WSP00967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . ~ 3 (,;1 r '. - Some nonstructural changes are necessary in program management and ~ coordination to insure more timely. completion of planning reports. These changes deal primarily with clarification of priorities, improvements in the planning process, allocation of resources and definition of managerial and working relationships. - A general observation by the Team was that priorities were the overriding force affecting the SCPo Through the interview process it was found that among different Federal agencies and within the Service the priorities were not always clear, and that while the Forum had one set of priorities the indiVidual states making up Forum membership often espoused a different set of priorities. In fact, it was felt that of all the states perhaps only in California did the State and Forum priorities fully coincide. - In trying to evaluate whether stated priorities actually reflect opera- tional priorities three measures were identified 1) interview data, 2) funding levels, and 3) tangible progress. While overall tangible progress was not seen as satisfactory, except possibly for the recent past, the funding levels and the interview data indicate that at the present time the stated internal priorities are reflected by the general level of SCP activity. - Concern was expressed about the present organizational alignment and in particular the conflict and confusion that sometime arises because of unclear role definition and the apparent responsibility/authority split. SETTING AND COMMUNICATING PRIORITIES TO INVOLVED ENTITIES Priority: High Many problems mentioned referred to inconsistent levels of commitment of various Federal agencies, lack of tough decisionmaking, and priority setting within the Service. Resource allocation was often cited as the evidence of priority implementation and many Forum members felt inadequate resources had been allocated to the SCPo Some thought that the competition with the development programs has resulted in salinity funds being diverted to these programs, although the Team was not able to substantiate that this had happended. In fact, a recent example of efforts to more fully utilize resources is the reassignment of the Big Sandy and.Dirty Devil Units to the Grand Junction and Durango Projects offices where greater staff capability was available to accomplish the studies. The unclear relationship between the States, the Forum, and the Service has been identified by the Team as a possible source of perceived inconsistent priorities. Since the States, in most cases, have two sets of priorities - one represented by the Forum and another through the Upper Colorado River Commission or the State offices, the Service can easily receive two sets of signals - one through the Regional Director and the other through the Water Quality office. And since the State priorities tend to be dynamic over time, a one time verification of them can be misleading. An additional source of ambiguity affecting priorities was a wide range of perceptions as to the timing and urge?cy.of the projects. Recent improvements in the level of salinity in the Colorado River along with some not understood