Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..... <br />~ <br />CJ) <br />CD <br /> <br />One of the great advantages of the new program comes from the integration of Reclamation's <br />program with ti,e U.S. Department of Agriculture's program. Water conservation within irrigation <br />projects on salinc soils is the single most effective salinily control measure found in the past 30 years <br />of investigation.,. By integrating the USDA's on-farm irrigalion improvemenls wilh Reclamation's <br />off-farm improvements, high efficiencies can be obtained. If the topography permits, pressure from <br />piped deli wry svstems (laterals) may be used to drive sprinkler irrigation systems at improved <br />irrigation cllieicncy rates which are far better than those now occurring with existing flood irrigaiion <br />systems. Tllis ncw authority allows Reclamation much grealer flexibility (in both timing and <br />funding) to wmk with the USDA 10 develop this lype of project. <br /> <br />This new aUlhority also allows Reclamation to respond to opportunities that are time- <br />sensitive. Cost sharing partners (private organizations and states and federal agencies) often have <br />funds avaiJ;lIolc a[ specific times. Under the old method of planning, authorization, funding and <br />construction. il would oflen take decades for Reclamation to be ready to proceed with a project. <br />None of RCl'bl1l;lti\on's past projects were able to attract cost sharing because of this constraint. For <br />example. Ihc' Ashley Project (a joint effort by the Stale of Utah, the EPA and Reclamalion) will <br />eliminate '),000 Ions of salt per year. Local and state funds were pledged. The salinity portion <br />funded lhrough Reclamation is a minor component of the project but an important part of the project <br />($3 Million in ;1 j; 18 Million project). Once Reclamalion had committed to fund its salinity portion <br />of the proj~ct. Illn<ls were provided in the EPA's budget by Congress for that agency's contribution <br />50 thai the p;lr\l1l'rship was completed. <br /> <br />Anotl,,'r significant advantage of Ihe Basinwide Program is that projects are "owned" by the <br />proponent ulthe project, not Reclamation. The proponent is responsible for perfonning under their <br />proposal. (osts paid by Reclamation are controlled and limited by agreement. The Hammond <br />Project in New Mexico is a good exmnple of an early success. Their proposal was one of the firs1 <br />funded. Th~y ;1I'e now in their third year and costs and accomplishments are just as proposed. The <br />effort is tn linl' pmtions of the main delivery canal to prevent seepage into underlying saline <br />sediments. The I'roject is strongly supported by the local water users and, in facl, the construction <br />efforts arc "c'colllplished under their direction. <br /> <br />Yet. somc.times unforseen cost overruns do occur. The proponent has several options. The <br />proposed proi~ct may be terminated at no cost to the federal government. The proponent may choose <br />to cover the overruns with lheir own funds or borrow funds, such as from state loan programs. The <br />proponent may ;\Iso choose to reconfigure the project CoSls and recompete their project through the <br />award prne~SS ;\t the neXl opportunity. For el\ample, pipeline bedding and materials costs for the <br />Ferron Pmjcel in Utah were underestim;ned in the original proposal and the subsequenl construclion <br />cooperative ;\grecl11ent. Reclamation denied the proponent permission to award materials contracts <br />for Ihe pipelinl' since the costs were beyond those contained in the agreement. After months of <br />negotialiom ;\I1d analysis, Ihe proponents chose to terminate the project, reconfigure it and recompete <br />against olhn proposals the following year. Their revised project was found to be competitive and <br />was allowed to proceed. <br /> <br />Just two weeks ago, Reclamation opened and reviewed proposals made again by the non- <br />federal seclor. These new proposals do not appear on the attached table as lhey are held wiih a <br />degree of e()nfidentiulity until proposers are contacted and advised of the acceptance or rejection of <br />their propos.t1, ,\bout a dozen most favorable proposals were received that offered salinity control <br />at costs below S:\CI per ton. Other proposals will be rejected. As these new proposals move through <br /> <br />3 <br />