WSPC02841

• 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

OG2214

APPENDIX 6
Page 3 of 7

Para~raoh 3. 4th sentence. We disagree that our conce ens about the
significant increase in desalting plant operating costs are irrelevant I
especially in light of the unresolved technical problems associated with
the current program. The fact that Congress in 1974 accepted the current
program for reasons other than simple economy does not mean that
economics were completely ignored, nor does it preclude the possibility
that Congress might wish to change the program now. The Bureau's own
comments recognize that budget constraints have slowed the progress of
the Title I program. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to believe
that the same constraints might cause Congress to modify the current
program if more desirable alternatives are available, economics and all
other factors considered.

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Paee 3.
changed

Paraeraoh 1, 1st sentence. The text of the
to reflect the Bureau's comment.

final report

was

Paee 3. ParaeraDh 2. 4th sentence. No change was deemed necessary.

PalZe 3. Para~ranh 2-. 5th sentence. No change was deemed necessary, as we
are presenting examples regarding the alternatives considered, The
Bureau's response refers to actions actually taken which would not relate
to this case. It should be noted that information regarding the two
areas to which the Bureau refers was presented on pages 5 and la,

Paee 4 ,
clarify
Ii tIe I

Paraeraoh 1, 1st sentence. We changed
that the $155.5 million was authorized as
program, not just the desalting complex.

the final report to
the cost of the entire

Pa~e 4, Paragraoh 1, 2nd sentence, No change was ceemed necessary, as
there is no effect on the accuracy of facts or conclusions in the report.

Page 4, Paragraoh 2. 3rd sentence.
Bureau requested.

We revised the final report as the

Paee 5. Para~raoh 1. 2nd sentence. The total estimated cost of the Title
I program stated in the draft report ($485.5 milliOn) was correct.
However, it is possible that a portion of the program funds will not be
spent if the Bureau does not expand the desalting plant's capacity or use
these funds on some other aspect of the program. On the other hand, the
estimated program cost does not include the cost of developing a
replacement water source should the Bureau identify one, To clarify
these points, two new sentences have been added to the final report.

32