Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002190 <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />After 15 years of planning, designing, construction work, and <br />expenditures in the hundreds of ~illions of dollars, it is still <br />uncertain whether the Title I program will effectively achieve the dual <br />goal of providing Mexico with water that ~eets the salinity standards <br />agreed to without depriving the basin states of any of their allocated <br />Water. Moreover, the projected costs to operate the desalting plant ha <br />risen to the point where the desal tin ro ram ~a no Ion e the s <br />.econo a _J. desirabl wa of accomplishing proiram goals. As previou <br />ed, t . ted costs have risen sufficiently for the Office <br />Management and Budget to express concern about the overall economic <br />feasibility of the desalting program, That office's concern applies, <br />even if all program objectives can successfully be achieved, which does <br />not appear to be the case. <br /> <br /> <br />In our opinion. the questions raised about the ultimate effectiveness and <br />economic desirability of the desalting program are serious enough to <br />indicate that there is a potential need for a Congressional reassessment <br />of the program as currently .formulated. <br /> <br />Title II - Salinitv Prevention <br /> <br />Although the Bureau has expended about $142 million (Appendix 3). it has <br />made little progress in planning and constructing salinity control <br />projects authorized by Title II of the Salinity Control Act. Projects to <br />control salinity from natural sources cannot be constructed without ~ater <br />use permits issued by the states. Likewise, irrigation canals cannot be <br />improved or modified to control salinity without the permission and <br />cooperation of the local owners and operators of the canals. However, <br />the upper basin states and irrigation districts where these projects need <br />to be constructed do not actively support the program because they do not <br />directly benefit from it, The objective and the primary benefit of t:-:e <br />salinity control projects are. improved water quality for users in <br />Arizona, California, and Nevada, In our opinion, this lack of <br />cooperation and support by the states and prlvate irrigators is the cause <br />of the Bureau's inability to develop the projects needed to control salt <br />sources and the primary reason why so little salt reduction has been <br />accomplished in the last 15 years. Also, this situation has resulted in <br />at least one instance where the Bureau could incur additional costs for <br />nonessential work which was apparently approved to induce the Cooperation <br />of local irrigators, <br /> <br />Controlling natural salt sources. The Bureau is generally unable to <br />obtain the states' cooperation to develop new proj ects for controlling <br />natural salt sources. Section 202 of the amended Salinity Control Act <br />authorized construction of a natural salt. source control project. In <br />addition. Section 203 of the Act directed the Bureau to investigate the <br />viability of projects to control salt from eight natural sources, Also, <br />Section 202 of the Act, as amended, required the Bureau to comply with <br />state water laws when developing these proJectsX: The Bureau enviosioned <br />'-controlling salt !rom natural sources by collecting saline Water and <br />disposing of all or part of it. Under state water laws, the Bureau is <br /> <br />S>e. ZD z(q) (4) <br /> <br />9 <br />