great Plains; 

Project: Pick-Sloan - Missouri Basin Program[A]; 
Irrigation districts with statutory authority for early repayment: 2; 
Statute and terms of early repayment authority: Pub. L. No. 106-366 
(2000) - authorized transfer of title to certain Reclamation assets to 
the Farwell Irrigation District and Sargent Irrigation District, which 
had repayment contracts, in exchange for approximately $2.8 million. 
According to Reclamation officials, this amount was an accelerated 
repayment that was discounted from the districts' outstanding repayment 
obligations; 
Early repayments made: $2,847,360. 

Region: Mid Pacific; 

Project: Central Valley; 
Irrigation districts with statutory authority for early repayment: 24; 
Statute and terms of early repayment authority: 
Pub. L. No. 111-11, § 10010 (2009) - (1) directed Reclamation to 
convert 19 irrigation districts' water service contracts to repayment 
contracts by December 31, 2010, and (2) authorized Reclamation to 
convert the water service contracts of 5 other irrigation districts 
upon those districts' request[B]; 
Required the converted contracts to require early repayment, either in 
lump-sum or accelerated prepayment, by specified time frames; 
Discounted the early repayment of outstanding construction costs by 
half the 20-year Treasury rate; 
Required districts to repay construction costs and other capitalized 
costs properly assignable to them after completion of construction on 
the Central Valley Project and a final cost allocation by Reclamation; 
Prohibited the use of power revenues to aid in repayment of 
construction costs allocated to irrigation; 
Early repayments made: $200,072,648. 

Project: Central Valley; 
Irrigation districts with statutory authority for early repayment: 1; 
Statute and terms of early repayment authority: Pub. L. No. 106-377, 
appx. B, tit. II, § 212 (2000) - authorized transfer of title to the 
project's Sly Park Unit to the El Dorado Irrigation District, in 
exchange for $11.5 million to relieve repayment obligations and 
extinguish all debts associated with the district's contracts; 
Early repayments made: 11,500,000[C]. 

Project: Central Valley; 
Irrigation districts with statutory authority for early repayment: 1; 
Statute and terms of early repayment authority: Pub. L. No. 106-566, 
tit. V, § 503 (2000) - authorized transfer of title to certain 
facilities to the Foresthill Public Utility District, in exchange for 
approximately $2.7 million, which relieved the irrigation district of 
all repayment obligations for the facilities, and relieved the 
district of all debt under the district's water service contract; 
Early repayments made: $2,772,221[D]. 

Region: Pacific Northwest; 

Project: Minidoka; 
Irrigation districts with statutory authority for early repayment: 1; 
Statute and terms of early repayment authority: Pub. L. No. 110-229, § 
508 (2008) - authorizes landholders in the A&B Irrigation District to 
repay at any time the project's construction costs allocated to their 
land; 
Early repayments made: $639,783. 

Region and project: Rogue River Basin; 
Irrigation districts with statutory authority for early repayment: 2; 
Statute and terms of early repayment authority: Pub. L. No. 109-138 
(2005) - authorizes landholders in the Medford Irrigation District and 
the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District to repay at any time the 
construction costs of the project facilities allocated to their land; 
Early repayments made: $78,513. 

Region: Upper Colorado; 

Project: San Juan-Chama; 
Irrigation districts with statutory authority for early repayment: 1; 
Statute and terms of early repayment authority: Pub. L. No. 107-20, § 
2402 (2001) - requires Reclamation to accept prepayment for all 
remaining repayment obligations under a specific contract if early 
repayment is offered by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District; 
Early repayments made: $2,329,091. 

Project: Total; 
Irrigation districts with statutory authority for early repayment: 
32[E]; 
Early repayments made: $220,239,616. 

Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation data and laws. 
GAO-14-764. 

[A] The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program contains multiple 
Reclamation water projects. 

[B] The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Pub. L. No. 111-
11, tit. X, subtit. A, pt. I, § 10010(a)(2) (2009)) did not specify 
the irrigation districts within the Friant Division for which 
Reclamation was authorized (but not required) to convert the 
district's water service contract to a repayment contract upon the 
district's request. However, according to Reclamation officials, there 
were five such irrigation districts at that time. 

[C] According to Reclamation officials, the El Dorado Irrigation 
District had four repayment and water service contracts, which 
provided the district with water for irrigation as well as municipal 
and industrial purposes. The agency could not readily provide the 
early repayment amounts specifically for irrigation. 

[D] According to Reclamation officials, the Foresthill Public Utility 
District had a water service contract that provided the district with 
water for irrigation as well as municipal and industrial purposes. Of 
the $2.7 million the district repaid early, $194,085 was for its 
irrigation construction cost obligation. 

[E] Of the 32 irrigation districts with statutory authority for the 
districts--or, in some cases, landholders within those districts--to 
repay their construction cost obligations early, 30 districts either 
repaid early as a whole or had some landholders who repaid early. Two 
irrigation districts in the Central Valley Project that were 
authorized to repay early by Pub. L. No.111-11, § 10010(a) (2009) did 
not repay early; according to Reclamation officials, one of those 
districts had no outstanding repayment obligation, and the other 
district chose not to exercise its authority. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Steve D. Morris, (202) 512-3841, or morriss@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Alyssa M. Hundrup 
(Assistant Director), Josey Ballenger, Marya Link, and Jeanette Soares 
made key contributions to this report. Stephen Brown, Cindy Gilbert, 
Paul Kinney, and Alison O'Neill also provided assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] In this report, we use the term "irrigation districts" to mean 
entities established under state law that have entered into contracts 
with Reclamation to receive project water for irrigation purposes, 
which generally encompasses water used to irrigate land primarily for 
the production of commercial agricultural crops or livestock. 

[2] In this report, the term "power users" refers to users of 
Reclamation water project power generation. Such users include 
industrial entities, municipalities, Native American entities, 
military installations, water districts, power companies, and 
irrigation districts, among others. Since 1977, power generated by 
Reclamation water projects that is surplus to irrigation needs is 
marketed by the Department of Energy under rates set by that agency. 

[3] Operation and maintenance payments are not included in the scope 
of this review. We previously reported on Reclamation water project 
operation and maintenance activities and costs; see GAO, Bureau of 
Reclamation: Information on Operations and Maintenance Activities and 
Costs at Multipurpose Water Projects, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-127] (Washington, D.C.: May 
31, 2000). 

[4] In June 2012, and again in February 2014, the Natural Resources 
Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on draft 
legislation that would authorize irrigation districts and other water 
users to repay their allocated construction costs before the repayment 
due date specified in their contracts. The Accelerated Revenue, 
Repayment and Surface Water Storage Enhancement Act was introduced in 
the U.S. House of Representatives. H.R. 3981, 113th Cong. (2014). 

[5] GAO, Bureau of Reclamation: Information on Allocation and 
Repayment of Costs of Constructing Water Projects, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-96-109] (Washington, D.C.: July 
3, 1996). 

[6] Reclamation prepares Statements of Project Construction Cost and 
Repayment annually for each water project that has construction costs 
allocated to one or more water users with repayments outstanding. The 
statements include data on the total construction costs for the water 
project; the construction costs allocated to each project purpose, 
including irrigation; repayment information for costs allocated to 
each project purpose, including the amount irrigation districts have 
repaid as of the end of the fiscal year; and any financial assistance 
granted to irrigation districts. 

[7] Because we selected a nonprobability sample, the information 
obtained from these interviews is not generalizable to other 
irrigation districts or landholders, but it provides illustrative 
information. 

[8] Reclamation's ability-to-pay analyses include estimates of the 
difference in farmers' income with and without an irrigation project 
and involve projections of farm size, type and quantity of crops, and 
crop prices. The irrigation districts' ability to pay is measured in 
terms of the farm income available to meet the annual cost of water 
after all crop production, overhead, and family living expenses are 
recognized. In general, once the ability to pay has been determined, 
the irrigation districts' repayment obligation is fixed for the entire 
repayment term based on this determination, regardless of changes in 
the irrigators' profitability, unless the irrigation districts request 
a revision. However, Reclamation officials stated that the agency's 
policy is to include a provision in all new or amended repayment or 
water service contracts requiring that ability-to-pay determinations 
be reviewed every 5 years. 

[9] The Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926, for example, provided 
repayment relief to irrigation districts within the service areas of 
21 projects by forgiving about 13 percent of all the construction 
costs incurred up to that time--about $17.3 million--because the 
Secretary of the Interior determined that the land being irrigated was 
nonproductive, and the act provided for a reduction of the irrigation 
district's repayment obligation. 

[10] Originally, the Reclamation Act of 1902 set the repayment period 
at 10 years. However, because of economic difficulties faced by the 
irrigation districts, laws were enacted to extend this period to 20 
years in 1914, and then to 40 years in 1926. Repayment periods 
exceeding 40 years have also been authorized by statute for specific 
projects. Irrigation districts with repayment contracts generally do 
not begin repaying their allocated share of construction costs until 
after a development period of up to 10 years from the time when a 
district first receives water from the project. The Reclamation 
Project Act of 1939 authorized this development period to provide 
irrigation districts with time to develop arid lands for farming and 
achieve the financial position necessary to meet the costs before 
beginning repayment of their share of the project's construction costs. 

[11] Under water service contracts, Reclamation's rates charged for 
water delivered to irrigation districts are to cover an "appropriate 
share" of construction costs, as well as annual operation and 
maintenance costs, rather than the total construction costs allocated 
to irrigation, as under repayment contracts. According to court 
decisions, Reclamation has discretion in determining what constitutes 
an appropriate share of construction costs. See, for example, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Central 
Valley Project, California: Repayment Status and Payoff, WR-EV-BOR-
0003-2012 (Washington, D.C.: March 2013), for a discussion on the 
share of construction costs charged to the Central Valley Project 
under its water service contracts. 

[12] According to a Reclamation handbook, water service contracts with 
conversion provisions may be converted to repayment contracts if 
certain conditions are met. 

[13] In some instances, Reclamation may enter into contracts directly 
with landholders for water service. In this report, the term 
"landholders" refers to individuals and legal entities such as 
corporations, partnerships, and tax-exempt organizations that own or 
lease land for agricultural purposes and receive Reclamation project 
water. 

[14] To fulfill their obligations to Reclamation under repayment or 
water service contracts, irrigation districts typically collect annual 
payments from landholders who irrigate with project water within the 
districts' boundaries, and the districts then each generally submit 
one collective annual payment to Reclamation. 

[15] Reclamation policy calls for repayment statements to be prepared 
annually for all water projects with construction cost repayments 
outstanding. This policy does not apply to water projects where all 
water users, including irrigation districts, have repaid their 
construction cost allocations. 

[16] Reclamation prepared repayment statements for 43 of these 54 
projects in fiscal year 2012, which indicate that the total 
construction cost for these projects was more than $963.3 million, of 
which at least $350.5 million was allocated to irrigation. Reclamation 
did not prepare repayment statements for the other 11 projects or 
otherwise have construction cost and repayment information readily 
available. Per Reclamation policy, it is optional to prepare repayment 
statements for water projects where all water users, including 
irrigation districts, have repaid their construction cost allocations. 

[17] These project numbers do not include the Klamath project in the 
Mid-Pacific region, which also has an outstanding repayment obligation 
by irrigation districts, because Reclamation has not prepared a final 
repayment statement for this project since fiscal year 2001. According 
to Reclamation officials, the repayment statement has not been 
finalized because they are in the process of crediting revenues from 
leasing land, among other things. In addition, another 31 water 
projects initially had construction costs allocated to irrigation, but 
ultimately no costs were repaid by irrigation districts pursuant to 
contracts with Reclamation, according to Reclamation's repayment 
statements, and therefore these projects are not included in our 
analysis. 

[18] The more than $19.7 billion in construction costs includes costs 
that are included in Reclamation's repayment analysis or resulting 
repayment obligations of water users in its repayment statements, but 
technically may not be part of the construction cost of the project. 
For example, Reclamation considers deficit-funded operation and 
maintenance costs as a part of construction costs. When this report 
refers to construction costs, we are including these other costs. 

[19] This percentage was calculated based on the actual (not rounded) 
numbers, as shown in table 1. 

[20] The United States had entered into repayment contracts with 
irrigation districts for the repayment of Central Arizona Project 
irrigation distribution system construction costs. However, under the 
Central Arizona Project Settlement Act of 2004 and the Arizona Water 
Settlement Agreement, irrigation districts voluntarily relinquished 
Central Arizona Project water to which they were entitled by the terms 
of their contracts, among other things. 

[21] The nearly $1.4 billion includes payments made pursuant to 
repayment and water service contracts, as well as some repayments made 
pursuant to rehabilitation and betterment contracts. Rehabilitation 
and betterment contracts are for repaying costs of maintenance for the 
projects, including replacement of some irrigation system 
infrastructure, and these costs are included in Reclamation's 
repayment statements. 

[22] Reclamation publicly reported information on projects' status of 
repayment in Repayment of Reclamation Projects, which was last 
published in 1972, and in Summary Statistics, Volume II, Finances and 
Physical Features, last published in 1984. 

[23] Reclamation officials explained that the information contained in 
the repayment statements may not be easily understood by the public, 
and given the unique nature and authorizing laws for each water 
project, some of the cost or repayment information could be taken out 
of context. Reclamation officials also stated that they had 
encountered resistance from some irrigation districts due to concerns 
that other water users and the public would be able to see the status 
of their repayment, amounts of irrigation assistance, and other 
financial information in the repayment statements. 

[24] Office of Management and Budget, Open Government Directive, M-10-
06 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2009). It defined government information 
as any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, 
data, or opinions presented in any medium or format; see OMB Circular 
A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 28, 2000). 

[25] According to Reclamation data, as of December 2013, an estimated 
585 irrigation districts had either repayment or water service 
contracts, or both, with Reclamation to receive project water for 
irrigation purposes; this number reflects districts with outstanding 
repayment obligations, as well as those that have fulfilled their 
construction cost obligations. 

[26] According to a relevant House committee report, the purpose of 
this prohibition was to "not permit lump-sum or accelerated payout 
which would inure only to the benefit of the wealthier districts and 
could also subvert the subsidy reduction provisions" pertaining to 
certain acreage and full-cost pricing limitations to which landholders 
are subject. H.R. Rep. No. 97-458 at 16 (1982). 

[27] The early repayment total of approximately $18.7 million does not 
include repayment information for one irrigation district. According 
to Reclamation data, 487 landholders in that district repaid their 
construction cost obligations early over a range of dates from 1940 
through 2000. Reclamation did not, however, have readily available the 
amounts of the early repayments for that district. 

[28] Four of these irrigation districts sought and received authority 
to have title of certain Reclamation water project assets transferred 
to them, and the statutes authorizing the transfers required the 
districts to pay specified amounts to relieve them of their 
outstanding repayment obligations. 

[29] In June 2012 and again in February 2014, the Natural Resources 
Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on draft 
legislation that would authorize irrigation districts and other water 
users to repay their allocated construction costs before the repayment 
due date specified in their contracts. The Accelerated Revenue, 
Repayment and Surface Water Storage Enhancement Act was introduced in 
the U.S. House of Representatives. H.R. 3981, 113th Cong. (2014). 

[30] See, for example, Statement of the Record, Bureau of Reclamation, 
U.S. Department of the Interior, before the Natural Resources 
Committee Subcommittee on Water and Power, U.S. House of 
Representatives, on 1. H.R. 3981, the Accelerated Revenue, Repayment, 
and Surface Water Storage Enhancement Act; 2. H.R. 3980, the Water 
Supply Permitting and Coordination Act; and 3. Discussion Draft: 
Legislation to Amend the Secure Water Act of 2009 (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 5, 2014). 

[31] We made this calculation based on a discount rate of 3.37 
percent, the 20-year Treasury rate as of March 2014. 

[32] This calculation was made based on the assumption that the same 
number of irrigation districts would have repaid early without a 
discount as what occurred with the discount. 

[33] Congressional Budget Office, "Cost Estimate: H.R. 1837 Sacramento-
San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act" (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 
2012). 

[34] Subsidized rates are any water rate other than full-cost rates, 
and the rate can vary from district to district. Reclamation charges 
full-cost water rates for landholders who irrigate land above the 
statutory acreage limitations, which are rates set to cover (1) the 
construction cost component associated with the project, plus 
interest; (2) actual operation and maintenance costs; and (3) any 
operation and maintenance deficits, if applicable. 

[35] Reclamation officials told us that the number of acres irrigated 
and the number of landholders that irrigate with project water under 
the full-cost rates fluctuates from year to year and from district to 
district, based on water availability and demand. 

[36] Contracts with Reclamation, however, do not provide a right to 
water under state law and delivery is contingent on the availability 
of water so districts may not necessarily receive water. For example, 
during the 2014 drought in California, Reclamation reduced the amount 
of water irrigation districts received. In addition, agency officials 
noted that the districts are still bound by all other provisions of a 
repayment contract, such as payment to Reclamation for operation and 
maintenance charges, once the construction cost repayment obligation 
is fulfilled. 

[37] Reclamation officials we interviewed indicated that a repayment 
contract is not technically needed for an irrigation district to repay 
its outstanding repayment obligations early and that early repayment 
could be authorized for a water service contract. If early repayment 
were authorized for a water service contract, then Reclamation would 
need to calculate a final repayment obligation and include provisions 
in the early repayment agreement that the irrigation district would be 
responsible for any future construction costs, according to 
Reclamation officials. 

[38] Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of 
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, before the Natural 
Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water and Power, U.S. House of 
Representatives, on H.R. 1837, San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability 
Act (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2011). 

[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-96-109]. 

[40] We did not independently verify the accuracy of the audited 
financial reports that Reclamation used for the cost allocation and 
repayment obligation information contained in each project's repayment 
statements. 

[41] Office of Management and Budget, Open Government Directive, M-10-
06 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2009); OMB Circular A-130, Management of 
Federal Information Resources (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 28, 2000). 

[42] Because we used a nonprobability sample, the information obtained 
in these interviews is not generalizable to other irrigation districts 
or landholders, but it provides illustrative information. 

[43] Because we used a nonprobability sample, the information obtained 
in these interviews is not generalizable to other professionals 
knowledgeable about Reclamation water projects, but it provides 
illustrative information. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]