1). The Extent to Which the Corps Has Reviewed or Revised Water Control Manuals Is Unclear Because It Did Not Document Reviews or Track Revisions

According to agency officials, the Corps conducts ongoing, informal  reviews of selected water control manuals and has revised some of them,  but the extent of the reviews and revisions is unclear because they were  not documented or tracked. A 2014 Corps engineer regulation states  that water control manuals should be reviewed no less than every 10  years, so that they can be revised as necessary. However, officials we interviewed from all 15 districts said they do not  document these informal reviews because they consider such reviews to  be part of the daily routine of operating projects. However, the Corps does not have guidance on what activities  constitute a review or how officials should document the results of their  reviews. Without developing guidance on what activities constitute a review of a  water control manual and how to document that review, the Corps does  not have reasonable assurance that its districts will consistently conduct  reviews and document them to provide a means to retain organizational  knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to  personnel directly involved with these reviews. The Corps Has Revised Some Water Control Manuals but Does Not Track Consistent Information on Which Have Been Revised or Need Revision

The Corps has revised some water control manuals; however, divisions  and districts do not track consistent information about revisions to  manuals, and the extent to which they have been revised—or need  revision—is unclear. Corps engineer regulations state that manuals are to  be revised as needed, in accordance with the regulations. For example, based on  our review of Corps documents, one of eight divisions tracked whether  the water control plans in its water control manuals reflected actual  operations of the project, but the remaining seven divisions did not. The Corps Has Efforts Under Way to Improve Its Ability to Respond to Extreme Weather

The Corps has efforts under way to improve its ability to help respond to  extreme weather events. The Corps is also conducting  research on how to better prepare operations for extreme weather. The Corps Is Developing a Strategy to Revise Drought Contingency Plans and Is Studying the Use of Forecasts to Make Operations Decisions at Two Projects

To better respond to drought, the Corps is developing a strategy to  analyze drought contingency plans in its manuals and devise methods for  those plans to account for a changing climate. As of May 2016, the Corps was conducting pilot updates of drought  contingency plans at five high-priority projects to help test methods and  tools for those plans to account for a changing climate. In addition to its efforts related to drought contingency plans, the Corps is  studying the use of forecasting tools to determine whether water control  manuals can be adjusted to improve water-supply and flood-control  operations at two projects in California—Folsom Dam and Lake  Mendocino. Corps officials told us that the forecasts must be  accurate in terms of space and time to allow the reservoirs to retain some  water for future supply as long as the retained water can be safely  released, if necessary, prior to the next storm. Corps headquarters officials said that once they determine how  forecasting can be incorporated into these projects, the agency may  consider using forecast-based operations at other projects. Four of the  five knowledgeable stakeholders we interviewed said that it would be  important for the Corps to consider using such operations to help ensure  efficiency and to be able to respond to changing patterns of precipitation. Conclusions

The Corps has revised some of the water control manuals used to  operate its water resources projects, which serve important public  purposes such as flood control, irrigation, and water supply. Without tracking which manuals need revision, it is difficult for the Corps  to know the universe of projects that may not be operating in a way that  reflects current conditions as called for in the Corps’ engineer manual and  to prioritize revisions as needed. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help improve the efficiency of Corps operations at reservoir projects  and to assist the Corps in meeting the requirement of the Water  Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to update the Corps’  1992 reservoir report, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct  the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief of Engineers and  Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take the  following two actions: develop guidance on what activities constitute a review of a water  control manual and how to document that review; and  track consistent information on the status of water control manuals,  including whether they need revisions, and prioritize revisions as  needed.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Corps owns and operates water resource projects, including more than 700 dams and their associated reservoirs across the country, for such purposes as flood control, hydropower, and water supply. To manage and operate each project, the Corps' districts use water control manuals to guide project operations. These manuals include water control plans that describe the policies and procedures for deciding how much water to release from reservoirs. However, many of the Corps' projects were built more than 50 years ago, and stakeholders have raised concerns that these manuals have not been revised to account for changing conditions.
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 included a provision for GAO to study the Corps' reviews of project operations, including whether practices could better prepare the agency for extreme weather. This report (1) examines the extent to which the Corps has reviewed or revised selected water control manuals and (2) describes the Corps' efforts to improve its ability to respond to extreme weather. GAO reviewed the Corps' guidance on project operations; examined agency practices; and interviewed Corps officials from headquarters, all 8 divisions, and 15 districts—selected, in part, on regional differences in weather conditions.

What GAO Found

According to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) officials, the agency conducts ongoing, informal reviews of selected water control manuals and has revised some of them, but the extent of the reviews and revisions is unclear because they are not documented or tracked, respectively. The Corps' engineer regulations state that water control manuals should be reviewed no less than every 10 years so that they can be revised as necessary. However, officials from all 15 districts GAO interviewed said they do not document informal reviews of water control manuals because they consider such reviews part of the daily routine of operating projects. The Corps does not have guidance, consistent with federal standards for internal control, on what activities constitute a review or how to document the results of reviews. Without such guidance, the Corps does not have reasonable assurance that it will consistently conduct reviews and document them to provide a means to retain organizational knowledge. The Corps' engineer regulations also state that water control manuals shall be revised as needed, but the extent to which manuals have been revised or need revision remains unknown because the Corps' divisions do not track consistent information about manuals. For example, based on GAO's review of the Corps' documents, one of the eight divisions tracked whether the water control plans in its water control manuals reflected actual operations of a project, but the remaining seven did not. While the Corps has revised certain water control manuals as called for by its regulations, district officials GAO interviewed said additional manuals need revision. However, the Corps does not track consistent information on manuals needing revision, in accordance with federal internal control standards. Without tracking which manuals need revision, it is difficult for the Corps to know the universe of projects that may not be operating in a way that reflects current conditions as called for in the Corps' engineer regulations.
The Corps has efforts under way to improve its ability to respond to extreme weather, including developing a strategy to revise drought contingency plans and studying the use of forecasting to make decisions on project operations. To better respond to drought, the Corps is developing a strategy to analyze drought contingency plans in its water control manuals to account for a changing climate. As of May 2016, the Corps was conducting, as a pilot, updates of five projects' drought contingency plans to help test methods and tools for future use in other plans. The Corps is also studying the use of forecasting tools to improve water supply and flood control operations at two projects in California by evaluating if they can retain storm water for future supply as long as the retained water can safely be released, if necessary, prior to the next storm. Knowledgeable stakeholders GAO interviewed said it is important for the Corps to consider forecast-based operations at its projects to help ensure efficient operations and to be able to respond to changing patterns of precipitation. Corps officials said the agency may consider doing so once the two California projects are completed in 2017.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Corps develop guidance on what constitutes a water control manual's review and how to document it and track which manuals need revision. The agency concurred with the recommendations.