Bureau of Reclamation Title Transfer Process

February, 2011

Summary of Presentation

• Title transfer policies– Framework– Policies

• Title transfer “program” – steps and process• Observations and conclusions

Focus on Non-Complicated Projects

• Single purpose

• No competing interests

• Projects not hydrologically integrated

• Financial arrangements are relatively simple & easily defined

• Legal & institutional concerns can be readily addressed

• Can be whole projects, parts of projects, facilities (ie. canals, laterals etc), buildings – as appropriate for the circumstances.

“Framework”General Criteria

1) Federal Treasury & thereby taxpayers’ financial interest must be protected

2) Compliance with Federal & State law

3) Interstate compacts & agreements must be protected

4) Secretary’s Native American Trust responsibility must be met

5) Treaty obligations & international agreements must be met

6) “Public” aspects of the projects must be protected

General Policies

• Transaction costs shared (based on benefits received)

– 50/50 for NEPA compliance– 100% non-Federal for “real estate” aspects– 50/50 for HazMat survey

• District must assume liability for the facilities

• Valuation - U.S. Treasury must remain “Whole.” must account for revenue streams (through contracts and other sources of payment) that would, absent a transfer, come to the U.S.

• Process must be transparent, open and public

Projects Transferred (Since 1996)

Projects/Facilities Transferred (27)– Rio Grande (NM &TX) (1996)– Vermejo (NM) (1996) – Boulder City Pipeline (NV) (‘96) – San Diego Aqueduct (CA) (‘97)– Oroville Tonasket Unit (WA) (‘98)– Canadian River Project (TX) (‘99)– Burley (ID) (2000)– Clear Creek CVP (CA) (‘01)– Palmetto Bend (TX) (‘01)– Griffith (NV) (‘01)– Nampa Meridian (ID) (‘01)– Carlsbad (NM) (‘01)– Colorado Big Thompson (CO) (‘02)– Middle Loup (PSMBP – NE) ‘(02)– Sugar Pine (CVP- CA) (‘ 03)– Sly Park (CVP - CA)(‘ 03)– Harquahala Valley (AZ)(’04)– Fremont Madison (ID) (‘04)

Projects/Facilities Transferred

– Carpinteria (CA) (‘06)– Provo River Project (Partial) (UT) (‘06)– Wellton Mohawk (partial) (AZ) (‘07)– American Falls Res. District #2 (ID) (‘08)– Colorado Big Thompson (CO) (‘08)– Palo Verde Diversion (AZ/CA) (‘08)– Yakima Tieton (WA) (‘09)– McGee Creek (OK) (‘09) – Montecito (CA) (‘10)

Authorized But Not Transferred (4)

• Wellton Mohawk (Partial) (106th)• Humboldt (NV) (107th)• Provo River (UT) (Partial) (108th)• Goleta (CA) (111th)

Title Transfer Process

• Goal: To successfully transfer Reclamation projects and facilities from Federal ownership to willing project beneficiaries

• First steps in initiating title transfer process:

– Reclamation establishes title transfer team

– Reclamation completes analysis of assets under consideration for transfer

– Reclamation prepares initial estimate of transaction costs

– Reclamation prepares initial estimate of valuation

Checklist – Identify Interests and Issues

• Jointly go through Title Transfer Checklist

– Why does the District(s) want title?

– Why does Reclamation want title transfer?

– What facilities, features and lands do they want?

– Who are the stakeholders and other interested parties?

– What are the obstacles/issues to be addressed?

– What is the process/steps for completing transfer?

• How much will the process cost?

• Should We Move Forward?

Procedural Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

• District board(s) adopt resolution of their intent to pursue title transfer (Not “required” but gives District clear mandate to proceed)

• Draft and sign MOA on completing title transfer process (includes internal legal reviews). Designates:

– Who is responsible for what activities– Who is responsible for what costs (includes advance of funds to get

started)

• Projected timetable

Compliance with Procedural Requirements

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)– Environmental Assessment (EA)– Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (if determined necessary)– Endangered Species Act (ESA)– Public meetings/scoping

• National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 compliance– Consultation with SHPO

• Land appraisal(s) for previously withdrawn lands (as appropriate)

• Hazardous materials survey/review

• Tribal consultation (as appropriate)

• State requirements (as appropriate)

• Other steps identified during checklist review.

Title Transfer Agreement

• Develop agreement between all signatories on terms and conditions of transfer.

• Who gets what

• Mitigation required

• Payments

• Develop post-transfer “Governance” agreement(s)• Governance structure for operating and managing project

facilities and lands after transfer (among partners) (as appropriate)

Title Transfer Legislation

• Jointly develop legislation to ratify agreements

• Jointly present agreement to Congress

• Recent legislation – authorizes implementation of “Agreement” which is referenced

• Jointly support passage.

Legislative Implementation

Once legislation is signed into law – work together to finalize required stepsNEPA compliance -- already completed

NHPA compliance -- already completed

Consultations -- already completed

• Finish what is left– Finalize deeds– Finalize boundary surveys– Facility “walk through” with the State (dam safety)– Sign and record deeds with the County

Last Step

• Plan & host conveyance celebration!

Conclusions and Observations

• Process matters

• If it is not open and public – more likely to fail or take a long time and cost (everyone) a lot.

• More of the details worked out before legislation (NEPA & NHPA) – quicker legislation and implementation will move

• Go slow to go fast

• Is a BIG investment of time, energy and potentially money -- Be clear on why you want title – not just a whim.

• Reason for wanting title should be long term not short term