|
<br />,- _;~' i ':~__, ::'~: Yii,'... '_'.: ;./,,_\?~ -,_,-_~__j:::~i;;'~. O;_!
<br />
<br />Legislative History
<br />
<br />recommended assessing the cost of the McElmo Creek salinity features
<br />against the salinity control construction appropriation ceiling, effectively
<br />reducing the amount of construction that could be completed on the Lower
<br />Gunnison Basin Unit.
<br />
<br />The Act directed the Secretary to give preference to those portions of the
<br />units that reduce salinity at the least cost per unit of salinity reduction,
<br />While construction of additional cost-effective portions of the authorized
<br />program was possible, insufficient ceiling remained to begin the east side
<br />lateral portion of the Lower Gunnison Basin Unit under the 1974 ceiling
<br />limits,
<br />
<br />Reclamation has gained from its experience with the Colorado River Basin
<br />Salinity Control Program and has identified new and innovative
<br />opportunities to control salinity, including cooperative efforts with USDA,
<br />BLM, and private interests, which are very cost effective, However, these
<br />opportunities could not be implemented under the 1974 Act or the 1984
<br />amendments, The Inspector General's recent audit report titled Implemen-
<br />tation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Bureau of
<br />Reclamation, Report No, 93-1-810, March 1993 (IG Report), confirmed this
<br />problem, The report notes that the Act directed that "the Secretary shall
<br />give preference to . , , implementing practices which reduce salinity at the
<br />least cost per unit of salinity reduction," The IG Report concluded that
<br />Reclamation's unit-specific authorization process impedes implementing the
<br />most cost-effective measures by restricting the salinity control program to
<br />specific authorized units, For example, proposed salinity control projects in
<br />the Price-San Rafael Rivers, San Juan River, and Uinta Basin areas are all
<br />more cost effective than the McElmo Creek Unit; yet, because authorization
<br />was lacking, none of those projects have been implemented,
<br />
<br />The IG Report recommended Reclamation seek changes in Title II of the Act
<br />to simplify the process for obtaining congressional approval of new, cost-
<br />effective salinity control projects. Specifically, the IG Report recommended
<br />a basinwide, programmatic construction authority so that the most cost-
<br />effective alternatives for salinity control can be implemented in a timely
<br />manner, similar to those provided to USDA in the 1984 amendments,
<br />wherein USDA was granted programmatic planning and construction
<br />authority,
<br />
<br />Reclamation agreed with the IG Report and decided to explore innovative
<br />ideas that would improve the effectiveness of its program and take
<br />advantage of opportunities that were not envisioned 20 years ago, With
<br />reauthorization necessary to provide continued funding for its program, this
<br />was an appropriate time to reassess the direction of the salinity control
<br />program to incorporate technological advances and new ideas to improve the
<br />its effectiveness, Consequently, in March 1994, in the hope of strengthening
<br />the salinity control program through public involvement, Reclamation
<br />initiated a public review of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
<br />
<br />CUG1!)i
<br />
<br />4,
<br />
|