Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />CO <br />-.1 <br />~ <br /> <br />examiner of ehe Office of Managemene and Budgee fulfilled ehae agency's <br />requese. <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendaeion 3. The Bureau disagreed with the recommendaeion and <br />seaeed that its objective was to encourage seaees Co cooperaee in <br />saliniey projeces. Therefore, stopping inveseigaeions is noe a <br />reasonable solueion. Ie also seaeed ehae if water rights were an issue <br />on a poeeneial project, ie would direct ies energies toward facilieaeing <br />solutions co problems consistent wieh ehe philosophy of state primacy on <br />water righcs. <br /> <br />Recommendaeion 4.' The Bureau agreed Chat wrieten policies and <br />procedures were needed and stated chat these would be documeneed in ehe <br />Bureau's planning instructions by June 30, 1990. <br /> <br />Recomrnendaeion 5. The Bureau disagreed with chis recommendation and <br />cook exception to our conclusion thae the planned capacity of ehe privaee <br />irrigation facilieies was increased essentially as an inducement co gain <br />local cooperaeion. The Bureau indicated ehae ies canal sizing decisions <br />were coordinated with. the U.S. Deparcment of Agriculture's Soil <br />Conservaeion Service. The Bureau also indicated that because i e could <br />not be certain how many farmers would convert from exiseing flood <br />irrigation practices co sprinkler irrigation, ehe canal was increased in <br />size to efficiently operate a rapid flood irrigation syseem during an <br />extended conversion period of up co 20 years. The Bureau further <br />explained ehae it decided to increase che canal's capacity to obcain <br />saliniry control benefits, since ie is widely accepted chat rapid flood <br />irrigacion provides such benefits. The Bureau concluded by stating ehae <br />it: had documeneaeion available co subsean~1ace ics concencions. <br /> <br />Office of Insne~cor General Commenes <br /> <br />Recommendaeion 1. In our opinion, ehe Bureau's budgets and reports <br />do noe coneain a complete, concise, and appropriace discussion of ehe <br />problems it faces in effectively implemeneing ehe saliniey conerol <br />program. For example, annual operating cost information in ehe Bureau's <br />budget is not compared with original cost estimates or ehe estimated <br />costs of alternaeive measures in order co give these numbers necessary <br />perspective. Moreover, the Bureau's cieed report "Quality of \Jater. <br />Colorado River Basin, Progress Report No. 14" makes no mention of any of <br />the Title I program concerns discussed in this report, nor does i c <br />address the Bureau's inabilley to satisfactorily resolve the water rights <br />issue with the states, which is affecting both eitles of the program. <br /> <br />In regard to the Bureau's belief that the program will comply with all <br />provisions of the authorizing legislation, we do not believe chac <br />conclusion can be rea.sonably drawn from ehe progrm' 5 current: scatus. <br />Moreover, ehe Bureau offered no plan of action to show how it expected to <br />overcome ehe limi cing factors that we have discussed. We do recognize, <br />however, ehae some of the limieing factors were beyond the Bureau's <br />aoiliey to address effectively without the attention of Congress and the <br />cooperacion of ehe Colorado River basin scates. For chis reason, \.1e <br />recommended thae the Bureau prepare a formal report co apprise Congress <br /> <br />13 <br />