Managing for Excellence - Submit a Comment

U.S. Department of the Interior | Reclamation Internet

Search Reclamation

Reclamation Home

Managing for Excellence

Submit Comment

U.S. Department
of the Interior

Back To Comments Home
Comment	Submit Date
Several comments on Item 6 - Policy Gap 1. There is a definite void from material presented as to the Bureaus policy when it comes to dealing with "aging infrastructure". What is the policy for dealing with the aging infrastructures - especially those of the original 5 projects authorized in 1902? 2. There needs to be some policy or strategic plan to address the issue of aging infrastructure in the likely event of a catastrophic failure of a system that does not leave the stakeholders and large areas of our country without the services they have come to depend upon. A prime example of this is the Milk River Project in northern Montana that relies entirely on the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance system for sustainability and is held hostage by 1902 authorization and lack of a meaningful manner in order to address the issue in 2006. 3. Under "Project Planning" as mentioned in other meetings - consideration to life expectancies and replacement should be incorporated at the beginning of every project and what plan will be implemented when replacement is needed or failure occurs prior to replacement. 4. It was mentioned that if policies are too ridged then it handicaps the agency and stakeholders on many issues. This is true - however, it has also been our experience that Bureau subordinates will use the excuse that they can not address an issue because there is no policy that allows them to move forward. Again, this is the dilemma facing the Milk River Project stake holders. NAS report - "Alternative Scenarios for Future Infrastructure Management" - 3 alternatives were described. At the Salt Lake City workshop a forth (4) was mentioned and needs to be included as a real evaluation tool - 4. De-authorization of the Bureau of Reclamation. What would happen if Bureau of Reclamation was fully dismantled - what would the effect be on each authorized project, the states, and the nation?	09/29/2006

Back To Comments Home

Comment

Submit Date

Several comments on Item 6 - Policy Gap
1. There is a definite void from material presented as to the Bureaus policy when it comes to dealing with "aging infrastructure". What is the policy for dealing with the aging infrastructures - especially those of the original 5 projects authorized in 1902?
2. There needs to be some policy or strategic plan to address the issue of aging infrastructure in the likely event of a catastrophic failure of a system that does not leave the stakeholders and large areas of our country without the services they have come to depend upon. A prime example of this is the Milk River Project in northern Montana that relies entirely on the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance system for sustainability and is held hostage by 1902 authorization and lack of a meaningful manner in order to address the issue in 2006.
3. Under "Project Planning" as mentioned in other meetings - consideration to life expectancies and replacement should be incorporated at the beginning of every project and what plan will be implemented when replacement is needed or failure occurs prior to replacement.
4. It was mentioned that if policies are too ridged then it handicaps the agency and stakeholders on many issues. This is true - however, it has also been our experience that Bureau subordinates will use the excuse that they can not address an issue because there is no policy that allows them to move forward. Again, this is the dilemma facing the Milk River Project stake holders.

NAS report - "Alternative Scenarios for Future Infrastructure Management" - 3 alternatives were described. At the Salt Lake City workshop a forth (4) was mentioned and needs to be included as a real evaluation tool - 4. De-authorization of the Bureau of Reclamation. What would happen if Bureau of Reclamation was fully dismantled - what would the effect be on each authorized project, the states, and the nation?

09/29/2006