Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Legislative History <br /> <br />recommended assessing the cost of the McElmo Creek salinity features <br />against the salinity control construction appropriation ceiling, effectively <br />reducing the amount of construction that could be completed on the Lower <br />Gunnison Basin Unit, <br /> <br />N <br />llI:oo <br />00 <br />~ <br /> <br />The Act directed the Secretary to give preference to those portions of the <br />units that reduce salinity at the least cost per unit of salinity reduction, <br />While construction of additional cost-effective portions of the authorized <br />program was possible, insufficient ceiling remained to begin the east side <br />lateral portion of the Lower Gunnison Basin Unit under the 1974 ceiling <br />limits, <br /> <br />Reclamation has gained from its experience with the Colorado River Basin <br />Salinity Control Program and has identified new and innovative <br />opportunities to control salinity, including cooperative efforts with USDA, <br />BLM, and private interests, which are very cost effective. However, these <br />opportunities could not be implemented under the 1974 Act or the 1984 <br />amendments, The Inspector General's recent audit report titled Implemen- <br />tation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Bureau of <br />Reclamation, Report No, 93-1-810, March 1993 (IG Report), confirmed this <br />problem, The report notes that the Act directed that "the Secretary shall <br />give preference to , , , implementing practices which reduce salinity at the <br />least cost per unit of salinity reduction," The IG Report concluded that <br />Reclamation's unit-specific authorization process impedes implementing the <br />most cost-effective measures by restricting the salinity control program to <br />specific authorized units, For example, proposed salinity control projects in <br />the Price-San Rafael Rivers, SanJuan River, and Uinta Basin areas are all <br />more cost effective than the McElmo Creek Unit; yet, because authorization <br />was lacking, none of those projects have been implemented, <br /> <br />The IG Report recommended Reclamation seek changes in Title II of the Act <br />to simplifY the process for obtaining congressional approval of new, cost- <br />effective salinity control projects, Specifically, the IG Report recommended <br />a basinwide, programmatic construction authority so that the most cost- <br />effective alternatives for salinity control can be implemented in a timely <br />manner, similar to those provided to USDA in the 1984 amendments, <br />wherein USDA was granted programmatic planning and construction <br />authority, <br /> <br />Reclamation agreed with the IG Report and decided to explore innovative <br />ideas that would improve the effectiveness of its program and take <br />advantage of opportunities that were not envisioned 20 years ago, With <br />reauthorization necessary to provide continued funding for its program, this <br />was an appropriate time to reassess the direction of the salinity control <br />program to incorporate technological advances and new ideas to improve the <br />its effectiveness, Consequently, in March 1994, in the hope of strengthening <br />the salinity control program through public involvement, Reclamation <br />initiated a public review of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control <br /> <br />4 <br />