Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.'},:~. <br />-_-..-'." <br /> <br />., ... <br /> <br />~~~ii2.~;P~ <br />..;.l.~;...;...t.A''' <br />~ r;.~.;:I~":' <br />..,..~<!- <br />. ~b <br />~ ~'=.: <br /> <br />I <br />.J <br />~ <br />"?1 <br /> <br />,;,. <br /> <br />. ,.. <br /> <br />o <br />c.o <br />-.oJ <br />Ul <br /> <br />impaccing che program. Under chese <br />a special accouncing of che program is <br />Bureau reconsider our recommendation. <br /> <br />of the significanc limitacions <br />circumstances. we believe chat <br />called for and requesc chac che <br /> <br />Reconunendl'lHon 2. In lighc of che significanc escimaeed cose to <br />operaee che desaleing plane and Che Bureau's inabiliey Co find a <br />replacemen~ wacer source, the purpose of our recommenda~ion was to ensure <br />ehae the Bureau prepared a comprehensive analysis of ehe currenc Tiele ! <br />program and alcernacive means for complying wich che salinity scandards. <br />This would allow a reasonable judgmene co be made as Co wheeher Che <br />desalcing plane was seill ehe mose desirable way of meeting che United <br />SCates c.ommitment: to Mexico. ~e have revised the recommendacion co <br />.clarify our incent and requese ehae ehe Bureau reconsider its response in <br />consideracion of our revision. <br /> <br />Reconunendation 3. >Ie agree thae over ehe lasc 15 years che Bureau <br />has eaken sCeps to enlisc che Colorado River basin seaces' cooperation in <br />Che invescigaeion of .oceneial proj ecCS for conerolling naeural salc <br />sources. However I we believe chat: the faces are obvious. The basin <br />SCaees have noc reciprocaCed in chis cooperaeion by amending or <br />reineerprecing cheir individual water laws Co recognize saliniey conerol <br />as a beneficial use of eheir waeer. Until chey reciprocace, we see <br />licele praccical purpose in expending limited investigation funds for <br />projeccs to concrol natural salt sources when, in all likelihood, program <br />objectives will not be accomplished. >Ie have made a revision co furcher <br />clarify che recommendation and requesc che Bureau reconsider ic in its <br />current. contexc. <br /> <br />Recommendation 4. The Bureau t s response indicacQs agreement <br />this recommendation. The recommenda~ion is considered resolved and <br />be referred co che Assiscanc Secrecary Policy, Budgec <br />Adminiscracion for cracking of implemencacion. <br /> <br />with <br />will <br />and <br /> <br />Reconunendation 5. AC our July 19, 1989, meeting, we reviewed the <br />Bureau's addicional documencacion and found no ching to change eicher our <br />conclusions or our recommendacion. lJhile che documencs ciced by the <br />li...reau and ocher evidence gachered during che review confirm cna= the <br />B...res... considered sprinkler conversions and alcernace irrigacion mechods <br />at canal sizing meetings, there 'Was no substant:iveo evidence chat: :he <br />sizing considera~ions were related co salinity con~rol. There are only a <br />few references to salinity con~rol in these documents. and in ou= <br />opinion, some of those .references appear co show chat salinicy control <br />was noc a sizing decision factor. For example, a January 20, 1987. <br />Bureau memoranc':..:.:Il s::ates ::hac the use of -:he larger capaci::y was "based <br />on hiscorical shortages and the fact t.ha-c che newly const.rucced Dolores <br />Tunnel (par, c: ::he Dolores projecr) was sized and buil:: co carry ::his <br />added volume .. <br /> <br />On che ocher hand, chese docwnents consistencly show char che p,ivate <br />irrigation diseric': want.ed the Bureau co enlarge che capacit.y of t.he <br />dis:::rict.' s i:-!'igat:ion syste.m by 50 percenr: so chat. its exist.ing wat.e= <br />supply and che new, supplemencal water supply from ::he Dolores Project <br /> <br />14 <br />