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 />l-t 17 <br />C.Jl <br />tv In considering the four options, our analysis was based upon the following <br />~ dominant criteria that seemed to emerge from the interview data. We <br />believe that any change in the organizational structure should attempt to: <br /> <br />1. Provide a central focal point for the SCPo <br /> <br />2. Recognize the need for Regional Directors to maintain control of <br />ongoing work within their regions. <br /> <br />3. Maintain a high visibility for the SCPo <br /> <br />4. Maintain an "advocate" to "champion the cause" of the SCPo <br /> <br />~. Combine the "authority" and "responsibility" of the SCPo <br /> <br />6. Conserve personnel ceiling slots and eliminate unnecessary layers. <br /> <br />7. Reflect the actual work program through the setting of priorities. <br /> <br />8. Be politically feasible, i.e., meet the needs of constituents and <br />internal managers. <br /> <br />Option A - Retain Current Organizational Structure and Implement <br />Non-Structural Solutions <br /> <br />While this option was included as a basis for comparison for the other <br />options, we believe that its primary strength is that such a compromise may <br />well be the best solution the Service is capable of achieving at this <br />time, given the apparent diverse needs of those involved. Also, many of <br />those interviewed both inside and outside the Service believe that consider- <br />ing the constraints and restrictions of our processes and procedures, the <br />SCP is functioning fairly well, and communications are fairly good among <br />the primary offices and should not be tampered with. <br /> <br />Advantages <br /> <br />Disadvantages <br /> <br />Not working that badly; progress on <br />program is being made. <br /> <br />Perceived "split" in authority <br />responsibility. <br /> <br />Recognizes Regional Director <br />authority. <br /> <br />Conflict has resulted between CRWQP <br />and RD's. <br /> <br />Maintains central contact point <br />and visability. <br /> <br />Some confusion from outside entities, <br />e.g., FWS and SCS, on when to go to <br />CRWQO and when to go to RD. <br /> <br />Maintains "Advocate" for SCPo <br /> <br />Field offices get conflicting mes- <br />sages from CRWQO and RD; confusion <br />resul ts. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.