Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />I-" <br />c:..'l <br />f.... After interviews with 50 individuals inside and outside the Water and Power <br />~ Resources Service (Service), and reviewing budget and schedule data, the Study Team <br />came to the following conclusions: <br /> <br />- The Salinity Control Program (SCP) has a better accomplishment in <br />the last 2 years than at any time since its inception. <br /> <br />- While few, if any, are satisfied with overall SCP accomplishment <br />most are sympathetic with the problems that impeded progress. <br /> <br />I <br />- I <br />\ <br /> <br />- At the present time, the progress being made is about commensurate <br />with internally defined priorities. <br /> <br />SCP planning studies have generally moved faster than normal <br />planning studies in the same period. <br /> <br />- Service personnel are not as unified as they could be in this <br />program. <br /> <br />Problem areas identified included: <br /> <br />Setting and Communicating Priorities to Involved Entities <br />- Acceptable Cost-Effectiveness <br />- Planning: Principles and Standards and Environmental Constraints <br />- Implementation of Shortc~ Procedures for Feasibility Studies <br />Concurrent Review of Planning Reports <br />- Time Required for Award of Contracts <br />- Manage Conflict Between Primary Service Entities <br />Extent of Involvement of CRWQO in Field Office Activities <br />- Leadership from Overview Committee <br />- Verification of the Effectiveness of Salinity Control Units <br /> <br />Solution options addressing these problem areas fall into nonstructural <br />and structural (organizational) categories. The nonstructural options <br />include actions in the areas of planning procedures, working relation- <br />ships, communications, and management processes and are generally directed <br />at individual problems. The structural options include a program manager <br />concept, an Assistant Commissioner over salinity, and the integration of <br />the Water Quality Office and the Upper Colorado Regional Office. Although <br />the existing organizational strucure is cumbersome and contributed to many <br />of the problems, the Team feels that if the recommended nonstructural <br />solutions are successfully implemented only marginal additional gains would <br />be attained from a structural solution. Nevertheless, the three structural <br />options are included for conSideration. In conclusion, we strongly recommend <br />that the Commissioner and Overview Committee, as a body, seriously consider <br />all the nonstructural recommendations made in the body of the report and <br />then openly and candidly discuss the strength and weaknesses of each of the <br />structural alternatives to see if additional benefit could be derived there <br />from. <br />