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

ot,2179

acre.foot in 1973 to a current rate of $316 or more per acre-foot,
thereby raising the question of ~hether operating the plant is the most
desirable method for :he United States to meet i:5 water quality
commitme~ts to ~exico.

Finally, our survey also identified significant constraints placed on the
Bureau ~hich impede it from effectively implementing the Title II
salinity control program. IJe found that states and private irrigation
system Ow"TIers. whose permission must be obtained before the Bureau can
construct salinity control projects, have not cooperated because they do
not view themselves as the program's beneficiaries, In one case. the
Bureau plans to unnecessarily expand the capacity of a private irrigation
company's system at a cost of $4.4 miUion to ensure its participation in
the program. IJe believe that continued resistance could result in
increased program costs and a relatively ineffective program,

The report recommended that the Bureau initiate action to formally notify
Congress of limitations on the Department of the Interior's ability to
comply with the provisions of Titles I and II. Also, we recommended that
the Bureau take other actions, pending further Congressional guidance, to
lessen the negative impact of ongoing programs and plans.

The Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 require sereiannual reporting
of the monetary impact of findings to Congress. The monetary impact of
the findings contained in this report is in Appendix 1.

The Bureau responded to our report on June 26, 1989, and indicated
disagreement with certain aspects of the report and the :ecommendations.
The Bureau agreed .ro implement only Recommendation 4a"d stated that it
had already complied with Recommendations 1 and 2. However, ~e concluded
that the Bureau's actions of compliance to date were not sufficient to
resolve che latter two recommendations, The Bureau disagreed with
Recommendations 3 and 5. On July 19, 1989, we met with representatives
of the Bureau to discuss the report findings and other areas of
disagreement. No changes were made co the Bureau's response as a result
of the meeting, However, we have made several changes to improve che
clarity of certain parts of the report text and the overall intent of our
recommendations. Based on the Bureau's response, we consider
Recommendations 1. 2. 3. and 5 as unresolved and are requesting that the
Bureau reconsider its responses to those recommendations. Recommendation
No, 4 is considered resolved but requires implementation.

-'.. ~ \
I
,

Summaries of the Bureau's response and
recommendation are included at the end of
Bureau's complete response is at Appendix 5.
Bureau's detailed comments is at Appendix 6.

our comments to each
the report finding. The
Our de tailed reply to the

In accordance with the Departmental Manual (360 D~ 5.3), we are
requesting your written response to this report by ~ovember 10, 1989.
Your response should provide the information requested in Appendix 7.
The legislation creating the Office of Inspec~or General requires