My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00967
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP00967
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:28:38 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:04:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8273.100
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - Bureau of Reclamation
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1983
Author
DOI
Title
Salinity Control Program Study Report and Recommendations
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.
/
37
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />F" <br />lli <br />P <br />Uci <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />--The Service's posture is relatively inflexible; it lacks vision and is <br />not creative; and is too slow to p.ick up on new ideas. <br /> <br />--Management should be willing to prioritize salinity control among its <br />programs and be willing to take the risks associated with decisions <br />necessary to reach prioritized goals. <br /> <br />Another area of concern is with the follow-through of decisions. The <br />Study Team found that many of the solutions and recommendations that it <br />identified for resolving the problems that came up had already been <br />suggested and indeed initiated. However, the continuing persistence of <br />these problems seem to indicate that, while the solutions were initiated, <br />there seemed to be little followup to see that they were in fact carried <br />out. <br /> <br />Most of those interviewed believed that the Overview Committee has served <br />a valuable role in providing a mechanism for discussion and coordination. <br />However, many indicated that improvement could and should be made. <br /> <br />Options: <br /> <br />A. Hold more frequent meetings of the Overview Committee. <br /> <br />B. Structure the meetings to include problem identification and resolution <br />activities, including the deciding of specific issues of priorities, <br />accountability, and interpersonal conflict. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />C. Reflect in the agenda the inputs and needs of all parties, and take and <br />communicate the minutes to all parties involved with the SCP within the <br />Service and where needed to those outside the Service. <br /> <br />D. Set, communicate, and abide by a consistent set of priorities (see <br />Setting and Communicating Priorities to Involved Entities.) <br /> <br />E. Establish a tracking procedure to insure that assignments and <br />responsibilities are accomplished. <br /> <br />F. Include major problem-solution assignments in performance standards <br />of person responsible. <br /> <br />G. Institutionalize some analytical decisionmaking risk assessment <br />procedures to better understand implications of risk. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />We strongly recommend Options B, C, D, and E and recommend looking into <br />A, F, and G. <br /> <br />Action Entity: Overview Committee <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.