Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Operation and Maintenance of Irrigation Projects Assessment

Address and correct the outstanding Government Accountability Office's audit deficiencies.

Compile an inventory of facility conditions on the 16 specifically authorized irrigation projects.

Develop meaningful performance measurements to guide informed management and budgetary decisions, such as, conditions of the irrigation systems and funding needs.

Measure: Percentage of irrigation projects that have been reviewed during the reporting year and found to be in compliance with regulations.

Explanation:This measure is necessary to ensure that all of the projects are operating under the legal mandates and policies that apply to them.

Measure: Percent of revenue generating irrigation projects for which comprehensive condition assessments have been completed annually.

Explanation:This annual goal is necessary to determine baseline condition of the projects outlined in long-term goal 1. The targets set forth for this measure are cummulative in that individually they are 20% for 06, 20% for 07, and 20% for 08 to equal 60% of condition assessments done by 2008 and 100% complete by 2010.

Measure: Percentage of maintenance projects that are completed within established timeframes.

Explanation:This measure will assist the program in ensuring that scheduled maintenance is completed timely. In many cases the window of opportunity to conduct maintenance is very small and if maintenance is not completed, the project cannot be as effective and additional costs can be incurred.

Measure: Percent of irrigation projects with identified non-compliance issues for which corrective action plans have been established.

Explanation:This measure is the annual component of long-term goal 6 above. Because there can be many items found in the individual projects that equate to non-compliance it may take more than a one year span to actually correct all of the deficiencies. Action Plans are created to ensure progress toward total compliance for the projects.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: With the exception of Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP), which is a funding flow through to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the BIA does no new irrigation construction. The Irrigation Program is composed of three parts: 1) providing techncial assistance and administrative oversight to projects and systems to allow them to operate in a safe, economical, beneficial, and equitable manner for the delivery of water to farms; 2) operation and maintenance (O&M) on specifically authorized projects; and 3) assessments and collection of revenue payments on those authorized projects to pay for O&M and replacement. The program consists of 16 projects (projects), which generate revenue through O&M assessments and other sources, and approximately another 100 subsistance type projects (systems) which do not generate revenue and were constructed by the United States in the early 1900's. The BIA had authority to construct the systems but BIA has no statutory obligation to maintain or rehabilitate the systems; consequently the systems remain a low priority.

Evidence: 25 U.S.C. § 381 -- "In cases where the use of water for irrigation water is necessary to render the lands within any Indian reservation available for agricultural purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to secure a just and equal distribution thereof among the Indians residing upon any such reservations..." Also, 25 U.S.C. § 13 "The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate, for the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the United States for the following purposes: .....For extension, improvement, operation, and maintenanace of existing irrigation systems and for development of water supplies." 25 USC § 385, 1960 Interior Memo on irrigation, 1988 Report on the Current Status of Indian Irrigation Projects.

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

Explanation: The objective of the operation and maintenance portion of the program is to operate and maintain the 16 irrigation projects in a safe, economical, beneficial and equitable manner for the purpose of delivering water to farms. Without the administrative oversight and revenue management that BIA provides, the irrigation projects would not be able to adequately function and the government would not fulfill its responsibility to operate and maintain the projects using water user funds. BIA collects about $22 million annually from project water users that is used to O&M the projects. As the BIA has no statutory or trust obligation to maintain or rehabilitate the systems, the BIA is starting a process to review its role for the systems. The review will consist of: 1) developing an inventory and status of each system (in operation or abandoned); 2) determining whether the tribes/water users using the system would be willing to take ownership of it; 3) determining if each system can be turned over to the tribes/water users; and 4) determining a means to transfer ownership.

Evidence: 25 U.S.C. § 381 "In cases where the use of water for irrigation water is necessary to render the lands within any Indian reservation available for agricultural purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to secure a just and equal distribution thereof among the Indians residing upon any such reservations..." Also, 25 U.S.C. § 13 "The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate, for the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the United States for the following purposes: .....For extension, improvement, operation, and maintenanace of existing irrigation systems and for development of water supplies."

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The irrigation program is not duplicative of any other program. The BIA irrigation facilities that are used to deliver water on Indian reservations are owned by the United States and the BIA is the federal agency assigned the responsibility to manage the programs and activities for these projects and systems. Unlike BOR and other agencies that construct irrigation facilites, BIA maintains ownership of their facilities and the O&M responsibilities for projects. The other agencies construct irrigation facilities and then relinquish those facilities and their O&M responsibilities to the receipients.

Evidence: Budget Justifications and Performance Information for FY 2005 - Bureau of Indian Affairs (FY05 green book).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Audits conducted in the mid-1990's, by Interior's Inspector General and the General Accountability Office, have identified several deficiencies. Of the 7, 4 items have been corrected and the remaining 3 items are still in various stages of correction. These are: 1) Develop project budgets and assessment rates based on accurate estimates of the full cost of O&M and the replacement of the facilities and equipment; 2) Ensure that project offices comply with Department of Interior billing requirements; and 3) Coordinate with the tribes and Departmental agency officials to enforce requirements for surety bonds on leases. The last issue is outside the parameters of the Irrigation Program, leasing is a duty of Interior's Realty program and they need to address this item. In addition, the programe needs generic authority for the BIA to: 1) deauthorize/abandon a project or system when it is determined it is no longer needed or does not meet the needs of its intended purpose; and 2) transfer ownership of systems where the BIA does not have a statutory or trust obligation to operate, maintain, or rehabilitate the system.

Evidence: History of Audits; The Irrigation Program five-year plan, National Irrigation Handbook, and IG Report No. 96-I-641.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The direct beneficiaries are Indian tribes, water users, and landowners, who receive water for agricultural lands protecting and sustaining tribal water rights.

Evidence: In addition to the evidence/data listed in question 1.3, the program has regulatory guidance in 25 C.F.R 171, and additional guidance in 50 I.A.M. in the BIA National Irrigation Handbook, and 25 USC § 381.

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

Explanation: The program is in the process of developing long-term outcome measures for improving the condition of the irrigation projects and ensuring compliance with regulations and policies. The program is: 1) developing an automated on-line system for tracking work orders and inventories for project budgeting, scheduling and reporting; and 2) completing O&M guidelines for each revenue-generating project. These activites support the accomplishment of both long-term and annual goals.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Because the long-term measures are under development, specific timelines have not yet been created. The system inventories and condition assessments must be complete before a target can be established for condition improvement.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

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

Explanation: Annual goals that correspond to the Long-term measures have been developed and their targets determined, the measure on comprehensive condition assessments will not begin implementation until 2006.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The annual measures do not have specific targets, baseline data is not yet available for the comprehensive condition assessment measure because it will not be implemented until 2006.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: This "NO" is based solely on the fact that actual performance measures are under development. All partners do work together and BIA has formal agreements with the BoR and the Department of Agriculture to provide technical assistance for BIA irrigation projects, water users, and tribes to ensure we achieve our goals. All tribes that operate projects or systems under compact have standard language that says they will comply with GPRA reporting requirements and new and existing contracts are being modified to include the same language.

Evidence: BOR Agreement No. AG2000K006 Modification 7 and Memorandum of Understanding between BIA and the Extension Service of the USDA, signed June, 1988. Standard GPRA reporting language included in compacts/contracts.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The most recent evaluations were done about ten years ago by GAO and Interior's IG. However, BIA's agreement, No. AG2000K006 Modification 7, with BOR, will have the BOR conducting peer reviews of BIA's Irrigation Program. Ther reviews will identify needed program improvements. These review evaluations will be on-going and will be done on a regular basis to improve the management of BIA's Irrigation Program. In addition, programmatic reviews of individual projects are being conducted to determine deficiencies and recommend methods of improvement.

Evidence: Irrigation Peer Review Project Plan, Irrigation Project Program Reviews

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Future budget requests will be based upon newly established measures.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: BIA has long-term and annual measures under development that are targeted for data collection in FY 2006. Additionally, a five-year plan has been developed and is assisting the program to address issues outlined within past IG reports.

Evidence: The Irrigation Program five-year plan.

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

Explanation: While specific performance information related to the newly established measures will not be collected until FY 2006, deferred maintenance is tracked and reported on Maximo, and budget information is reported on the Irrigation Program FPP. The BIA irrigation projects use a centrallized billing/financial management system which enables effective financial management of the irrigation projects.

Evidence: The Irrigation Program FPP, Maximo, NIIMS, Latest Deferred Maintenance Report.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Because the measures for this program were just developed they have not yet been included within individual performance plans. However, the program managers and program partners will be held accountable for program results based on the newly established performance measures. The Branch Chief and staff will be required to include the GPRA measures within their 5 tierred performance plan. Program partners are also required to meet performance targets identified in formal agreements and project-specific work plans based on the standard language that is now being included in compacts and 93-638 contracts which will all focus on the new performance measures.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: Funds collected from water users are by law are only allowed to be spent on the project which generated the income. Front line managers are encouraged to seek the most competitive means of contracting and procurement. While carryover balances are shown at the beginning of each fiscal year, they are necessary to address the following: 1) the projects need funds to operate from the beginning of the fiscal year until O&M assessments are collected; 2) The National Irrigation Handbook requires that the projects maintain emergency reserve, equipment, and facilities repacement funds.

Evidence: Program Funding documents. 25 U.S.C. § 385. National Irrigation Handbook.

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

Explanation: While there is currently no efficiency data for this program, the program has developed one new efficiency measure that will track time management for maintenance. Data collection to establish the baseline for the new measure will begin in FY 2006.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: BIA has formal agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Department of Agriculture to provide technical assistance for BIA irrigation projects, water users, and tribes. Additionally, there are numerous other agreements between these agencies and individual irrigation projects for specific services.

Evidence: BOR Agreement No. AG2000K006 Modification 7, Memorandum of Understanding between BIA and the Extension Service of the USDA, signed June, 1988.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The BIA Irrigation projects use a centrallized billing/financial management system. This enables effective financial management of the irrigation projects. The program currently uses the FFS to monitor funds that have been allocated to the regions for Irrigation projects. Additionally, the FPP is used as a tool to develop O&M rates and to report budget information. The repayment items outlined within the IG Report concern collecting construction debt repayment not O&M revenue payments. These construction repayments are being collected from non-Indian water users on 2 projects - the SCIP/Joint Works and Wapato. The balance of the construction debt is in the process of being cancelled and is currently at BIA's CFO office for approval.

Evidence: The BIA National Indian Irrigaion Management System (NIIMS), FPP and IG report (96-I-641).

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

Explanation: Past audits by the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have disclosed several flaws that have been or are currently being corrected. In response, the BIA Irrigation Program has implemented NIIMS, the FPP, Maximo, and the Irrigaiton Program five-year plan. Additionally, the Program has developed the National Irrigation Handbook and is in the process of developing project O&M guidelines for individual projects, and revising the 25 CFR 171 regulations. The Program has also begun conducting program reviews of individual irrigation projects.

Evidence: NIIMS, the FPP, Maximo, the Irrigaiton Program five-year plan, Irrigation Project Handbook, and the draft revision of the 25 CFR 171, Irrigation Project Program Reviews.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program has developed two long-term measures and baseline and at least one year of comparrative data will not be available until the close of FY 2007.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: 1) The program is in the process of completing inventories and baseline condition assessments. 2) BIA has been improving on an annual basis, the percentage of irrigation O&M bills mailed on or before the scheduled billing date. 3) The Program is in the process of conducting inventories and baseline condition assessments on the non-revenue systems, and is currently on schedule. 4) A five-year plan has been developed for the program. This is reviewed on an 6-month basis. As part this review, the plan is updated to note accomplishments and to include new goals/work items that have been formulated since the last review. In the past 2 years, these reviews have demonstrated that the Irrigation Program has been very effective in accomplishing its goals.

Evidence: 1) Status and estimated data delivery for the inventory and baseline condition assessments for revenue projects and non-revenue systems. 2) 2004 Billing Summary. 3) Work Plan for the systems infrastructure inventory and baseline condition assessments of the irrigation systems. 4) The Irrigation Program five-year plan.

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

Explanation: The Irrigation Program FPP and Maximo. With respect to NIIMS, the irrigation billing and collection system, the Program strives to improve its timeliness of mailing out the projects' bills. In 2004, 78% of the bills were mailed timely and the 2005 goal is 81%.

Evidence: The Irrigation Program FPP and Maximo. (See 4.1.1, "Measures").

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are numerous individual private and quasi-governmental irrigation districts/projects throughout the United States, however, there is no other entity which is tasked with the management of more that one district/project. The BIA Irrigation Program is tasked with the management of 16 revenue generating projects and 102 non-revenue systems. As part of Agreement No. AG2000K006 Modification 7 with BOR, the BOR will be conducting peer reviews of the BIA Irrigation Program, which will identify needed program improvements. These evaluations will be on-going and will be done on a regular basis to improve the management of the BIA Irrigation Program.

Evidence: Budget Justifications and Performance Information for FY 2005 - Bureau of Indian Affairs, BOR Agreement No AG2000K006 Modification 7.

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

Explanation: The latest audit by the Inspector General (No. 96-I-641) included 7 recommendations to correct deficiencies. Of the 7, 4 were corrected and the following have not been corrected: 1)Develop project budgets and assessment rates based on accurate estimates of the full cost of O&M and the replacement of the facilities and equipment. This is being corrected by implementation of the Financial Program Planning (FPP) budgeting tool; 2) Ensure that project offices comply with Departmental billing requirements. This is being corrected by the implementation of the National Indian Irrigation Management System (NIIMS); and 3) Coordinate with the tribes and agency officials to enforce requirements for surety bonds on leases. The thrid issue is outside the parameters of the Irrigation Program, leasing is a duty of the Realty program, so this remains outstanding. In addition, BIA needs to enforce, where possible, regulations on termination of water deliveries to lands on which the landowners or lessees have not paid O&M charges. This issue has been addressed through guidelines set forth in the National Irrigation Handbook. The program is addressing all areas of inefficiency to the best of its ability within available resources.

Evidence: IG Report 96-I-641; National Irrigation Handbook