Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: Rivers
GAO-20-307, Feb 5, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, USIBWC stated that two teams have been established with members, one in the Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora region and one in the San Diego and Tijuana region. IBWC continues to take actions to formalize the binational rapid response teams. We will review the final documents for each team when they are completed and available.
Agency: International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, the U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC stated that it had conducted long-term capital planning for the facilities for which it is responsible. They noted the 5-year plan that USIBWC had developed for the South Bay plant and the 10-year plan that it had developed for the Nogales plant. We noted these plans in our original report and stated that they needed to be broadened to identify needs in the Santa Cruz River Basin and Tijuana River Valley watersheds. The agency only partially concurred with our recommendation in the report and noted that to the extent our report envisions USIBWC undertaking long-term capital planning for (1) nonfederal infrastructure; (2) infrastructure that does not yet exist; and/or (3) infrastructure that the USIBWC is not yet authorized to construct or maintain, it does not concur. The agency is a key player in managing water quality on the border and has the infrastructure and organization that will be part of the solution. Without the information that USIBWC would generate by comprehensively assessing its long-term needs, such as through long-term capital planning efforts, Congress cannot authorize specific work that needs to be done. We recommended that the agency conduct long-term planning, including for infrastructure that does not exist and for infrastructure that is not yet authorized specifically to address this problem. We continue to believe that USIBWC should recognize its role along the border and start planning for it, including by undertaking long-term capital planning for existing and potential future infrastructure and identifying alternatives to address the long-standing water quality problems.