Celeste Whitlow: The Salton Sea and the California Water Plan

Welcome!

PREFACE

This research project was undertaken as a requirement for an upper-division course (Irrigation and Water Management Issues) at CalPoly at San Luis Obispo. The headings and titles in this report are those required for the assignment, and have been left intact.

It is at the urging of the college instructor who assigned this research project that I am publishing and distributing this report.

The first 17 pages are an in-depth look at the history and issues surrounding the California’s water needs, the Salton Sea, and the issues that tie both to the past and the future of California. For the reader who is very well-versed in this history, it will possibly be familiar information, although my review of old records regarding the Salton Sea brought up some interesting history and issues that, to date, have not been addressed or included in the majority of information available about the Salton Sea’s restoration and its connection to California’s 4.4 Plan.

Starting on page 18 is an outline of the issues to be resolved (as of a month ago), the current conflicts which must be addressed and overcome before resolution can go forward, and my recommendations for a fresh approach to the Salton Sea’s spiraling descent into failure, the results of which would be felt quickly, profoundly, and by far more people and economic interests than are currently embroiled in the epic tug-of-war over its fate.

From my research, it seems clear that the two most recently proposed plans, which would result in a reduction in the size of the Sea, would result in economical and environmental disasters.

It is also clear from my research that, to date, there are a couple of very important issues that have not yet been factored into the Salton Sea equation. Both of these factors, if used wisely, could result in a win-win situation for all entities concerned in the resolution of the Salton Sea/4.4 Plan problem.

It is my hope that, by distributing this report, new options will perhaps be considered that could result in long-term physical and financial solvency for the Sea, with ultimate independence of the Sea’s restoration efforts and funding from outside sources.

INTRODUCTION:

I believe the Salton Sea plays an environmentally crucial role in the future of North America, and also serves as integral part of the local, state and federal socioeconomic fabric. The condition of the Sea is rapidly degrading, and is reaching the brink of failure. Therefore, time is of the essence, and the previous band-aid, stop-gap proposals for addressing the health of the Sea are inadequate to deal with the viability of the Sea on a long-term basis. It is clear that the local agricultural industry, the irrigation drainage from which the Sea depends upon, will be in the future undergoing a transition away from its current high-crop-land-production status to one where the amount of agriculture locally will gradually decline.

If the Sea is to survive, it must work to develop its own sources of water inflow, and actively seek to make the local agricultural interests, the local Native-American population, and other interested groups, a willing part of the Sea’s restoration efforts.

I believe if the Sea is to survive, a new, bold restoration plan must be developed, which completely departs from the traditional approaches to both the Sea and its problems, and which utilizes creative and ground-breaking approaches to funding and support of an environmental resource.

Only with such a new, different, and integrated approach will the Sea’s future viability be guaranteed, and the long-term domino-effect consequences of the Sea’s failure dictate the urgency with which this new approach to the restoration project must be sought.

SECTION I: BACKGROUND

1.a. Formation and History. The Salton Sea was formed in the Imperial Valley of California (in the Salton Sink, the majority of which is below sea level, and which was once a prehistoric sea bed) in 1905 when heavy floods breached a man-made canal in the Colorado River.

The original purpose of the canal system was to provide irrigation for agricultural development of Imperial Valley. Because of the nature of the silt-laden Colorado River, however, the canal system soon became sluggish because of silt build-up and, in an effort to increase flow to the Imperial Valley, the engineers created a small cut in the Colorado River’s west bank. Thanks to the seasonal floods, this small cut magnificently met the engineers’ goal of increasing water flow. In fact, this engineering feat was so successful that the majority of the Colorado River flowed to the Imperial Valley, to the Salton Sink, and it took nearly two years to get the river back to its previous channel.

This was not the first time that the Colorado River has ended up in the Salton Sink. Throughout its history, the Colorado River has had a tendency to wander off its course as silt built up and seek an easier course, and many times it has ended up in the very spot where the current Salton Sea now lies. Indeed, this occurred eight times between 1824 and 1904.

However, there were two major differences between the Salton Sink flooding of 1905 and all the previous occurrences:

·The 1905 flood is the only one on record as having been caused by human activity.
In previous floodings, because of the shallow depth of the Sink, and because of the high evaporation rate in the hot, arid Imperial Valley, the body of water in the Salton Sink would eventually evaporate and dry up once the Colorado River had meandered onto another course.

The Salton Sea has not gone the way of its predecessors because since 1924 it has been fed by runoff from human activities (98% of the runoff comes from agriculture irrigation drainage), and it has been the recipient of the largesse from several major rainstorms over the decades.

There are several unique characteristics of the Salton Sea that have made it both an indispensable resource and an insufferable nuisance to its local neighbors and to the State of California. These unique characteristics have also had a tremendous impact on its history and its current condition:

The Salton Sea is a landlocked, “terminal” sea. The Salton Sea is a shallow “terminal” body of water; that is, it has no outlet for its contents. Therefore, the only means of water loss is through the rapid evaporation that occurs in the hot, arid Imperial Valley. This rapid evaporation is aided by the lack of Sea depth, which allows the water temperatures to rise, making evaporation a more rapid process. The result is that, while the pure water evaporates off, the other contents of the water are left behind. Over the decades, this has steadily increased the concentration of the problematic contents of the water that has flowed into the Salton Sea but which now have no natural way of leaving. These problematic contents include:

Minerals, including selenium, the element that caused the horrific bird fetus deformities at Kesterson Reservoir. Selenium levels in the Salton Sea’s fish have risen to the point where the public has been cautioned against consuming “large quantities” of fish from the Salton Sea because the fish contains levels of selenium which exceed state advisory levels. The selenium enters the Sea via irrigation discharge water.
Pollution especially from the New River which passes through a portion of Mexico, picking up industrial and human pollution along the way, and then depositing it in the Salton Sea;
Pesticides in the irrigation runoff which, according to the Imperial Irrigation District, are not a problem currently, but could, if concentrations were allowed to continue to rise, become toxic to people and wildlife. However, according to the Colorado River Board of California Report to the California State Legislature (April, 1992):

“U.S. Department of Interior studies indicate that selenium and boron are at or approaching levels of concern to waterfowl and fish in the Sea areas. Boron concentrations in migratory waterfowl are at levels that could cause reproductive impairment, and selenium levels in waterfowl and fish are approaching levels of concern. Mercury levels in Sea waterfowl are also elevated, but there is no indication that the mercury in these migratory species comes from Colorado River sources. Organochlorine pesticide residues are currently detected in bottom sediments in local drains, possibly causing reproductive impairment in waterfowl and piscivorous birds.”

Nutrients from the fertilizers contained in the irrigation runoff have created a eutrophic environment which is responsible for the abundant fish population in the Sea. Indeed, the Sea has been called the world’s most productive fishery. However, the nutrients, which are steadily increasing, already contribute to serious problems (including oxygen depletion, florid algal blooms which produce toxins, and large fish and bird die-offs) and, unless the process is reversed, will increase to levels that are lethal to wildlife.
Salt. The equivalent of a train-full of salt is added every day by the water flowing into the Salton Sea. It is the steadily increasing salinity level of the Salton Sea which is now the most pressing and urgent problem, and has been called the “Salton Sea’s Time Bomb.” The salinity, according to the public information officer of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Ron Hull, is currently about 45,000 ppm. This is 25% more than the salinity of the ocean and, at the rate it is increasing, the salinity will soon be at levels that will not support wildlife, including the millions of birds that use its wetlands to survive their annual migration, and the abundant fish which attract both bird and human fishers. Indeed, some scientists are concerned that even a small increase would be enough to impact the survival of the fish, and the birds who feed on them.

Association with a Native-American population. Largely ignored in the majority of the literature available about the Sea is the fact that the Torres-Martinez Band of Mission Indians (TMIT) have rights to nearly 12,000 acres below the -220 level (the level at which the Salton Sea has stabilized, above which the slope of the Salton Sink is such that any water would evaporate faster than the rate at which water is entering the Sea). A reservation for this Native-American group was established in May 1876, which provides them rights that pre-date many of the rights of other groups who are actively consulted, and are active participants, in deciding what happens to the Salton Sea. In addition, the TMIT–because of their long history of survival in the Salton Sea’s challenging environment – appear to be an incredible information resource. For instance, one of the water-development strategies they created was a system of hand-dug walk-in wells.

Ross's Geese, Salton Sea

Critical role in avian biodiversity in North America. The Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1930, and serves as an important area ecological support system. In addition, the Sea’s location and extensive wetlands makes it a critical source of survival for the almost 400 species of birds (nearly one-half of the 900 North American species, and 70% of the total number of California bird species) that make up the Pacific Flyway migration. Many of these species (some of which are endangered or threatened species) have decreased greatly in numbers over the decades, and the Salton Sea’s viability is a crucial part of maintaining North American avian biodiversity. In California, 95% of interior wetlands have been lost due to agriculture, development, and other human-related activities. Based on food availability and distance between stop-over locations during migration, for many species the Salton Sea is the only remaining wetlands to support their annual migration. In addition, more than 100 of the 900 North American bird species use the Salton Sea as their breeding grounds.

Complex, co-dependent role with the agriculture industry. Because the Salton Sea is the only repository for irrigation waters from Imperial Valley’s huge crop lands, and because, without a place for the saline-contaminated irrigation drainage to go, the land would soon become unsuitable for most crops, the agriculture industry (and the local and state economy) have become dependent on the Sea for the very existence of their industry. The Salton Sea’s very existence is due to, and currently depends on, the irrigation discharge water that feeds it. Therefore, the Salton Sea and Imperial Valley’s agriculture industry have formed a complex co-dependency in which the Salton Sea would dry up and die if not for the irrigation drainage entering it (while at the same time suffering from the agriculture-related contents of the water), and agricultural industry would be unsustainable if the irrigation drainage did not have a place to go (while at the same time, maintenance of the Sea’s ecological viability is an activity which the farmers increasingly have had to support). This co-dependent relationship generates significant revenues: according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in that region $1billion in agricultural products are produced each year, and one-third of the area’s jobs are in that industry.

Convenient and diverse recreation resource. The Salton Sea has become an important recreation resource for Southern California. Because of its proximity to major population centers (6% of the U.S. population lives within driving distance of the Sea), and because of the large numbers of activities (fishing, birding, hunting, hiking, boating, water-skiing, camping, etc.) offered, the Sea at one time had 660,000 visitors a year. However, this has decreased from levels prior to the 1980s when the Sea started experiencing periodic algal blooms, and fish and bird die-offs (and an accompanying odor), and since the fish were deemed unsafe to be eaten in large quantities. Despite its decrease from prior levels, fishing continues to be the most popular activity enjoyed by visitors; in 1989 a study showed that the average recreation use yearly was 2.6 million days, with a little less than one-half for sportfishing (a decrease since 1969, when two-thirds of the use-days being for fishing). Between 1997 and 1998, the Salton Sea had more than 250,000 visitors. In addition, because of the huge number of bird species that use the Sea, it is ranked second-highest for birding in the United States. Because of the downward spiral of the Sea’s health, and the associated algal blooms, and fish and bird die-offs, there have been a decrease in the number of visitors. Therefore, the revenues generated by this tourism (including businesses that support tourism), have decreased, and this has had a negative impact on, more acutely, a local level, but also on a state level, as well. The Sea’s location and what it has to offer has a vastly unexploited potential for recreational development, if it is accomplished in a way that maintains the Sea’s health.

Proximity to a renewable energy source. Imperial Valley is the second-largest producer of geothermal-powered electricity and mineral recovery in the United States, producing 268 million watts of electricity, and employing 600 people. It has several geothermal power plants located around the Sea, and the Salton Sea geothermal water system is the hottest water-dominated system in the world.

The 2,000-pound marauding elephant that has become part of the family. The Salton Sea was formed by the unstoppable force of the Colorado River overwhelming an existing human-populated area. Not only did this cause hardship to the people whose properties were initially, with very little warning, swallowed up by the Sea, but also those who, until 1980 when the Sea level was stabilized (largely through the Imperial Irrigation District’s conservation policies), lost their homes and businesses as the Salton Sea continued to expand and grow, and experience periodic flooding. While Sea enlargement is not desired, there are also major problems that would arise from a shrinking Sea, including major dust storms on the level of those that plagued Mono Lake in Owens Valley after Los Angeles diverted the majority of the inflowing water to its own thirsty citizens, and an increase in concentrations in the Sea of the undesirable elements left over from evaporation (salinity, selenium, pesticides, nutrients, etc.). The one occurrence that could explode the “ticking salinity time bomb” would be a sustained drop in the amount of water in the Sea, which would very quickly bring devastating changes that would impact the “family” of concerns that have become dependent on the Salton Sea’s viability. According to the Colorado River Board of California’s Report to the California State Legislature in April, 1992:

“If agricultural production, and hence irrigation, were to cease in the Imperial, Coachella, and Mexicali Valleys, this 17% loss would not be replaced, representing an equivalent increase of about 7,600 ppm in salinity over the current 44,000 ppm concentration in one year.”

A political football due to a collision of events. To top off the many problems that already existed for the Salton Sea, pressures on California to stop using more than it’s Colorado River allotment (the majority of Colorado River water goes to Imperial Valley and constitutes the water to which farmers have entitlements, or rights) and the untimely death of a very popular local politician, set in motion a series of negotiations and agreements for California’s future water supply. These plans ultimately involved the Salton Sea’s restoration plan. This has resulted in conflicts between interested parties and a good deal of politicking all around. Refer to the section on the 4.4 Plan for details.

1.b. Economic and environmental significance.

Please refer to the appended Table 1: Economic and Environmental Significance, on page 28 of this report.

1.c. Consequences of not restoring Salton Sea. In summary, the Salton Sea greatly benefits the local and state citizens and economy, but the changes in the Salton Sea over the decades (including increasing levels of salinity, selenium, pesticides, and pollution) have degraded the environment to the extent that current and looming problems threaten not only the Sea’s viability, but also the viability of the wildlife, humans, industries and economies (local, state- and nation-wide) that have become dependent upon it.

It has been estimated (by Michael Bazdarich, Director of University of Redlands Inland Empire Economic Data and Forecasting Center) that if the Sea’s water was cleaned at a stable level and if salinity could be reduced to that of ocean water, that it could become a major resort area, increasing property, sales and tax revenue by $160million and, when combined with other factors, long-term benefit was estimated at $6billion to $10billion.

I believe Mr. Bazdarich’s estimate is conservative. Please refer to page 19, “Recommended actions,” for details.

Therefore, there is much to be gained from intervention to address the Sea’s problems, and much to be lost if no action is taken.

Of additional importance is the proportional relationship between the length of time which passes before treatment is initiated, and the difficulty and expense of the treatment. Considering the fact that, in the best-case scenario, it may take an extended period of time for governmental bureaucracy to act, and the fact that results from changes in environment sometimes takes many years to manifest, even if the decision was made today, it might be a decade before any noticeable results are seen.

Aggravating this time-pressing reality are the recent developments (since 12/31/2002) in the settlement of the water-transfer agreements between the four involved California water districts. The water-transfer agreements are the back-bone of California’s 4.4 Plan, without which California stands to lose 15 years worth of extra water from the Colorado River, above and beyond its allotment (which California’s use has been exceeding for years). Without finalization of the water-transfer agreements, the 4.4 Plan cannot go forward.

To make matters worse, in addition to the already existing water-transfer-related court actions filed against/between some of the four water agencies involved in the water-transfer agreements, one of the water agencies has filed suit against the U.S. Department of the Interior. The suit against the DOI not only raises the possibility of the federal government becoming involved in the negotiations of California’s water-transfer agreements (which have been traditionally considered strictly a states’-right issue), but threatens to greatly increase the amount of time it will take to reach a final resolution of the water-transfer agreements and, therefore, the 4.4 Plan.

Salton Sea Resort

As it stands now, meaningful negotiations between the four involved agencies appear to have come to a halt. Two of the agencies (one of which is the agency giving up the water, and this is what is making possible at all the 4.4 Plan, and the other agency is the one receiving the water) have issued a revised set of agreements. These two water agencies have indicated that, for the water transfers to go forward (and without these water transfers going forward, the 4.4 plan will not be possible, and California will face severe restrictions in the amount of water available for its use from the Colorado River) the signature by all water agencies and concerned government agencies is required. The other two water agencies involved in this process have indicated they will not sign the revised agreement.

There is currently what appears to be a “war by press releases” going on between some of the agencies involved, and State and Federal politicians have become involved in the battle.

In addition, according to a recent (03/08/2003) article in the Los Angeles Times (“State Purchases Salt Pond in Restoration Bid” ), “State and federal officials Friday announced the $100‑million acquisition of 16,500 acres of salt ponds in San Francisco Bay, setting the stage for the largest wetlands restoration in the state's history, according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein.” Therefore, it appears that, while the Salton Sea–with its active vital ecological and economical role-- goes begging for California’s assistance, California is able to find the funds to purchase salt ponds in the San Francisco area to restore them.

Meanwhile, the ticking of the Salton Sea Salinity Bomb continues and, indeed, appears to be accelerating.

1.d. California’s 4.4 Plan. The 4.4 Plan has been formulated to address California’s overuse of its allotted portion of the Colorado River water (which is only 4.4 million-acre-feet per year), with California historically taking 5.2 maf/yr). This has been called the “4.4 Plan” because California was to show, by 12/31/2002, that it had plans to eventually reduce its over-consumption of Colorado River water to the level of its entitlement: 4.4 million acre-feet. In this plan, the parties to the California agreement were to initiate water conservation plans, start the process for water transfers from agricultural to urban users, develop methods for groundwater storage of water, and other supportive programs. At the end of the Clinton administration, an agreement was reached between the six states which share Colorado River water allotments and California over the parceling out of excess water. This agreement was the result of California’s 4.4 Plan. In this agreement, California would, for 15 years, receive surplus water as California gradually decreased its water consumption.

The back-bone of the 4.4 Plan was the water-transfer agreement between the Imperial Irrigation District and the San Diego County Water Authority in which the IID would transfer 200,000 ac-ft of water from its agricultural users to the SDCWA’s residential users, and 100,000 additional ac-ft might be transferred from IID to the Coachella Valley Water District. Please refer to the appended EXHIBIT J: Compromise IID/SDCWA and QSA Delivery Schedule (12/31/2002 Revised Quantitative Settlement Agreement (Proposed) and Environmental Cost Sharing, Funding, and Habitat Conservation Plan Development Agreement) for the new schedule of amounts of water to be delivered between the four agencies involved.

As the agreement originally stood between the Imperial Irrigation District (which would be giving up the water) and the San Diego County Water District (which would be receiving the water), the Salton Sea was not yet linked to the transfer, or the 4.4 Plan, and the transfer of 200,000 ac-ft of water out of the IID meant that there would be a significant loss of irrigation-discharge water flowing into the Sea.

2.a. Water transfers and the Salton Sea. The revised QSA/ECSA of 12/31/2002 has been signed by both the IID and the SDCWA. It has not been signed by any other of the necessary entities and agencies.

INFORMATION ON THE WATER TRANSFERS OBTAINED FROM TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH MR. RON HULL, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE IID:

According to Mr. Ron Hull, the public information officer for the IID, in a telephone conversation on 01/27/2003, many of those involved feel that the Salton Sea’s restoration attachment to the 4.4 plan greatly contributed to the fact that a 4.4 plan agreement could not be finalized in time to stave off the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, issuing an order to turn off three of the eight pumps providing Colorado River water to California.

According to Mr. Hull, the water-transfer agreement that has been signed off by the IID and San Diego addresses the Salton Sea issue of reduced inflow by dividing the water between the Sea and SDCWA. Out of the water entitlement (up to approximately 300,000 ac-ft/yr of water--5 acre-feet per 10 acres of farm land) one-third would go to the Salton Sea and two-thirds would go to San Diego. This would be enough to maintain the current inflow into the Sea, but not to address the already-existing problems such as increasing salinity. In addition, although the water transfer agreements are for 45 years, the one-third allotment going to the Sea will only be for 15 years. There is no provision for maintaining the inflow amounts to the Sea after the 15-year period.

According to Mr. Hull, the farmers do not plan to switch to less water-intensive crops to increase the amount of available water from their entitlements, nor will crop land be fallowed–if fallowed at all--for long. The farmers will not be drawing on groundwater because it is too brackish for agricultural uses. The amount of acreage farmed will not be decreased, and fallowing of land is prohibited by the agreement.

Mr. Hull related that compensation for third-party losses (i.e., addressing reduced inflow to the Salton Sea and how it impacts the environment, the local population, etc.) secondary to the water transfer was first offered by the SDCWA when the discussion of fallowing of crop land was introduced.

Seen Better Days

[[NOTE: According to other sources, it was the “no-fallowing” insistence by the Imperial Valley farmers that was the sticking issue in finalizing the agreement. The farmers (who would, after all, be the ones giving up the water from their water-rights allotment) have a very emotional aversion to the idea of fallowing of their crop land. In addition, the local community has been resistant to fallowing because of the perceived negative impact on the local economy from the resultant loss of jobs. However, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation study showed that jobs would actually be created, that the reduction in inflows to the Sea lessened, and that overall the impact to the area and environment would be less. In addition, the Palo Verde and Metropolitan Water Districts were at that time negotiating agreements where the PVID farmers would fallow between 7% and 29% of their land in any one year, with transfers of unused water to the MWD for $153 to $206/af-ft. It was felt that, if this agreement was finalized, it would both help the MWD maintain a full aqueduct and also help California meet its water-use reduction requirements. It is also worth noting that the MWD and the SDCWA (who will be the recipients of the Colorado River water that the IID is giving up) have not required that their own agricultural interests fallow crop land. ]]

INFORMATION OBTAINED ON WATER TRANSFERS BY REVIEW OF THE REVISED TRANSFER AGREEMENTS, PROPOSED AND SIGNED BY THE IID AND SDCWA ON 12/31/2002.

I requested and received the 200-plus pages of 12/31/2002 revised QSA documents, which included copies of original working documents with handwritten edits. The following section is based upon review of those documents and represents the latest agreements in this epic struggle to complete the water transfer agreements so that the 4.4 plan could be implemented.

The documents included in these revised agreements are:

Quantification Settlement Agreement (which includes separate proposed agreements between each of the parties involved, as well as the Secretarial Implementation Agreement for the DOI). Included in this is what appears to be a proposed, but not finalized, agreement between the IID and the CVWD in which each would grant each other “flow rights” and other partnership-type rights for the property each currently owns, and will own in the future, below the -220 feet level in the Salton Sink (-220 is the level which scientists have agreed is the highest level that the Sea could maintain; beyond that level the daily evaporation would be greater than the daily inflow). This agreement has some interesting information which will be detailed in the section 3.b. Recommended actions.

Environmental Cost Sharing, Funding, and Habitat Conservation Plan Development Agreement. This extensive document outlines the anticipated environmental problems (identified by the federal government) associated with the water-transfer agreements, and details the proposed steps for mitigation, as well as which agency is to pay for each mitigation process required.

The history of the transfer agreements, as outlined in these legal documents, is as follows.

The IID and SDCWA filed with the SWRCB, on 07/22/1998, a Petition for Approval of a Long-Term Conserved Water Transfer Agreement and to Change Point of Diversion and Place of Use. As subsequent amendments were being ironed out, the Metropolitan Water District and the Coachella Valley Water District filed protests to the petition. The MWD protested because, they claimed, the IID had not performed on a 1988 agreement with MWD in which MWD would get their conserved water, and the CVWD protested because, they claimed, their water rights are superior to MWD’s.

Over the following years, the parties worked with the Department of Interior to iron out an incredibly complicated and comprehensive set of water transfer agreements (“Quantification Settlement Agreement”) in which:

· IID would transfer water to MWD based on the 1988 agreement. This would come from conserved water, and it would get to MWD directly from the Colorado River via the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The amount of water conserved would not generate irrigation discharge into the Salton Sea, decreasing the amount of water flowing in, increasing the salinity and toxin levels, and decreasing the level of the Sea, producing a negative impact on human and animal life, and having a negative socioeconomic impact on the area in general.

· IID would transfer conserved water to CVWD. In effect, most of this water is to go to MWD; MWD would pay CVWD for the water. Some water would be used by CVWD to recharge an overpumped aquifer. The water would go to MWD from the Colorado River via the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The amount of water conserved would not generate irrigation discharge into the Salton Sea, with resulting problems as described under “IID would transfer water to MWD based on the 1988 agreement.”

· Palo Verde Irrigation District would transfer water to MWD. This water would be obtained from fallowing crop land. This would have no direct impact on the Salton Sea, but indirectly would hopefully decrease MWD’s need to take water from the IID.

· IID would transfer water to the SDCWA via the MWD infrastructure (“wheeling”), and MWD would be paid for this use by SDCWA. This transfer would come from water conserved by IID. The amount of water conserved would not generate irrigation discharge into the Salton Sea, with the resulting problems as outlined, under “IID would transfer water to MWD based on the 1988 agreement.”

The amounts of water to be transferred are based on years and certain criteria. Please refer to the attached copy of the 12/31/2002 agreement’s EXHIBIT J, COMPROMISE IID/SDCWA AND QSA DELIVERY SCHEDULE.

IID and SDCWA had entered into their original 1998 agreement without the benefit of environmental studies having been performed, partly because the United States Department of the Interior had represented to them that they could get administrative authorization and permits, and that contributions to the Salton Sea would not be required because of the 1998 Salton Sea Restoration Act. However, in any case, their original agreement in 1998 specifies that the agreement would only be valid if the environmental studies and required mitigation was acceptable to both parties. At the time of the initial 1998 agreement, the IID and the SDCWA made a series of assumptions about what would be required to address the environmental issues (which did not include the restoration of the Salton Sea). These assumptions proved to be very wrong. In addition, with Congressman Sono Bono’s untimely death, the Salton Sea restoration issue became, in effect, a memorial to him, with much public support. Therefore, the negatively-impacted health of the Salton Sea, secondary to the decreased irrigation-water inflow which would result from the 1998 water-transfer agreement, became an environmental issue that needed to be addressed by the water-transfer agreement.

The end result was that, by the time the environmental studies were completed, it was determined that, due to the environmental importance of the Salton Sea, especially because of the numbers of federally protected endangered species which would be harmed by the anticipated reduction of irrigation drainage inflow into the Sea, the water transfers could not go forward unless the amount entering the Sea was equal to the amount that had entered before the transfers took effect. In addition, there were other environmental concerns that were conditions of the completion of the transfer agreements.

All parties accepted a Quantitative Settlement Agreement in October of 2002. This agreement was thought to have addressed the environmental concerns, and it was felt that the costs were understood. However, in December 2002 the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations was published. This outlines the environmental issues that must be addressed for the water transfers to occur.

The anticipated costs of these environmental requirements were many times more than IID and SDCWA had anticipated. There were several major environmental issues identified in the December 2002 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Reference is made to this agreement, pages 7 through 54, for details of the specifics.

In summary, the study’s most significant findings were:

Water resources would be impacted by the decrease in drainage water, leading to an increase in selenium concentrations (further exceeding the EPA Aquatic Life Criteria) in the IID and CVWD drains, as well as the Alamo River.
Increasing the use of Colorado River water for CVWD would also increase selenium in drain flows in the CVWD area, beyond the EPA Aquatic Life Criteria.
Groundwater recharge with Colorado River water in the lower Coachella Valley would increase the total dissolved salts of lower aquifer groundwater, potentially exceeding the EPA recommended aesthetic water quality standards.
Agricultural resources would be impacted by fallowing of land, which would result in “significant unavoidable impact to agricultural resources in Imperial Valley.”
·Air quality would be impacted from “fugitive dust” emissions from construction of the Coachella Canal Lining Project (part of the conservation efforts in the agreements), and from the exposed sediments if the Sea’s level dropped.

IID specifically has quite a laundry list of very costly environmental-mitigation efforts it must undertake, including addressing the Salton Sea issues and the damage to vegetation, fish and wildlife due to changes in use of crop land, work on the Coachella Canal lining, and decrease in irrigation drainage flowing into the Sea.

Each of the IID’s identified problems that it must address has many environmental-mitigation measures. For instance.

· For the environmental problems created by the Coachella Canal lining, some of these mitigation measures include: site-specific surveys, with replacement of habitat or other compensation, restocking of the canals with channel catfish, construction of canals so that wildlife can exit if they inadvertently enter, increased canal edges for fisheries, and replacement of marsh and other seepage-fed habitats as necessary.

· The on-farm conservation measures are anticipated to cause even more problems, and the IID has to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan to deal with these problems. There are six habitat plans anticipated with this problem alone.

· Agricultural resources are anticipated to experience significant socioeconomic problems as a result of fallowing of land, and there are no mitigation measures recommended.

· Recreational use and recreational fishing also are anticipated to be negatively impacted, and there are several mitigation measures associated with these two areas.

· Air quality was expected to be impacted by “fugitive dust” as a result of construction efforts, fallowing, and other activities, and there were 15 mitigation efforts associated with this issue.

· In addition, the IID must also protect any archeological or paleontological site or human remains disturbed in construction or conservation efforts.

· In addition, there were the usual problems associated with construction, such as noise, storage of toxic and hazardous chemicals, etc.

The estimated costs to IID for these measures for are:

(Present Value in Thousands):

$60,857 for the Habitat Conservation Program measures.
$53,331 for the Air Quality measures.
$53,099 for “Biological Opinion Portion of HCP Costs” (this includes $50,000 [x1000] for water to avoid material change in Salton Sea elevation and salinity for 15 years).
$1,999 for Geologic Resources.
$118 for the Cultural Resources subtotal.
$268 for Hazards issues.
$31 for Noise measures.
$4,489 to address recreational use impacts.

· $0 for Agricultural Resources because either there were no costs associated with the measures, or because the measure had been addressed in another area of mitigation

· $0 to address selenium levels rising to levels over the EPA guidelines was $0; that is because “Mitigation determined unfeasible. Significant and unavoidable impact.”

The result of these new findings drove the IID and the SDCWA back to negotiations in an attempt to distribute the environmental-mitigation costs in a more equitable manner between all parties involved, and with the assistance of government money and loans. The revised/proposed comprehensive water transfer agreements (QSA) and the Environmental Cost Sharing, Funding and Habitat Conservation Plan Development Agreement were completed on 12/31/2002. This did not provide enough time for it to be processed through each of the agencies and government entities that needed to sign off on it before it could be implemented stave off the DOI’s reduction in California’s Colorado River water on 01/01/2003.

According to newspaper articles about the final vote by the two agencies, it was with some evident hopelessness that the agreement was signed by IID and the SDCWA because they had already been informed that the other two water agencies would not accept the revised QSA. Indeed, an hour before the IID and SDCWA boards voted on the finalized agreement, the Department of the Interior had already announced that they were cutting off the water because an agreement had been reached which was unacceptable to MWD and CVWD.

Please refer to Table 2: Mitigation Cost Obligation According to the QSA/ECSFHC Agreement, appended to this report, on page 29.

NOTE:

The IID’s Environmental Mitigation Costs, in this proposed agreement, is capped at $30million. This cap, and the apportionment of environmental costs, has become a red-flag issue for MWD.
The proposed Habitat Conservation Plan must still be presented to the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game for approval. Therefore, environmental mitigation costs may change in the future.

Other financial stipulations of this agreement can be found in Table 3: Environmental Mitigation Measures Obligation per the 12/31/2002 Revised QSA, appended to this report, and found on page 30.

This 12/31/2002 revised agreement also explicitly details the limits of IID’s liability for funding of environmental mitigation efforts, including any responsibility above the $30million cap, even if the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife decides to increase the mitigation efforts required.

Proposition 50 Funds. The total amount from Proposition 50 funds which will be made available to help with mitigation of environmental projects associated with these water transfers and the 4.4 plan is anticipated to be (in current dollars) a total of $200,000,000. Note that these funds include funding for addressing the salinity of the Salton Sea, Colorado River mitigation, and CVWD projects. This 12/31/2002 QSA proposes that, as these funds become available, they be placed in an interest-bearing account, and that payments from the account be restricted to environmental-mitigation-related costs. This has become one of the red-flag issues between MWD and IID. See section on Conflicts for details.

Socioeconomic impact. To address this specific third-party impact, it was proposed that a “Local Entity” be created to keep records and dole out payments. Funding would come from the SDCWA ($10,000,000 as an initial payment) and from the IID (after Year 8, 5% of the annual contract payments made by SDCWA to the IID, until IID’s contribution equaled SDCWA’s initial $10,000,000 payment). Administration costs are to be limited by no full-time employees, and the IID will loan the Local Entity personnel as needed in an attempt to defray administrative costs and duplicated personnel.

Loan guarantee from the State of California. Part of this agreement is the provision by the State of California of a guarantee for a loan for up to $150 million.

Fallowing issue. Of note is the fact that, at odds with the IID’s statements over the telephone that there would be no cropland fallowing to achieve the conservation needed to transfer water, this 12/31/2002 revised agreement includes an amendment to the previous IID/SDCWA agreement (which had specifically forbidden fallowing) to allow fallowing of IID cropland.

2.b. Restoration and maintenance alternatives. The goals stated by the USBR for the Salton Sea restoration project are:

Maintain the sea as a repository for agricultural drainage.
Restore recreational uses of the Sea.
Maintain a viable sport fishery.
Enhance the Sea to provide economic development.

According to the Salton Sea Alternative Evaluation, Final Report, by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 54 alternatives were considered for improvement of the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the Salton Sea. These alternatives included plans that utilized diked impoundment, pumping out, combination plans, salt removal, importation of water, as well as other approaches. Out of these, five proposals were selected for further consideration and all involved diking impoundment for salt removal.

Diking impoundment would provide the Sea with an outlet into an evaporation pond, which would actually be an impoundment within the Sea itself, thereby separating the main part of the Sea from its evaporation pond. The water flowing from the Sea into the impoundment/evaporation pond would be much more saline than the water flowing in to the Sea from its tributaries, thereby decreasing the overall salinity level of the main part of the Sea. This approach would not result in a decrease in overall surface area of the Sea (unless the amount of inflow into the sea was decreased), but the main part of the Sea would have a reduced surface area. Except for isolated situations, the dikes separating the evaporation pond from the Sea could be placed anywhere on the Sea, and construction could be provided by local labor (providing jobs to the local economy). Since there would be no pumps involved in this approach, mechanical-failure problems would not be an issue. The method of dike construction selected was earthen dike, primarily because of the lesser cost. The operating and maintenance costs of the different types of earthen dikes varied greatly, largely because some approaches required maintenance dredging; an average was $38,000 per earthen-dike mile. It was felt that further evaluation of the economic and environmental impacts of these proposals was necessary, as were further scientific studies to ensure that correction of the salinity problems will not negatively impact the environment for bird migration.

Anticipated impacts on the Salton Sea from the impoundment-dike alternatives included:

Agriculture: The use of the Sea as an irrigation drainage repository would not be impacted. Higher inflow rates would necessitate higher construction costs to handle the increased elevation of water.

Wildlife: A decrease in salinity would benefit wildlife by increasing the food supply, and decreasing the chances of algal blooms and associated disease processes in an oxygen-depleted body of water. Concentration levels of contaminants (selenium and others) would not be increased by the impoundment-dike system, although concentrations in sediments and amounts passed on through the food chain would not be changed. The high-saline evaporation ponds would be populated by only a few highly tolerant species, but those who could live in that environment would probably thrive because of the lack of competition. A potential problem would arise if contaminants developed in the evaporation ponds because the practice of driving birds and wildlife away from large contaminated bodies of water is expensive and largely ineffective. Another potential problem would be the disturbance of contaminant-laden sediments during the construction of the dike, the avoidance of which was highly recommended.

Fishing: Currently increasing salinity levels are negatively impacting fish reproduction, and concentrations of selenium in fish have reached the “concern” level. Decreasing the salinity in the main part of the Sea would have a beneficial effect on fish reproduction. The selenium concentrations in fish, which eat pile worms (which are the presumed source of selenium uptake), would be unchanged by the dike-impoundment systems.

Economical benefits: As salinity fell, fishing and overall conditions at the Sea would improve, which would result in increased recreational use. This would have a positive impact regionally, due to increased visitor expenditures, and resultant positive impact on local businesses, property values, etc. In addition, regionally and nationally, benefit would be appreciated from preservation of an important support system for avian biodiversity, and an improved environment which supports overall biodiversity and survival of endangered species.

Other goals will be addressed by “common actions” which were described in the Draft Environmental Report/ Environmental Impact Statement by the USBR. The issues being addressed include:

Fish harvesting as a means to reduce nutrient load and fish population densities, and would include boat-docking facilities and a processing plant.
Improvement in recreational facilities to facilitate access and use of the Sea’s activities.
A shoreline clean-up program would remove dead fish (reducing odors and nutrient build-up) and other debris from the surface of the water and the shoreline, and a sand-raking system would also be used for maintenance.
Long-term management plans would include activity coordination, project responsibilities, responsibilities for research and monitoring, and protection and management of resources.

· The strategic science plan would provide ongoing scientific evaluation and delineation of focus areas to assist with adaptive management strategies.

Preservation of the north wetland habitat.
Maintenance of pupfish pond and habitat.

Salton Sea Authority’s Parson’s Report. The Salton Sea Authority’s Parson’s report (a review of the Phase 1 alternatives described in the USBR’s EIS), offered several worthwhile suggestions for modifications of the EIS’ approach, and built on the ideas and research as outlined by the EIS.

These modifications dealt with ensuring seismic safety and placement of ponds away from known earthquake faults, ascertaining percolation rates of the proposed evaporation pond areas, alternative evaporation-pond approaches that would reach the same goals but at a much reduced cost (i.e., multiple solar-evaporation ponds being more effective than one large evaporation pond; on-shore dikes being cheaper to build than off-shore dikes).

Recommendations also included the construction of test ponds to compile data on evaporation rates, salt density, etc. to better define the facilities that will be needed in the restoration process.

New proposal by U.S. Filter for Salination Problem Solution. A recent addition to the proposals for restoration of the Salton Sea is from U.S. Filter. In summary, U.S. Filter proposes to build a 10-foot “isobath” dike around the Salton Sea, creating the so-called “Salton River,” and channeling all of the inflow to the sea around a central “wetlands.” This Salton River water would be treated at a desalinization plant (to be built) and then the distilled water sent on an unnamed destination community. Brine wastes from the plant would be discharged into the Sea proper. The Sea currently has a maximum depth of about 50 feet, and covers about 239,100 acres. U.S. Filter’s proposed plan would result in a drop in Sea level, with a reduction to about 10 feet in depth and 40,000 acres in area. According to the University of San Diego study (Evaluation of Salton Sea Desalination Solution Proposal by U.S. Filter), the wildlife and human life that depend on the Sea, the people who use the Sea as a recreation resource, and the local community at large would all be negatively impacted by this solution. I believe that the only entity that would benefit from this plan would be the corporations constructing and running the desalinization plant, the politicians to whom they make contributions, and the recipients of the desalinated water.

Other restoration proposals and studies under way. The Salton Sea Authority has been on the forefront of designing and implementing realistic, goal-oriented, problem-solving studies to address the complicated and interconnected challenges that the Sea faces. The following studies and programs are in progress.

Solar Pond Project: This project has been under way for over a year, and involves ten acres containing 12 ponds which are used to ascertain the best design and sites for ponds for treatment. The ponds will remove most of the salt from the Sea brine as solids: 58 tons/AF of Sea water.

Geothermal "Mudpots"

Enhanced Evaporation and Salt Disposal: This is an investigation of methods of increasing the rate of evaporation. Problems to be addressed with the methods tried include high energy costs and air-quality issues.

Science Office: A focal point for coordination of studies, and research and education in the science, problems and potential solutions of the Salton Sea.

Geothermal Energy: This project involves testing of a desalinization process that uses waste heat from CalEnergy’s geothermal plants adjacent to the Sea to remove salt and return distilled water to the Sea.

Algae Farms: Kent SeaTech, California’s largest aquaculture company, is testing a process to reduce nutrients in the inflow to the Sea by diverting Whitewater River water into shallow ponds, growing algae and then harvesting the algae either by mechanical means or by the Tilapia fish that graze on it. This will help reduce eutrophication, algal bloms, and fish/bird die-offs.

Phosphorus Reduction: This project involves using alum to flocculate phosphorus (which is the main nutrient contributor to the eutrophication of the Sea) in the Sea inflow, and then the precipitate would be removed. This will help reduce eutrophication, algal bloms, and fish/bird die-offs.

2.c. Controversial issues. As outlined previously, much controversy surrounds the deteriorating condition of the Salton Sea, its role in California’s 4.4 Plan, and the necessity of restoration and maintenance.

Longstanding, major conflicts exist between agricultural interests and environmentalists. Agricultural interests (including farmers and the industry that supports and profits from agriculture) have taken the stance that the Salton Sea’s condition is not their responsibility, even though they have been depositing the discharge from their irrigation into the Sea for decades, and have completely neglected the health of the sea during that time. Environmentalists have taken the stance that the environmental concerns of the sea come first and foremost in all considerations, regardless of the economic impact, and the needs of the community and society at large.

Salton Sea and agriculture

Located somewhere along a gradient between Agriculture and Environmental interests are located many other groups which have interests which involve the Sea. These groups include local business owners, recreational users of the Sea, and providers of social programs which will have to deal with the socioeconomic issues created by the water transfer agreements when implemented. Each group’s needs may be in conflict with another group’s needs. For instance, a provider of social services may be pushing for no fallowing of land because of the perceived negative impact on employment in the community, and real estate interests may be in favor of fallowing because it will maintain the Sea at the current level and, therefore, not decrease the quality of life near the Sea any further, maintaining the status quo of property values in the area. One construction company may be for one restoration proposal because the company will profit from it, while a second construction company will back another restoration proposal from which the second company will profit.

In addition, now that the water transfers and the Sea restoration has become a political football, there is a new special-interest group involved: the lobbyists and other political professionals, and their support staff, associated with the politicking process involved with the resolution of the agreements and implementation of the programs. Some of these people have a vested interest in not resolving the issues because, once they are resolved, their jobs will be finished.

Finally, major conflicts over the 12/31/2002 revised agreement have arisen between the water agencies involved in the transfer agreements. To make matters worse, state and federal politicians have become involved, some of whom appear to have taken sides.

The following are updates, conflicts, and anticipated impact on resolution of the water transfer agreements.

In May of 2002 (prior to the revised QSA agreement in which fallowing of land was allowed), Senator Dianne Feinstein (a member of the Board of Directors of the Salton Sea Authority) wrote a letter to the Imperial Irrigation District Board of Directors in which she discussed forcing fallowing, and the potential of taking of water from the Imperial Valley without compensation. This letter from Senator Feinstein undoubtedly created a great deal of conflict and hard feelings between the agencies, and further widened the divide between the agricultural and environmental interests. Her insistence that the IID farmers must fallow land, so that water (to which the IID farmers have the rights) can be sent to other areas, inflamed the IID and its customers, who were quick to point out that neither MWD or SDCWA is asking its farmers to fallow land to meet their own districts’ water shortages. Senator Feinstein’s threat of federal enforcement of fallowing most probably was the absolute worst thing she could have done short of sending in federal troops to seize the farms. Specifically, Senator Feinstein’s letter said that if the IID decided not to fallow and it resulted in a DOI suspension of interim surplus guidelines, the federal government (quoting Senator Feinstein’s letter) “...could be forced to initiate proceedings to take the water IID had planned to transfer, and there would not be any compensation.” The IID was also quick to point out that Senator Feinstein’s threatened actions would result in violations of several of the environmental guidelines, regulations and acts that were the stumbling-blocks to the initial water-transfer agreement entered into by the IID and the SDCWA.

A 12/31/2002 press release from the MWD assigns blame for the failure to reach a transfer agreement to the IID, and makes a few inaccurate accusations regarding the revisions that resulted in the 12/31/2002 proposed QSA.

The DOI’s reduction in water to California (which occurred on 01/01/2003) included a reduction of the IID’s order by more than 288,000 AF from its use in 2002, and less than the IID has used in a decade. This will, of course, immediately result in a reduction of irrigation discharge inflow into the Salton Sea.

A press release from the IID, dated 01/07/2003 (IID Board President Calls Water Legislation Counterproductive) states that the legislation introduced by California State Senator Machado and Senator Kuehl is “punishing” to the IID and counterproductive to the long efforts involved in resolving the complicated transfer agreements.

A written statement provided by Jeffrey Kightlinger and Debra Man (representing the MWD) was submitted to an Information Hearing of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on 01/14/2003. This statement appears to assign blame to the IID for the failure of a signed agreement being obtained by 12/31/2002. It includes some convenient inaccuracies to justify the MWD’s failure to sign off on the revised agreement, such as characterizing the 12/31/2002 agreement as having new “off-ramps” and $30million cap when, in fact, it appears that both were part of the October 2002 agreement the MWD claims it is willing to accept.

A written statement provided to the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee from the IID’s representative, John Carter, submitted on 01/14/2003, refutes the inaccuracies of the MWD’s statement submitted to the same committee on the same date. It also outlines a history of what appears to be actions which indicate the DOI was in alignment with the MWD against the IID.

On 01/17/2003, the Salton Sea Authority unanimously voted to assume the lead role in restoration planning and decisions, noting that it has been three years since the deadline for a restoration plan passed, and that the state and federal groups had other priorities.

On 01/21/2003 Ronald Gastelum, CEO of the MWD, submitted a written statement to the Informational Hearing of the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee. There is also a letter from the MWD Board chairman to the chairman (Senator Machado, the same California State Senator who co-introduced the “IID-punishing” legislation in the beginning of January 2003) of the Senate AGWRC. This statement is quite dignified and speaks of common problems and common goal. The letter from the MWD Board chairman, on the other hand, appears to assign blame to the IID and, in fact, makes a few incorrect accusations against the IID. The letter basically insists on the terms of the October 2002 agreement. The letter asserts that the CEO of MWD, Mr. Gastelum, was not notified by IID of the reached agreement until 6:30 p.m., New Years Eve. The records indicate, however, that the MWD had been kept abreast of developments throughout the afternoon. The letter accuses the IID’s 12/31/2002 proposed agreement of being an “ultimatum.” The letter indicates that the MWD and CVWD had already been informed by the DOI that any new conditions and “off-ramps” would not be acceptable and would result in suspension of the Interim Surplus Guidelines. The letter calls the 12/31/2002 proposed agreement “worthless” and “confrontational,” and an “11^th-hour ultimatum.” The letter accuses the IID of benefitting from the Proposition 50 funds, and that use of these funds would be at the total discretion of the IID (neither of these claims appears to be true, based on the proposed agreements I reviewed). The letter puts MWD directly supporting the DOI against the IID. Most interestingly, the letter in several places indicates that the Colorado River water involved in the pending transfers is not so important to the MWD because of their diverse “water portfolio.” However, it appears that MWD’s actions contradict this impression the MWD wishes to give.

On 01/28/2003, the IID filed for an injunction to block the Department of Interior’s shut-off of water to California, with the argument that the IID is being unfairly targeted for the collapse of the previous water-transfer agreement. The Department of the Interior cut California's access to surplus river water and reallocated 10 percent of the Imperial Irrigation District's order for 2003 to the Coachella Valley Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

On 02/06/2003 the CVWD issued a press release in which it accuses the IID of directly jeopardizing Coachella Valley residents’ “livelihood and lifestyle” by the IID suit against the DOI. The CVWD announced that it was siding with federal officials in the impending court battle between the DOI and the IID by filing a motion to intervene in federal court on behalf of the federal government in opposition to IID’s motion to receive a preliminary injunction against the implementation of the water cut-off by the DOI. CVWD claimed that the IID’s suit specifically asking that the CVWD’s Colorado River allotment be decreased by 35%.

A press release from the IID, dated 02/13/2003 (Hearing on IID Injunction Delayed) indicates that a continuance had been granted at the request of the DOI until 03/10/2003.

A 02/14/2003 MWD press release (Metropolitan Calls on Water Transfer Options from Sacramento Valley Rice Farmers) indicates that MWD has called on a total of 97,200 AF of water (in the form of one-year options) freed up by idling of rice acreage in three Sacramento Valley water districts.

Finally, an article entitled “State Purchases Salt Ponds in Restoration Bid,” published in the Los Angeles Times, dated 03/08/2003, states: “State and federal officials Friday announced the $100‑million acquisition of 16,500 acres of salt ponds in San Francisco Bay, setting the stage for the largest wetlands restoration in the state's history, according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein.” This raises the question of why it is that the financially-strapped California government can find $100million to buy 16,500 acres for wetland restoration in San Francisco, yet cannot provide the same funds to save an environmentally criticall 45,327 acres of salt marsh and open water, as well as 2,500 acres of agricultural fields and freshwater marsh.

Of note: the SWRCB had previously, in its transfer approval, indicated that the use of water for preservation of fish and wildlife resources is a beneficial use under California law which has important legal ramifications.

CURRENT STATUS AND ISSUES THAT REMAIN TO BE RESOLVED ARE:

At this point, the entire set of transfer agreements is in limbo, with the IID and SDCWA having signed off on them, and the MWD and the CVWD indicating they will not agree to the 12/31/2002 revisions. The IID and SDCWA have indicated they will not go forward with the water transfer unless the revisions are accepted. The main issue which appears unresolved is the funding of the substantial costs of the required environmental mitigation.
Still on file are protests from the MWD and CVWD against the original petition for water transfer between IID and SDCWA (the 1998 filing), which will be lifted once a QSA has been signed by all parties.
Pending is an agreement between the IID and the CVWD regarding sharing of flow rights over, and future purchase of, parcels of property below the -220 level (i.e., covered by the Salton Sea), as well as reimbursement to IID by CVWD for part of the costs IID has incurred in building dikes to confine the sea. This agreement was drawn up to try to resolve longstanding conflicts arising from the fact that the CVWD uses the Salton Sea for part of its irrigation drainage runoff, and the fact that the IID has borne the entire expense of the efforts at confining the enlarging Sea.
Pending is an old lawsuit filed by CVWD against IID. This lawsuit will be dropped once the agreement under #3, above, is signed.
The DOI has cut off part of the Colorado River water supply to the IID, CVWD and the MWD.
The IID has filed suit against the DOI to block implementation of the cut off of part of Colorado River water to the IID and other California agencies. While the reasons for filing the suit are valid, it may have unfortunate repercussions by getting into a power tug-of-war with the DOI, allowing them a good reason to further intervene in what have traditionally been state water rights’ issues.
The MWD and CVWD appear to have aligned with each other, the DOI, and against the IID.
The DOI appears to have aligned with MWD against the IID.
Senator Feinstein and a couple of powerful California State Senators appear to be aligned with MWD.
MWD, CVWD and IID have launched into a public battle of press releases.
Senator Feinstein has threatened the IID with forced fallowing and the federal government taking IID’s water without compensation if the IID’s refusal to fallow resulted in transfer agreements not being reached by the 12/31/2002 deadline.
The Salton Sea Authority, Governor Gray Davis, Congressional Rep Mary Bono, and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer appear to be pointedly staying out of the conflicts.
The SDCWA appears to have taken the approach of doing what they can to get the water they need, and otherwise staying out of the conflicts.
The IID has not yet indicated how they are going to conserve the water needed to implement the transfers. They have not signed up any farmers, and there has been no information distributed about the progress of designing the program. Mr. Hull indicated to me on the phone that the would not be fallowing or growing less water-intensive crops. Studies have indicated that implementing tailwater systems would not be enough to conserve enough water to meet all the demands to which they have agreed.
The design and establishment of the “Local Entity” to study the third-party socioeconomic needs, design and implement a program, and distribute the SDCWA funds for this purpose has not been accomplished.
None of the environmental mitigation efforts have been initiated, other than basic studies to define the mitigation requirements.
The various accounting methods required to account for conserved water, shared costs, and the many other variables in these transfer agreements have not yet been designed.
The MWD has turned to Sacramento Valley rice farmers and one-year options to satisfy part of the decrease in Colorado River water they have experienced, resulting in fallowing of rice crop land in the Sacramento Valley.
Neither MWD or SDCWA have required that their own farmers fallow land to conserve water.
The IID has issued notice to its customers that they need to gear up for severe water restrictions.

OTHER ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED ARE:

Funding. Who will end up paying for the Salton Sea restoration? Who will pay for the consequences if restoration does not occur?
Environmental impact. Will the proposed restoration alternatives be able to be accomplished with less harm to the environment than would exist if nothing at all had been done? What impact will the water transfers have on the restoration efforts? With the current state of the water-transfer agreements and the conflicts now involved, is it in the Sea’s best interests (and the best interests of all concerned) to depend on the outcome of what may be a years-long resolution process, the results of which cannot possibly be intuited at this point?
Economical impact. What will be the final economical outcome of both the restoration (or lack of restoration) and 45 to 75 years of promised water transfers out of the Imperial Valley? Are there long-term problems that have not yet been realized? Should a trust account be established to deal with any unforseen future problems so that in the future residents will not be saddled with a financial nightmare that is being conceived now?
Impact on society. If there is a transition from agriculture-related jobs to other industries, how will this effect the local population? Will short-term third-party-impact funding be enough to address the major shift that will occur in all levels of society, in its shift away from its historical agriculture-based economy?
Overall impact on California development. What will be the impact, long-term, on California’s growth and development if Imperial Valley, a major agricultural interest, promises away water for 45 to 70 years to support booming growth in another area? Should one region support another area’s growth and development beyond the other area’s own means, and will this contribute to a long-standing imbalance between the stability and growth of the two regions?

SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS

3a. Personal evaluation. The situation as it now stands with the water transfers is very serious and I believe it is quite possible it will take a very long time to resolve the conflicts since they now involve a lawsuit against the DOI, since such public rifts have broken out between the agencies, and since the IID has been threatened with the federal seizure of their water, without compensation, if they do not do something they find abhorrent so that water that rightfully belongs to the IID’s farmers can be transferred to other communities which have grown beyond their abilities to supply water to its residents.

The Salton Sea cannot afford to have its restoration efforts stalled by the viscous morass that the water transfer agreements has become. The Sea appears to be near the edge of its ability to support life, and if the Sea fails to support life, the impact on the Northern Hemisphere’s environment, agriculture, economy and lifestyle will be tremendous.
Unfortunately, 95% of California’s wetlands have been lost to development. This makes the Salton Sea the major source of support for the major Northern Hemisphere avian migration route, the Pacific Flyway. Almost half of the 900 species of birds in North America use the Sea during their migration. Many of these birds, because of their nutritional needs and lengths between stopovers, have no other source, besides the Sea, for stopovers during their migration. Some of these birds have populations which are rapidly dwindling; indeed, some are on the endangered species list. At least a 100 of these species of birds depend on the Sea for their breeding grounds.
It is my opinion that if the Sea was to fail, the effect on North American avian biodiversity would be swift and sure. Birds will migrate every year, and if they do not have sufficient resources to rest and refuel they will die during the migration. If a species does not have the breeding grounds at which to create the next generation of birds, there will not be a next generation for that species of birds. If the published numbers are correct, with the number of threatened and endangered species involved, and the number of bird species that use the Salton Sea as their breeding grounds, I would anticipate that, based on simple logic alone, if the Sea were to fail, we would experience the extinction of a hundred or more avian species.

Western Meadowlark

The impact on our larger ecosystem of loss of such a huge chunk of avian biodiversity would be tremendous. Recent studies have indicated that birds play a much more prominent role as pollinators than was previously believed, especially for long-term crops such as orchards and vineyards, but also for many other crops, as well. In addition, birds play an important role in the food chain, both in their role as insectivores and in their role as a food source for other animals.
Anyone familiar with the Salton Sea is familiar with crickets. Lots and lots of crickets. Crickets that get into everything, no matter how hard you try to keep them out. Imagine the explosion in the cricket population if suddenly the Salton Sea no longer attracted such huge populations of birds which, fortunately for the human inhabitants and agricultural interests in that area, have kept the cricket population from exploding out of control.
Like that scenario? It has been already experienced in the Northeast United States, where lakes have become so acidified that the fish died off and birds no longer visit. There have been explosions in insects such as the biting blackfly, which thrives in acid waters and, without fish and birds to keep its population in check, has had explosions in population numbers.
If there is one outcome of the failure of the Salton Sea that should convince even the most reluctant farmer to willingly participate in maintaining the sea’s health and viability, it’s the reality of what a plague of crickets (or other insect pests) would do to their crops if the birds were no longer there to keep the insect populations under control.
Our environment has often been compared to a house of cards, with each card representing a species. Like a house of cards, if you are lucky, you can pull out one card at a time (i.e., have one species go extinct at a time) and you may not see much damage from it. However, you can only pull out so many cards–especially from one area–without greatly risking the collapse of the entire house of cards. Envision a 900-card house of cards with 100 cards pulled out from one area of the house at one time, and you get an idea of the possibilities for disaster if the Salton Sea were to fail and we were to lose such a large number of bird species.
Like a giant pyramid scheme in which no one profits, the reality is that each time we lose one species to extinction, we tend to lose another, and then another, and then another; and each of those species triggers the lost of another species, and another, and another. The records indicate that this kind of ecological collapse has, indeed, happened before in our planet’s past.
Therefore, we all stand to lose much more than a place to ride our jet skis, a place to go fishing, or a place to dump our irrigation drainage, if the Salton Sea fails because the impact on our environment would be so profound, and in such a short period of time, that we would be challenged to deal with it. And “challenged to deal with it” when discussing the human species’ ability to adapt to a profound environmental change is usually not a good thing.
Therefore, my recommendations concern, as a primary objective, the maintenance and improvement of the health of the Salton Sea. The rest of the recommendations are simply ways to support the efforts required to ensure the viability (physically and financially) of the Sea’s future, to build public support, to bring to the discussion table a previously ignored group of people (the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe) who have rights and interests that are older than the majority of present-day concerned groups, and to attempt to make the plan as palatable as possible to the greatest number of people.
(3.b. Recommended actions)

THE WHITLOW SALTON SEA RESTORATION PLAN

I. THE GOALS
To make the Salton Sea restoration program ultimately a completely Sea-funded effort, with financial support coming primarily from the funds generated by the Sea and voluntary contributions, and to work towards the Sea becoming independent (aside from funds and provisions already provided for the Sea, including the mitigation costs outlined in the QSA) from government funds and intervention.
To make the Salton Sea ultimately independent of water that unwilling parties are forced to provide to it. If the Sea is physically healthy, there is a tremendous opportunity for it to become fiscally healthy, as well, which would allow it to eventually be in a position for its water needs to be met solely by the irrigation-discharge water of the farmers who use the Sea for that purpose, the water that is donated under the water donation program (outlined, below), and the “fresh” Colorado River water it would be able to afford to buy from those who have water to sell.
To heal the historic rifts that have occurred between the groups who are involved in the past, and future, of the Salton Sea.
To construct a solid, mutually-beneficial working relationship between government agencies and private-sector companies. I believe the Salton Sea Authority has led the way in this effort, especially by its issuance of the Parsons Report which takes the huge amount of information already compiled by the federal government, analyzes it, and makes excellent proposals for modifications of some of the government’s recommendations. The Sea’s problems are such that spending additional time (and funds) in duplicating efforts and studies is unacceptable, and the SSA has demonstrated how this can be accomplished.
To acknowledge, and capitalize on, the shared history, and future, of the Sea and the local agricultural interests.
To bring to the discussion table, and provide an opportunity, for the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe to both participate in, and profit from, the restoration and maintenance of the Sea. I would like to see them involved in many aspects of the Sea, including the Sea’s education efforts.
To make each part of the program a “two-for” component. For example, each employee would not only do their job, but also, by the professional, educated manner in which they work with the public, become an important link in our public-relations chain of components. Another example would be that each restoration specific activity (i.e., treating the salinity, etc.) would become both a fund-raising and educational experience, as well.
To provide an arena where visitors (especially the visitors from California) would become aware of the precious (and limited) nature of the water we use, and hopefully build more “water-wise use” awareness throughout the state. Perhaps if the visitors learned that each gallon wasted by letting it run down the street is a gallon that becomes unavailable to ecological interests like the Sea, they may approach their water use in a more conservative manner.
To provide for the Imperial Valley, the State of California, and the United States government a chance to show the world that, working together, ecological interests and corporate interests can profit from their combined efforts, and that the profit from working together (both to the participants and the community at large) can be more than what each group would have realized on its own.

II. THE BASICS OF THE WHITLOW RESTORATION PLAN
Divorce all restoration efforts and negotiations from the water transfers. The status of the water transfers is such that any resolution will be a long time in coming, and even when and if a resolution is reached, the provisions made for the Sea may be very different from what they are now. It is impossible to design a restoration plan, for a restoration that needs to be started now, based on unknown resources that may, or may not, be provided in the future. Time is of the essence, and it is imperative that work starts as immediately as possible on improving the health of the Sea.
Establish a Restoration Czar who would be an individual, as independent and resolution-oriented as possible, whose primary focus is maintenance and improvement of the health of the Sea in a way that has the least negative impacts on, and the most positive results for, related concerns, and which advances the Sea’s survival towards ultimate independence from unwilling parties. It is important that one person call the shots during the formation and implementation of the restoration plan. No more committee efforts should be allowed because the restoration effort has about been committeed to death. The Restoration Czar must be empowered to throw their weight around when dealing with local, state and federal entities. The goal is to avoid the predictable power struggles which result when two people or agencies have the same interests, conflicting opinions, and near-the-same power in addressing these same interests.
Since this is my plan, for the purposes of this discussion, I will make myself the Restoration Czar. As the Restoration Czar, I will implement the following programs and actions.

III. FINANCING FOR THE RESTORATION PLAN AND SUBSEQUENT MAINTENANCE OF THE SEA

The Restoration Plan will be designed to ultimately finance itself by exploiting the Sea’s strengths in new ways. The exploitation efforts of the sea have historically been in ways that do not work towards improving and maintaining the Sea. Therefore, previous exploitation efforts have been limited. I propose that we widely expand the exploitation of the Sea, but in ways that will improve and maintain its health, and provide funding for its restoration, maintenance and operation. The Sea’s strengths that are begging for positive exploitation include its biodiversity, incredible source of ecology- and wildlife-related activities, its unique environment and possibilities for education and study, it’s potential recreational activities, it’s already-established local Native-American population, and its proximity to large urban populations that would utilize what it has to offer.
Salton Sea would become a Belize-Meets-Las-Vegas-Meets-Waterworld endeavor offering:

Ecotourism, taking advantage of the avian and wildlife biodiversity, as well as the components of the Sea’s environment that support its diverse ecology. The country of Belize has had remarkable success in developing ecotourism, and its economy has greatly benefitted from it. I believe that, although very different, the Salton Sea’s environment is as easily as remarkable as is the environment of Belize, and would attract a great number of tourists and those who want to study the sea. Each of the ecotourism activities would be designed to be both educational, but also funds-generating, and include public-relations components to build future support of the Sea. The ecotourism facet would involve marketing to groups, families and individuals, as well as schools and organizations, on a local, state-wide, national, and international basis. Just a short list of activities that could be offered are:

o Individual and group educational tours, hikes, water tours, camping outings, etc. (on a day-use basis).

o Small- and large-group overnight or “weekend-getaway” ecotourism excursions, catering to the tourist who wants to enjoy a weekend away from the urban environment, but also enjoys educational opportunities and would welcome at least part of their visit being centered around learning about any of the many unique facets of the Sea, its restoration and maintenance, the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe, the local agricultural industry, etc.

o Capitalization on the annual bird migrations by scheduling tours, outings, events, and festivals which specifically focus on the migrating birds.

o Fishing tournaments! The Sea is one of the most productive fisheries in the world, and fishing tournaments would be a way to both draw fishing enthusiasts, as well as create publicity and, at the same time, decrease the number of fish in the sea (which would decrease its overall nutrient load).

o Organizations and corporations could schedule their annual meetings and incorporate ecotourism outings and/or presentations as part of the program.

o Each step and part of the restoration efforts would become educational (and funds-generating) opportunities, and positively exploited by tours, etc.

o Local universities could be utilized as sources of interns and volunteers to aid in the ecotourism activities.

Recreational hotspot. The Sea’s proximity to major urban populations makes it a sure success if it was designed to offer a range of water-related activities, as well as environmentally friendly camp grounds (both group and individual camping facilities) and other recreation support services. Fishing could once again become the major draw it was before the degradation of the Sea reached the point where algal blooms and wildlife die-offs occurred.

Instead of the “no-charge-for-access” policy now in place for visitors to the Salton Sea, recreational users would participate in a “pay-for-play policy,” with the fees for entrance into the lake starting out low but, as the improvement in conditions and refinements of the Salton Sea justified it, the fees would be steadily advanced to a reasonable rate which would be in line with fees charged for similar recreational facilities elsewhere. The fees would be based on use (for instance, one fee which includes all facilities used for fishing, one fee that includes all facilities used for individual camping, etc.) to avoid “nickle-and-diming” the fishing enthusiasts, and other users, with separate fees for boat-launching, permits for each watercraft, etc.

In addition, a possible benefit for fishing enthusiasts would be if, since some of the Sea is located over Native-American reservation land, no fishing permit would be required. Many fishing enthusiasts are unhappy with having to buy fishing licenses and, while at the Sea they would have to pay for the services they utilize, the right to fish would be theirs without charge.

Hotel, convention, restaurant, and other support services. The hotel/convention-center services would be designed with “environmentally friendly” being the guiding principle. Size, location, design, and technical details, especially night-time lighting, would all need to fit with the goal of “just enough development to support a healthy Salton Sea.” Specifically, the design would need to fit in with the environment, the energy would be provided by a renewable source (i.e., geothermal energy or solar energy, both of which is abundant near the Sea), the night-time lighting would have to be designed and limited to that which would not interfere with migration patterns and other wildlife requirements, etc.
From composting of table scraps, to using biodegradable toiletpaper, every detail would be designed with the health of the Salton Sea in mind. In that way, we could get “more development bang for our environmental buck,” or more development without detracting from the health of the Salton Sea. I believe that this one of the important areas in which the vast history and information the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe (TMIT) has regarding successfully living in the environment surrounding the Salton Sea could be an a vast and virtually untapped resource. In addition, there are many other creative activities in which the TMIT could play a role, such as arranging educational or recreational events around meals prepared in the tradition of the TMIT people, or having near the entrance to the restaurants (where people wait for seating) educational displays of the foods and preparation techniques used by the TMIT.

CASINO! What better way to both draw visitors who otherwise might not visit the Sea AND pay for Salton Sea’s restoration than to provide a casino where visitors can leave their money?

As Czar, I would arrange a joint venture between the Sea and the Torres-Martinez Band (TMIT) of Mission Indians and the Salton Sea Restoration fund for casino-related activities.

The TMIT, according to the pending Agreement to Resolve Salton Sea Flooding Damage Issues By and Between the IID and the CVWD, own 11,700 acres below the -220 foot level, which the United States administers as a trustee. The majority of funding for development and construction being would be provided up front as a federal grant to the TMIT and the Salton Sea restoration fund, with the funds being paid back after a period of time (for example, ten years of operation), based on a casino/Sea profit-percentage basis.

A visit to the web page for the Torres-Martinez Tribal Council/ Salton Sea (http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/TorresMartinezTribalCoun.html) shows that theTMIT is, indeed, interested in the health and future of the Salton Sea. As Restoration Czar, I would provide them the opportunity to play a pivotal role in the Sea’s restoration and maintenance, and improve the economic status and obtain world-recognition for their people.

In addition, the lands under the Sea are part of a reservation, established in May 1876; therefore, there are many rights and abilities associated with the tribe, and many of these may pre-date other entities’ rights.

Yellow-Headed Blackbird

The reasons for arranging this using a joint venture between the Torres-Martinez Band and the Sea would be to both provide legal gambling activities which can occur on Indian-controlled lands in the United States. Additionally, if the construction legal and permit guidelines are handled like construction is handled on other Indian reservations, then many time-consuming requirements do not need to be addressed, or could be greatly speeded up, and so the development time (and, therefore, funding for restoration of the Sea) could be greatly accelerated, as well.

The Sea’s restoration plan would bring the casino opportunity to the Torres-Martinez Tribe, provide the support services the casino would need, and provide a recreational and educational environment that would draw additional visitors to the area, increasing the numbers visiting the casino. The federal government’s participation would be required for funding and other assistance as appropriate and as fits within the general restoration plan.

This is one component of the Restoration Plan where there would definitely be, by two groups working together for a common goal, much more of a return for each group, compared to the return if the two groups worked alone.

As the Czar, I would stipulate that a portion of every dollar generated by the Sea (not net, but gross), including a percentage of the gross proceeds from the casino, would go to restoration and maintenance of the Sea. Since the Sea is the cornerstone for this entire plan, it’s vitality is the most important consideration.

All development and operations of the casino would, of course, be under the auspices of the Czar and would be required to comply with the environmental guidelines and goals of the Salton Sea restoration project.

I believe the initial federal funding of this casino project is appropriate and within Public Doctrine Policy because the SWRCB had previously, in its transfer approval, indicated that the use of water for preservation of fish and wildlife resources is a beneficial use under California law which has important legal ramifications. Since the casino would ultimately be a major financial support of the Sea’s maintenance and restoration efforts, eventually freeing the government from much of the costs associated with having to support its restoration and maintenance, this initial funding could be viewed as an investment in the reduction of future federal obligations regarding this important ecological resource.

NOTE: Each aspect of the development plan would need to be carefully designed to AUGMENT the other aspects of the plan, and not DETRACT from them. I believe it is possible to have four such diverse activities offered at the Salton Sea if they are carefully planned, and if strict guidelines are observed (for instance, jet skis and other powered watercraft would be restricted from designated ecotourism wetlands portions of the Sea). By offering such a wide range of activities, a family or group could visit the Sea and be assured that there would be something offered that would interest everybody in the group.

Pay-for-play irrigation-discharge water repository rights. The Salton Sea has been designated as a repository for the irrigation drainage runoff. However, I have read nothing that indicates that use of the Sea for that purpose has to be for free. Unless there are federal regulations to dictate otherwise, as Restoration Czar, I would implement a “pay for play” program with the farmers: if they want to use the Sea as a repository for their irrigation run-off, they have to pay by assigning to the Sea a percentage (based on amount of irrigation water they reposit) of their Colorado River water allotment as a direct transfer of fresh Colorado River water.

As Czar, I would make extreme efforts to keep the percentage reasonable and “affordable” by the farmers. Each percentage of fresh water allotted to the Sea would result in a percentage reduction in the amount of water the farmers have to provide as environmental mitigation (if and when the transfers are ever signed and implemented). In addition, participating farmers would be honored by name plaques and other means to identify those farmers who have supported the Salton Sea’s restoration efforts. Other bonuses such as free admission to the farmers and their families for the periods in which they participate in the repository pay-for-play plan, a special day at the Sea for the supporting farmers and their employees/families, access to “Sea Supporters” special facilities, recognition and honoring of the farmers’ historic and current contributions to the Sea, etc. Honorary plaques and other measures would also be utilized to honor those who made the Sea’s restoration possible.

If there are regulations currently in place which dictate that the use of the Sea as a repository for irrigation runoff must be without charge, then I would go forward with establishing a “value-added environmental mitigation user’s fee” which would be the same as the “pay-for-play” percentage fee proposed, above.

This part of the plan would benefit the Sea by providing “fresh” Colorado River water, and by building rapport between the Sea and the agricultural community. It would benefit the agricultural community in the following ways:
Because only the farmers who use the Sea as a repository for their irrigation water would be required to contribute to the Sea’s health, the “fee” for the repository use would be in the form of an affordable portion of their water allotment.
It would decrease the amount of water that ultimately the IID’s water-rights’ owners would have to provide to the Sea if, and when, the water-transfer agreements and 4.4 Plan are implemented.
It would build rapport and decrease the acrimony between the agricultural and environmental interests.
It would bring long-overdue recognition to the Imperial Valley’s agricultural community for the fact that the Salton Sea would not exist today if it were not for their irrigation water discharge.

Water Donor Outreach Program. As Czar, I would institute a “water donor outreach program” in which water rights owners would be solicited for donations of very small portions (“No water donation is too small” would be our motto) their water allotments to the Sea’s restoration efforts. Many small “donations” could add up to a significant amount, especially if the U.S. government could be persuaded to give the donors a tax or other credit to sweeten the deal. These donors, and any environmental groups which helped in the outreach program, would also be honored as supporters of Sea restoration efforts.

Corporate Sponsors. Corporate sponsors would be aggressively solicited. What better way for a corporation to improve a public image than to sponsor restoration of such an environmentally critical area?

Improved Sea/Water Agency Relationships. I would aggressively cultivate a mutually beneficial relationship between the Sea’s restoration efforts and the IID and the CVWD, with the goal being a future where all three parties would benefit from their association with the other parties, and from their combined efforts towards the restoration and maintenance of the Sea.

Development of agrotourism centers. I would work towards creating, as an adjunct to the Sea’s ecotourism, an agrotourism center in the area. This agrotourism center would use working farms as educational centers where urban citizens would learn about (and learn to appreciate) where their food comes from, and the incredible amount of work and effort that goes in to producing the food we eat. Ideally, there would be several agrotourism sites, on different kinds of farms, to both provide more educational experiences, and to provide a way for an inclined farmer to augment their farming income by educating urban dwellers. By educating urban dwellers regarding the realities of agriculture, one of the net results may be more individual resident efforts to conserve water in cities.

Preference to local businesses for Sea-related contracts. To help mitigate the impact of loss of agriculture-industry business income from the Imperial Valley, which will occur if an when the water-transfer agreements and 4.4 Plan are implemented, the Restoration Plan would, whenever possible, first consider local businesses (such as architectural engineers, construction companies, food vendors, etc.) to provide the services necessary to restore and maintain the Sea.

Preference to local unemployed agricultural workers for Sea employment positions. To help mitigate the impact of loss of agriculture-industry jobs if the water-transfer agreement is implemented, the Czar’s office would compile a list of anticipated jobs, including the requirements and duties of the job, and distribute them to the farmers who participate in the water-transfer plan, with the request that they review the list and recommend any of their unemployed workers who they feel would be appropriate for the positions.

Aggressive staff education, training programs. Initial and continuing staff-training programs, as well as issue-related workshops for established employees, would be necessary to provide the numbers of qualified, informed staff members necessary to work in the Sea’s restoration and maintenance efforts. Unions would be welcomed to the discussion table, with the belief that employee programs can be designed that will both benefit the worker and the long-term stability of the work-force at the Sea. A proud, stable, educated staff will become a valuable public-relations tool, simply by the professional manner in which they approach their duties.

IV. RESTORATION

With the information available at this time, the following are recommendations for the restoration of the Sea. As more data and techniques become available, the plan would be augmented or modified.

Salinity reduction to be accomplished by both on-shore diked impoundments (evaporation ponds) and by direct infusion of Colorado River water as obtained from repositing percentage, the water donor contributions, and (eventually) by direct purchase by the Sea of “fresh” Colorado River water. On-shore facilities are required due to the increased disturbance of toxin-laden sediments that would be disturbed with an off-shore impoundment system construction, and because, if the dike barriers were to be damaged or to fail, it would be much easier to quickly contain the extremely-high-salinity water contained in the evaporation ponds and prevent it from polluting the Sea. The diked impoundments would be constructed in the most environmentally secure, ecologically friendly, and aesthetically appropriate manner. If Disneyland can do it with the Jungle Boat Ride, it can be done at the Salton Sea.

Corbina Dieoff

The eutrophication problem would be addressed by implementation of programs similar to the current Salton Sea Authority trial programs (flocculating and gathering of the phosphorus from inflow water, and diversion of water for treatment by promoting algae growth to use up the nutrients, and then returning the freshened water to the water source flowing to the Sea).

Massive clean-up efforts would be undertaken to make the Sea suitable for environmentally friendly tourism development.

The initiation of “environmental rapid-response teams” on call on a 24/7 basis to deal with developing problems to hopefully divert an ecological incident from blooming into a disaster. The Sea’s characteristics make it an environment where there are not a lot of “conditional environmental buffers” and problems can quickly develop and progress to major crises. A rapid-response team would be able to implement plans to deal with developing problems and hopefully avert animal die-offs, etc.
Monitoring stations would be in place in several areas of the Sea, to monitor both the conditions of the Sea and the activities occurring there. These monitoring stations would be linked to a central control network, which could be accessed by offsite computers, as well.
Continual monitoring of the impact of the Sea development and activities on the environment, including the Pacific Flyway migration, would be performed, and remedial steps immediately embarked upon should a problem become apparent.

Support-building prompts. It is vitally important that the Sea be a continual source of information to its visitors, both on-site and off-site, both to inform and justify to the users the public funding and use fees for the Sea, but also to solidify support of the Sea’s restoration, personally involve visitors and other supporters, and to ultimately hopefully result in a net decrease in individual urban-user use of water by conservation measures. Once the urban visitors realize water they don’t use wisely at home is taking away from the limited amounts California has to provide to important ecological resources, such as the Sea, perhaps the urban users will be more diligent in wise water use when they return home.

One of the major weaknesses of the current approach to the Salton Sea (having its restoration dependent on water reluctantly provided by the local water-rights holders, an association which will do nothing to improve the Sea, and will only maintain the current water inflow level it for a 15-year period of time) is to separate it and its future from the local agriculture industry.

This “loss by division of forces” approach has ignored the benefits both the Sea and local agriculture could profit from by joining of forces, and becoming a team, rather than opposing forces. There are many reasons for the historical separation of Sea/agriculture interests, and to address them the local farmers would have to be shown that their involvement in the Sea would have an almost immediate, as well as long-term, positive impact on them and the agricultural industry as a whole. That is why farmers as Sea Supporters is so important, and it is also why it is vitally important to personally involve the agricultural community with the Sea’s restoration efforts.

There are many, many measures that would facilitate a mutually-beneficial relationship between the Sea and the local agriculture industry, including:

In the food-service/restaurant areas of the Sea, having pictures of local Sea-supporting farms, the product they grow, along with a “nonprofessional-looking” picture of the farm owner, manager, or other worker, associated with different food materials offered by the Sea’s food-service /restaurants facilities would serve two purposes: it would educate the Sea’s users and remind them that the food they eat is provided by farmers like the ones supporting the Sea’s restoration efforts, and, for no charge to the farmers, feature them as supporters of the sea, giving them advertising, improving their own public relations, and having a positive impact on the urban-dweller’s support of all agriculture-related industries and services. At the same time, this would serve as a tool to improve the Sea’s public relations, personally involve the visitors with the Sea’s restoration project and health status, and having a positive impact on urban-dweller’s support of Sea-related projects and issues. In this way, the longstanding co-dependency of the Sea and the local agriculture industry would be acknowledged, emphasized, celebrated, and used as an educational, marketing, and public-relations tool, both for the Sea and for the agriculture industry.
The previously mentioned free admission rights for the farmers (and their families) who participate in the reposit pay-for-play program.
Special days at the Sea for the contributing farmers and their employees, in which admission and activities are without charge, the Sea provides a bar-b-que, etc.

Other rapport-building activities as outlined, below.

I believe it is important that the Sea’s restoration include an on-site “agricultural museum” which honors the agricultural founders of the Imperial Valley’s industry, to which the Salton Sea’s existence is bound. In addition to an educational project for visitors, it would also serve as a place to honor the settlers of the Imperial Valley and the agricultural pioneers, as well as their descendants. Something as simple as soliciting the use of old family photographs, old photographs of the original farm structures, memorabilia and other antiques associated with the history of the Imperial Valleys’ agricultural development would serve to both honor the local industry, but be a bridge-building tool between the Sea’s restoration efforts and local agricultural interests. Since the agricultural industry in the area is the very source for the Sea’s maintenance over the decades, I believe using restoration funds to support this “museum” and “bridge-builder” would be justified.

I believe it is also important for the Sea’s restoration plan to include an on-site Native-American museum showcasing and honoring the local Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe. For too long the TMIT has been a largely neglected rightful participant in, and information resource for, issues concerning the Salton Sea, and I believe this is another chasm that needs to be bridged.

These last three items are examples many possibilities for designing aspects of the Sea’s restoration efforts that would be multifunctional and serve to cement both present and future support for the Sea from the local agricultural industry, the local Native Americans, the Sea’s visitors, and others who might traditionally have viewed the Sea’s restoration needs as a “Sea-versus-farmers-needs” issue.

There are many, many other creative activities and efforts that each would serve multiple functions, including building local support, providing financing, improving public relations, building a cohesive network of local interests, etc. With proper planning and a driving force behind it, the Restoration Plan could truly make Salton Sea a resource of which everyone could be proud.

3.c. Recommended financing.

In summary, the initial funding of the restoration project would be in the form of federal, state and local government grants, some of which would be reimbursed after a certain numbers of years of profitable operation of the Sea, with special reductions-in-payment-obligations (or shifting of loans to grants) associated with accelerated transition of the Sea’s restoration project to the profit-generating phase. I believe the initial federal funding of this casino project is appropriate and within Public Doctrine Policy because the SWRCB had previously, in its transfer approval, indicated that the use of water for preservation of fish and wildlife resources is a beneficial use under California law, which has important legal ramifications.

In addition, there are numerous existing government allocations and funds for many aspects of the Sea’s restoration. These funds would need to be shifted to the Sea’s restoration program, or the current administrators of the programs, if the programs fit in with the Sea’s restoration plan, would be required to work under, and be answerable to, the restoration program and restoration czar.

Any eventual environmental mitigation funds that come from the water-transfer agreements would be paid directly to the restoration project, with use and dispersal under the auspices of the restoration project. In this way, the entities involved in the transfer agreements, once the funds had been paid to the restoration fund, would be freed from further involvement in designing, monitoring and implementing restoration of the Sea.

Once the basic clean-up and reclamation efforts had been undertaken with the Sea, and administrative systems and personnel put into place to perform the duties necessary in the solicitation of support (in the form of money and water-allotment donations) of the Sea from various public outreach programs, and once the Sea’s improved conditions, partially constructed facilities, and use fees had started generating a profitable income, then the government funding of the Sea’s restoration would be phased out as rapidly as possible, with the understanding that it was to both the Sea’s benefit, and the benefit of the government bodies involved, to dissolve the government-funding support of the Sea, above and beyond those moneys that are regulated to the Sea from previously placed bond, environmental issues, and other regulations and programs.

All of these funding efforts would be closely monitored and documented, with quarterly reconcilliations and reports distributed to all interested parties.

In addition, the Sea’s restoration project would purchase completion insurance/bonds to cover it’s liability, and the liability of the other entities involved, should, for unforeseen circumstances, the restoration project take longer than originally anticipated, or be compromised by outside forces

IV. RESTORATION

With the information available at this time, the following are recommendations for the restoration of the Sea. As more data and techniques become available, the plan would be augmented or modified.

Massive clean-up efforts would be undertaken to make the Sea suitable for environmentally friendly tourism development.

The initiation of “environmental rapid-response teams” on call on a 24/7 basis to deal with developing problems to hopefully divert an ecological incident from blooming into a disaster. The Sea’s characteristics make it an environment where there are not a lot of “conditional environmental buffers” and problems can quickly develop and progress to major crises. A rapid-response team would be able to implement plans to deal with developing problems and hopefully avert animal die-offs, etc.
Monitoring stations would be in place in several areas of the Sea, to monitor both the conditions of the Sea and the activities occurring there. These monitoring stations would be linked to a central control network, which could be accessed by offsite computers, as well.
Continual monitoring of the impact of the Sea development and activities on the environment, including the Pacific Flyway migration, would be performed, and remedial steps immediately embarked upon should a problem become apparent.

There are many, many measures that would facilitate a mutually-beneficial relationship between the Sea and the local agriculture industry, including:

In the food-service/restaurant areas of the Sea, having pictures of local Sea-supporting farms, the product they grow, along with a “nonprofessional-looking” picture of the farm owner, manager, or other worker, associated with different food materials offered by the Sea’s food-service /restaurants facilities would serve two purposes: it would educate the Sea’s users and remind them that the food they eat is provided by farmers like the ones supporting the Sea’s restoration efforts, and, for no charge to the farmers, feature them as supporters of the sea, giving them advertising, improving their own public relations, and having a positive impact on the urban-dweller’s support of all agriculture-related industries and services. At the same time, this would serve as a tool to improve the Sea’s public relations, personally involve the visitors with the Sea’s restoration project and health status, and having a positive impact on urban-dweller’s support of Sea-related projects and issues. In this way, the longstanding co-dependency of the Sea and the local agriculture industry would be acknowledged, emphasized, celebrated, and used as an educational, marketing, and public-relations tool, both for the Sea and for the agriculture industry.
The previously mentioned free admission rights for the farmers (and their families) who participate in the reposit pay-for-play program.
Special days at the Sea for the contributing farmers and their employees, in which admission and activities are without charge, the Sea provides a bar-b-que, etc.

Other rapport-building activities as outlined, below.

3.c. Recommended financing.

All of these funding efforts would be closely monitored and documented, with quarterly reconcilliations and reports distributed to all interested parties.

SECTION 4: SUMMARY

SECTION 5: TABLES

TABLE 1: ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
Interest	Contributes	Receives	Jobs	Negative
Agriculture (2000: 580,000 Imp. V. acres farmed)	Economy (1999): $1.5billion in agricultural products. 1.3maf inflow to Sea (98% of inflow) from irrigation runoff. **Crop fields provide forage, roosting for migrating birds & other wildlife.	The Sea is a designated repository for ag. irrigation run-off, without which salinity levels would make land worthless for farming.	Direct Employment: Imp. & Riverside Co’s: 15%. Salton Sea area: 50% related to agriculture.	Irrigation inflow contains salt, selenium, chemicals, excess nutrients, pesticides which contribute to Sea’s problems.
Fishery/ fishing	$50-65million to local economy (Ca. Dept of Fish & Game, 1989). Possible commercial fishing to reduce #’s of fish. Approx. 50% of Sea visitors are for fishing. Fish support migrating birds & other wildlife.	Nutrient-rich environment for fish.	Not specified.	Fish die-offs are a health risk; contribute to degradation of esthetics.
Other tourism/ recreation	Sea offers hiking, birding, hunting, boating, water-skiing. 1997-1998: 250,000 visitors. Supports tourism-related businesses, local businesses. Sea-related expenditures in the local area: $99million yearly; regionally $296million. **USBR (2001): local economy benefits by $8.1million from Sea recreation.	Recreational environment.	Not specified.	None evident; tourism is considered a “clean” industry.
Geothermal energy production	15 geothermal plants around the Sea. 268 million watts of power from a renewable source.	Natural resources for production of energy.	600 jobs.	Negligible.
Political interests	Variety of jobs related to the Sea and 4.4 plan, environmental issues, agricultural issues, lobbyists, support staff, etc.	A deep source of special-interest and government money for studies & lobbying.	Unknown.	Making the Sea’s problems a political football decreases chances for solving them.

TABLE 2: MITIGATION COST OBLIGATION ACCORDING TO THE QSA/ECSFHC AGREEMENT
LOCAL AGENCY	AMOUNT (MILLIONS)	COMMENT (PRESENT VALUE OF MITIGATION COST OBLIGATION)
IID	$30.0	Specified in 1998 agreement as amended.
CVWD	$ 5.4	Present value of $3.50/AF (‘1/99$) per AF of compromise IID/SDCWA and QSA Delivery Schedule for 45 years.
MWD
Early transfer water	$ 1.3	$1.2 million (‘01$)
CVWD Second 53,000	$ 5.3	$5.0 million ((‘01/99$)
Subtotal:	$ 6.6
SDCWA
Early transfer water	$ 1.3	$1.2 million (‘01$)
Subtotal:	$ 1.3
TOTAL:	$43.3

NOTE: The IID’s Environmental Mitigation Costs, in this proposed agreement, is capped at $30million. This cap, and the apportionment of environmental costs, has become a red-flag issue for MWD.

NOTE: The proposed Habitat Conservation Plan must still be presented to the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game for approval. Therefore, environmental mitigation costs may change in the future.

TABLE 3: ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES OBLIGATION PER THE 12/31/2002 REVISED QSA
ITEM	MONEY FROM	TO	COMMENTS
Environmental Review Costs	CVWD: $200,000	IID	Within 30 days after agreement’s effective date.
Environmental Review Costs	MWD: $360,237.24	IID	Within 30 days after agreement effective date.
Environmental Litigation Costs	Not specified.		Anticipated group effort, or individual district addressing district’s issues.
Federal Agency Reimbursement Claims	IID: 25% of claim	Federal Agency Requesting Reimbursement	This excludes certain federal issues such as socioeconomic costs.
Federal Agency Reimbursement Claims	CVWD: 25% of claim	Federal Agency Requesting Reimbursement	This excludes certain federal issues such as socioeconomic costs.
Federal Agency Reimbursement Claims	MWD: 50% jointly with SDCWA	Federal Agency Requesting Reimbursement	This excludes certain federal issues such as socioeconomic costs.
Federal Agency Reimbursement Claims	SDCWA: 50% jointly with MWD	Federal Agency Requesting Reimbursement	This excludes certain federal issues such as socioeconomic costs.
California Agency Reimbursement Claims	IID: See “Federal Agency...,” above.	California Agency Requesting Reimbursement.
California Agency Reimbursement Claims	CVWD: See “Federal Agency...,” above.	California Agency Requesting Reimbursement.
California Agency Reimbursement Claims	MWD: See “Federal Agency...,” above.	California Agency Requesting Reimbursement.
California Agency Reimbursement Claims	SDCWA: See “Federal Agency...,” above.	California Agency Requesting Reimbursement.
Unexpected Environmental Mitigation Costs	SDCWA: 66-2/3%	IID
Unexpected Environmental Mitigation Costs	MWD: 33-1/3% jointly with CVWD.	IID
Unexpected Environmental Mitigation Costs	CVWD: 33-1/3% jointly with CVWD.	IID

SECTION 6: REFERENCES

Telephone conversation, 01/27/2003, with Mr. Ron Holl, Public Information Officer of the Imperial Irrigation District.

Telephone conversation, 01/27/2003, with Congresswoman Mary Bono’s office.

“Torres-Martinez Tribal Council” (http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/TorresMartinezTribalCoun.html)

Colorado River Board of California’s Report to the California State Legislature in April, 1992 (http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/PotentialImpactsSaltonSea.html)

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Salton Sea Alternative Evaluation, Final Report (http://www.lc.usbr.gov/saltnsea/ssae.html).

USBR: Salton Sea--Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(http://www.lc.usbr.gov/saltnsea/deistoc.html

Salton Sea Authority (http://www.saltonsea.ca.gov/)

San Diego University Center for Inland Waters (http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/index.html).

U.S. Department of Interior (http://www.doi.gov/).

Department of Water Resources, Local Planning and Assistance, Southern District: Salton Sea Reclamation Project (http://wwwdpla.water.ca.gov/sd/environment/salton_sea.html).

Western Water Magazine, Nov/Dec 2001 (http://www.water‑ed.org/novdec01.asp)

Evaluation of Salton Sea Desalination Solution Proposal by U.S. Filter. Salton Sea Ecosystem Research Group, Center for Inland Waters, San Diego State University, 12/27/2002

(http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/USFilterSSPropEval.html)

IID Hopes to Educate Feinstein on Rights. Imperial Valley Press, 05/31/2002.

Project Rainforest (http://rainforrest.manilasites.com/stories/storyReader$8)

12/10/2002 Proposed Major Terms of Quantification Settlement Agreement among Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, and Metropolitan Water District.

12/19/2002 Draft of Proposed Conserved Water Acquisition Agreement Between IID and CVWD.

12/19/2002 Confidential Draft of Transfer and Exchange Agreement between MWD and CVWD.

12/19/2002 Confidential Draft of Acquisition of Water Between CVWD and MWD.

12/19/2002 Draft of Amendment to the Approval Agreement Among the IID, MWD, PVID, and CVWD.

December 2002 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Implementation of the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement between CVWD, IID, MWD and SDCWA.

December 2002 Addendum to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Implementation of the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement between CVWD, IID, MWD and SDCWA.

12/31/2002 Revised Quantitative Settlement Agreement (Proposed) and Environmental Cost Sharing, Funding, and Habitat Conservation Plan Development Agreement. (Including the revised water transfer agreements, testimony, previous and ending water-related agreements, and multiple other transfer-related legal documents).

Water Transfer Agreement Summary, Imperial Irrigation District website (http://www.iid.com/water/transfer.html).

Press Release: IID Meets with State and Other Water Agencies, 01/21/2003, IID Website (http://www.iid.com/pressbox/press.read.php3?which=329).

Press Release: IID Urges Water Users to Prepare for Water Cutbacks, 01/28/2003, IID Website (http://www.iid.com/pressbox/press.read.php3?which=334).

Press Release: IID Board President Calls Water Legislation Counterproductive, 01/07/2003, IID website (http://www.iid.com/pressbox/press.read.php3?which=321).

Press Release: Hearing on IID Injunction Delayed, 02/13/2003, IID website (http://www.iid.com/pressbox/press.read.php3?which=336).

Testimony of John P. Carter, Imperial Irrigation District, Before the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee (01/14/2003), Municipal Water District website (http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us).

Letter to Senator Mike Machado from MWD, 01/21/2003, MWD website (http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us).

Written Statement of Ronald Gastelum, President & CEO on behalf of MWD, 01/21/2003, MWD website (http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us).

Written Statement of Jeffrey Kightlinger, General Counsel, and Debra Man, Vice President of Water Transfers and Exchanges, on behalf of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (01/14/2003), MWD website (http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us).

Press Release: Metropolitan Calls on Water Transfer Options From Sacramento Valley Rice Farmers, 02/14/2003, MWD website (http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us).

Press Release: Facing Colorado River Water Uncertainties, MWD Board Expands Region’s Water Portfolio. 12/10/2002, MWD website (http://www.mwd.dst.ca.us).

Friend, Milton (National Wildlife Health Center presentation). Agriculture Wastewater: A Resource for Sustaining Avian Biodiversity? (http://www.ecosystemhealth.com/hehp/papersessions/session1‑1.htm)

-------------------------