 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Colorado River provides water for more than 23 million people and irrigation for more than 4 (or is it 2.3??) million acres of land in the United States, as well as water for about 2.3 million people and 500,000 irrigated acres in the Republic of Mexico. Controlling the salinity of the Colorado River remains one of the most important challenges facing Reclamation. High salinity levels make it difficult to grow winter vegetables and popular fruits. In water systems, it plugs and destroys municipal and household pipes and fixtures. Recent salinities in the lower portion of the Colorado River are typically about 700 mg/L, but in the future may range between 600 and 1,200 mg/L, depending upon the amount of water in the river system. Salinity damages in the United States portion of the Colorado River Basin range between $500 million to $750 million per year and could exceed $1.5 billion per year if future increases in salinity are not controlled. Controlling salinity damages in the Republic of Mexico continues to be a topic of international consequence. Although salinity impacts cannot be eliminated, the Basin States and federal government agreed to limit future increases through the adoption of salinity standards. In June 1974, Congress enacted the original Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. To provide better program management in more cost effectively, Reclamation proposed major changes to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. In 1995, P.L.104-20 directed Reclamation to conduct a $75 million test of a pilot program to award grants, on a competitive-bid basis, for salinity control projects. Local ownership of the proposal and product is central to the project´s success. These salinity control projects are funded by a one-time grant limited to the sponsor's competitive bid. Once constructed, the facilities are owned, operated, maintained, and replaced by the sponsors at their own expense. All proposals (including those studied by Reclamation) will be first ranked on their cost per ton of salt removed. This ranking is then adjusted for risk factors which might affect the project's performance. The performance risk evaluation considers both financial and effectiveness risks. For example, the Government is interested in limiting its risk of cost overruns. One way that performance risk could be reduced would be for the proponent to accept some risk through contractual limits on the Government's payments. Another method of limiting the costs would be to have the work bonded through a private bonding agency. The other major area of performance risk is in the amount of salinity control realized versus projected. Some types of salinity control are inherently more predictable or consistent than others. For example, industrial processes might have very little salinity control performance risk if the payments were based on a measurable product. On the other hand, the effectiveness of water management is often highly variable from farmer to farmer. Automation would be one way a farmer might propose to reduce this type of risk. The proponent is responsible to perform on their proposal. It is in their interest to insure that quality products are installed properly and then maintained. This places the sponsor on the sharp edge of cost and quality control. Performance risk management is one of the two evaluation criteria that Reclamation uses to rank projects for implementation. Costs are controlled by the competitive bid and award process used by Reclamation. The sponsor may not simply ask for more money from Reclamation. Yet, honest (unforeseen) problems do occur. The proponent has several options: the project may be terminated; the proponent may choose to cover the overruns with their own funds or borrow funds from state programs; or, the proponent may choose to reformulate the project costs and recompete the project through the entire award process. For example, the Ferron Project sponsors chose to recompete due to an error in pipeline bedding costs. Their $25 per ton reformulated bid was accepted the following year during the annual competition for new projects. The program is integrated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's program. Water conservation within irrigation projects on saline soils is the single most effective salinity control measure found in the past 30 years of investigations. By integrating the USDA's onfarm irrigation improvements with Reclamation's off farm improvements, extremely high efficiencies can be obtained. If the landscape permits, pressure from piped delivery systems (laterals) may be used to drive sprinkler irrigation systems at efficiency rates far better than those normally obtained by flood systems. The new authorities allow Reclamation much greater flexibility (in both timing and funding) to work with the USDA to develop these types of projects. The new authorities also allow Reclamation to respond to opportunities that are time-sensitive. Cost sharing partners (states and federal agencies) often have funds available at very specific times. Under its old methods of planning, authorization, funding, and construction, it would take decades for Reclamation to begin construction of a project. None of Reclamation's past projects were able to attract cost sharing because of this. For example, the Ashley Project (a join effort by Utah, the EPA, and Reclamation) will eliminate 9,000 tons per year of salt. Reclamation's salinity program is a relatively minor but important part of the project ($3 million in a $18 million project). Once Reclamation had committed to fund its part of the project, funds were included in the EPA's budget by Congress to complete the partnership.
Table of Current Projects
History By 1993, Reclamation had gained 20 years of experience with the program and identified new and innovative opportunities to control salinity, including cooperative efforts with USDA, BLM, and private interests, which would be very cost effective. However, these opportunities could not be implemented because they were not specifically authorized by the Congress. The Inspector General's audit report (1993) noted the Salinity Control Act directed "the Secretary shall give preference to implementing practices which reduce salinity at the least cost per unit of salinity reduction." The Inspector General concluded that the congressional authorization process for Reclamation projects impedes the implementation of cost-effective measures by restricting the program to specific, authorized units (specific areas). The Inspector General recommended that Reclamation seek changes in the Salinity Control Act to simplify the process for obtaining congressional approval of new, cost-effective salinity control projects. Specifically, the Inspector General recommended Reclamation seek authorities similar to those provided to USDA in the 1984 amendments to the act, wherein USDA was empowered with programmatic planning and construction authority. At the time, USDA had only to submit a report to the Congress and wait 60 days before it could proceed if the Congress did not object. In contrast, Reclamation was required to seek approval of its projects through legislation. This had proved to be a cumbersome way to manage the program, costing the taxpayer more than what was necessary. With broader authorities, Reclamation would be able to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves; thus, reducing costs. Reclamation agreed with the Inspector General and wanted to explore any other innovative ideas which would help improve the effectiveness of its program and take advantage of opportunities which were not envisioned 20 years ago. At about this time, Vice President Gore began his initiative to streamline and reinvent the Federal Government. With most of the cost-effective portions of the authorized program nearing completion, this was a pivotal moment for the program. It would either be reauthorized or end in 1998 due to appropriation ceiling limits. From Reclamation's point of view, it seemed a very appropriate time to reassess the direction of the program. In 1994, Reclamation initiated a public review of the Salinity Control Program. The goal of the public review was to completely reexamine the program and its authorities, to gather a broad range of new ideas, to review the lessons of past experiences, to formulate new guidelines and methodologies, and to draft new salinity control legislation to bring this program into the next century. Reclamation received responses from private individuals and local, State, and Federal agencies. The majority of the comments were from local and State agencies expressing support for Reclamation's leadership role in the program, but found the old program could be improved in several ways:
Authorization In 1994, Reclamation and the Basin States developed legislation to broaden Reclamation's authorities so that it could completely manage the implementation of the program without further congressional approval. This legislation was introduced in the Congress late in 1994 and was approved and signed into law (Public Law 104-20, 1995) in 1995. The Congress will retain its fiscal oversight, but will leave the program's management to Reclamation. The 1995 amendments to the Salinity Control Act authorize Reclamation to pursue salinity throughout the Colorado River Basin and required Reclamation to develop guidelines on how it would implement this new, basinwide approach to the Salinity Control Program. Latest Developments In 1998, Reclamation received a record number of proposals. Many are well within the competitive range awarded in 1997. This last round of proposals included: a proposal to improve the efficiency of Reclamation's deep well injection project (Paradox Valley Unit), an extension of a project awarded in 1997, one reformulated project awarded in 1997, an industrial use proposal, a cost-shared selenium control demonstration project, and several irrigation improvement projects. Reclamation has now completed four rounds of solicitations (requests proposals), ranked the proposals based on their cost and performance risk factors, and awarded funds to the most highly ranked projects. The cost of salinity control has been cut in half by this new flexible/competitive process. Past projects (Grand Valley, Paradox, Lower Gunnison, Dolores) have averaged about $80 per ton. For a number of reasons the new projects are much more cost effective, ranging between $20 to $35 per ton. Cost savings under this pilot program have far exceeded expectations -- down to an average of $27 per ton of salt control, from the previous average of $76 per ton. Reclamation has accepted a total of 24 projects totaling $109 million into the new program. If Reclamation had continued at its old cost rate, these projects would have cost slightly over $300 million. It is clear that this new approach is highly effective, saving nearly $200 million.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Dams | Projects | Powerplants | Contact Us | Maps | Glossary | FAQ´s | Links |