Opening Remarks by Commissioner Stamm at the Portland Program Conference, August 12, 1974

Transcription

1 Opening Remarks by Commissioner Stamm at the Portland Program Conference, August 12, 1974 The statisticians tell me that this is the 27th Annual Commissioner's Program Conference. This summer get together of top management and planning staff has served us well over the years, and I look forward again to a week of very productive discussions. If we do our job this week, we will end up with the major issues surfaced, and hopefully, resolved. An outsider viewing this conference might consider the task we have before us a gratifying one. And in many ways it is. After all, we are here to decide how to spend appropriately and effectively a billion dollars in the next two years. That's a tremendous responsibility, one not to be taken lightly. There are many major issues to be resolved. We are here: to firm up plans for '75 and also to decide what new investigations to propose for fiscal year 1976; to decide what new construction contracts to let in '76; to develop realistic funding levels in the face of rampant inflation; and to distribute our limited number of people to meet best our program needs. This task could have been much less gratifying. We could have been here to decide how to spend only $750 million or even $500 million over the next two years. It wasn's too long ago that such a budget was considered and even advocated by some.

2 In view of the authorized and on going program, such a budget would have demanded severe and totally unacceptable, inefficient, uneconomic program stretchouts and delays. Fortunately, this was recognized by Secretary Morton and many others, including the Congress, who favor efficient conduct of our authorized program. As the matter now stands we have a potential budget of about $505 million for fiscal '75 and a tentative allotment of approximately that amount for fiscal '76. The House and Senate have both completed action on our appropriation bill for 1975, and we can do a much better job here this week having their recommendations in hand. The House made a number of revisions in the administration's budget which in all added up to an increase of $39 million. It recommended a number of new planning, construction, and loan starts. The Senate added an additional $10 million, so the total bill went to $510 million for all of Reclamation's activities. The conference met last week and agreed on a bill totaling about $506 million. The Senate bill included one brand new activity, entitled the Colorado River Salinity Control Project. This results from a new authorization involving salinity control in the Colorado River Basin and delivery of water to Mexico pursuant to Minute 242. Reclamation 2

3 will be the lead agency. It included a cost of perhaps $250 billion eventually, and for initial works estimated to cost about $100 million. It will require the utmost in the coordination of resources if commitments in the agreements between the United States and Mexico are to be met as scheduled. There are a couple of other less dramatic but unusual items included by the Congress. We are charged with responsibility for finding a way to restore ferry service on the Columbia River above Coulee Dam, and pending restoration, we are to provide health services to the Colville Indian Reservation residents. These obligations are slightly outside our normal sphere of activity, but I am certain our usual ingenuity will be applied to accomplish successfully this new assignment. Let me return to the budget. The Department has assigned us a ceiling allowance of $496 million for fiscal year In total it is nearly equal to the congressional recommendations for fiscal year 1975, and on the surface it does not look so bad. Still, there are several problems which must be resolved before we can convert that total into budget estimates for presentation to OMB this fall. One problem involves the write-ins by the House and Senate. We have appealed to the Department for an increase in the fiscal year 1976 ceiling based on starting construction of those new start write-ins in

4 If the apea1 is denied, we will have to delay action on the write-ins and under the new congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act the Administration would have to ask for congressional approval for such non-action. The new Budget and Impoundment Control Act has a number of innovations that will affect our financial operations. The fiscal year will be shifted to start on October 1 and end on September 30. This will happen in calendar year committees in the House and Senate. There will be new budget control In addition, the legislative committees, (in our case, Interior and Insular Affairs) will also become more involved with the budget. We have no idea how the mechanical relationships will be worked out among these committees, but undoubtedly the demands on all of us involved with budget matters will be increased. I mentioned earlier that we must determine how we can best distribute people to meet program needs. When we added up all the recommendations for people which were furnished us by the regions and the E&R Center, we ended up with a total of 500 above the 1975 budget ceiling. Your totals for fiscal year 1976 would require an additional 515, or 1,015 above the '75 budget total. I am virtually certain we will not be allowed these increases; therefore, it is imperative that we determine this week our rock bottom personnel needs for both 1975 and I am hopeful your estimates can be trimmed substantially. 4

5 I do not want to be in a position to lose programs because we cannot guarantee people capability. We must report our findings to the Department early next week. I have been disturbed by the fact that employment never equals the ceilings heretofore presented as rock bottom. With employment below ceilings, we periodically have ceiling reduced. The travel ceiling has also been very tight the past few years. Let me commend you for the results obtained in fiscal year Overall, the Bureau was only 4 percent above our ceiling. I urge you to continue your economy efforts in 1975, since the 1975 budget for travel is nearly as restrictive as the 1974 total. In my listing of major issues, I pointed out that we must develop funding levels that recognize the current trends of inflation. In this regard it is essential that you review all individual estimates most carefully. In this time of spiraling costs, it takes extra viligance to keep current on funding. Continued construction of some projects may be jeopardized if we do not keep the estimates up to date. We have had many bid openings in the past 6 months where the low bid was considerably above the program estimate. Fortunately, we have been able to reprogram to allow award in each case, but we cannot always expect to do so. 5

6 This brings me to another point in the opposite vein. Our accomplishment record for fiscal year 1974 was the worst in the past 10 years. Though we entered the year with underfinancing of 6 percent, and even though inflation increased our costs by nearly 10 percent, we ended the year with over $100 million that was not expected (not unobligated). we could do. Translated this means that we did not do work we said We simply must do a better job of predicting program capability and fiscal requirements if we expect to maintain credibility in our estimating abilities. You can be sure this carryover situation will be noticed, will affect us adversely, and if it continues I am sure we will have our budget cut back to compensate. I also want to say a few words about environmental impact statements. Over the past several years attempts have been made to evaluate the costs of preparing these statements. Each time you have supplied the requested field data, however it became obvious we could not clearly define these costs. It was apparent that the individuals involved were often conducting other program functions at the same time they were working on the impact statements. In short, we concluded that these environmental related costs are really an integral "cost of doing business." I believe this is appropriate and this fact is recognized by OMB and the Secretary's office. There are exceptions of course. 6

7 I am happy to see us continually "winning the lawsuits brought against us. We have a splendid record so far, as you know. This I believe, results from a combination of high-quality statements, first-rate personnel on the job, and the proper cooperation of the Regional Directors, E&R Center, various Division Chiefs and others. Also it reflects the right attitude toward environmental preservation while continuing to build for America. Public Involment -- On another front, I am not quite so certain we are winning, at least not yet. That us in the area of public involvement. It is discouraging to me--and I am sure frustrating to you--for us to spend many hours at sessions like these preparing programs only to see them run head on into trouble, delays, and controversy because of adverse reaction from some elements of the public. One of the reasons for such unfavorable reaction in the later stages of program development has been our failure to involve the public in the early stages and to continue the process. Too often we have handed the public our solutions to specific problems, expecting them to accept our findings as to what is best. There must be a change. In today's world with its competing forces, critical needs, complex problems, and public concern, the government can no longer conduct itself like a protective Mother Hen. The fact is, the government 7

8 does not always have all the answers--not even the Bureau of Reclamation. We need ideas and input and assistance from citizen groups in the development of priorities. Even if we did have all the proper answers, the public must have the opportunity to become involved and become convinced. So instead of simply presenting programs to the public, we must develop a dialogue. There must be input from local sponsors and concerned citizen groups from the beginning. We must be willing to meet with these groups as many times as necessary to achieve solutions. This isn's new. We have done this more or less for many years. We simply need to do it more consistently, more persistently, and with a renewed "give and take" attitude. Because public involvement crosses many lines--and includes many disciplines--planning, construction, coperation and maintenance, and power marketing--i have asked the Office of Public Affairs to assume a coordinating role in the Bureau's public involvement program. Also, because of the very nature of puvlic involmeent, it seems reasonable that your public information people will likewise be deeply involved in coordination of regional public involement programs. Jim Hart tells me that such involvement was discussed and heartily endorsed by the information officers at the Public Affairs Conference 8

9 in Washington two weeks ago. The report of that conference will be forthcoming soon. EEO - Next, I want to make a few remarks regarding EEO. I fully support the Equal Employment Opportunity Program. Hardi Jones tells me that there are some misconceptions about it. I would like to clear these up, at least in part. There is apprehension among some that EEO is a preference program- discrimination in reverse. It is not intended to be so, nor do we plan to consider it so. But experience with non-discrimination laws has invariably shown that little or nothing happens unless managers and supervisors are held accountable for measurable results. For example, operating under the merit system is synonomous with EEO, but making selections for vacancies under the merit system has not necessarily achieved measurable results. In implementation of the merit system, have you gentlemen been colorblind or sex blind? Affirmative action for minorities and women consistent with required employment is a remedy over a period of time for past discrimination because it does not exclude non-minorities from employment or promotion. The vast majority of good jobs continues to go to white males. However, efforts to get minorities and women into higher grades will mean increased competition, but that is fair. Assuming the qualifications are comparable. 9

10 Therefore, to meet our obligation under the law (letter and spirit) we must make a concerted, positive effort to reach all potential job candidates. Minorities and women are behind in the Bureau of Reclamation and there are several reasons why, independent of the current EEO emphasis. A marked change cannot come over night. Development of qualified applicants must start with the educational process. But to the extent that process has already produced the engineers/scientists technicians among minorities and Ms., they must receive equal consideration. I am interested in the progress that each of you makes in this important area of our overall management in the Bureau. Normally, I would not single out an individual for his performance in this field; however, I understand Bob McPhail has made significant progress in his EEO program the last few months and I would like to congratulate him. In closing I want to emphasize that this week is to be a period of free expression with full participation. Let's look at all the issues and strive to remove the question marks from our program. We must conclude this conference feeling that we have the best program that can be developed within the established guidelines and available resources, and that we are prepared to defend it. I know your cooperation and dedication, as always, will provide the support we need to reach this goal. 10