Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.._-~---~-, <br /> <br />GG2195 <br /> <br />of the significant limitations impacting the program. Under these <br />circumstances, we believe that a special accounting of -the .program is <br />called for and request that the Bureau reconsider our recommendation. <br /> <br />Recommendation 2, In light of the significant estimated cost to <br />operate the desalting plant and the Bureau's inability to find a <br />replacement water source, the purpose of our recommendation was to ensure <br />that the Bureau prepared a comprehensive analysis of the current Title I <br />program and alternative means for complying with the salinity standards. <br />This would allow a reasonable judgment to be made as to whether the <br />desalting plant was still the most desirable way of meeting the United <br />States commitment to Mexico. We have revised the recommendation to <br />clarify our intent and request that the Bureau reconsider its response in <br />consideration of our revision. <br /> <br />Recommendation 3. We agree that over the last 15 years the Bureau <br />has taken steps to enlist the Colorado River basin states' cooperation in <br />the investigation of potential projects for controlling natural salt <br />sources. However, we believe that the fact.s are obvious. The basin <br />states have not reciprocated in this cooperation by amending or <br />reinterpreting their individual water laws to recognize salinity control <br />as a beneficial use of their water. Until they reciprocate, we see <br />little practical purpose in expending limited investigation funds for <br />projects to control natural salt sources when, in all likelihood, program <br />objectives will not be accomplished. We have made a revision to further <br />clarify the recommendation and request the Bureau reconsider it in its <br />current context. <br /> <br />Recommendation 4. The Bureau's response indicates agreement <br />this recommendation. The recommendation is considered resolved and <br />be referred to the Assistant Secretary Policy, Budget <br />Administration for tracking of implementation. <br /> <br />with <br />will <br />and <br /> <br />:~'.-.I.;;;;P <br />'~r:~~ <br />," <br /> <br />Recommendation 5, At our July 19, 1989, meeti~g, we reviewed the <br />Bureau's additional documentation and found nothing to change either our <br />conclusions or our recommendation, While the documencs cited by the <br />Bureau and other evidence gathered during the review confirm that the <br />Bureau considered sprinkler conversions and alternate irrigation methods <br />at canal sizing meetings, there was no substantive evidence that the <br />sizing considerations were related to salinity control. There are only a <br />few references to salinity control in these documents, and in ~ur <br />opinion. some of those references appear to show that salinity control <br />was not a sizing decision factor. For example, a January 20, 1987, <br />Bureau memorandum states that the use of the larger capacity was "based <br />on historical shortages and the fact that the newly constructed Dolores <br />Tunnel. (part of the Dolores Project) was sized and built to carry this <br />added volume." <br /> <br />On the other hand, these documents consistently show that the private <br />irrigation district wanted the Bureau to enlarge the capacity of the <br />district's irrigation system by 50 percent so t.hat its existing water <br />supply and the new, supplemental water supply from the Dolores Project <br /> <br />14 <br />