My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02841
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
15000-15999
>
WSPC02841
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:32:47 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:35:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272
Description
Colorado River - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - CRBSCP
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/1/1989
Author
DOI-BOR
Title
Office of the Inspector General Audit Report - Survey Report on the Review of the CRBSCP
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />------Olf22ll6 <br /> <br />A??::\:-::\ ; <br />?age5.J::- <br /> <br />Enclosure <br /> <br />We offer the following detailed comments regarding the draft report: <br /> <br />COVER MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />Para~aph No.1 <br /> <br />The stated objectives of the Inspector General (IG) survey "were to determine if the <br />program was operated in compliance with legislative, regulatory, and Reclamation <br />requirements and to evaluate Reclamation's progress toward accomplishing salinity <br />control objectives." However, the IG report interprets the Colorado River Basin Salinity <br />Control Act of 1974 by adding goals and criteria which were not a condition of initial <br />program approval. The report's conclusions repeatedly question "economic justification" <br />which was not a primary factor or objective of the program. <br /> <br />The program was an overall settlement made to avoid further conflict with Mexico and <br />to avoid the possibility of a solution being imposed by a third party such as the World <br />Court. The settlement achieved a solution that was based on social and political factors <br />and supported by Mexico and the seven Colorado River Basin States. By questioning <br />the economic justification of this settlement, the IG is in effect calling for a re- <br />evaluation of the merits of an international settlement. <br /> <br />Paragraph No, 2 <br /> <br />2nd sentence: This would be more consistent with Public Law 93-320 if changed as <br />underlined. 'The Title 1 program was designed to control the salinity of water delivered <br />to users in the United States and Mexico. thereby. . . ." <br /> <br />'I <br /> <br />3rd sentence: Change "desalt" to "reduce the salinity of' and remove phrase "before it <br />reaches the river" because the irri~ation drainage never reaches the river but is byPassed <br />to the Santa Clara Slough in MeXlco. <br /> <br />Parairaph No.3 <br /> <br />1st sentence: The conclusion that "there is still uncertainty whether the objectives of <br />Title I and II will be achieved" is not supported by facts. While it is true that certain <br />difficulties as described later in this paragraph have arisen, there is no reason to believe <br />that the issues cannot be resolved. The Colorado River Basin States have recently <br />indicated a willingness to work cooperatively in resolving these issues. <br /> <br />2nd sentence: "without depriving the Colorado River basin states of any of their <br />allocated water" was not a Title I program goal. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.