69–010 

Calendar No. 127 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 115–97 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TRANSPARENCY ACT 

JUNE 8, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 

Ms. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 216] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to which was 

referred an bill (S. 216) to require the Secretary of the Interior to 

submit to Congress a report on the efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation to manage its infrastructure assets, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 216 is to require the Secretary of the Interior 

to submit to Congress a report on the efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to manage its infrastructure assets. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Founded in 1902, Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water 

in the United States and supports the design, construction, and 

management of water infrastructure in 17 Western states, including dams, canals, irrigation, hydropower, recreation, and water 

supply infrastructure. Reclamation’s inventory includes 476 dams 

and dikes, creating 337 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 

245 million acre-per-feet of water. Much of Reclamation’s infrastructure was constructed more than 50 years ago, and the Department of the Interior faces many challenges in maintaining this 

aging infrastructure. 

Reclamation prepares an annual ‘‘Asset Management Plan,’’ 

which describes current business practices and performance 

2 

metrics, but does not provide information at the project level. S. 

216 seeks to expand on the information provided by the Asset Management Plan by requiring a detailed assessment of major repair 

and rehabilitation needs at the project level for all Reclamation 

sites. In order to better understand the state of Reclamation’s infrastructure, the bill requires a report to Congress and standardized and streamlined asset data. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 216 was introduced by Senators Barrasso and Schatz on January 24, 2017. 

H.R. 660, companion legislation, was introduced in the House of 

Representatives by Representative Gosar on January 24, 2017. 

In the 114th Congress, S. 593 was introduced by Senators Barrasso and Schatz on February 26, 2015. The Subcommittee on 

Water and Power held a legislative hearing on S. 593 on June 18, 

2015. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources favorably 

reported S. 593, as amended, on September 9, 2015 (S. Rept. 114 

128). 

S. 1800, a nearly identical bill, was introduced by Senators Barrasso and Schatz in the 113th Congress. The Subcommittee on 

Water and Power held a hearing on S. 1800 on February 27, 2014 

(S. Hrg. 113 284). The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 1800 to be favorably reported, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, on June 18, 2014 (S. Rept. 113 

226). The Senate passed S. 1800, as amended, on December 16, 

2014. 

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in open 

business session on March 30, 2017, and ordered S. 216 favorably 

reported. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an 

open business session on March 30, 2017, by a voice vote of a 

quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 216. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 provides the short title. 

Section 2 describes the findings. 

Section 3 provides definitions for the Act. 

Section 4(a) directs the Secretary of the Interior to submit an 

Asset Management Report to Congress within two years of the 

Act’s enactment, and specifies that the report shall describe Reclamation’s efforts to maintain in a reliable manner all of its reserved works, such as buildings, structures, facilities, or equipment, for which maintenance and operations are performed. 

Subsection (b)(1) requires the report include a detailed assessment of the major repair and rehabilitation needs for all reserved 

works and, to the extent practicable, an itemized list of major repair and rehabilitation needs of individual projects at Reclamation 

facilities. Paragraph (2) requires, to the extent practicable, that the 

itemized list include a cost estimate to complete each project, and 

a categorical rating assignment in order to inform the annual agency budgeting process. Paragraph (3) provides further requirements 

3 

for assigning ratings. Paragraph (4) requires that the report be 

made publicly available. Paragraph (5) allows the Secretary to exclude sensitive or classified information from the public version of 

the report, but requires that a separate version of the report containing the sensitive or classified information be made available to 

the Congressional committees of jurisdiction. 

Subsection (c) directs that the Asset Management Report be updated biennially. 

Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to consult with the Army 

Corps of Engineers and water and power contractors in preparing 

the Asset Management Report. 

Section 5 directs the Secretary to coordinate with those non-federal entities responsible for the operation and maintenance of Reclamation facilities, known as transferred works, in developing reporting requirements for needed major repair and rehabilitation 

work for those projects similar to the reporting requirements established in section 4. 

Section 6 amends section 1631(d)(1) of the Reclamation Projects 

Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to reduce by $2 million 

the maximum amount of the Federal cost share for a project authorized pursuant to section 1617 of that Act in order to provide 

an authorization offset for anticipated costs associated with implementation of the legislation. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

S. 216—Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act 

The following estimate of the costs of this measure has been provided by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 216 would require the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to assess 

the maintenance needs of its facilities, develop a ranking system to 

prioritize the rehabilitation needs of facilities that it operates, and 

work with nonfederal partners that have taken over the operation 

of certain other facilities to develop similar systems for those facilities that need rehabilitation. Under current law, BOR gathers data 

on its facilities, analyzes the data, and makes the results of its 

analysis available to the Congress and the public through its budget documents and various other reports throughout the year. 

Under the bill, BOR would need to consolidate those results into 

one report every two years including the ranking information and 

the estimated costs of necessary rehabilitation projects. Based on 

an analysis of information from BOR, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $2 million; such spending 

would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

S. 216 also would reduce the authorization level for the Central 

Valley Water Recycling Project in Salt Lake County, Utah, by $2 

million. Under current law, that project is authorized to receive up 

to $20 million in federal funding for construction costs. Under the 

bill, the ceiling would be reduced to $18 million and federal costs 

would be lower by $2 million when the project is constructed. 

Based on information from BOR, CBO does not expect construction 

of the project to begin within the next five years. 

Enacting S. 216 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates 

that enacting the bill would not increase net direct spending or onVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:37 Jun 09, 2017 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR097.XXX SR097
4 

budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

S. 216 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Any costs incurred by public entities to comply with the bill’s reporting requirements would result from participating in a voluntary federal program. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Aurora Swanson (for 

federal costs) and Jon Sperl (for intergovernmental mandates). The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

the bill. 

The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing 

Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. 

No personal information would be collected in administering the 

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. 

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of this bill, with the exception of reporting requirements associated with the operation and maintenance of transferred works. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

The bill, as reported, does not contain any congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

Because S. 216 is similar to legislation considered by the Committee in the 114th Congress, the Committee did not request Executive Agency views. The testimony provided by Reclamation at the 

Water and Power Subcommittee hearing on June 18, 2015, follows: 

STATEMENT OF DIONNE THOMPSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

FOR EXTERNAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Lee and members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Dionne Thompson, Deputy Commissioner for External and 

Intergovernmental Affairs at the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 593, the Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act. The Department 

supports S. 593. 

S. 593 is a reintroduced version of bipartisan legislation 

previously introduced by Senators Barrasso and Schatz 

during the 113th Congress. The prior bill was numbered S. 

1800, was also titled the Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act, and Reclamation testified on the bill in February of 2014. Reclamation appreciates the constructive 

5 

work conducted with the sponsor’s offices and this Subcommittee to develop a number of specific changes to the 

bill consistent with our 2014 testimony. These changes 

were all incorporated into the current version of S. 593. 

Reclamation recognizes the value in obtaining additional 

information on the status of our infrastructure. The bill is 

consistent with a draft Infrastructure Investment Strategy 

and process Reclamation has initiated proactively, which I 

will briefly summarize here. 

For the past year, Reclamation has been developing a 

draft Infrastructure Investment Strategy (Strategy) for assessing and reporting on infrastructure investment needs 

for Reclamation’s approximately 4,000 unique assets. The 

Strategy builds upon Reclamation’s ongoing asset management planning and budget processes, including the existing major rehabilitation and replacements (MR&R) database. Much of the initial focus of this Strategy has been on 

‘‘reserved works’’; facilities constructed, owned, and operated by Reclamation, as opposed to ‘‘transferred works’’, 

which are those facilities that were built and are owned by 

Reclamation, but which are operated and maintained by 

water and power customers pursuant to contracts. Consistent with the directives in S. 593, Reclamation’s Strategy process will focus on: improving data collection, analysis, and reporting on the condition of Reclamation-owned 

infrastructure; categorizing potential investments according to relative importance and urgency; and collaboration 

with water and power customers in planning for these investments. 

Based on arrangements originating with Section 6 of the 

Reclamation Act of 1902, over two-thirds of Reclamation’s 

facilities are transferred works, managed by non-federal 

project beneficiaries. These operating entities provide valuable input to the formulation of Reclamation’s annual 

asset management activities. At present, Reclamation’s annual budget requests include estimates of the appropriated 

funds needed for maintenance conducted by Reclamation 

at its facilities. The estimates in the budget request do not 

include the amounts funded by non-federal beneficiaries 

for their maintenance of Reclamation facilities. Reclamation’s budget documents, delivered to Congress annually 

and posted online, are developed over a multi-step 18- 

month process that begins at the field office level where 

managers consider the condition of the facilities under 

their jurisdiction, safety considerations associated with facilities’ condition, and—very importantly—the ability of operating partners to fund the work identified pursuant to 

the terms of their contract and requirements of Reclamation Law. Investments in MR&R are analyzed and 

prioritized at the field, regional, and bureau levels based 

on criteria such as: Engineering Need; Risks and Consequences of Failure; Efficiency Opportunities; Financial 

Feasibility; and availability of Non-Federal Cost Share. 

During this process, Reclamation categorizes the information that will go into its budget requests using its ProVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:37 Jun 09, 2017 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR097.XXX SR097
6 

grammatic Budget Structure (PBS). The PBS uses two of 

its five primary categories to show the budget request for 

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities: 1. Facility 

Operations, and 2. Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation. It should be noted that in addition to the appropriated funds in these two categories, a substantial portion 

of O&M activities is paid for directly by water and power 

users with their own funds or project revenues. 

The Facility Operations category includes items and activities that are necessary to operate Reclamation facilities 

to produce authorized project benefits for water supplies, 

power, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recreation. This 

category includes not only facility operations by Reclamation at reserved works, but also Reclamation’s oversight of 

the operations of facilities performed by water user entities 

at transferred works. Facility Operations includes all routine or preventive maintenance activities. Routine maintenance is defined as recurring daily, weekly, monthly, or 

annually, and most tasks performed by Reclamation maintenance staff are included in this category. Also included 

in this category are routine safety and occupational health 

items, including those for workplace safety inspection and 

hazard abatement. The amount budgeted under this category for each facility is the funding necessary to perform 

routine O&M activities. On an annual basis, each region, 

along with centralized program management staff, determines the appropriate budget level to support staffing and 

other resources necessary at each facility for continued operations to deliver authorized project benefits. 

The second category, Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation, addresses the needs over and above the resources 

in Facility Operations, and corresponds roughly to the concept of MR&R. The Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation category includes major and non-routine replacements 

and extraordinary maintenance of existing infrastructure. 

This category also includes activities to review and conduct 

condition assessments (facility O&M and dam safety inspections), as well as funding necessary for the correction 

of dam safety deficiencies (dam safety modifications), the 

implementation of security upgrades, and building seismic 

safety retrofits. Consequently, most of the budgeted items 

under this category are related to site-specific facility 

needs. 

After Reclamation’s field offices identify MR&R activities 

in their jurisdiction that require appropriated funds, they 

are evaluated at the regional level where these are compared to the needs and priorities of other activities and facilities in that region. There are five regions within Reclamation. The regions’ PBS allotments for Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation each year are then evaluated at 

the next level of internal review, with Reclamation’s Budget Review Committee (BRC) process. A given year’s BRC 

is working in advance of a budget request two years into 

the future, and is comprised of senior management from 

across the agency, providing the maximum breadth of relVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:37 Jun 09, 2017 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR097.XXX SR097
7 

1www.usbr.gov/assetmanagement/Asset%20Inventory/ 

FY%202012%20Reclamation%20Asset%20Management%20Plan.pdf 

evant experience and program knowledge. Each region presents its priorities to the BRC, which evaluates the MR&R 

needs and priorities against those of other regions in order 

to ensure that Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation activities reflect Reclamation’s greatest overall need and 

agency priorities. No urgent maintenance issues necessary 

to the safe operation of a facility are deferred in the budgeting or facility review processes. The end result is a budget request that has been prioritized and vetted across the 

organization, concurrent with input from the Department 

and Reclamation leadership. 

For the purpose of reporting asset condition to the Federal Real Property Profile to meet requirements of the Executive order 13327, ‘‘Federal Real Property Management,’’ 

and to better understand upcoming needs, Reclamation develops and annually updates estimates of MR&R needs. 

This effort, which informs the annual budget process, represents an outlook of Reclamation’s best estimate of reported deferred maintenance, and identified extraordinary 

maintenance, dam safety modifications, repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement activities at a point in time looking 

forward five years, regardless of funding source, for all assets. The estimated total in 2012 amounted to $2.5 billion 

over five years (fiscal years 2013–2017).1 It is important to 

note that a substantial portion of projected needs to address the rehabilitation of aging infrastructure (roughly 

$1.2 billion of the $2.5 billion estimate) will be financed directly by our water and power customers. Cost estimates 

associated with these identified needs range from ‘‘preliminary’’ to ‘‘feasibility’’ level, and should not be collectively 

assumed to be at one particular uniform level of detail. 

Variability in the MR&R estimates from year to year may 

be the result of additional information received from the 

estimating source (i.e., Reclamation field offices and nonfederal operating entities), changes in field conditions, further evaluations conducted, and work priorities, thus impacting the inclusion or deletion of specific identified needs 

within a particular year, or from year to year. 

As stated in prior testimony before this Subcommittee, 

one of the main challenges Reclamation faces in securing 

funding for the identified near-term needs as well as 

longer-term MR&R needs is the varying economic strength 

of our operating partners. Given the requirement under 

Reclamation Law for the repayment of maintenance costs 

either in the year incurred or over time, Reclamation must 

work in collaboration with our water and power partners 

that must repay these investments. For some of these 

partners, the cost-share requirements associated with 

MR&R work are simply beyond their financial capabilities. 

Like any organization tasked with constructing, operating, 

and maintaining a wide portfolio of assets, Reclamation 

has to prioritize its actions to maximize the benefits deVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:37 Jun 09, 2017 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\SR097.XXX SR097
8 

rived from its investment of both federal and non-federal 

funds. Given the substantial economic and financial interest of Reclamation’s non-federal partners, the development 

of cost estimates for maintenance requirements on reserved and transferred works is both collaborative and dynamic. We acknowledge there are tradeoffs associated with 

decisions to fund one identified need versus another, but 

Reclamation’s annual budget request reflects our best effort to balance those constantly evolving needs associated 

with all elements of our mission. 

The requirements of S. 593 would complement the processes described above, and the bill makes allowance for the 

valuable input from operating partners that is central to 

Reclamation’s asset management program. 

This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to 

answer questions at the appropriate time. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that although S. 216 as 

ordered reported does not amend existing law, section 6 of the bill, 

if enacted, will have the effect of lowering the ceiling on the Federal share for the Central Valley (Utah) Water Recycling Project 

authorized by section 1617 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h–12c) from 

$20,000,000 to $18,000,000. 

Æ