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

Salton Sea, part 2: An open waterway (or pipeline) from the Gulf of California

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

salton-sea-north-shore-august-2007.jpgOptions for saving the Salton Sea have been being discussed for nearly forty years now. At one time, there was even discussion dating back to 1971 about building a shipping canal to the area. Pipelines and canals that would draw water from the Gulf of California in various forms are alternatives that are still favored by many local residents.

Back in August, I wrote an article regarding the feasibility of a pipeline from the Gulf of California to the Salton Sea. In my post, I quoted Indio resident Richard B. Speed, who believes passionately in an open waterway solution to the Salton Sea. Read on for Richard’s remarks about my article, my response to Richard, and even read comments from Rick Daniels on the canal/pipeline idea.

I wrote:

Actually, a pipeline at first sounds like a great idea. And as Mr. Speed points out, there’s nothing that would need to be done that hasn’t been accomplished elsewhere. However, upon closer examination, there are many factors that would complicate such a project.

1 – The cost would be about $3 billion to build and maintain. Each pipeline would have to be huge, requiring multiple pumping stations, and annual energy consumption would be large.

2 – Permits and rights of way for construction would be needed from a multitude of agencies and governments, including Mexico. Aqua Blog Maven does not think Mexico would be too eager to cooperate, with the All-American Canal lining and Drop 2 Reservoir project threatening to dry up the productive agricultural region over the border. Aqua Blog Maven thinks that to secure their approval for such a project, something would have to be bargained in return, likely more water from the Colorado, which is already over-allocated and whose every drop is hotly contested.

3 – Parts of the Colorado Delta and the Gulf of California are part of an international biosphere reserve for endangered species protected by an international treaty, and construction of anything through this protected area would be nearly impossible. Routing the pipeline through to the Southern California coast would require the purchase of expensive real estate with owners who have both money and lawyers and aren’t afraid to use them.

4 – The water coming from the Salton Sea has a high potential of introducing exotic and invasive organisms to the receiving waters. Exotic organisms have the ability to colonize receiving waters, and out compete, kill, or infect native species, affecting the health and productivity of the ecosystem, and in some cases, achieve domination of the environment.

5 – Even though the Salton Sea is about 25% saltier than the ocean, and even with using a pipe twice the size of the Alaska pipeline, considering the size of the sea, the pipelines would not be likely to make a significant dent in the salinity of the sea. The pipes just cannot move enough less salty water to make a difference in such a large body of water.

Mr. Speed came across my blog, and sent me this response via email:

I encountered your blog about the Salton Sea for the first time the other day and noted that you posted (8/18/07) my article about my dissatisfaction with the state’s restoration plan. You quote my article at length and then make some comments of your own. You say, among other things, “upon closer examination, there are many factors that would complicate such a project.”

Yes, by all means, let’s provide some “ closer examination”. I will take your remarks in the same sequence that you used and examine each one more closely.
1a) You say “ it would cost $3 billion to build and maintain.” Who provided your cost estimate? What are the details? I would appreciate knowing.
b) You say “ each pipeline would have to be huge, requiring multiple pumping stations, and annual energy consumption would be large.” I ask you to take a closer look at my article. You will see that nowhere in that article is there any mention of pipelines. I say quite clearly that this plan would utilize an “ open waterway ( like the California Aqueduct )” Are you familiar with the Aqueduct ? It carries water from the Bay area to southern California by means of an open waterway. Just south of Stockton you can get a good look at it from the I-5 freeway. It must be more than 200 feet wide and delivers water over the Tehachapi Mountains all the way to just north of San Diego. There are several other open waterways you can look at. In particular, there are the All-American Canal, the Coachella Canal, and the Metropolitan Water District Canal. All of these deliver large quantities of water and do not use pipelines. Pipelines are for oil, etc.
As for pumping stations, absolutely NONE would be required. Properly engineered and located the “open waterway “ would deliver water using GRAVITY as the driving force. Gravity never gets tired or wornout, it’s pollution free , and it never stops. Above all, it’s FREE. Once the waterway is built the water delivery cost would be ZERO. There would be absolutely no energy consumption. In addition, since the Salton Sea is 230 feet below sea level the delivered water must fall that distance to reach the level of the Sea and in so doing it can be made to generate energy (electricity) becoming a producer of energy instead of being a user. Some good engineering is required here , but water engineers can handle this with ease.

2a) You say “permits and rights of way for construction” would be needed. I’m sure that is true but the state of California does this every time they build a freeway. They did it extensively when they built the Aqueduct referred to above. The state has plenty of experience in this area. I don’t think it would present a problem.
b) Dealing with Mexico. This should be the subject of a separate statement. I will return to it at the end of my other “closer examination” remarks.

3. You mention the “international biosphere “ at the Colorado River delta. I agree that this is a delicate issue but I think that with careful and sensitive negotiations it would be possible to reach a satisfactory agreement on the location of a 100 foot easement through the area. Handled properly and with the right sensitivity to the ecological requirements I believe we can succeed in getting what would be required.

4.You refer to the “ high potential of introducing exotic organisms” etc. into the Gulf of California. Again, I ask you to “ closely examine” my article on this topic. You have apparently overlooked my second alternative wherein I state that a second waterway (to deliver water to the Gulf ) would be eliminated. Thus, NO Salton Sea water would reach the Gulf negating any concern for ecological problems in the Gulf.

5. You refer to the Salton Sea water being 25% saltier than the ocean. If I remove an acre-foot of Salton Sea water and replace it with an acre-foot of water that is 25% less salty, isn’t that a step in the right direction? If I continue that process and bring in ( through that open waterway ) a million acre-feet during the course of some period of time (say, a year ) replacing a million acre-feet of Salton Sea water am I not making substantial progress? Again, properly engineered, the entire Salton Sea can be replaced with Gulf water. It might take ten years but it represents constant improvement.

On your other observations:
1. I would ignore a shipping channel at the present time. Such a channel would require a series of locks to negotiate the altitude difference and cost more money than can be made available at this time.
2. Developing the Sea as a recreational playground is definitely the right thing to do. It could produce “boom town” conditions for the local economy.
3. Routing everything to the Pacific Ocean instead of the Gulf of California presents major problems getting over the mountains. The Gulf is the correct path to follow.

You might reread my article and note the desalination reference. If the enterprise were to be successful and many new homes were to be built the need for fresh water becomes a paramount concern since the availability of fresh water is already a major issue. Hence the desalination facility.

Perhaps this “closer examination” is helpful in clarifying some of the questions about my proposal. You quote my article but apparently you didn’t see Rick Daniels comments a few days later nor my response to him a few days after that. You might want to check them out.

I haven’t forgotten the Mexico issue. To be successful negotiations of this kind must produce results that each party considers satisfactory. The final result when fully built and operational must be looked upon with pride. I propose that the waterway path through Mexico would take it through that country’s Laguna Salada a salt flat a short distance west and south of Mexicali. An open waterway would lead from the Gulf of California through part of the Baja peninsula to the Laguna which would be allowed to be flooded. The Laguna is 100 feet below sea level. Some bulldozer work would be required to create a five foot berm all the way around to be sure to contain the water where it is wanted and to remove any impediments to its free movement. The result is a very large salt water lake which could be the basis for a substantial improvement for the local economy. Residential construction and property development would create considerable new employment opportunities along with greatly expanded commercial possibilities. Boating and other recreational activities could be extensive. All in all, a major benefit to the Mexico economy. The negotiations could also include the United States providing technical assistance in the planning of this part of the enterprise and as a long shot maybe even some financial help. All of the negotiating give and take must be handled in a friendly manner and the participants must respect the other party’s sensitivities. Taking this approach we can assure ourselves of success and produce a Salton Sea of unlimited potential for development.

Usually, Aqua Blog Maven is too wishy-washy and undecided to give opinions, but since I took a position on the pipeline (or waterway), I am called to defend it. Having let Mr. Speed have his say, here’s mine:

First of all, the majority of my information came from a handout from the Salton Sea Authority regarding the pipeline project, as well as a few other sources. They are cited at the bottom of the post:

Salinity Reduction: What won’t work, From the Salton Sea Authority, a short paper that discusses the pipeline

Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Environmental Impacts of the Export and Discharge of Salton Sea Water to the Gulf of California or Pacific Ocean – a nearly complete research paper by Charles Keene.

Salton Sea Management – An Evaluation of Salinity and Elevation Control Methods

I am already familiar with the locations and style of various components of the aqueduct; at least familiar enough to tell you that the significant portion of the aqueduct from Mono Lake into Bishop runs by pipeline. Most of the aqueduct from Haiwee reservoir down through Jawbone Canyon and into Los Angeles runs by pipeline, and Las Vegas’s plan to pump groundwater from rural Nevada is described as a ‘pipeline’. I’m not an engineer, so all I can really say is that there must be reasons (other than the obvious need to run pipelines across mountainous territory) to use a pipeline versus a canal, and those seem to occur in desert environments. So, no pipeline, it’s an open waterway. Either way, a pipeline or canal would take the same, or nearly similar, routes.

The desalination concept is an interesting way to deal with the water that needs to be pumped out. However, the problem with desalination is that it is an energy-intensive process. The more salt in the water, the more energy the process uses. Since the Salton Sea is a bit saltier than the ocean, more energy would be required than ocean water desalination. The water would cost a lot of money to produce,and would cost significantly more than the prevailing rate for water.

Okay, so let’s just say you solve the energy problem with solar energy. That’s likely to be one heckuva solar field, but okay. Next problem to deal with is the briny discharge. It’s about 50% of what goes in, so if you are pulling 1 million acre-feet of water out, you’ve got 50 million acre-feet of briny discharge, full of all sorts of crap, and you’re going to have to put that somewhere. Coastal desalination plants can dump it back out into the ocean, but where is it going to go in the middle of a desert?

Richard’s plan and others like it are probably all ‘doable’ from an engineering standpoint, but I’m not so sure in the reality of today’s political and cultural climate that it is truly possible.

First of all, cooperation from all parties involved on both sides of the border. I think many overestimate the ease of securing Mexico’s cooperation for a canal through the biosphere. The biosphere is all about ecological preservation, and I would think that an intake pulling in water from the Gulf of California is going to have a major impact on that ecosystem. Right now, it is a closed, narrow gulf with limited currents and circulation. Put in a pump in at the end, and that is going to start drawing things to it. One would need to look no further than at our own California Delta to see the possible effects of exporting large amounts of water out of a sensitive ecosystem.

I just don’t see much incentive for Mexico to cooperate. Sure, theoretically we could probably talk them into it if we gave them more water, but in case you haven’t noticed, the Colorado River supply is diminishing, and some experts tell us it isn’t going to get better (or wetter) any time soon. I’m sure the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security will have something to say about another route to cross the border, too.

Cooperation from within our borders would be necessary, as well. Earlier infrastructure projects, such as the Aqueduct, were built prior to the enactment of legislation which required environmental reviews and analysis. To build the equivalent of such a project today would require years of studies, reviews, and public hearings. There are also ballot initiatives coming in regards to eminent domain: people don’t like to have their land taken by the government, even if it is for a good and noble reason. And just look at the difficulty there is putting in much-needed electrical transmission lines.

And, lastly but most certainly not least, all of this would have to be paid for. You’re going to need voter support for such a project, and the Salton Sea is too obscure an area for most Californians. Californians are more affected by the situation in the Delta, but many still don’t even know where it is. I would guess even fewer know where the Salton Sea is. In an era of record budget deficits and quite possibly a $10 billion water bond coming up in the future, securing funding for any project is going to be difficult.

RICK DANIELS REMARKS:

Here is Rick Daniels response to Richard Speed’s column:

I serve as the Executive Director of the Salton Sea Authority, and I have read recent letters to the editor from concerned residents of the Coachella Valley questioning the use of pipelines/canals to the Pacific Ocean or the Sea of Cortez to restore the Salton Sea by exchanging ocean water with water in the Sea.

This alternative extensively was reviewed by the Salton Sea Authority and the state of California over the last 14 years and was found not to be feasible for a number of reasons. The Salton Sea’s salinity is 25% higher than that of the Pacific Ocean, and the answer to the high salinity problem is not to import more salt water into the Sea. That would worsen the condition.

A pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico would be 178 miles long, making it longer than the Panama Canal (50 miles) and the Suez Canal (101 miles) combined. A proposed pipeline/canal would be required to avoid the entire north end of the Gulf because it is a United Nations designated International Biosphere with endangered habitat. Therefore, the ability to discharge the current contents of the Sea would be prohibited. Additionally, the import of Gulf water would introduce foreign organisms beyond comprehension —-likewise for the dumping of Sea water into the Gulf.

There are many technical obstacles that would prove cost prohibitive. The canal would have to be 100 feet wide in order to accommodate the volume of water that would be involved. Alternatively, eight pipelines would each have to be 15 feet in diameter. The power to move that much water would result in the project being the largest user of energy in California. The cost estimates for a project of this magnitude are in the $70 billion range. The cost estimate for the Authority’s restoration plan was $5 billion, and the cost estimate for the Secretary of Resources preferred alternative is $8.9 billion. Funding the project at that level would be very difficult.
The final obstacle in a pipeline solution is that Gulf access would require approval by the Mexican federal and Baja state governments. They have said no.

The Authority appreciates the interest and concerns of the residents of the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, and we will continue to consider any suggestions that citizens would like to share with us in this endeavor. Local support is essential to any restoration plan.

Richard’s response to Rick Daniels:

Daniels has it wrong

I must respond to Rick Daniels comments regarding my Salton Sea/Gulf of California water exchange proposal. (Pipeline not the way to go for the Salton Sea,Sept.4). (”New tack needed for Salton Sea restoration” Aug16)

Daniels says eight 15 foot diameter pipelines would be required. There are no pipelines. There is a single 70 foot wide open waterway,like the Coachella Canal.

Daniels states this would be the “largest user of energy in California”. Quite the opposite. The driving force for water delivery would be gravity which is free. Properly engineered and located, the water delivery energy cost would be zero. In addition, the water would generate electricity as it falls 220 feet to the level of the Sea. The Gulf water delivered would have lower salinity than the Sea water it replaces.

Daniels says dumping Sea water into the Gulf would be prohibited. In my proposal, no Sea water would reach the Gulf. Instead, the Sea water would be directed to a desalination facility capable of producing up to 1,000,000 acre feet of potable water per year.

Daniels says $70 billion—-I disagree. Construction of this entire project could be accomplished for less than the $8.9 billion announced for the state’s dust bowl plan.

Other Daniels statements should also be refuted.

Richard B. Speed
Indio

Per the terms of the QSA, the state is obligated to save the Salton Sea. The current plan is estimated to cost $9 billion over 75 years. This year, the state legislature approved just $47 million to Salton Sea restoration; the federal government authorized $33 million. Securing the remaining $8.9 billion is going to be a long, uphill battle. It seems to me that if a viable alternative existed that could be implemented for a lower cost, it would be crazy not to pursue it.

I am now reclaiming my characteristic wishy-washiness, because, I don’t know what to do with the Salton Sea, and it, thankfully enough, is not my decision to make. Certainly something needs to be done, and I, too, hope for the ideal: that the Salton Sea will be restored, it will occur soon enough to save the birds, and that it won’t cost an arm and a leg.

I want to thank Richard for writing in, and invite anyone with ideas and opinions about water issues to either email me or post a comment. And thank you, too, for reading down to the end of this post, the longest post in Aquafornia history!

The next post will deal with another similar option for the Salton Sea that appeared on MyDesert.com recently.

For more on the Salton Sea:

The Salton Sea Authority website – click here.

The University of Redlands Salton Sea website – lots of Salton Sea resources, including an interactive mapping feature – click here.

The Encyclopedia of Earth – entry for the Salton Sea – click here.

A Canal to Save the Sea – click here.

Salton Sea homepage from San Diego State University – click here.

Geotimes article, Salton Sea at a Crossroads – click here.

November 30, 2007 · Filed Under Salton Sea

Comments

Leave a Reply