Laserfiche WebLink
<br />...... <br />01." <br />00 <br />U' <br /> <br />A~~a~~.YaudSS. Most responses supported the Inspector General's <br />recommendation that Reclamation should seek broader authorities, like <br />those given to the USDA in the 1984 amendment to the Act. The Salinity <br />Program was designed to control salinity using a basinwide approach (to <br />find and implement salinity control where it is most effective) . <br /> <br />The Inspector General's report noted that the Act directed the Secretary <br />to give preference to implementing salinity control measures which are <br />cost-effective. However. the IG concluded that Reclamation's <br />authorization process impedes its ability to implement cost-effective <br />salinity control measures in a timely manner. The review comments support <br />the Inspector General's Audit recommendation that Reclamation should seek <br />broader authorities. This would allow Reclamation to be responsive and <br />flexible to opportunities as they arise, reducing costs. <br /> <br />Local ProgramB - Most responses did not respond directly to this iSBue, <br />though most recommended that projects or increments be ranked for <br />implementation based on cost-effectiveness, Most comments on this topic <br />supported the concept of locally implemented programs as an option for the <br />program. <br /> <br />It was noted that local implementation of the Lower Gunnison Winter Water <br />program has been very successful at reducing costs (by 40 percent) and <br />improving local cooperation in the program. Programmatic authoritiee <br />would allow Reclamation to adapt/evolve to whatever method results in the <br />most cost-effective projects. <br /> <br />Wildlife - Most comments, including those from the Fish and wildlife <br />Service (FWS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , ranked <br />Reclamation's habitat replacement program as adequate or better. A fair <br />number of commentors thought it was over zealous. Both FWS and EPA would <br />like to see improvements in the USDA habitat replacement program, <br />potentially through Changes in legislation or Reclamation "underwriting" <br />the USDA program. <br /> <br />Pederal PuDding - Most commentors believe that the existing 30 percent <br />repayment collected through power revenues is still appropriate. They do <br />not recommend changing this formula. Many commentors explained the <br />Congressional history for the cost sharing formula (based on Federal land <br />ownership and interstate trust). It has been recommended that the Lower <br />Basin cost share be paid 'upfront" to help finance the program. <br /> <br />Recommended Changes <br /> <br />Reclamation considered three alternatives for the future of the Colorado River <br />Salinit~ Control Program (specific to Title II): 1) request additional <br />appropriation ceiling to continue the program, 2) request new authorities to <br />improve cost-effectiveness, or 3) discontinue the program'after the 1974 <br />ceiling limitations are met. ' <br /> <br />Based on the comments received, the public, the Colorado River Basin Salinity <br />Control Forum, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council <br />all supported reauthorizing the program to improve cost-effectiveness through <br />basinwide-programmatic construction authority. <br /> <br />1995 amendments to the Salinity Control Act are intended authorize: <br /> <br />. A basinwide salinity control program that the Secretary, acting through <br />cbe Bureau of Reclamation, shall implement. The Secretary may carry out <br />the purposes of this paragraph directly, or may make grants, enter into <br /> <br />9 <br />