Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Salton Sea Category
Click here to view all posts

Salton Sea, part 3: The ‘Dead Sea’ option

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 30, 2007 at 10:15 am

salton-sea-birds-in-tree.jpgJim Cornett, a writer from the Salton Sea area, recently took a trip to the Middle East, and when he returned, he wrote a column paralleling the Dead Sea with the Salton Sea, which appeared on MyDesert.com recently.

The Dead Sea has been gradually losing water as diversions for irrigation and municipal use have taken most of the Jordan River, the Dead Sea’s source of water. As a solution, a canal is going to be built from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea (the “Red to Dead” canal), and Mr. Cornett sees a similar solution for the Salton Sea:

There are many great features with regard to this particular solution. First, the water will flow mostly downhill into the Dead Sea. There will be relatively small amounts of energy to pump water. In fact, the force of the falling water will be used to generate electrical energy resulting in a positive energy balance. There are no foreseeable ecological issues, the sea is already dead.

Finally, the solution is based upon natural processes (gravity) and the acceptance of the inevitable increasing salinity of an enclosed desert basin. No one in Israel or Jordan has any desire to forever use precious monetary and energy resources to fight the natural process of desert basin salinization. On the contrary, both countries are capitalizing on the therapeutic benefits of very salty water. That the cost of channel construction will be partially be offset by the generation of electrical power is an added bonus.

It seems to me that the solution found by Israel and Jordan might have application for preventing the demise of our own Salton Sea – but with a few minor adjustments. I am suggesting that we let the Salton Sea become sterile and hyper saline. This will, of course, result in a loss of habitat for those birds that use the open waters of the sea for feeding. (By the way, snow and Canada geese do not use the open waters of the sea.) To compensate for this loss, interrupt the flow of water down the channel and allow the sea water to form one or more lakes on its way to the Salton Sea.

(To read the full text of Jim Cornett’s column, click here.)

In a later column, he elaborates on the concept:

As applied to the Salton Sea, the plan would call for the construction of a canal or pipeline from Mexico’s Gulf of California to the Salton Sea. The canal would bring ocean water into the Salton Sea to maintain its level in the face of declining water supplies from agricultural runoff. A gate would allow water to flow into the Salton Sea when needed. One of the advantages of this solution is that the water would flow downhill, reducing or possibly eliminating the need for pumping.

The Dead Sea Plan DOES NOT include a second canal that would take highly saline water from the Salton Sea back into the Gulf of California. Although a second canal could, in theory, maintain the salinity of the Salton Sea at ocean levels, the cost of constructing a second pipeline and, more importantly, the cost of pumping massive amounts of water uphill would be prohibitive. In a world of diminishing cheap energy, pumping water uphill for all eternity does not make any sense.

The results of this plan (1) maintain the existing level of the Salton Sea and its scenic grandeur, (2) eventually eliminate the occasional odor emanating from the sea as it slowly becomes hyper-saline, (3) reduces or eliminates avian botulism associated with the sea, (4) eliminates potential hazardous dust from certain proposed scenarios that result from all or part of the Salton Sea bed being exposed and, perhaps most importantly, (5) eliminates the need for using precious freshwater to maintain all or part of the existing Salton Sea.

The freshwater could then be given to Mexico in payment for allowing the canal to pass through their territory, sent to San Diego County, where freshwater is vitally needed or used for agricultural purposes in the Imperial and Coachella valleys (or maybe all three).

There are two problems with the Dead Sea Plan: (1) we must seek and secure Mexico’s participation and (2) the open waters of the Salton Sea would become sterile over time. In this plan all fish would eventually die as the sea becomes hyper-saline. Birds would no longer utilize the Salton Sea as there would be no food for them. The loss of bird habitat could be partially compensated for by the creation of one or more intermediate lakes along the route taken by the canal or pipeline.

(To read the full text of this article from MyDesert.com, click here.)

He points out that a ‘dead sea’ plan for the Salton Sea is cheaper, and that the sea could be developed as a resort area, similar to what is happening around the Dead Sea now.

A reader responded generally in favor of the idea:

To bring water from the Gulf of California requires that the Mexican Government enter into a treaty with the United States Government for the construction of a channel that crosses the border. Hard as it may sound, these treaties have been made before when it is to the benefit of both countries. A recent treaty of this kind resulted in the construction of the Mohawk/Welton canal which crosses the border near Yuma, Az. and runs down along the old Colorado River basin to end up near the Gulf. It carries salty water south from the fields of Arizona. The water is dumped into the Laguna Santa Clara.

A fact of importance: The United States paid for all the construction on both sides of the border.

Aqua Blog Maven interjection: I see one of the major sticking points in any canal/pipeline solution to be securing Mexico’s cooperation. I just don’t really see major benefits for Mexico, and I don’t necessarily feel the governmental love between Mexico and the U.S. in solving common problems. I also don’t perceive the Salton Sea as a problem for Mexico that they would feel obligated to help solve.

I did some research regarding the Wellton-Mohawk canal that the writer references. The canal was built to alleviate salinity problems with the water from the Colorado River that Mexico was receiving. The canal was completed in 1965 – 43 years ago – and presumably, the treaty was signed prior to that.

In my opinion, it’s a much different climate nowadays then 43 years ago. Back then, Mexico was motivated to help out with the salinity problem so they could have decent water delivered to them. Nowadays, there are plenty of contentious issues between the two countries regarding border issues: the lining of the All-American canal (denying Mexico the seepage that came through the unlined canal walls) and the ongoing issue of border control and immigration to name a few.

But the writer does see some benefits for Mexico:

Well, now that we know it might be possible as far as the Mexicans are concerned, what advantages can we offer to seal the deal, so to speak? Well, last time I checked, the “wind” blows that direction and that by itself might be reason enough. There are millions of Mexicans living just south of the border that would or could be affected by blowing dust from a “dry” Salton Sea. But there are other advantages as well. The Mexicans are just as hard up for water south of the border as we are up north. Ocean water at this time is about eighty miles from Mexicali. A channel would bring ocean water within easy reach of desalination facilities and provide a return route for the saline reject from the process.

The writer also adds:

So maybe this “Dead Sea Plan” suggested by Mr. Cornett is not so far fetched as we might think at first glance! But why not build two channels while we are at it? Then we could pump water out as well as bring water in. Pump water out? But Mr. Cornett suggests it would be an ongoing and very expensive operation to pump out water. But would it?

Maybe some constructive and innovative thinking is necessary to solve the problem of “pumping costs”. It was suggested to the State DWR that one solution to this problem of “costly pumping” would involve the use of “Direct Coupled” turbines. The energy of the falling water would drive the outflow pump by direct coupling, thereby eliminating the losses produced when standard electric pumps are used. In all cases the amount of inflow exceeds the outflow by 15 to 18% in order to maintain salinity and elevation control.

(To read the rest of this article from MyDesert.com, click here.

November 30, 2007 · Filed Under Salton Sea

Comments

Leave a Reply