Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00-2~1-1 <br /> <br />APPENDIX 6 <br />Page 1 of 7 <br /> <br />OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPLY TO <br />BUREAU OF REClAMATION DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT <br /> <br />The following comments address the Bureau's detailed comments on the <br />draft report included in its June 26, 1989, response (Appendix 5). The <br />page and paragraph citations in the Bureau's comments and in our reply <br />are to our May 10, 1989, draft report. <br /> <br />COVER MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />Para"ratlh 1, The Bureau appears to have mistakenly concluded that the <br />Office of Inspector General has added new goals to the program. The <br />draft report set forth the program goals for Title I and Ti tIe I I on <br />report pages 3 and 6, respectively, Under Title I, it seems clear from <br />the enabling legislation that the goal was twofold: (1) to supply Mexico <br />wi th water wi thin certain salini ty constraints and (2) to supply the <br />water without reducing the water allocations of the basin states. The <br />goal of conserving .the basin states' water was incorporated in Section <br />101(c) of the Act, which makes it a national obligation to replace all <br />state allocated water that is used in the Title I program. The Title II <br />program goals seem equally clear in that the overall goal was to prevent <br />salinity in the lower portion of the. Colorado River from exceeding <br />acceptable levels. <br /> <br />Similarly, the conclusion that the draft report added new criteria in <br />regard to either the current program operations or to the initial program <br />approval would seem to be a mistake. However, since the Bureau did not <br />specifically identify what items it considers to be criterion additions, <br />we are unable to address this portion of the response in an explicit <br />manner. Nevertheless, we have revised portions of the report text to <br />clarify our position concerning the Title I program and to avoid the <br />confusion which may have arisen over the use of the phrases "economically <br />justified," "economically viable," and "economic feasibility." <br /> <br />~c:-I <br />, <br /> <br />We also disagree with the Bureau's comments that we have, in effect, <br />called for the reevaluation of the merits of an international settlement. <br />This is simply not the case. What the draft report intended was to <br />advise that there were unresolved issues and economic problems associated <br />with the current program which could prevent the Bureau from complying <br />with all the Title I provisions of the Colorado River Basin Salinitv <br />Control Act in an efficient, effective, and economic manner, As such" <br />this report and the Office of Management and Budget's general inquiry <br />have raised questions as to whether the presently authorized program <br />(desalting plant operations) is now the most desirable method for <br />achieving the water quality requirements of the international agreement. <br />We would also like to highlight the fact that while the Bureau seems to <br />intimate the opposite, the international agreement (Minute No. 242 of the <br />International Boundary and Water Commission) did not specifically direct <br /> <br />30 <br />