Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:....~".c.".....~-"""...... '. '".-._. ~_.~_. -.. -....---- <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />00 <br />~ <br /> <br />into one integrated project. Further reductions could likely be achieved <br />through local design and construction of the facilities. <br /> <br />The notice indicated that Reclamation's goal was to solicit public comment on <br />reshaping its program and requested interested parties. to explore and comment <br />upon the following issues: <br /> <br />. Reclamation's Role - In 1974, the Salinity Control Act charged <br />Reclamation with leadership of the program. Is this role still <br />appropriate or should it change? What role should Reclamation play in <br />future salinity control activities? would programs such as the current <br />USDA and BLM programs be more effective at achieving further reductions <br />in salini ty? <br /> <br />. Bffsctiveness - How might Reclamation's program become more cost- <br />effective in the future? <br /> <br />. Local Programs - In the past, the Reclamation program has been <br />construction oriented and Federally initiated. One potential approach <br />might be for Reclamation to request submission of proposed salinity <br />reduction projects from non-Federal interests. The proposals could be <br />ranked based on cost-effectiveness (cost per ton of salt removed to the <br />Federal Government), Federal Funde could be provided to the most cost- <br />effective proposals. <br /> <br />. Wildlife _ Does the Reclamation program adequately address fish and <br />wildlife/wetland issues? <br /> <br />. Federal Funding - Recognizing a continuing Federal interest in the <br />salinity problem, the 1984 amendment to the Salinity Control Act set <br />non-Federal cost sharing at 30 percent. Is this still appropriate? <br />should Reclamation continue to seek funds to implement the remainder of <br />its program; including consideratiOn of requesting an increased ceiling <br />or a modification to the statute that would allow for direct <br />appropriation without a ceiling? What would happen without Federal <br />assistance? <br /> <br />Summary of Responses <br /> <br />:! <br /> <br />ReclamatIon received more than 80 responses from private individuals, local, <br />State, and Federal agencies. Most were from State and local agencies <br />expressing support for Reclamation to continue in a lead role in the program. <br />A few comments were critical of Reclamation's implementation of the program. <br />Most of these comments could be addressed by implementing the recommended <br />changes to Reclamation's authorities, local implementation, and voluntary <br />participation. The comments received from the public support implementing the <br />Inspector General's recommendation to seek broader authorities to improve <br />cost-effectiveness for Title II of the program. Title II review comments are <br />summarized below under their appropriate headings: <br /> <br />Reclamation's Role - Most responses support Reclamation'S participation <br />and leadership role. The Salinity Program is one of the first basinwide, <br />nonpoint source control programs in the country. Reclamation should <br />continue its program where appropriate and cost-effective. But, more <br />importantly, Reclamation should share its experience and capabilities to <br />assist other agencies in developing their programs toward cost-effective <br />solutions. <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />;~ <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />..', <br />