[Taxacom] Salton Sea restoration!!!

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Mon May 28 19:49:34 CDT 2007

Dear All,
     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:
Dear All,
     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.
      -----Ken Kinman

PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning Windows 
Live Hotmail. 

More information about the Taxacom mailing list