[Taxacom] Salton Sea restoration!!!
kinman at hotmail.com
Mon May 28 19:49:34 CDT 2007
The "Salton Sea Coalition" finally released its plan a few days ago.
>From what I've read so far, they apparently want to spend $8.9 Billion to
merely *manage* dwindling water available from Colorado River drainage
sources. Barriers would sequester the water at the edges of the Salton Sea,
and apparently allow the whole central part of the Salton Sea to just dry
up. What does this do to prevent toxic dust storms?
Admittedly, I haven't delved into the details yet, and if this is a
stop-gap measure UNTIL a canal could be built, then I wouldn't have a lot of
complaints. But if this is the plan INSTEAD of a canal (or aqueduct, or
pipeline) to bring in more water, then it is probably more akin to
rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic and therefore wasting both
time and money (except perhaps for the short-term benefits to developers).
That this report was released on the Friday before a long holiday weekend
makes me wonder.
Anyway, doesn't it make more sense to build a canal to bring in more
and cleaner water, rather than spend billions just rearranging the crappy
water they have now? I still haven't found much on the sea-level canal
proposal (which actually sounds less expensive in the long run), but it is
discussed at the following website:
Posted to Taxacom on April 28th:
With the draining of wetlands, the Salton Sea of southern California
became an important lifeline in the Pacific Flyway. Now it too is dying.
Even though it's resurrection in 1905 was due to poor planning and massive
flooding, it was a blessing in disguise after having been dried up for at
least 200 years.
Construction of a canal reconnecting it with the Gulf of California is
the only sensible solution. Pumping in water from the Colorado River
(already severely tapped for other purposes) make no sense whatsoever.
Neither does the energy-intensive idea of pumping its salty and polluted
water out, which will solve nothing if there isn't clean water to replace
The cost of a canal might be upwards of three billion dollars, but that
seems like an extreme bargain compared to hundreds of billions we are
pouring into Iraq. This investment here at home would not only save the
Pacific Flyway from a major disaster, but also save it for human settlement
by the fast-growing population of California. And transportation to the new
inland ports would decrease costs, decrease congestion at other California
ports, and create huge numbers of new jobs on both sides of the border.
Don't know if it would do much to mitigate rising sea levels, but every
little bit would help, not to mention helping to humidify the southwest
which is in increasing danger of further desertification. And a dried-up
Salton Sea will create a horrible, toxic Dust Bowl for the region if nothing
is done. Restoration of the Salton Sea could also be a stepping stone to the
future restoration of Death Valley as well. Anyway, the canal seems like a
no-brainer to me. Improve the environment for both wildlife and humans,
provide a new transportation system, and prevent a toxic Dust Bowl in
Southern California. Done right, it could pay for itself fairly quickly, not
even considering the costs of doing nothing and dealing with the
consequences later on. We could just let the area deteriorate, but what a
wasted opportunity that would be.
PC Magazines 2007 editors choice for best Web mailaward-winning Windows
More information about the Taxacom