Reclamation Manual

Subject: Periodic Review of Water Deliveries with Respect to Contract Terms

Purpose: To set forth the Reclamation-wide policy requiring periodic review of water deliveries

Authority: The Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended and supplemented (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388); and the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended and supplemented (Act of August 4, 1939 , 53 Stat. 1187)

Contact: Office of Program and Policy Services, Contract Services Office, D-5600

  1. Objectives of Periodic Reviews. There are three main objectives in performing periodic reviews of contracting entities receiving water from a Reclamation project.

    A. Project Purpose. To ensure water is delivered in conformance with the project’s congressionallyauthorized purpose(s).

    B. Quantity of Water. To verify the quantity of water delivered and used is in accordance with the respective contract(s).

    C. Type of Water. To verify that monies received are in accordance with those assessed for the type of water delivered.

  2. Responsibility. It is the responsibility of each Regional Director to ensure reviews are performed annually and that all contracting entities are periodically reviewed.
  3. Criteria for Prioritizing Reviews. Along with criteria specific to each individual region, five criteria are used to prioritize the reviews each year.

    A. Irrigation Component. Emphasis should be placed on contracting entities with an irrigation component. This will ensure project irrigation water is being used as provided for in the contract and conversions to municipal and industrial (M&I), if found, are charged an appropriate rate.

    B. Urbanization. Emphasis should be placed on contracting entities experiencing population growth or a projected increase in urbanization within their boundaries. This will help verify if a change of use is taking place, and, if so, that conversions to M&I are charged an appropriate rate.

    C. Coordination with Other Activities. To minimize costs, consideration should be given to conducting reviews with other program activities.

    D. Contract Term. Long-term contracts (considered to be 10 years or more) will be given higher priority, especially those with more years remaining in the contract term.

    E. Full Water Supply. Contracting entities that receive a full water supply may offer the greatest return when considered collectively with the other criteria.

  4. Selection and Documentation. An annual call letter will be sent from the Commissioner to the Regional Directors requesting identification of contracting entities to be reviewed.

    A. Selection. Based on the criteria, each region will select 10 contracting entities to review each year 1 and submit a proposed list to the Office of Program and Policy Services, Contract Services Office, D-5600.

  1. Techniques for Performing Reviews. One or more of the following techniques may be used to perform the review. Additional techniques not listed may be used, but should be identified on the checklist.

    A. On-Site Reviews. On-site reviews are performed by regional and/or area office staff at the contracting entities office and involve a review of records and other pertinent data. The contracting entities management or staff may also participate in the review. This is the preferred method of review.

    B. Windshield Surveys. Windshield surveys entail visual observation to determine if changes in water use or deliveries outside boundaries are apparent or occurring.

    C. Desktop Reviews. Desktop reviews entail a review of maps and Geographic Information System data to identify if changes in water use, particularly from irrigation to M&I, are occurring or a review of contracts and identification of those contracts that provide no distinction between irrigation and M&I deliveries.



1 Because the Lower Colorado Region only has about 20 districts, there may be years in which the Lower Colorado Region performs less than 10 district reviews.

(217) 05/09/05
New Release