Comment from Great West Engineering, Inc.

January 7, 2009 Ms. Avra Morgan, Mail Code 84-52000 Reclamation of Reclamation Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25007 Building 67 Denver, CO 80225 Re: Comments on Rural Water Supply Program Interim Final Rule OMB #1006-AA54 Dear Ms. Morgan: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced rule. This important rule will help the Bureau of Reclamation assist and oversee the proper planning and implementation of rural water projects. These projects are needed to deliver adequate and safe drinking water to many in the arid Western US who currently do not have this basic necessity of life. We generally support the provisions within the rule, but there are a few parts we would like to comment on. We have organized our comments to follow the format of the Interim Rule. 43 CFR Parts 404.4(c), 404.44(c)(10), and 404.49(d)(8) We are concerned about the requirement in these sections that the project, “…. generate national net economic benefits as required under the Economic Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources…”. As discussed with the Overview of the rule, “Current data indicate that millions of Americans still live without safe drinking water, a basic necessity of life.” It is true that most of the rural water supply projects are needed to protect and insure the public health and safety of US citizens. We believe that the need to adequately address human health and safety issues exceeds the strict economic cost/benefit analysis that may be used for a purely economics driven project such as a crop irrigation project, for example. We suggest that the requirement be changed to require that the project sponsor demonstrate to Reclamation that the proposed project is the most economically effective approach for meeting the public’s health and safety needs. 43 CFR Part 404.13 We agree with the overall set of criteria that have been developed in this part to prioritize Reclamation funding for projects. However, we feel that the degree to which a project addresses public health and safety issues should be weighted higher than the other criteria within this rule. 43 CFR Part 404.36 There are several existing rural water entities which are not yet authorized by Congress but have been actively planning their rural water projects. We are aware of at least one project that has completed significant planning efforts since the passage of the Rural Water Supply Act in 2006. This project has completed its Appraisal Report with the best intent of meeting all the requirements outlined in the 2006 Act. The project sponsor submitted the Appraisal Report to Reclamation in October 2007, but Reclamation has been unable to review it until their program and this Rule were finalized. This project has also initiated efforts on its Feasibility Report. We feel that at a minimum Reclamation should be willing to reimburse 50 percent of the planning work that has yet to be completed at the time of the funding application. This is with the understanding that the final report needs to meet the requirements of the Rule. We would also like Reclamation to consider reimbursement of planning work that has already been completed since December 2006, if the intent of the project sponsor was to meet the requirements of the Rural Water Supply Act and the final reports meet the requirements of this Rule. We feel these reimbursements are necessary to be fair to project sponsors who have elected to be proactive with their projects and not wait until Reclamation established its program to administer the Act. 43 CFR Part 404.43 The proposed schedule for Appraisal Report reviews is reasonable. However, we request that the review be expedited of Appraisal Reports that have already been submitted to Reclamation, if possible. These reports have been awaiting the implementation of this Rule in order for Reclamation to formally review them. As discussed above, certain projects have been awaiting review of their Appraisal Report and are interested in funding assistance for their Feasibility Report. Since Reclamation requires that the Appraisal Report be reviewed and approved prior to releasing funds for the Feasibility Report, this process will limit the ability of these project sponsors from realizing the benefits of the program because they have elected to be proactive with planning efforts. The degree to which Reclamation can expedite review of already submitted Appraisal reports will help limit this impact to entities eligibility for Feasibility Report funding. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at my office. Sincerely, Great West Engineering, Inc. Robert Church, PE Principal Dave Aune, PE Principal