However, some projects  incorrectly counted new construction items as deferred maintenance. To further refine its cost estimate and to develop more comprehensive  deferred maintenance lists, BIA plans to hire experts in engineering and  irrigation to periodically conduct thorough condition assessments of all 16  irrigation projects to identify deferred maintenance needs and costs. Shortcomings in BIA’s Management of Some Irrigation Projects Undermine Effective Decisionmaking

BIA’s management of some of its irrigation projects has serious  shortcomings that undermine effective decisionmaking about project  operations and maintenance. Under BIA’s organizational structure, in many  cases, officials with the authority to oversee project managers’  decisionmaking lack the technical expertise needed to do so effectively,  while the staff who do have the expertise lack the necessary authority. In  addition, despite federal regulations that require BIA to consult with  project stakeholders in setting project priorities, BIA has not consistently  provided the information or opportunities necessary for stakeholders— both Indian and non-Indian water users—to participate in decisionmaking  about project operations and maintenance. Long-Term Direction of BIA’s Irrigation Program Depends on Resolution of a Number of Larger Issues

The long-term direction of BIA’s irrigation program depends on the  resolution of several larger issues. Of most importance, BIA does not know  the extent to which its irrigation projects are capable of financially  sustaining themselves, which hinders its ability to address long-standing  concerns regarding inadequate funding. Information on financial sustainability, along with accurate deferred  maintenance information, are both critical pieces of information needed to  have a debate on the long-term direction of BIA’s irrigation program. Once  this information is available, the Congress and interested parties will be  able to address how the deferred maintenance will be funded and whether  entities other than BIA could more appropriately manage some or all of the  projects. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to address several issues concerning the Department of the  Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) management of its 16 irrigation  projects. Specifically, we were asked to examine (1) BIA’s estimated  deferred maintenance cost for its 16 irrigation projects; (2) what  shortcomings, if any, exist in BIA’s current management of its irrigation  projects; and (3) any issues that need to be addressed to determine the  long-term direction of BIA’s irrigation program.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) manages 16 irrigation projects on Indian reservations in the western United States. These projects, which were generally constructed in the late 1800s and early 1900s, include water storage facilities and delivery structures for agricultural purposes. Serious concerns have arisen about their maintenance and management. GAO was asked to examine (1) BIA's estimated deferred maintenance cost for its 16 irrigation projects, (2) what shortcomings, if any, exist in BIA's current management of its irrigation projects, and (3) any issues that need to be addressed to determine the long-term direction of BIA's irrigation program.

What GAO Found

BIA estimated the cost for deferred maintenance at its 16 irrigation projects at about $850 million for 2005, although the agency is in the midst of refining this estimate. BIA acknowledges that this estimate is a work in progress, in part, because some projects incorrectly counted new construction items as deferred maintenance. To further refine its estimate, BIA plans to hire engineering and irrigation experts to conduct thorough condition assessments of all 16 irrigation projects to correctly identify deferred maintenance needs and costs. BIA's management of some of its irrigation projects has serious shortcomings that undermine effective decisionmaking about project operations and maintenance. First, under BIA's organizational structure, officials with the authority to oversee irrigation project managers generally lack the technical expertise needed to do so effectively, while the staff that have the expertise lack the necessary authority. Second, despite federal regulations that require BIA to consult with project stakeholders in setting project priorities, BIA has not consistently provided project stakeholders with the necessary information or opportunities to participate in project decisionmaking. The long-term direction of BIA's irrigation program depends on the resolution of several larger issues. Of most importance, BIA does not know to what extent its irrigation projects are capable of financially sustaining themselves, which hinders its ability to address long-standing concerns regarding inadequate funding. Information on financial sustainability, along with accurate deferred maintenance information, are two critical pieces of information that are needed to have a debate on the long-term direction of BIA's irrigation program. Once this information is available, the Congress and interested parties will be able to address how the deferred maintenance will be funded and whether entities other than BIA could more appropriately manage some or all of the projects.