Feds paid $84 million that CA Water Districts were to pay

[JayDubP]

Audit of Bureau of Reclamation showed that the Bureau paid $84 million CA Water Districts for the planning of Gov Browns' water tunnels to divert water from the North to Southern CA.... So, Feds (US Taxpayers) have paid the majority of costs to date... and CA legislators repeatedly have said no taxpayer money would be spent.

Interesting is that it is up to the State of CA to determine if the Water Districts have to repay the $ to the Feds (I do not understand why??)

LINK TO ARTICLE:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...oject-49706084

TEXT OF ARTICLE:
The U.S. Department of Interior improperly contributed tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to help politically powerful California water districts plan for a massive project to ship the state's water from north to south, a new federal audit said Friday.
Federal officials gave $84 million to help finance the water districts' planning, backed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, to build two giant water tunnels to re-engineer the state's water system, according to the audit by the inspector general's office of the U.S. Interior Department obtained by The Associated Press.
By California law and by an agreement by the water districts, California water districts and not federal taxpayers are supposed to bear the costs of the $16 billion project, the audit said.
The proposed tunnels are part of Brown's decadeslong push for a project that would more readily carry water from green Northern California south, mainly for use by cities and farms in central and Southern California. Voters rejected an early version of the proposal in a statewide vote in the 1980s.
California water districts are making final decisions on whether to go ahead with the controversial project.
The inspector general says federal authorities did not fully disclose to Congress or others that it was covering much of the cost of the project's planning.
The actions by the Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of the Interior Department, mean that federal taxpayers paid a third of the cost of the project's planning up to 2016, the audit said.
Central Valley water districts that were supposed to pay 50 percent of the tunnels' planning costs contributed only 18 percent, the audit found.
California officials, meanwhile, have consistently said no taxpayer money was being spent on the project.
Asked if auditors wanted contractors to repay the money, Interior spokeswoman Nancy DiPaolo said, "We certainly hope so." That decision was up to California, she said.
Thomas Birmingham, general manager of the sprawling Central Valley rural water district Westlands, which received one of the largest shares from the government, said he knew of nothing about the arrangement that was "inconsistent with either state or federal law."
"The state was aware of it," Birmingham said of the federal payments. "No one indicated this was somehow a violation of the letter or spirit of the agreement" guiding the costs of the project.
Birmingham said water districts would be responsible for reimbursing the federal money if the project went forward and benefited those districts.
Spokespeople for the Bureau of Reclamation, Brown's office and the state Department of Water Resources either had no immediate comment Friday or did not respond to requests for comment.
The audit's findings were "appalling," said Doug Obegi of the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group, which has opposed the project on the grounds that it would speed up the extinction of several endangered native species.
"The public is paying for what a private party is supposed to pay for," Obegi said. "That is taking the public's money, and that's not OK."
A former lobbyist for Westlands, David Bernhardt, has been a top official in the Interior Department under the George W. Bush administration and again under Trump. Critics long have said Westlands has benefited from its ties to the federal agency, which the water district and Interior deny.
"I wish I were surprised to learn that the Westlands Water District colluded with the Interior Department to hide millions of dollars in unauthorized payments from Congress, but this is typical of the longstanding and incestuous relationship between the largest irrigation district in the country and its federal patrons," said U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat.

[Mr T]

Not one bit surprised, this was a fixed deal from day one.

[OceanSunfish]

No surprise indeed. Rigged, fraud, whatever.......

Same for when Westlands didn't have to repay the decades old loan for the original water project.

[PV_Premier]

Sad, disappointing, upsetting but not surprising. This state is a disaster.

[Darian]

Interesting findings. I have no doubt that the money was not authorized to be used for planning but after reading the article, I'm thinking there're some conflicting statements made about re-payment. One example is the following:

"By California law and by an agreement by the water districts, California water districts and not federal taxpayers are supposed to bear the costs of the $16 billion project,....."

The statement refers to total project construction costs. The last I read, planning costs were not included in that estimate. I've been following the project for some time now and I'm unaware of any legal mandate for water contractors to repay planning costs. Since it's been reported that an agreement of any sort is yet to be completed as water contractors are debating the cost effectiveness of the project for themselves, there couldn't be an agreement to cover those costs unless informal. Total planning costs have been reported as approaching $200 million in the print media several times over the last few years without any great uproar. Shared costs???....

Oh well,....

[tcorfey]

According to the most recent AP news report the audit in 2016 revealed that:

"Federal authorities did not fully disclose to Congress or the public that it was supplying $84.8 million for the project planning, and waived reimbursement for $50 million of it, the audit said. The federal Reclamation Bureau also did not disclose the arrangement in its certified financial reports, the audit said.
"USBR could not provide us with a rationale for its decision to subsidize (California) water contractors, other than the water contractors asked USBR to pay," the audit noted.
The actions by the Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of the Interior Department, mean that federal taxpayers paid a third of the cost of the project's planning up to 2016, the audit said.
Meanwhile, Central Valley water districts that were supposed to pay 50 percent of the tunnels' planning costs contributed only 18 percent, the audit found."

and

"While the transaction occurred during the Obama administration, the audit said approval for the deal came from a regional Reclamation budget officer. In response to the inspector-general's findings, the Reclamation bureau told auditors that it had disclosed the payments in a 2013 letter to seven unidentified members of Congress, and said it planned to make no more such payments for the tunnels project. Bureau spokesmen refused comment Friday."

and

Thomas Birmingham, general manager of the sprawling Central Valley rural water district Westlands, which received one of the largest shares of the federal money, said he knew of nothing about the arrangement that was "inconsistent with either state or federal law."
"The state was aware of it," Birmingham said of the federal payments. "No one indicated this was somehow a violation of the letter or spirit of the agreement" guiding the costs of the project. Birmingham indicated water districts might never repay those funds. Under federal law, he said, water districts would be responsible for reimbursing the federal money only if the project went forward and benefited those districts.


From the same article:

In 2011, Brown and the then-secretary of the Interior Department reaffirmed that pledge of using no taxpayer funds in a joint public statement supporting the tunnels plan. Other top California officials have repeatedly insisted no tax dollars were being spent on the tunnels, often called a legacy project of the 79-year-old governor, now in his last term.


---------------------------

In August 2014 An article in the SAC-BEE by Matt Weiser reported that "Water agencies that stand to benefit from the project have already spent about $250 million on the planning effort. Those agencies include the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Westlands Water District, a major agricultural water supplier in the San Joaquin Valley. That initial round of planning funds, paid to DWR, is almost gone.

“We’ve got the funds to pay for a recirculation of the documents,” Vogel (Nancy Vogel spokesperson for the DWR) said. “We may need to go back to the public water agencies in early 2015 for additional funds, depending on the scope of the recirculation.”

---------------------------

So something does not add up here. I am no rocket scientist but:

In 2011 Governor Brown and the Secretary of the Interior flatly stated No taxpayer dollars were being spent on the tunnels.
In 2013 The Reclamation bureau had disclosed to seven unidentified members of Congress that payments had been made, and said it planned to make no more such payments for the tunnels project.
In 2014 the Water districts reported that they had already spent 250 million on planning for the project.
In 2016 the federal audit report says that the taxpayers paid 84.8 million or 33% of the cost of planning for the tunnels and the water districts have paid 14.3 million or 18% and then to be really weird the audit says Westlands Water District actually received the bulk of those taxpayer funds for the planning and claims they have not agreed to pay any of it back. So not only are the Water districts not paying for the project they are actually receiving taxpayer funds to pay for the planning with no intention of paying it back.

- Also strange was that they said 250 million was spent by 2014 and now they claim 254.4 million was spent by 2016? I think we are being bamboozled.

Note: I did a calculation here so check my math (84.8 million times 3 = 254.4 million 18% of that is 14.13 million.)

What concerns me most is this is just the planning part of the project. I can not imagine what lies, backroom deals and additional costs will occur if the project ever gets approved to start construction.

Regards,

Tim C.

After reading a bit more it may be that the state does not know what the fed is doing and the water districts are just playing them.

For example:
Ms. Vogel said "We may need to go back to the public water agencies in early 2015 for additional funds.”
So State goes to the Water Districts and says we need more money.
Water district says okay and they go to the Fed.
(Remember earlier the audit says Westlands Water District actually received the bulk of the taxpayer funds.)
The Fed gives the Water district the money and the water district gives the money to the state.
State thinks that the Water District paid not realizing it is actually taxpayer money from the Fed.

Maybe?

[Charlie S]

Somebody needs to be fired, prosecuted and imprisoned if the above is correct.

[lee s.]

Won't happen Charlie.

[Charlie S]

Lee, I said needs, not will. Up here in Oregon, if we could get Portland to slide into the Pacific we would have a great state. But I still am as happy as a clam since I moved up here. Come up for a visit, loads of room and rigged to have visitors.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

No politicians will ever be prosecuted.

Young people will need to leave California to have a life and buy a home.