Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />CD <br />--.1 <br />o <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br /> <br />After 15 years of planning, desi~ing, construction work, and <br />expenditures in the hundreds of millions of dollars, it is still <br />uncertain whether the Title I program will effectively achieve the dual <br />goal of providing Mexico with water that meets the salinity seandards <br />agreed to without depriving the basin staces of any of their allocated <br />waeer. Moreover, ehe projected costs to operate the desalting plant have <br />risen to the point where the desalting program may no longer be the most <br />economically desirable way of accomplishing program goals. As previously <br />stated, those projected costs have risen suffiCiently for the Office of <br />Management and Budget to express concern about the overall economic <br />feasibility of the desalting program. That office's concern applies, <br />even if all program objectives can successfully be achieved, which does <br />not appear to be the case. <br /> <br />In our opinion, the questions raised about the ultimate effectiveness and <br />economic desirability of the desalting program are serious enough t.o <br />indicate that there is a potencial need for a Congressional reassessment <br />of the program as currently formulated. <br /> <br />Title II - Salinitv Prevention <br /> <br />Although the Bureau has expended about $142 million (Appendix 3), it has <br />made little progress in planning and constructing salinity conerol <br />projects authorized by Title II of the Salinity Control Act. Projects to <br />control salinity from naeural sources cannot be constructed without water <br />use permits issued by the states, Likewise, irrigation canals cannoe be <br />improved or modified to control salinity without the permission and <br />cooperation of the local owners and operators of the canals. However, <br />the upper basin states and irrigation districts where these projects need <br />to be constructed do noe actively support the ptogram because they do not <br />directly benefit from it. The objective and the primary benefit of the <br />salinity control projects are improved water quality for users in <br />Arizona, California, and Nevada, In our opinion, this lack of <br />cooperation and support by the states and private irrigators is the cause <br />of the Bureau's inability to develop the projects needed to .control salt <br />sources and the primary reason why so little salt reduction has been <br />accomplished in the last 15 years. Also, this sicuaeion has resulced in <br />at least one instance where the Bureau could incur additional costs for <br />nonessential work which was apparently approved co induce the cooperation <br />of local irrigators. <br /> <br />Contro11in2 natural sale sources. The Bureau is generally unable co <br />obtain the staees' cooperaeion co develop new projects for controlling <br />natural salt sources. Section 202 of the amended Salinity Control Act <br />authorized cons-cruc.t:ion of a naeural salt: source cancrol projec::.. In <br />addieion, Section 203 of the Act directed the Bureau to investigate the <br />viability of projeces to control sale from eight natural sources. Also, <br />Section 202 of the Act, as amended, required the Bureau to comply with <br />state water laws when developing these projects, The Bureau envisioned <br />controlling sale from natural sources by collecting saline water and <br />disposing of all or part of it. Under state water laws, the Bureau is <br /> <br />9 <br />