and Financial Assistance Program are examples of “incremental progress.” “T ere are some small, positive de-


velopments occurring at the Salton Sea. Whether or not this adds up to creating a situation where we won’t have an ecologi- cal collapse and environmental disaster in 2017 when the mitigation water is cut off really remains to be seen,” she said. While a restoration plan for the Sea would be welcomed, Delfi no said she would be happy to see how the state plans to avert the expected air quality impacts of a receding Sea. “T e state needs to be asking itself what’s the plan for just plain old mitigating,” she said. “At an absolute minimum, the state needs to mitigate. It can quibble about its responsibility for restoration; it cannot quibble about its responsibility for mitiga- tion. It is both in code and in contract.” Roger Shintaku, executive director


of the Salton Sea Authority, said times have changed dramatically from the days when the state was unveiling its far- reaching, systematic plan for Salton Sea restoration. Instead, it is more likely that answers for future Sea management will come locally and be of a modest nature. “When we are faced with projects


that are looking at billions of dollars to complete, we recognize the reality of the times,” he said. “T ere is no way we are going to get $9 billion today from anybody. Even if we did, it would be doubtful we could actually spend that in a reasonable length of time.” T e ability of the Sea to be a fi nancial


supporter of restoration and mitigation projects needs to be explored further, Shintaku said. “We need the assistance of the private sector to help fund this project, so we listen to biofuel and solar energy ideas. All of these can be potential revenue sources.” Even so, there is still a need for the federal and state governments “to assure some long-term fi nancing” to help main- tain the Salton Sea. “If we knew that, we could then work with the developers to develop revenue streams to start paying that back,” Shintaku said.


Today’s Salton Sea was eff ectively created in 1905 when a levee on an historic irrigation canal broke, allowing the Colorado River to fl ood the Valley for 18 months.


Based on the statements given to the committee, it seems reasonable to expect an uptick in renewable energy produc- tion at the Salton Sea. “We have great cause for hope,” said Rosentrater with Riverside County. “We are blessed with resources that can be harnessed to trans- form the Sea into America’s renewable energy powerhouse.” He estimated that more than $1 billion in revenue can be generated annually from geothermal output at build out. However, renewable energy sources “are not integrated in the way they need to if we are going to have a comprehensive restoration plan that’s sustainable over the long term.” State dollars that are part of the Salton


Sea Financial Assistance Program “need to get out the door faster,” Delfi no said. T e Financial Assistance Program pro- vides grants to local agencies, nonprofi t groups, tribes, universities and state and federal agencies for projects that benefi t the Salton Sea ecosystem. “Directing dollars to local projects


is probably the fastest and cheapest way to get things done,” Delfi no said, citing the Torres-Martinez tribe’s wetlands and Red Hill Bay project as examples of “very viable things done by local entities.” T e state needs to c ontinue funding the Financial Assistance Program and keep it going, said Delfi no, who criticized the slow pace of implementation.


“It took the state three years to get


the Financial Assistance Program up for one year of funding,” she said. “We think that’s a shame. T ere has to be ongoing funding.” (Prompted by Pérez, legislators have slated $3 million for a second round of Financial Assistance Program grants in the budget expected to be sent to the governor.) In addition to the Financial Assistance


Program, the state “needs to get going” on the SCHP, Delfi no said. “We have been waiting on that. It’s very expensive, but at this point, we will take any acres on the ground we can.” Expansion of the SCHP “hasn’t been looked at closely” because the project is a “proof of concept to see if we can successfully construct and operate the habitat ponds in such a challenging environment,” and because the funding scope is limited to less than $30 million, Nelson said. Delfi no wants the state “to articulate what its vision is for the Sea” given the impending decline in water. “You’ve got a major issue when the


Sea starts to recede and there has to be a long term vision,” she said. “T e threat is too great. T e solution is too complicat- ed, the costs too high for us to sit around and do nothing. In the end, there’s no more luxury for delay or inaction. T e Sea is too important and ultimately too costly not to save.” •


Summer 2013 • River Report • Colorado River Project • 11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11