Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- n ----'lfi2 J 94 <br /> <br />examiner of the Office of Management and Budget fulfilled that agency's <br />request. <br /> <br />Recommendation 3. The Bureau disagreed with the recommendation and <br />stated that ies objective was to encourage states to cooperate in <br />salinity projects. Therefore. stopping investigations is not a <br />reasonable solution. It also stated that if water rights were an issue <br />on a potential project. it would direct its energies toward facilitating <br />solutions to problems consistent with the philosophy of state primacy on <br />water rights. <br /> <br />Recommendation 4. The Bureau agreed that <br />procedures were needed and stated that these would <br />Bureau's planning instructions by June 30, 1990. <br /> <br />written policies and <br />be documented in the <br /> <br />\ <br />, <br /> <br />Recommendation S. The Bureau disagreed with this recommendation and <br />took exception to our conclusion that the planned capacity of the private <br />irrigation facilities was increased essentially as an inducement to gain <br />local cooperation. The Bureau indicated that its canal sizing decisions <br />were coordinated with the U,S. Department of Agriculture's Soil <br />Conservation Service. The Bureau also indicated that because it could <br />not be certain how many farmers would convert from existing flood <br />irrigation practices to sprinkler irrigation. the canal was increased in <br />size to efficiently operate a rapid flood irrigation system during an <br />extended conversion period of up to 20 years. The Bureau further <br />explained that it decided to increase the canal's capacity to obtain <br />salinity control benefits, since it is widely accepted that rapid flood <br />irrigation provides such benefits. The Bureau concluded by stating that <br />ie.had documentation available to substantiate its conrentions. <br /> <br />Office of Inspector General Comments <br /> <br />Recommendation 1. In our opinion, the Bureau's budgets and reports <br />do not contain a complete. concise, and appropriate discussion of the <br />problems it faces in effectively implementing the salinity control <br />program. For example, annual operating cost information in the Bureau's <br />budget is not compared wi th original cost estimates or the estimated <br />costs of alternative measures in order to give these numbers necessary <br />perspective. Moreover, the Bureau's cited report "Quality of Water, <br />Colorado River Basin, Progress Report No. 14" makes no mention of any of <br />the Title I program concerns discussed in this report, nor does it <br />address the Bureau's inability to satisfactorily resolve the water rights <br />issue with the states, which is affecting both titles of the program. <br /> <br />In regard to the Bureau's belief that the program will comply with all <br />provisions of the authorizing legislation, we do not believe that <br />conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the program's current status. <br />Moreover, the Bureau offered no plan of action to show how it expected to <br />overcome the limiting factors that we have discussed. We do recognize, <br />however, that some of the limiting factors were beyond the Bureau's <br />ability to address effectively without the attention of Congress and the <br />cooperation of the Colorado River basin states. For this reason, '..e <br />recommended that the Bureau prepare a formal report to apprise Congress <br /> <br />} <br /> <br />13 <br />