U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

45–367 CC u WASHINGTON : 1998

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SALTON SEA STABILIZATION AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 3, 1997, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA

Serial No. 105–60

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

GEORGE MILLER, California

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

SAM FARR, California

ADAM SMITH, Washington

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

————— —————

————— —————

ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel

STEVE LANICH, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held October 3, 1997 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Bono, Hon. Sonny, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 105

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .............................................................................................................. 6

Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses:

Codekas, Tellis, Chairman, Salton Sea Authority ......................................... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a Senator in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 107

Gruenberg, Phil, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality

Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region ............................................. 37

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 62

Hardie, R. Wayne, Group Leader, Energy and Environmental Analysis

Group, Technology and Safety Assessment Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory .......................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 84

Johnson, Robert, Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region, Bureau of

Reclamation, Department of the Interior ................................................... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 59

Niver, Norman E., Salton Sea Citizens Advisory Committee ....................... 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 98

Pena, Carlos, Project Manager, Mexicali Wastewater Project, U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission ............................... 23

Roberts, Philip A., Associate Dean, College of Natural and Agricultural

Sciences, University of California, Riverside .............................................. 41

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64

Stubchaer, Jim, Vice Chair, State Water Resources Control Board, CAL–

EPA ................................................................................................................ 37

Spear, Michael J., Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior ...................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78

Veysey, Tom, representing the Salton Sea Authority Board of Directors ... 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 60

Zirschky, John H., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil

Works ............................................................................................................. 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67

Additional material supplied:

California Department of Fish and Game, prepared statement of ............... 70
(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SALTON SEA STABILIZATION AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1997

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Palm

Desert, California.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in the

Palm Desert Multi-Agency Library Community Room, College of

the Desert, Palm Desert, California, Hon. John T. Doolittle (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Doolittle and Calvert.

Also present: Representatives Brown, Hunter, Lewis, and Bono.

Staff present: Robert Faber, Staff Director/Counsel.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will

come to order. Part of the thrill of having a field hearing is that

we have these interesting situations with the logistics.

In conjunction with that, ladies and gentlemen, although this is

a Federal hearing, we’re on state property and subject to the state

fire regulations, and the people blocking the door back there are in

violation of this code.

We apologize for not having a bigger facility, but we’re glad to

have this kind of interest.

A speaker is in the process of being set up out there in the lobby,

but I’ll have to ask that we can only have lined up one person deep

along the walls. You’re fine, but those in the back are going to have

to clear that door, in order to be in compliance.

So I would ask those of you who cannot find a space against the

wall if you will go out there into the lobby. Hopefully, they’ve got

a speaker set up so that you can hear the hearing, but we cannot

have the door blocked, and I would ask those of you standing there

to give way and go out into the foyer, so that we can be ready to

go through the hearing.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony concerning

Salton Sea stabilization and water quality improvement.

I would like to commend Mr. Calvert for his efforts to bring this

issue to my attention. Frankly, to get peace, I had to agree to yield

and have a hearing here. So he did a good job in making that possible. He’s a wonderful member of our Subcommittee, in addition

to being chairman of his own Subcommittee, within the Science

Committee of the House.

I realize that this is an issue of great importance to all of the

members of the Salton Sea Task Force, and I want to welcome

them in participating with the Subcommittee this morning.
2

Mr. Calvert, of course is—all of these gentlemen, except for me,

are local representatives of the area. I want to especially express

my appreciation to Mr. Bono and his staff for their assistance in

providing logistical support to this hearing.

And, of course we have with us today the co-chairmen of the

Salton Sea Task Force, Mr. Bono and Mr. Hunter.

Then, as fate would have it, in addition to being distinguished

local representatives, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Brown are the respective

deans of the California Republican and the California congressional

delegations.

So you have a good group of influential people to help you solve

this problem.

Before we get further into the hearing, I would like to recognize

the presence of State Senator Dave Kelley and Assemblyman Jim

Battin, local representatives in the state legislature, and invite

them, if they would care to step forward and make any comments

they would wish.

Senator Kelley.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity

to welcome all of you here with this collective wisdom, and the interest that you see with all the parties out here in the audience

today. You can see the importance of the issue that you’re going

to be discussing.

I’ve been involved with the Salton Sea for quite a number of

years, having served for a rather lengthy time in the legislature,

and I know that you, Duncan, and the rest of you, George and

Jerry Lewis, you’ve all been involved, and now Sonny Bono is getting involved, and now you, Mr. Doolittle, are getting involved in

all of this, to try and come to some resolution to the problem.

The problem is complex. We’ve known it for a number of years—

many, many years, as a matter of fact—and we welcome you here

today. My comments are just to welcome you, not to present any

testimony. You have all the experts lined up out here.

I’m sure, by 2 o’clock this afternoon, you’ll have a solution to the

problem and we’ll be able to walk out of here with everything concluded, and we will be very happy with everything that you’ve done

here today.

Thank you, and I welcome you here.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What a setup.

Mr. KELLEY. What a setup, that’s exactly right. Thank you very

much, and we appreciate you coming here to the desert, to solve

this problem. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Battin, I recognize you for your

comments.

Mr. BATTIN. Thank you very much. I would just like to echo my

Senator’s welcome to the Coachella Valley. I’m glad that we are

having a nice day for you to come down and visit us.

I think it is paramount that all agencies come together on this,

whether it’s local agencies or state and Federal, because that, I believe, is the only way that we will find a solution to the challenge

of the Salton Sea.

It is such a beautiful site, and it can be a mecca for tourism and

all sorts of other recreational activities, and I really look forward

to that day.
3

I read in the paper the other day where Sonny Bono was talking

about his days of waterskiing on that, and I would like to see my

son be able to do that again.

I think, with the effort by both of the Congressmen that represent my district—Mr. Bono and Mr. Hunter—I think that we’re

going to see great things out of this, and I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for coming down, and the task force. Anything that we can

do, I’m sure that we will definitely try.

Again, thank you very much for coming.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our objective today is to consider some of the

issues affecting the water quality and lake levels of the Salton Sea.

This hearing will not be a point of final resolution on the issue. It

would be nice. But the issue, I think, is bigger than that.

However, a great deal of work has been done to evaluate the

causes of poor water quality, as well as the periodic inundation and

exposure of land around the Sea. More importantly, there have

been scores of alternatives offered to solve these problems.

If we are ever to find and implement the solutions, the time for

action is upon us. Water quality is at a all-time low. The Sea can

no longer serve as the recreation resource it once was, and wildlife

populations continue to be affected adversely.

Finding a practical and economic solution is going to be a great

challenge. The Salton Sea, as it now exists, is an artificial phenomenon created in 1905 as the result of high water and a break

in a temporary levee along the Colorado River.

For a period of about 16 months, the Colorado River flowed into

the Salton Sink, filling it to a depth of more than 80 feet.

After the levee break was fixed, water levels declined rapidly as

evaporation greatly exceeded inflow. The water level continued to

decline until the 1920’s, when increased runoff from imported

water used in the Basin began to increase the Sea’s surface.

Since 1905, the salinity of the Sea has also changed. At the time

of the levee break, the salinity of the Sea was roughly that of the

Colorado River, but the existing dry lakebed salts have been supplemented by the introduction of a continuous inflow of salt-laden

water.

Each year it receives about 4 million tons of additional salt. At

the same time, evaporation has concentrated all of the salt that has

been introduced since the original levee break, since it is the only

way that water leaves the Sea. Today, the Sea’s salinity is about

25 percent higher than ocean water.

Land, recreational, and ecological values associated with the Sea

have declined over the last decade due, in large part, to the rising

salinity and surface elevation.

Without efforts to reduce and stabilize the salinity levels, they

will continue to rise and will have severe impacts on surrounding

landowners, on individuals who wish to use the Sea for recreation,

and on the existing wildlife species.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who have had an

opportunity to evaluate these problems and to consider the alter-
4

natives. I commend the members of the congressional task force

who are helping us to find a solution.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John T. Doolittle follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Our objective today is to consider some of the issues affecting the water quality

and lake levels at the Salton Sea. This hearing will not be a point of final resolution

on this issue. However, a great deal of work has been done to evaluate the causes

of poor water quality as well as the periodic inundation and exposure of land around

the Sea. More importantly, there have been scores of alternatives offered to solve

these problems. If we are ever to find and implement the solutions, the time for action is upon us. Water quality is at an all-time low. The Sea can no longer serve

as the recreation resource it once was, and wildlife populations continue to be adversely affected.

Finding a practical and economic solution is going to be a great challenge. The

Salton Sea, as it now exists, is an artificial phenomena created in 1905 as the result

of high water and a break in a temporary levee along the Colorado River. For a period of about 16 months, the Colorado River flowed into the Salton Sink, filling it

to a depth of more than 80 feet. After the levee break was fixed, water levels declined rapidly as evaporation greatly exceeded inflow. The water level continued to

decline until the 1920’s, when increased run-off from imported water used in the

Basin began to increase the Sea’s surface.

Since 1905, the salinity of the Sea has also changed. At the time of the levee

break, the salinity of the Sea was about that of the Colorado River, but the existing

dry lakebed salts have been supplemented by the introduction of a continuous inflow

of salt-laden water. Each year it receives about 4 million tons of additional salt. At

the same time, evaporation has concentrated all of the salt that has been introduced

since the original levee break, since it is the only way water leaves the Sea. Today

the Sea’s salinity is about 25 percent higher than ocean water.

Land, recreational, and ecological values associated with the Sea have declined

over the last decade, due in large part to the rising salinity and surface elevation.

Without efforts to reduce and stabilize the salinity levels, they will continue to rise

and will have severe impacts on surrounding landowners, individuals who wish to

use the Sea for recreation, and the existing wildlife species.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who have had an opportunity to

evaluate these problems and consider the alternatives. I commend the members of

the Congressional task force who are helping us find a solution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like now to turn to my colleagues. We

don’t really have a ranking minority member of this Subcommittee,

because none is in attendance, but I’m going to recognize the dean

of the California congressional Democratic delegation, Mr. Brown,

for his comments.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish

to make an opening statement, but I will add my own thanks to

the others that you have heard for coming down here.

This may be a crucial development in moving us toward a solution of the problems of the Salton Sea, the recognition that there

is a high level of congressional interest, including interest on the

Resources Committee, which I think probably has the primary jurisdiction over this situation.

So I am very grateful to you and, while I hate being in the Minority, working with a group of Republicans, it’s been a very rewarding experience for me, and I’m beginning to like it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Lewis, our dean of the California

congressional Republican delegation, I recognize you for any comments you may wish to make.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Chairman Doolittle. I’d just

like to express my appreciation to the representatives from River-
5

side County, Sonny Bono and Ken Calvert, for their very active involvement in this task force on the Salton Sea and inviting us here

to the valley.

Further, the other portion of the Salton Sea, represented by Imperial County, Duncan Hunter, to say the least, has been banging

us over the head to see where we can find every dollar possible,

over a length of time.

George and I are somewhat outriders here. Our district is largely

in San Bernardino County. Some years ago, I had the privilege of

representing this area. For many, many years, George and I have

been talking about the Salton Sea.

I, too, believe that this could be a turning point. Indeed, it takes

a little bit of money to bring all the stakeholders together, to see

some serious commitment on the part of the state and the Federal

Government, the local water agencies, et cetera.

If we can take the time to take a step back, recognize that there’s

been a lot of years involved in taking us to today, and where we

are, if we are willing to refocus, take a broad view of the potential

of this asset, indeed, we can revolutionize the Salton Sea and return it to every bit of that which we have hoped for in the past,

maybe a lot more than we’ve hoped for.

So I’m very privileged to be involved. John, I appreciate your

bringing your Subcommittee here, and all the members who are

participating.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. Mr. Bono, you are recognized for your comments.

Mr. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that this

is a dream come true for me, and unexpected, as far as moving in

this direction so fast.

Dealing with bureaucracies, things don’t move this fast, but we

have a task force that all were very interested in achieving a goal,

and it was like magic. We all got together and we all got to work,

and it’s just rolling along.

For me, being in this area, it’s the first time I’ve seen this kind

of energy go into a project that is dearly needed to prevent an environmental disaster.

To have this kind of energy, this kind of momentum, not only by

the task force, but by the communities and by everybody involved,

and now the state and the representatives from the state, is thrilling.

Getting this far and seeing this come to fruition, I somehow feel

certain that we will bring the whole thing to a goal that we all see

easily, a vision that I’m sure we all see and understand. It can be

so exciting, not just from an environmental standpoint, but from a

productive standpoint for the economy of the entire area.

So it’s very exciting. I’m thrilled. I can’t thank my colleagues

enough because, without them, this wouldn’t have happened, and

we all got together and they all championed this issue and then

moved it to the point.

Jerry worked very hard to get us the funds appropriated, that

are appropriated to this date, and that’s a tremendous boon for encouraging people that we can go further, and now we see we can

go further. So I want to thank my colleagues for moving.
6

George probably knows the Salton Sea better than anybody here.

He knows every single thing about it. I was delighted, when I

started talking to him, to know the depth of information that he

has on it. He has researched it and researched it, so if we had a

question, he could answer it. His contribution has been just fabulous.

I’m sorry that we had to make you a surrogate Republican.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BONO. But you do a good job.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BONO. I mean, maybe you should think about—no, no, no.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BONO. Anyway, it’s great. And our intention is to not just

stop here, but to take it all the way home, and we’re going to do

that. Just keep your energy up with ours, so that we have this kind

of momentum, and just let it grow. Your contribution is very important.

Again, Duncan Hunter, thank you. I first went to Duncan with

this and said, ‘‘Let’s go.’’ And this is what’s happened. So we have

a great coalition and a great task force.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for getting involved, and I appreciate

it deeply.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. Mr. Calvert, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.

I, like the rest of us, most of us here, have fond memories of the

Sea. I also went waterskiing down there 30 years ago, and spent

many happy weekends with my family and friends. Unfortunately,

many people choose not to take on recreational activities today.

Some 25 years ago, I worked as an intern for former Congressman Vic Veysey, who is here in the audience with his wife, Janet,

and even then we were talking about the Salton Sea, and here we

are today.

Today, I think we’re beyond talk, to the point where we need to

start talking about the potential solutions. And we’ll be hearing

from Vic’s son today, Tom, later on, to talk about the impact of the

Salton Sea.

This is an issue that’s extremely important to all of us in Southern California. Even though I don’t live down here, it’s important,

because there’s very few recreational activities for all of us, the 18

or 20 million who live in the Southern California Basin.

This is an opportunity for all of us to hopefully come up with a

solution and, somewhere down the line, we can all go back waterskiing in the Salton Sea.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Hunter, you are recognized.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks a lot for

being here.

You know, I think the folks who are here are beginning to understand that this going to represent the best in American politics.

Maybe you see the worst sometimes on C–Span, but this is a lot

of people getting together to solve a problem, a very complex prob-
7

lem, and a problem that could cost some substantial dollars, but we

need to do it.

I want to thank George and Jerry and Sonny. You’ve been fantastic, really a leader in this program, and John Doolittle. John

Doolittle, folks, for those who don’t know him, is a real doer. He’s

a guy that gets things done. And, Ken, what a great friend and ally

on this thing you’ve been.

Folks, you may not see us doing this, because this isn’t on the

stage, it’s not on the television. But we get together on the House

floor. We say, ‘‘OK, what are we going to do on the Sea, how are

we going to move out, what’s our meeting next week?’’

This is an action team, and we are going to take action. The statistics that we’re going to be seeing shortly show the urgency and

the exigency of this situation. We have to move out quickly. We’re

going to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Let me invite our first panel of witnesses just to approach, and then remain standing. As is customary

in this Subcommittee, we place all witnesses under oath. I would

like to ask the panel to come up now, as your names are being distributed, and I’ll administer the oath of office to you.

Excuse me. I’m thinking oath of office. Oath for testimony.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Some of you may be taking the oath of office in

the future.

We have on our first panel Mr. Tellis Codekas, Mr. Robert Johnson, Mr. Michael Spear, Mr. Wayne Hardie, and Mr. Tom Veysey.

Gentlemen, will you remain standing and raise your right hands?

And, oh, yes, Mr. Clark Bloom is going to testify, as well. I had

asked him to be here.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Let the record reflect that each answered in the affirmative. Please be seated, gentlemen. We will

begin with Mr. Tellis Codekas, who is chairman of the Salton Sea

Authority.

Let me, before you begin, Mr. Codekas, for a guide, we have

these three lights set there in front of you—the red, yellow, and

green.

We would ask you to, since we have many witnesses today, and

we do have a time certain by which the hearing must conclude, try

to keep your comments to 5 minutes.

The yellow light goes on at the beginning of the final minute.

You don’t have to stop in mid-sentence when the red light is on.

It’s a guide. But just be mindful, in order to complete the Subcommittee’s business, we will need to be expeditious.

For Mr. Hardie, in that he is evaluating the proposals, will have

10 minutes for that purpose.

And, with that, Mr. Codekas, I’m pleased to welcome you here,

sir.

STATEMENT OF TELLIS CODEKAS, CHAIRMAN, SALTON SEA

AUTHORITY

Mr. CODEKAS. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, and

members of the congressional Salton Sea Task Force:
8

On behalf of the Salton Sea Authority, I want to express our

thanks that you came all the way out here to convene this hearing

on the future of the Salton Sea.

The Authority has been working hard on this issue, and now it

is good to see a national interest. We welcome this recognition by

Congress.

There is no doubt that the Salton Sea needs to be saved, both

for economic and environmental reasons. As a drainage reservoir,

the Sea is crucial to the agricultural economies of the Imperial,

Coachella, and Mexicali Valleys.

In addition, there are extensive recreational and geothermal developments around the Sea that need to be protected from impacts

of rising salinity and fluctuating elevations.

From an environmental perspective, the Sea provides important

and diverse habitat for resident and migratory waterfowl, marsh,

and shore birds. These are magnets for birders, hunters, and boaters to the state and Federal refuges and parks.

In my written testimony, I have provided you a history of the

Sea and background information on the Salton Sea Authority. I

would like to now address the substance of the Authority’s recommendations.

Even though this is the first congressional hearing on the Salton

Sea, saving the sea is not a new idea. When I make reference to

saving the Sea, I am talking about saving the beneficial uses of the

Sea.

The Salton Sea Authority has worked intensively over the past

two years, in a very formal process. We have looked at dozens and

dozens of ideas to save the Sea and we have selected what we believe is a feasible option.

We have been guided all along by this set of fundamental principles: the project must be practical, affordable, and effective in

lowering salinity levels.

The No. 1 problem of the Sea, you can see on this chart what

increasing or decreasing levels of salinity will do to the fishery.

As you sit here today and hear these comments, and when you

return to Washington to hopefully continue your work with us on

a solution, we ask that you be guided by the same basic principles:

practicality, affordability, and ability to reduce salinity.

First things first. Any project to reduce salinity must be practical. You may hear varied concepts during this hearing, some that

include high expectations, but be cautious. Aim for solutions that

are achievable, and not out of reach.

Even if we were to implement the perfect solution tomorrow,

there still would be problems with the Sea for some years to come.

It took a while for the Sea to get to its present condition, and it

will take a while to clean it up.

Any project to reduce salinity will be expensive. It’s an artificial

body of water, and it will take an artificial project costing millions

of dollars to fix. The people of this region can’t do it by themselves.

I am encouraged, by the Committee’s appearance here today, that

you understand this is a national responsibility, as well.

To be effective, the project must reduce the salinity of the Sea

to approximately that of the ocean, but forget about turning the

Sea into a freshwater lake. It will still be a highly productive in-
9

land sea which, during summer months, will occasionally have episodes of odors, but it nevertheless is a great resource. We need to

reduce the salinity levels now.

We are concerned about spending previous time taxpayers’

money to study biological processes. We don’t know exactly the biological mechanism of how and why the birds and fish are dying,

but we are convinced that high salinity is the major problem. We

need to act now.

After studying many possibilities and alternative solutions, the

Authority believes that constructing some type of diked impoundment in the Sea would best meet the guidelines of being effective,

practical, and affordable, and will get us to a reduced salinity level

faster than any other proposed solution.

We believe the Salton Sea Authority should continue its leadership role to plan and build the project. We shall, of course, do this

in collaboration and coordination with local, state, and Federal

agencies.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely want to thank you and your

colleagues here today for taking time and showing the interest you

have in our Sea.

I will answer any questions you or the Committee wish to ask.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Codekas may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir. Our next witness will be Mr.

Robert Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the regional director of the Lower

Colorado Region of the Bureau of Reclamation. I think I last left

you in Boulder City, Mr. Johnson. I am pleased to have you back

here again today.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT JOHNSON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

LOWER COLORADO REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was a pleasure to

see you again, too.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like

to thank you for the invitation to be here today. With your permission, I would like to summarize my remarks and have the full text

of my prepared statement entered into the hearing record.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Congress, throughout the years, has established many study programs the Bureau of Reclamation has been

involved in related to the Salton Sea. Our involvement dates back

to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when we and the State of California jointly prepared a feasibility study and an environmental impact statement for a salinity management project on the Sea.

In 1985, the Congress created the National Irrigation Water

Quality Program to identify the nature and extent of irrigation-induced water quality problems that may exist in western states, including the Salton Sea.

In 1992, Congress enacted Title XI of Public Law 102–575, which

authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in a research

project to develop methods to reduce and control salinity, provide
10

endangered species habitat, enhance fisheries, and protect recreational values at the Salton Sea, and report to Congress. In fiscal year 1998, the President requested $400,000 in the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget for this purpose. Reclamation anticipates that the Congress will be provided a report later this year.

We have a draft report that’s currently undergoing public review. In addition to the roughly $2.6 million provided through the National Irrigation Water Quality Program, Congress has provided

about $8.5 million more since fiscal year 1986 for Salton Sea efforts

conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

The Bureau of Reclamation is participating with the State of

California and local entities, including the Salton Sea Authority, in

an effort to address Salton Sea concerns. Presently, there are more

than 50 separate potential solutions.

Reclamation, however, is not recommending Federal participation in any specific alternative at this time. However, I would like

to provide a brief description of some of the alternatives that are

under consideration in our report.

One is diked impoundments. A number of alternatives for diked

impoundments are variations of the concept of diking off portions

of the Salton Sea to create evaporation ponds within the Sea.

These alternatives range from impounding different sizes of

closed areas within the Salton Sea that would act as an evaporation pond to compartmentalizing larger portions of the Sea into

separate zones with dikes. Some alternatives would create fresher

water in portions of the Sea and allow other portions to become

highly saline.

Pump-out option is also something that’s been evaluated by Reclamation in the study, along with the Salton Sea Authority.

Various proposals along these lines would create an outlet by

pumping water out of the Salton Sea. Some alternatives would

pump the seawater to onshore evaporation ponds. Other alternatives would pump seawater to Laguna Salada, a dry lakebed

north of Mexico’s Gulf of California. Still others would pump the

water to a desalting plant or even to the Pacific Ocean.

Construction costs for various proposed solutions are estimated

to range from $40 million to more than $2 billion. Additionally,

there would be significant costs associated with conducting related

studies, such as developing the most appropriate construction techniques, completing biological research, and performing basic geologic hazard studies.

In conclusion, the Bureau of Reclamation has participated in a

number of studies over the years to address Salton Sea problems.

At the present time, Reclamation and other state, local, and Federal agencies are evaluating various proposed solutions.

Reclamation does not have enough information to recommend a

proposed solution or Federal participation in any of the proposals

at this time.

However, Deputy Secretary Garamendi has asked Reclamation to

include a broader range of agencies and participants, consistent

with our study authority provided under Public Law 102–575. Our

goal would be to sort through all of the various options and make

specific recommendations at some point in the future.
11

Thank you for the opportunity again to be here today, and I

would be pleased to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr.

Michael Spear, Regional Director of the Pacific Region, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. Mr. Spear, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. SPEAR, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC REGION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. SPEAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.

I am Mike Spear, West Coast Regional Director of the Fish and

Wildlife Service. With me today, on my right, is Clark Bloom, Refuge Manager for the Salton Sea National Life Refuge Complex.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You probably have to hold that microphone closer to your mouth.

Mr. SPEAR. First, I would like to thank you all for allowing the

Service this opportunity to address the Committee.

I want to underline the need for continued support for the Salton

Sea Task Force in addressing the failing Salton Sea ecosystem.

Without your support, it would be difficult to address the numerous

complex issues which face us as we search for solutions.

Fish and Wildlife Service has been in the Salton Sea since 1939,

when the first manager assumed the job of running the 35,000 acre

Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge located on the south shore of

the Sea. The management emphasis in those early years included

protecting and enhancing migratory bird habitat, and providing opportunities for hunting and fishing.

We still manage for these purposes. However, today, we also

manage for endangered species and facilitate ecotourism, which

generates over $3 million annually, principally from birdwatchers.

According to a 1988 report, Problems and Solutions at Salton

Sea, developed for the California Resources Agency, early studies

conducted in 1969 and 1972 found that, although considerable efforts and discussion have occurred to address the Salton Sea’s

problems, no effective remedial strategy had yet been established.

As a result, recreational participation, land values, general levels

of economic activity around the Sea have declined considerably over

the past two decades. It is safe but sad to say that three decades

have now passed since the problem was diagnosed, and the situation is worse.

Since this report was prepared, the Sea’s water level continues

to rise. Its salinity still exceeds the salinity of the ocean. Raw sewage and industrial pollutants from Mexico continue to flow down to

the New River and into the Salton Sea along with nutrients, selenium, and other chemicals from agricultural drain water. The Sea

is officially considered as the ultimate sink for all drainage in the

Coachella and Imperial Valleys.

In 1992, national attention was focused on the troubled Sea

when over 150,000 eared grebes and ruddy ducks died. The National Wildlife Health Center has determined that some of the
12

ducks died from avian cholera, but the cause of most of the duck

deaths and all of the grebe deaths remains unknown today.

Fish and bird kills have continue to occur. An estimated 20,000

birds died in 1994. The cause was never determined. Avian botulism killed over 14,000 birds in 1996, including more than 1,400

endangered brown pelicans.

As a side note on the issue of the brown pelican is a good example of the spinoff problems that result from this. In our Pacific region, we have a large endangered species workload, as you all

know. One of the things we are criticized for is not taking things

off the list.

We were ready to recommend, in 1996 and again this year, that

the brown pelican be delisted. What has happened in the Salton

Sea has, unfortunately, stopped that process of delisting, in other

words; so a very specific impact which, of course, then has impacts

along the coast, where it is also protected.

But there is a bird that, other than what is happening here,

would be in a position likely to be delisted.

Thousands of tilapia, a species of fish, died of vibrio infections

that allowed botulism to develop in their blocked intestines. Birds

which consumed the sick fish were infected with the botulism and

died.

In 1997, Newcastle disease wiped out a breeding colony of cormorants, and the refuge staff witnessed a raft of dead fish three

miles long.

These losses hold great significance for the Pacific flyway, one of

the main corridors over which migratory birds travel between their

winter and summer homes. Since the Salton Sea serves as a substitute for flyway wetlands lost elsewhere in Southern California,

its health is essential for the long-term viability of the migratory

bird population of the West Coast.

Several Federal, state, and private agencies and contractors have

been working on numerous efforts to address isolated problems associated with the Salton Sea. Nonetheless, signs of ecosystem distress still appear through fish and bird die-offs.

The Service itself has made a major effort to manage these incidents in concert with the California Fish and Game, by removing

dead birds, destroying infected carcasses, to prevent the spreading

of disease and rehabilitating birds, if possible.

Largely due to complex jurisdiction questions, no one entity has

been in a position to take the lead to develop a comprehensive program to resolve the numerous problems, such as potential water diversions from the Sea, wildlife diseases, human health risks, increasing salinity, along with the related items, such as loss of cultural resources.

We need a unified approach. Decisions are being made now

which are going to affect the Sea.

The EPA is working with Mexico to construct a second sewage

treatment plant, something we all want but, of course, could lead

to diminished flows into the Sea.

The ongoing negotiations of transferring water from Imperial

Valley Irrigation District to the city of San Diego could result in

less water going into the Sea.
13

All of these things will affect the eventual plan to restore the

health of the Salton Sea. So the timing of this effort to find a solution is not too early.

Finally, the fate of endangered species, given last year’s significant losses, we are obliged to seek and implement an effective answer, not only to these drastic losses, but to restore the ecosystem

as a whole.

My final comment is about a report that just came off the press

a few days ago, and I believe you all have a copy.

Eight weeks ago we cosponsored a symposium on research needs

in the Salton Sea with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Geological Survey, both Biological and Water Resources Division, along

with California Fish and Game. The purpose was to say, let’s bring

together the best scientists and say what research is needed.

Of course, facing the criticism that we’re always asking for more

research, I think you will hear from a lot of people, there are

things we don’t know.

In 8 weeks, we got the report from the scientists. They put together their recommendations, and have printed the report. I believe that the $35 million recommended over 3 years, of course, is

a lot of money. $12 million per year for research is a lot of money.

Whether we have 3 years is a big question that I have, and I

don’t think we can necessarily say that every one of these studies

must be done. But I think in 8 weeks we get a good sense of the

nature of the studies and, you know, we’re open to, obviously, lots

of discussion about what should be done. But we can put together

a program, as people look for more answers.

Finally, I would have to say I would be remiss if I did not point

out that, for right now, and for the short-term future, the Fish and

Wildlife Service can do no more than put a bandaid on the problem.

We burn dead birds and fish in an effort to stop the spread of

disease and help in the efforts to rehabilitate sick birds. This is

what we do. Needless to say, this leads to serious frustration and

stress, particularly in our refuge staff.

To fully appreciate the efforts, you must realize that people come

to the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect and enhance fish and

wildlife and their habitat, not to spend their days picking up and

burning dead fish and birds.

Clark Bloom and his staff are performing heroically under incredibly adverse conditions. You know what summertime temperatures are like around here. I want to publicly recognize this. But

that’s what we must do, for the time being, while we wait for the

solution.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spear may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. Let me recognize accompanying Mr. Spear is Mr. Clark Bloom, the refuge manager of the

Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Bloom will not present direct testimony, but will be available to assist Mr. Spear in answering specific questions pertaining to the refuge.
14

With that, let me recognize our next witness, Mr. R. Wayne

Hardie, who is the group leader of energy and environmental analysis for the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Mr. Hardie.

STATEMENT OF R. WAYNE HARDIE, GROUP LEADER, ENERGY

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS GROUP, TECHNOLOGY

AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT DIVISION, LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

Mr. HARDIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I work at Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and operated for the Department of Energy by

the University of California.

In May of this year, the Laboratory was asked by the Congressional Salton Sea Task Force to provide technical support for the

remediation of the ecological problems in the Salton Sea. Today,

I’m going to report on some of our work in evaluating various concepts for remediating the Sea.

Our results are preliminary, in some cases qualitative, but they

can be used to help guide decisionmakers such as yourselves in

your deliberations.

Environmental issues related to the Salton Sea include: industrial and municipal waste, selenium concentrations, high salinity,

and variable water levels. Today, I am going to briefly discuss each

of these issues.

The primary source of industrial and municipal waste to the

Salton Sea is untreated sewage from Mexicali. However, although

the amount of industrial and municipal waste discharged to the

New River is large, plans are in the works for a Mexicali treatment

facility which, when completed around the year 2000, will help alleviate this problem.

Consequently, we feel that the issue of industrial and municipal

waste pollution in the Salton Sea is already being addressed.

Because the agricultural drain water entering the Salton Sea

contains selenium, there is concern that this may cause selenium

poisoning problems in the Salton Sea and may be contributing to

the bird and fish die-offs.

Information provided to us on measurements of selenium concentrations in the drain water, Sea water, and sediments in the

Salton Sea indicate levels that are below the existing EPA recommendations in the case of the Salton Sea water, and are typically a factor of 10 or more below those experienced at the

Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge.

Therefore, we do not view selenium in the Salton Sea as a pressing problem and think that additional research on selenium and its

impact on the environment of the Salton Sea is needed before any

actions are undertaken.

Also, the selenium levels in the Salton Sea and its sediments

need to be carefully monitored so that any trends toward increasing selenium levels will be detected early.

The remaining two issues, high salinity and variable water levels, are complicated and most solutions will impact both these

problems to varying degrees.
15

Regarding salinity, the Salton Sea Authority has set a goal of 35

parts per thousand, which is equal to the salt content of ocean

water, and a decrease of about 9 parts per thousand from the current level. The Authority would like to stabilize the water level at

between 230 and 235 feet below sea level, which is a slight decrease from today’s elevation of about 227 feet below sea level.

Los Alamos has examined the cost, salinity, and Sea level

changes of three remediation concepts—desalinization; pump-in,

pump-out; and diked impoundment—and compared these results

with no action, or doing nothing. We have concentrated on performance and economic issues and have not evaluated ecological or institutional factors in this analysis.

First, if no action is taken, the Salton Sea will, of course, continue to increase in salinity from today’s level of 44 parts per thousand. The Sea would reach a salinity level of about 60 parts per

thousand in about 15 years. This is important, because some believe that most fish can no longer live in water around this salinity

level. Therefore, there isn’t much time if the Salton Sea is to be

saved.

If there were an inexpensive filtering or distillation method to remove salt from high salinity water, desalinization would be an obvious solution to the problems of the Salton Sea.

The process could be used to reduce the salinity of the water already in the Salton Sea or to desalinate ocean water being pumped

from the Gulf of California as part of a pump-in, pump-out scheme.

If desalinization is used to freshen the water in the New, Alamo,

and Whitewater Rivers, and the water allowed to flow into the

Salton Sea, this reduces the quantity of salt going into the Sea, but

does not solve the salinity problem, because salt is not being removed from the Sea.

Furthermore, if the desalinated water is diverted instead of flowing into the Salton Sea, this will lower the Sea’s elevation and increase its salinity, thereby making the problem worse.

One desalinization proposal was developed earlier this year by

U.S. Filter. They propose treating New and Alamo River water

prior to entering the Salton Sea and diverting about 160 thousand

acre feet per year for recycle.

The impact of the above proposal on the Salton Sea is an increase to about 120 parts per thousand in 30 years, which is 20

parts per thousand higher than doing nothing. Furthermore, the

surface area of the Sea would decrease by over 30 percent.

Another proposal, by the Metropolitan Water District, would divert approximately 450,000 acre feet of Alamo and Whitewater

River water. Once again, from the point of view of remediating the

Salton Sea, this makes the Sea smaller and saltier.

In summary, desalinization can be used to produce fresh water

for urban use, but proposals that divert inflow water will make the

Salton Sea salinity and elevation problems worse.

Another concept that has received attention consists of pumping

water from an external source to the Salton Sea and pumping

water from the Sea to an external location. The advantage of such

a concept is it has the potential to allow simultaneous control of

salinity, elevation, and surface area.
16

The obvious source for pump-in water is the Gulf of California,

which, of course, is at ocean water salinity. However, for this concept to be practical, the salinity of the pump-in water needs to be

considerably less than that of ocean water in order for the Salton

Sea to eventually reach ocean water salinity.

If the pump-in water is at ocean water salinity, very large quantities of water must be pumped both in and out.

For example, pumping in 400,000 acre feet per year of ocean

water and pumping out 500,000 acre feet of Salton Sea water is required for the Salton Sea to approach ocean water salinity. That

is a lot of water.

Since it is unlikely there will be a source of low-salinity pumpin water, a variation of this concept is pump-out only. Pumping out

a relatively small 150 thousand acre feet per year of Salton Sea

water will allow the Salton Sea to reach ocean salinity. This would

create a smaller Salton Sea by about 35 percent, in terms of area.

Our estimate of the capital cost for this system is about $300

million, with operating costs being approximately $5 million per

year. Therefore, pump-out achieves nearly the same results as

pump-in, pump-out, and at a much lower cost.

Providing that a smaller Salton Sea is acceptable, pump-out

should be considered as a viable option for the Salton Sea. One important issue that needs to be resolved with this concept is the destination of the pumped water. One frequently mentioned area is

the Laguna Salada in Mexico. Technically, this is feasible, but

would entail reaching an agreement with Mexico.

Another concept that has the potential for controlling salinity

and elevation is the creation of in-Sea impoundment areas by

diking. This could result in a Salton Sea with the same elevation

as now and a salinity level comparable to that in the ocean.

The primary disadvantage with diked impoundment is that part

of the surface area in the Sea would be in an impoundment area

which would contain very saline water. Fish would not be able to

survive in the impoundment and, in time, this brine would precipitate salt.

Eventually, this salt would have to be removed from the impoundment area—the cheapest way probably being to pump out the

brine. When this has to be done is uncertain and will depend on

the criteria for pumping out the brine.

A lower bound would be when the brine first reached saturation

while the upper bound would be when the impoundment area fills

up with solid salt.

Using our assumptions on inflow volumes, an impoundment area

of approximately 65 square miles, which is about 17 percent of the

area of the Salton Sea, would allow the Salton Sea to reach ocean

salinity. Depending on the pumping criterion, the impoundment

would be able to operate from 10 to 75 years before the brine needs

to be pumped out.

Our estimate of the capital cost of such a system is about $300

million for an earthen dike and about $700 million for a concrete

dam. Operation costs would be between $1- and $2-million per

year.
17

If having part of the Salton Sea at a high salinity level is acceptable, we feel that diked impoundment is also a viable option for the

Salton Sea.

Based on our analysis, we conclude:

First, that industrial municipal water in the Salton Sea will

be reduced considerably once the Mexicali facility is operational around the year 2000;

Second, there is time to address the selenium issue, allowing

for further research and more information to be gathered;

Third, desalinization is not a viable concept for salinity and

elevation control of the Salton Sea;

Fourth, pump-out is a feasible method for salinity control,

but the size of the Salton Sea would decrease; and

Fifth, diked impoundment will control salinity and elevation,

but the impoundment area will have high salinity water.

Diked impoundment appears to be the solution that would best

meets the salinity and elevation requirements, and at a similar

cost to pump-out. More detailed and optimized designs need to be

developed in order to better predict cost and performance. Finally,

the ecological and institutional consequences of the various concepts need to be better analyzed before a final selection is made.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardie may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Our final witness in this panel will

be Mr. Tom Veysey, who is testifying as an Imperial County farmer, but he is also a distinguished member of the Imperial County

Board of Supervisors. Mr. Veysey.

STATEMENT OF TOM VEYSEY, REPRESENTING THE SALTON

SEA AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mr. VEYSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Veysey

and I’m a resident of Brawley in Imperial County, where I have

farming interests and also engage in public service as a member

of the Salton Sea Authority and serve the voters in District 4 on

the County Board of Supervisors. District 4 encompasses all of Imperial County’s portion of the Salton Sea.

I wish to visit with you today as an agricultural producer. Agriculture is far and away the cornerstone of the Imperial Valley economy and its destiny is dependent on the Salton Sea for drainage

as it is dependent on the Colorado River for water.

Producers are anxious for the Salton Sea’s restoration for reasons

beyond the role of an irrigation drain water repository. We take

pride in our participation as community builders who are vitally interested in the quality of life beyond our families and communities.

We look on the Salton Sea as a tremendous asset, with vast economic opportunities for all the desert southwest and the so-called

Inland Empire. Indeed, the Sea is sick but, given its restoration

and renewed vitality, it will be a magnet for enterprise facilitating

recreational activities and environmental gratification.

In its restored state, the Sea will be embraced by the Inland Empire and Southern California as a major recreational and environmental resource.
18

In its revitalized state, the Salton Sea will partner with agriculture to support the region’s economy in ways that will not undermine its infrastructure of services.

I envision a healthy Sea as adding greatly to our tourism and

visitor market and vastly enlarging the region’s business opportunity base. This will provide new initiatives that should continue

to expand qualitative employment opportunities, contributing to

better prosperity for rural and city life.

When it is restored, the Sea will be essentially reliant on agriculture for drain water inflow to help maintain its elevation. The

development of the Sea into a healthy, thriving recreational mecca

will bring greater understanding of its relationship to our region’s

agricultural system.

The business of food production is fiercely competitive and increasingly fraught with high cost, risk, and calamity. Farmers have

to farm smarter and manage more effectively with each new crop

ear, in this changing world.

It is challenging for agriculture to sustain a role into the new

millennium as a principal job-producer and wealth-maker of the

County.

Our cropping patterns are now in the throes of major change

from the traditional ones, as we seek newer crops and methods to

sustain agriculture’s economic engine. However, the necessity to

force the salts through the soils and the resulting drainage will

continue.

Some of this change is due to pests and disease from such indomitable foes as the Silverleaf Whitefly that throttled our melon deal

and afflicted numerous other crops. Some is due to market price

decline in what used to be a bellwether of economic vitality—vegetables.

Some of this is due to bad luck, such as occurred in our tremendously promising durum wheat industry that was dealt a crushing

blow with the unjustifiable imposition of a quarantine following the

discovery of Karnal bunt in Arizona.

Multi-faceted industries, such as cotton, that once was a hubbub

of activity, with its production, harvesting, ginning, warehousing,

and shipping, long has been in decline from natural pests.

Cattle production, another major leg of the County’s stool of economic vitality, has waned significantly in need of meet and slaughter facilities.

Producers are struggling to find crops they can depend on, that

will yield a return. It might appear that we are not being true to

our badge as conservationists and environmentalists when we

plant crops that are more water intensive than others and have to

use chemicals to control pests and disease, but we sometimes have

to do what we have to for survival.

I remember when we used to take a pause in our farming in August and recommence in September. Now, we don’t stop. We really

can’t afford to.

We have to make tremendous investments in plastic-lined rows,

sprinklers, strip irrigation systems, to attain higher yields to offset

the eternal crunch of spiraling input and handling costs.

Then, when our crops reach a delicate, critical state and are

smitten, say, with a whitefly invasion, we need to have a chemical
19

to go with integrated pest management practices to protect the

crop. We are trusting that the EPA’s administration of the Food

Quality Protection Act doesn’t take away all the means of surviving

a major pest assault and disease, unless there are affordable alternatives; and many of these appear to be along way from reality.

Little wonder the producers are interested in water transfer.

When such transfer occurs, it will provide some very necessary

funds to producers that can be used to modernize and equip themselves to deal with a turbulent business environment, so they can

stay in business.

Even when we are able to retool and fully refuel agriculture’s

economic engine in Imperial Valley, we will continue to need state

and Federal resource support to help us find better production

practices, embracing both conservation and environmental needs,

as well as a method to deal with pests and disease.

The Whitefly Management Committee of Imperial County is

spearheading a unique and applaudable association of county,

state, university, and Federal resources which might be able to get

that dreaded pest under control. Continued research on such problems will be necessary.

Additional creative planning, both within our County and in the

surrounding counties, together with the state and Federal resources, might help us attract a cattle processing facility to this region.

As a producer and general citizen, I applaud your united interest

as legislators in seeking serious, meaningful funding for the restoration of the Salton Sea, as well as the New River. All my life

I have been associated with the Salton Sea. It’s like an old friend

who you never want to see in a state of decline.

As a youngster, I enjoyed many recreational activities there. I got

to know it extremely well one night when I took it for granted during an outing of fishing and waterskiing, becoming incapacitated

and having to spend the night in the center of the Sea, and subject

to many search parties. Two others that night weren’t as fortunate,

and they lost their lives. Needless to say, I have a lot of respect

for the Sea. It has pained me to witness the decline of the Sea, and

nothing would please me more than to be a part of its restoration.

This is why I am, at this moment, working with the U.S. Corps

of Engineers in supporting Congressman Hunter’s citizens’ task

force on the New River, headed by Leon Lesica, involving our residents and communities in a New River cleanup project that will

contribute importantly to the restoration of the Salton Sea.

It’s a simplified but exciting concept of building holding ponds

which would allow the water to rest and purify and then be released into the Sea as it is needed to maintain the critical elevation

posture.

Further, I am supporting the concept of diked impoundment as

the preferred approach to the restoring of the Sea. Salinity is clearly the most paramount problem associated with the restoration.

Diking appears to me to offer the best buy for the dollar in dealing with the heavy salt load of the Sea and its critical water level.

The diked impoundment concept, coupled with the management of

cleaner inflows from the New River, Alamo River, Whitewater, and

other sources seems to me to be wise, doable choices.
20

The concept also offers future opportunities to include other solutions which require longer timelines for implementation and effectiveness.

I’m glad that the Salton Sea Authority scores agriculture highest

in its evaluation of criteria associated with the restoration project.

In as much as Imperial County has the highest unemployment rate

in California, the $1 billion industry of agriculture must be preserved and enhanced.

We accept this challenge to change our future by working with

you to improve this major resource and allow Southern California

to further diversify by benefiting from the resources we enjoy.

I have endeavored to outline for you some of my beliefs as a

farmer why agriculture vitally needs the Salton Sea and why the

Sea cannot do without agriculture. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Veysey may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. There will be now the opportunity for Members to pose questions to the panel.

Given the size of the panel and the number of Members we have,

we should use these lights for ourselves, and try and stay within

the 5 minutes, as well.

Let me just ask whichever one of you would care to answer, of

the two problems, the rising salinity and the raw sewage coming

in from the New River, which of the two is greater, and how much

greater is it, in terms of greater threat to the fish and wildlife and

the overall health of the Sea?

Mr. CODEKAS. I would like to speak to that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Why don’t you take the microphone?

Mr. CODEKAS. I think the salinity is a far greater problem than

the New River, and you can cure the New River, but that’s not

going to solve the salinity problem, and that’s the problem with the

Salton Sea, as we see it on the Authority.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Do you agree with that, Mr. Spear?

Mr. SPEAR. Basically, I would agree. I would add something

about the New River. We are torn about the New River from the

point of view of, clearly, we want it to be cleaned up, but I think

we want to make sure that water keeps flowing to the Sea, too.

I mean, we have this great water balance problem with quantity

and quality, and so we want to see the New River cleaned up, but

overall, I’d like to see—you know, the salinity problem is, I think,

undoubtedly the greater problem. If it keeps going, it really doesn’t

matter.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is it primarily the salinity that’s threatening the

fish and wildlife?

Mr. SPEAR. It’s a combination. You know, when you have the

higher salinity, every year gets higher, it increases the stress, we’re

at the upper limits of the species’ capabilities to survive. It takes

less and less of a problem to cause some of the disease outbreaks.

But, obviously, some of the other contaminants are the things

that may start the outbreak. So it’s a combination of things. But

every year, the salinity gets higher, they’re closer to the edge, and

these things are going to occur easier and easier.
21

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We don’t have a representative of the State Department here, but perhaps one of you will share your knowledge

with us on this.

I understand the United States has agreed to build a sewage

treatment facility for Mexico to deal with the New River, and I’m

wondering what we got out of the deal.

Can anyone comment on that?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I could comment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Mr. Hardie, do you want to shed any

light on that?

Mr. HARDIE. Just a little. What we get out of it is cleaner water.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK, now, that’s what I assumed. But then apparently, is it not clear that we continue to receive the flow of clean

water?

Mr. HARDIE. I think that is a little misunderstood. The amount

of water—I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me. I’ve got

them back in my office. But the amount of water that actually

flows from Mexicali is not that large, in terms of the Salton Sea.

The New River is large. But that gets reinforced by all the drainage.

And so the actual, if Mexicali decided to redirect the water, I

think is like 5 percent of the total.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Five percent of the annual flow into the Salton

Sea comes from the New River, then?

Mr. HARDIE. Roughly. I don’t know offhand. It comes from

Mexicali.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Oh, comes from Mexicali.

Mr. HARDIE. From Mexicali, right.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. But is it clear in our treaty with Mexico, the negotiations that produced this plan, that they cannot then take that

cleaned-up water and divert it?

Mr. HUNTER. John, I can do this real quick, here.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right.

Mr. HUNTER. We’re going to pay about half the money for the

cleanup, the big joint project—it’s a joint project—in Mexicali. The

reason for that, the justification for that is that we are asking Mexico to clean up their sewage, that is, to wean their sewage system

from the New River.

The New River is mostly made up of flow from the drainage,

from the big irrigation developments in the Mexicali Valley. It’s all

the farm waters.

But the toxic wastes coming in from the chemical plants and the

raw sewage coming in from their sewage system, which is constantly broken, adds that dimension of toxic and sewage waste that

ultimately gets to the sea.

So what we’re doing is, we’re spending about half the money,

they’re going to spend about half the money, and we’re going to

hopefully wean their sewage system from the Sea—from the New

River.

They still have the right—and they’ve said that they want to do

this at some point—to cutoff their flow of New River, that is, the

sewage effluent, at some point, to recycle it in the same say that

people are talking about recycling New River and Alamo River on

this side.
22

So we can’t guarantee that we’re going to have the largest part

of the flow of New River coming across that border from where the

sun now stands. It could cutoff at some point.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. We saw in the chart the comparison

between the Salton Sea and the ocean and the lake.

Where does the Great Salt Lake fall on that chart, anyway? I’m

just curious.

Mr. HARDIE. It’s about, I believe, 280 parts per thousand.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Dramatically higher than anything you’ve

shown on the chart.

Mr. HARDIE. And the Dead Sea is about the same at its surface,

and it varies a lot. But it’s as high as 325 parts per thousand,

roughly, at the bottom of the Dead Sea.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Brown, you’re recognized for

your questions.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Codekas, the Salton Sea Authority has been referenced as having some responsibility for relationships with Mexico. It’s not clear exactly what. But that’s true, isn’t it?

Mr. CODEKAS. No.

Mr. BROWN. No?

Mr. CODEKAS. It is not true. We have no connection, tieup with

Mexico at all.

Mr. BROWN. So any assertion that that’s included as part of your

responsibilities, which I saw in one of these papers, is not correct?

Mr. CODEKAS. That’s correct. We are completely divorced from

that.

Mr. BROWN. Now, the reason I raised the question is because it’s

been mentioned by several people that we need consultations with

Mexico if we’re going to dump water into Laguna Salada; and you

haven’t had any such discussions?

Mr. CODEKAS. No, but we figure that has to be done.

Mr. BROWN. Yes. And has the Bureau of Reclamation has any

such discussions?

Mr. CODEKAS. No, we haven’t.

Mr. BROWN. Did you have such discussions when you ran the

Brine Line from Yuma down to the Sea of Cortez?

Mr. CODEKAS. Yes, absolutely, yes.

Mr. BROWN. And you got Mexican permission to do that?

Mr. CODEKAS. Yes, we did.

Mr. BROWN. Do you see it as insurmountable that you would get

it to run another Bring Line down to a dry lake?

Mr. CODEKAS. I don’t know that I would say insurmountable. I

think there would be some issues probably that Mexico might have.

The quality of water from the Salton Sea would certainly be a lot

higher than the quality of water that we were running down because of the salinity issues.

The drainage water that we take down to Mexico now is about

3,000 parts per million.

Mr. BROWN. Same as the drainage water in Imperial Valley?

Mr. CODEKAS. Right, about the same.

Mr. BROWN. And it’s like it, because it’s created a very beneficial

salt marsh down there?

Mr. CODEKAS. That’s true, right. But Salton Sea water is 44,000

parts per million.
23

Mr. BROWN. I understand, but it would not be draining into the

sea, it would go into what is already a dry lakebed?

Mr. CODEKAS. That’s correct, yes. I don’t know what Mexico—I

certainly wouldn’t say it’s insurmountable.

Mr. BROWN. Would your agency be the proper agency to consult

with Mexico about the feasibility of doing that?

Mr. CODEKAS. I would think that the International Boundary

and Water Commission, which is an arm of the State

Department——

Mr. BROWN. This isn’t part of this problem, as I think one of the

Fish and Wildlife people indicated, of complex jurisdictional situations which preclude any action, is it?

Mr. CODEKAS. I wouldn’t say that it precludes action, no. I would

think that you would have to involve the State Department,

through the International Boundary and Water Commission, to

have discussions with Mexico on that subject, though.

Mr. BROWN. Did you involve them when you negotiated the Brine

Line from Yuma?

Mr. CODEKAS. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. OK. That sounds like a reasonable solution, then.

Mr. Chairman, do you want to entertain a comment from Mr.

Pena?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If you will come forward and take the oath, we

will have you testify, with your answer. Please be brief, though.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Will you identify yourself and your

position, please?

STATEMENT OF CARLOS PENA, PROJECT MANAGER,

MEXICALI WASTEWATER PROJECT, U.S. SECTION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

Mr. PENA. Thank you. I’m Carlos Pena, with the U.S. Section of

the International Boundary and Water Commission, and I’m currently the project manager on the Mexicali Wastewater Project, so

I can maybe answer some questions on that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Brown, do you want to direct your question to him?

Mr. BROWN. The question that arose here has to do with whether

there have been any discussions between the U.S. and the Mexican

side about the possibility of pumping out Salton Sea water into the

Laguna Salada. Can you answer that?

Mr. PENA. As far as I know, there haven’t been any discussions

yet.

Mr. BROWN. Would the Mexican side entertain discussions about

that?

Mr. PENA. I’m sure they would be interested in hearing our proposals. I couldn’t really say what Mexico would respond to.

Mr. BROWN. No. And you wouldn’t care to comment which of

these multiple agencies on the U.S. side should entertain these negotiations, would you?

Mr. PENA. Well, any discussions, we would probably be involved

in. Is that what your question is, which agency——
24

Mr. BROWN. I understand that the Bureau of Reclamation negotiated the previous Brine Line. Would that be the appropriate

agency, from your standpoint?

Mr. PENA. That would probably be one of them.

Mr. BROWN. Now, with regard to the Mexicali sewage plant, can

you give us a very, very quick, in light of the time, update as to

the progress and anticipated date in which it will become operational, and if you have any plans to keep the clean water on the

Mexican side?

Mr. PENA. Right now, in fact, there’s going to be a public meeting

this afternoon in El Centro regarding that. The project has been

forwarded to the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission

for certification, and that is scheduled for December.

And once the December certification occurs, the money could be

released through international agencies for——

Mr. BROWN. The NAD Bank?

Mr. PENA. The NAD Bank. So the construction is anywhere from

18 to 24 months, like you mentioned earlier, so that is still on

schedule.

Mr. BROWN. Assuming approval early next year, you could have

it done by the middle of 1999?

Mr. PENA. Eighteen to 24 months is the construction time period.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much.

Mr. PENA. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Lewis, you are recognized.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,

it occurs to me that, when you look at the history of the Salton Sea,

and those discussions involving concern about the Sea, we have, in

the past, appropriated a good deal of money and spent some of the

money relative to studying, and there’s been study and restudy of

this problem.

I’m very interested in beginning to try to get a handle on where

we go from here. The Congress is about to appropriate almost as

much as $7.5 million themselves. There are monies that Dave

Kelley mentioned to me earlier that involve state dollars and approval, $2.5 million, that involve some matching provides. That

provides sort of a platform for a new beginning here.

We tend to be—I tend to be—a local government guy. I’d like to

get your impression, or give us your input regarding who the stakeholders would be in moving forward with a new solution, who

would they look to as the appropriate body to coordinate all this,

what kinds of requirements would such a body have, in relatively

short order.

Mr. CODEKAS. If this were given, in some manner, through the

Authority, the Authority represents all the local level that are

stakeholders in this proposition.

I think what we would like to do is begin, if we’re going to go

on the impoundment, is to start engineering cost studies to see

where we’re going and what this will all cost and the size of the

dikes and the number of years to clean up the Salton Sea, and keep

it at the continuing level it is today.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Codekas, you suggested that—early on, you cautioned us that we should look to solutions that are practicable, that

can be accomplished.
25

Yet it strikes me that the Salton Sea Authority has kind of come

to a conclusion that diking is that practical line but, on the other

hand, there are some who feel—we heard testimony that suggested

that perhaps pumping in and pumping out might very well provide

a broader and maybe a more ideal solution.

Mr. CODEKAS. I just feel, when you’re pumping water that’s 10

percent or 20 percent lower than what’s in the Sea, you’re going

to pump out the whole sea to change the status of the salinity.

There’s not enough differential in that water.

Mr. LEWIS. Unless you brought water in from the Sea of Cortez,

for example, or some other source.

Mr. CODEKAS. I believe you’re going to be in the same position.

Mr. LEWIS. Others? Any other comment regarding that? Mr.

Spear?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the question you started with was more of

the institutional arrangement, and we got into the diking question.

I’d make a comment on something else I’m involved in, which I

think is an effective institutional arrangement, and maybe it ought

to be looked at here.

Some of you are undoubtedly familiar with the Bay Delta process, what’s going on up north.

Mr. LEWIS. I’m very interested in it.

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s a Federal-state process with a very large

stakeholder involvement type activity.

I believe to the extent that what we’re looking at is a solution

that is much larger than local, people talking about bringing in

Federal dollars and state dollars, as well as local contribution, I

think we ought to consider some sort of structure which brings all

of the sort of local policy members from those institutions—Federal, state, local—sitting down at a body with some charge from the

Congress and the administration about timing, about funding, a set

of rules, so to speak, and then, you know, take our state of knowledge, decide whether, how much more research needs to be done,

if any, how much, and then also begin to propose the kind of solution.

And, frankly, I expect, the way these things go, in the end, Congress, if they are going to come up with a lot of money, is going

to ask a lot of tough questions.

Mr. LEWIS. It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a line that

the Committee could very well pursue.

That is, there are farmers’ interests that are local stakeholders;

there is water district interest, water users; that the asset itself is

every bit as interesting and perhaps as important as Bay Delta,

and that’s a model that, indeed, has given us a good deal of experience here, and might very well broaden the base of financial support, and look to the state for major resources, as well as water

users as resource, and the Federal Government, as well.

Any other comment.

Mr. CODEKAS. I would just like to say, in my oral testimony, I

stated we work in cooperation and in conjunction with state, county, and feds, in any operation.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Veysey?

Mr. VEYSEY. Yes. I can just give you a little local spin on this.
26

As you know, this has been studied for many years, and studies

have been studied. And, when this came up with this pump-in,

pump-out system and it was brought up $1 billion might be the

cost of it, that scared a lot of the local residents around the Sea,

saying that this will be studied and then, all of a sudden, come up

to say, ‘‘Well, we can’t afford $1 billion to finish this project.’’

This is why I think diking is very important. It’s maybe a little

more feasible, and it’s proven it does work.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Bono, you are recognized.

Mr. BONO. Thank you. Mr. Spear and Mr. Johnson, there’s talk

again about studies. And being as active as this Committee has

been in getting reports on studies, is there much more that we can

study?

It seems like we have covered this thing to the Nth degree, and

I personally can’t see where we could study much more.

My concern is that we’re on a clock now, as you mentioned, and

probably, if we started yesterday, it wouldn’t be soon enough. So

I’m concerned about duplication in studies, or bureaucracy in studies, and the length of time it takes for a bureaucracy to study.

If you would respond?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that there are still some issues that

haven’t been answered. I think Mr. Spear referred to the fact that

we still don’t know what’s causing all the die-offs; and I don’t know

that you can ever get an answer to that question or that we should

necessarily wait until we have that answer.

But I think that plays in, to some extent, as to where you go

with an option. For instance, the diking alternative will leave a significant portion of water that’s going to continue to be highly saline.

Mr. BONO. Right.

Mr. JOHNSON. And if that’s one of the causes of the die-offs,

there’s no way to keep birds from landing in an area that’s good

water versus bad water.

So I think that there are some issue there around the diking alternative that need to be addressed, in some way.

Mr. BONO. Yeah, that’s the solution portion of the studies, and

I think that’s very valid. The question is, do you think there’s any

more studying we can do to find out about the problem?

I know we specifically haven’t got an answer on what is exactly

wrong, but it’s very logical that all that pollution, all the salt, and

all of those things accumulated would cause the results that we

have right now, and that the cleanup of that would certainly be a

big contributor to getting rid of those things.

Mr. Spear?

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, Mr. Bono. I think this is the dilemma, even in

my own mind, that I bring to you here, a question of timing, that

as time clicks off, the salinity gets higher and our problem gets

worse.

But I also bring to you some suggestion of scientists about studies. And we even pressed them to say, ‘‘Anything you recommend

has got to be done in 3 years.’’ That was an artificial time which

seemed short to them and now seems long in talking about this

problem.
27

I guess I’d make a general comment. That is, I feel pretty confident in saying that there’s been a lot more understanding of the

physical aspects of what will happen if you produce this much

water at this salinity, and what will change over time, and a real

understanding of the biological, ecological systems, and I would say

a related human health issue of what may happen if we don’t look

at some things further.

Mr. BONO. Let me ask you a practical question. If a study has

to be done in 3 years, that could be 5 years. That gets you at about

10 years of life left, and does that leave you the time to do something constructive to turn that around, and a solution? Couldn’t we

run out of time by then, by not moving sooner? I question whether

we have 5 years to study.

Mr. SPEAR. I question it, too. And I wonder whether we shouldn’t

say maybe 3 years is even too long.

Somebody says to me and the scientists and the other folks, saying, ‘‘We’ll give you a year-and-a-half,’’ and then get some folks

very quickly, from the National Academy, or whatever body you

want, Los Alamos or other others, and say ‘‘Judge these,’’ and say

‘‘All right, what are the key things you have to do in a year-anda-half?’’

I think we would be making some mistakes if we didn’t look at

a couple of the key points here. I am not the person to judge exactly which ones are the best, but I think there’s some time we

should take, but not very long.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would echo that. I don’t think that we ought to

take a whole lot more time to study this, either. I think a lot of

the stuff can go on on a parallel track, addressing some engineering issue with other.

Mr. BONO. That would be great. Thank you. Let me just ask Mr.

Hardie one question.

With the treatment plant in Mexico, it’s going to cause some

clean water to come in from Mexico, but we’re going to pick up

more polluted water from the runoff here, going into the New

River, and then into the Salton Sea; is that correct?

Mr. HARDIE. I don’t understand which polluted water you’re talking about.

Mr. BONO. The cleanup from Mexico is 5 percent of the—5 or

10—coming in from the New River.

Mr. HARDIE. Right.

Mr. BONO. So there’s an additional amount that has to be

cleaned up. I guess my point is, wouldn’t part of the solution be to

clean the water before it runs off into the Salton Sea?

Mr. HARDIE. Desalinization?

Mr. BONO. Not necessarily, not necessarily desal, but to treat the

water——

Mr. HARDIE. Of industrial and municipal wastes?

Mr. BONO. Yes.

Mr. HARDIE. Well, I agree, but most of that will be treated. The

source of most of that is Mexicali.

Mr. BONO. Don’t we pick up a lot of that from our own runoff

here, the pollution, from agriculture runoff?

Mr. HARDIE. Agriculture wastes, yes.
28

Mr. BONO. Yes. So you’re treating the water, and then the agriculture runoff comes in, that’s a big contribution to the New River;

is that correct?

Mr. HARDIE. We did not look at that because we didn’t have

time. So I can’t answer that question.

Mr. BONO. OK. It seems logical that if we clean it at that point,

and then it gets polluted and dirty again, that to spend all that

money cleaning it, maybe we should look at done something closer

to the Salton Sea, rather than——

Mr. HARDIE. I agree. It’s always easier to clean something up before it gets into——

Mr. VEYSEY. That’s what we were talking about in ponds and purifying water before it goes into the Sea. I can also add that the

New River and the Alamo River have been tested where they’ve

gone into the Sea, and they test approximately the same.

So, in the process of coming to the Sea, it’s dropping out into our

community, the raw sewage and the other industrial wastes.

Mr. BONO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Calvert is recognized.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The discussion has

been about several potential solutions, and I would like to ask a

couple of questions in that regard.

Mr. Hardie, you mentioned just a pump-out theory, rather than

pumping in, and that there’s obvious problems in cost in that,

pumping water back into the Salton Sea.

It is possible to pump water out without diking the Salton Sea,

which may cause other problems, unintended consequences, and

have evaporation pools separate from the Salton Sea within the

United States, without having to pump long distances?

Mr. HARDIE. Yes, you certainly could do that. The impact on the

Salton Sea would be the same as if you pumped it to Laguna

Salada in terms of the reduction in size, which would be a reduction in surface area of about 35 percent.

Mr. CALVERT. Then the problem would be the amount of water

that comes into the sea, whether or not there’s any flushing action.

The question I have, under the treaty obligations we have with

Mexico—and I’ll ask this of anyone—the number of acre feet of

water that we must deliver across the border into Mexico for their

beneficial use, in good years, when that’s in excess, is it possible

to divert that water through the All American Canal and put that

water into the Salton Sea for a period of time in order to help offset

some of that?

Mr. HARDIE. Well, I sure wouldn’t count on it. We would have to

talk to the Salton Sea people.

Mr. CALVERT. We have years, obviously we have years, where we

have water that we can’t use and it goes out to the sea. Is it possible, in those years, to divert that water and put it into the Salton

Sea?

Mr. CODEKAS. We’re in a flood condition at all times in the

Salton Sea. We have bad rains. We have these hurricanes, and we

flood property, and the water just——

Mr. CALVERT. The question was, though, in concert with a pumpout theory, if we pump water out of the Salton Sea, nearby, if we

put it into evaporation pools which, by definition, would shrink the
29

size of the Salton Sea, then we would need to get water to come

in in order to maintain some type of elevation stability.

Is it possible to take water from the Colorado River in years of

excess and allow that water to go into the sea to allow for that differential?

Mr. CODEKAS. Yes, I guess you could do that, but what years do

you know you’re going to be in surplus on the Colorado River?

Mr. CALVERT. I just bring that up as a potential solution. Yes,

Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. That could occur intermittently. There would be

years when you have lots of flow on the Colorado River, more than

we can possibly store, and you can divert it and move it into the

sea.

Over time, it’s expected that that will decline and there will become less and less available, but there could be some available, yes.

Mr. CALVERT. Any other comment on that?

[No response.]

Mr. CALVERT. Another question, different subject. On the fish kill

and the bird kill in the Sea, I suspect you chart that somewhat to

the degree and numbers of the fish and birds that are dying off

from year to year.

Do you see a potential for something that could happen dramatic

within the next several years, if nothing is done relatively soon?

Mr BLOOM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that if nothing is done,

you will see an increase, especially in fish mortalities. Fish kills,

over the past 5 years that I have been present there as the manager, have increased probably tenfold.

When I first came, a fish kill once a month was considered common. Now, a fish kill every three days is probably considered a

common thing.

As far as the bird die-offs go, they generally follow fish kills. In

other words, a fish kill is usually an indicator that you’re going to

have an increase in your bird deaths.

So it’s logical to assume, then, if you have an increase in fish

kills, you’re going to also have an increase in bird die-offs.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, one question I would like to get answered, and it doesn’t have to be answered at this hearing, but if

there’s any data that shows the amount of water that crosses into

Mexico that exceeds our treaty obligation with Mexico, and what

the constancy of that is, if any, is a potential way of diverting

water into the Salton Sea.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Why don’t you ask Mr. Johnson here?

Mr. JOHNSON. It occurred in—from 1983 to 1988, we had some

excess flows on the Colorado River system, and we’re in full conditions on the Colorado River system, and it’s occurring right now.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. How many acre feet a day is crossing the border

in excess of our obligation to Mexico?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think our deliveries to Mexico this year are probably going to be, with the flood control releases, over 2 million acre

feet. The annual obligation is 1.5 million acre feet. So we’ve probably released 500,000 acre feet over the treaty requirement this

year.
30

Mr. CALVERT. So if we had 500,000 acre feet of Colorado River

water, theoretically, going into the Salton Sea, if, in fact, we were

able to have a pump-out, that’s a significant amount of water?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is, if you can get it through—I mean, you’ve got

capacity issues on the All American Canal, and those sorts of

things. But, yes, periodically, there could be water like that that

might be available, yes.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Hunter is recognized.

Mr. HUNTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. All my colleagues,

and all of our members of this team have, I think, in their questions, elicited a response that’s painted an excellent picture of what

we face here.

And Ken Calvert, I think, with his common sense questions, has

sharpened it up.

Sonny Bono is our idea guy. He’s got about 15 different ways we

can develop a solution, and that’s very valuable for us.

Jerry Lewis, as usual, wants to make sure we look at the big picture here. And, Jerry, we’re going to do that.

And George Brown, with his scientific background, has really

added a lot to this.

Let me just go to what I think is the big problem. The big problem is the physical problem. It’s not a study problem, because if

you hold up that salinity chart, you know that, at a certain salinity

level, the fish die. You know that. You know that’s going to happen.

That doesn’t require more studies or more backgrounds in salinity. We know that’s going to happen. And second, we know the pace

at which it’s presently happening.

So we can sit here and extrapolate that, at some point in the future, some date, we’re going to have a dead sea.

Now, the only way to fix that sea from being dead is to effect

some physical changes—that is, to either put in enough freshwater

into the Sea, and maybe enlarge the size of the Sea, as to dilute

the saline content, or to discharge the saline content and somehow—that’s George’s idea of discharge to Laguna Salada—discharge the salt and get rid of it, because we have a glass with too

much salt that’s becoming saltier all the time, and you either have

to put in fresher stuff or you have to somehow discharge the stuff

that’s already salty, or isolate it. And isolation, of course, is the

idea of the dikes.

Now, the idea was brought up, Mr. Spear and Mr. Johnson, that

somehow, if you have a diked sea where you have part of the sea

that’s highly saline, basically a big salt basin, so that the remaining part of the body can stay alive and be relatively fresh, that that

somehow would kill birds, or will have a deleterious effect on wildlife.

Well, obviously, you won’t have any fish in it if it’s the saline

content of the Dead Sea or worse. We know that. We conceded that.

So we’re cutting off one arm so that the patient can live, if you will.

But there’s no evidence that I’ve ever seen that birds would die

because they landed in the salt. You’ve got highly salty areas in the

Salt Lake in Utah, and birds don’t die because they land in salt

water. That’s not what’s killing the birds. I mean, a lot of things
31

are killing the birds with respect to stuff that’s being shipped in

from New River.

But I would like you to answer this question, one question, and

I’ll give you a couple of them.

First, do you have any evidence that simply having the saline impoundment, the salty impoundment would, in itself, result in a lot

of bird deaths?

Secondly, it appears to me that we know, even though we haven’t

researched all these diseases that are coming there New River, we

sure as heck know that they are a product, part and parcel of the

massive sewage discharge in Mexicali.

So again, we have an issue that begs a physical solution—that

is, weaning the city of Mexicali from that New River, keeping its

sewage from pouring into New River. And that’s the project that

we’re embarked upon with this big joint project with Mexico. So we

need to do that.

Now, to help, there’s a third dimension that hasn’t been inserted

here. And Mr. Tom Veysey, one of our great valley leaders, did

bring this up. But that’s an idea that a lot of our conservation

groups, led by Desert Wildlife Unlimited, are moving on right now.

And that’s to build a series of pounds, if you will, along the 50

miles of New River, between Mexico and the United States, with

the idea that you flow—and we’ve had lots of research facilities

that have validated this—as you flow water through this filtering

marsh, if you will, you, to some degree, incrementally clean up that

water.

That wouldn’t be a bad thing, whether the Mexicali project is a

90 percent solution or turns out to be a flop or whatever, because

in the least, it gives you more filtration and more cleanup than you

had before.

One problem that our people have given us down there is that,

looking over at first blush, the Imperial Irrigation District, looking

at our EPA laws, have found that, if you touch the New River, once

you take one drop of water out, you have to return that drop of

water in literally drinking condition. So you can’t incrementally

clean up the river—another case of something that we’ve done to

ourselves.

We may need to change that law. And I would like your comment

on the validity of perhaps changing the law to accommodate an incremental cleanup as you go down through this ponding system.

And the Chairman is going to be meeting with some of those

folks who are doing that citizens’ task force later on today, and we

would sure like to invite your presence.

But, if you could answer those questions, we would appreciate it.

Mr. SPEAR. On the latter one, which I remember the best, we’ve

certainly shown that various places around the country—Arcadia,

California is one of the great examples—where use of marshes as

wastewater cleanup facilities—in that case, you go from your contaminated, polluted water, to a Stage 2 type—I think it’s a Level

2 type treatment within the marsh.

I personally—and again, just from my—I don’t understand the

problem of moving it through and incrementally continuing to clean

it up. I mean, I think we’re seeking overall cleaning. To sort of stop
32

at maybe one point, and then not continue further, may be a problem.

But if it’s a matter of incremental cleaning, running it through

a series of marshes, it seems to make sense to me.

Mr. HUNTER. We may have to have a law change to do that, so

we may need your assistance.

Mr. SPEAR. I hadn’t heard that we had that problem before.

You mentioned earlier the comment about the dike. I wish I

could say more, and I would like to get back to the Committee on

that point. Just so that I don’t give you an impression that it’s all

OK or it’s all bad, I’d rather go back and talk to my——

Mr. HUNTER. OK.

Mr. SPEAR. [continuing] on the subject of what happens when the

birds land in a very high salinity environment and what issues

there might be as they related to this circumstance here.

Mr. HUNTER. OK. But, as of now, do you have any information

that salt ponds, if you will, in themselves, are dangerous to wildlife? Does anybody have any information on that?

Mr. SPEAR. I would rather get back to you.

Mr. VEYSEY. Duncan, on the Salton Sea, there’s many areas that

are inlet areas, where it’s very shallow, and the water is back in

there, and it looks almost stagnant. And the birds relish that area.

They like it better than more out into the Sea. I don’t think that

salt is a big problem there.

There’s also some dead fish in those areas, and I’ve never seen

any dead birds.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your

brilliant conduct of this hearing, while we’re at it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you for your brilliant insight, Mr. Hunter.

Let me ask as Chairman, I don’t think we’ll need a second round

of questions, but I would ask unanimous consent for five additional

minutes for me to pose one or two more questions, and if anyone

else wishes to share the balance of that time, I’ll be happy to make

it available. Is there any objection to that?

Mr. LEWIS. Reserving the right to object.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Mr. Veysey, you testified that the bacterial count at the point where the Alamo River enters the Salton

Sea is roughly equivalent to what it is where the New River enters

the Salton Sea; is that correct?

Mr. VEYSEY. Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Now, either that means it’s pretty good in the

New River or the Alamo River has problems. I’m not that acquainted with the Alamo River. So which is it?

Mr. VEYSEY. Well, the Alamo River doesn’t take sewage from

Mexico, and the New River does. So the New River starts out bad.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. So really, then, this issue of the New

River polluting the Salton Sea is perhaps overstated?

Mr. VEYSEY. Absolutely.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Johnson, the Colorado River, as I recall,

is one of the most widely fluctuating rivers in the United States.

Maybe it is the most.

What about the idea—I see elements of a solution here. Occasionally, it has enormous flows which cannot be predicted very well in
33

advance, I guess, but you would have some idea perhaps a few

months ahead of time that you will have those flows.

Is there a solution out there that would allow for—of course, I

realize we will have to deal with getting rid of the water that’s in

the Salton Sea if you did that. But is there a solution that would

allow, in times of high flows in the Colorado River, to send in a

couple of hundred thousand extra feet into the Salton Sea?

Mr. JOHNSON. Periodically, there would be times, as I said before, and I don’t have numbers off the top of my head to give you

an idea of how often that would occur.

But there could be times when we literally have so much water

coming in that we’re making releases and, in fact, we would be encouraging people to divert water. In fact, we’ve been doing that this

year and, in fact, you know, additional water could be put in.

I think over time the availability of that water is going to go

down.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. When do you expect the full capacity of the

Colorado River——

Mr. JOHNSON. The Colorado River is an over-allocated, as everybody knows, the lifelong debate of the Colorado River is it’s an

over-allocated resource. Average annual flow is about 15 million

acre feet, and the amount allocated in the United States and Mexico is about 161⁄2 million acre feet.

Now, our saving grace is that we’re not currently utilizing all of

the water that’s been allocated, but in time, potentially, as upper

basin development occurs, the frequency of additional water would

decline. We’ll have more storage capacity and we’ll capture and

store all of those flows for consumptive use under the compact in

the decree.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So, long-term, an additional source of high quality fresh water would be highly desirable for this area?

Mr. JOHNSON. It would be desirable, but I don’t think you can

count on the Colorado River providing a long-term source for that

purpose.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have an idea that I’ll discuss later with Members of a way maybe we could get that.

I have a few more minutes left. Does anyone wish to——

Mr. BONO. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK, I’ll yield to Mr. Bono.

Mr. BONO. Mr. Hardie, is it possible that a solution may not be

one solution, but some of the above, or a few of the above? It seems

like maybe that’s something we should be looking at, as well.

Mr. HARDIE. That’s right. If you go with diked impoundment, for

example, there will have to be pump-out eventually. So diked impoundment will require pumping out the brine water someplace.

I want to say one thing about this concern about if the birds put

their little behinds in salty water, then that’s bad.

If that’s bad, then almost no solution will work, because if we

send this water to Laguna Salada, I don’t think we have Mexican

birds and American birds. So those birds are going to be sitting

their little behinds down in Mexico, too.

So I think we need to be concerned about that water, whether

it’s in a diked impoundment in the U.S. or whether it’s in Laguna

Salada in Mexico.
34

Mr. BONO. Mr. Spear, I think I can safely say that part of the

vision of the community, of the entire district, I think is, if we are

going to find a solution, to also look to maximize the recreational

use of the Sea, if we get to that point, to try to do everything,

which could create, I think, an economic boom in the industry.

I was just wondering if that vision is in communication with your

vision of fixing up the Salton Sea.

Mr. SPEAR. A clean Salton Sea, people would be encouraged to

go to and recreate on, which be absolutely spectacular for fish and

wildlife and ecological purposes.

Mr. BONO. That’s great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Bono is right when he says that there may be

more than one solution potentially. And the reason I brought up

the Colorado River earlier—and I understand that it’s been overallocated probably, depending on how many lawsuits you look at—

is that that would be a short-term solution, maybe only a 20-year

solution.

But finding water is the real problem here, in the long term, as

Mr. Doolittle pointed out, and there may be other sources of water

we can look to in the long term.

But in the short term, the potential diversion of the Colorado

River in times of excess may at least bring the salinity level down

where we could buy some time and bring the Salton Sea into a

more livable condition.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I want to respect your decision as to

when to terminate this panel, so don’t let me run too long.

I’d like to ask two questions, one to Mr. Johnson. And, Mr. Johnson, I have the greatest respect for you, but sometimes I can be

very critical of people that I respect.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BROWN. You made the statement that the Bureau of Reclamation doesn’t have enough information to make a recommendation on the solution to the Salton Sea problem.

The Bureau has more experience with this problem than any

other agency, been working on it for at least 25 years that I know

about, yet you didn’t even calculate the cost, the capital cost, of a

pump-out solution.

I know the answer, but would you tell us why you didn’t do that?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think we made some rough estimates of

capital costs, but I think we were also, in conjunction with the Authority, concerned about O&M costs, and we thought the O&M

costs looked pretty high on that alternative.

Mr. BROWN. The O&M costs would exceed the $10 million.

Mr. JOHNSON. Right.

Mr. BROWN. That’s the statement that is made in your report.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. Now, one of your pump-out solutions only cost $12

million, so you were getting pretty close to the limit to making it.

Los Alamos made the estimate that the pump-out solution would

cost $300 million and $5 million in O&M. Isn’t that close enough

to justify looking in more detail at the——

Mr. JOHNSON. We have not eliminated any alternatives, and I

would not imply that we have eliminated a pump-out from any-
35

thing that we’re considering. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that

Reclamation has concluded that a pump-out solution was——

Mr. BROWN. I really think your problem here is that diffuse jurisdictional responsibility, which I have talked to the Secretary and

the under secretary about, and suggested that they might solve

that problem, and we could get more action here, and that would

open your opportunity to do a little more effective or directed job

on this, would it not?

Now, let me ask Mr. Spear a question. Mr. Spear, you indicated

what you’re doing is a bandaid approach to this whole problem of

the Salton Sea. You’re not solving the problem, you’re just kind of

disposing of the carcasses in a sanitary way, and that’s not really

the long-term solution, is it?

Mr. SPEAR. No, and maybe I should clarify that. The problem we

have is, if we don’t dispose of carcasses, is that you leave the dead

carcasses, there’s continued feeding, those things are getting into

the food chains. And so we spread it throughout the flyway.

So it is not part of a long-term solution. It is trying to keep from

getting——

Mr. BROWN. I’m not arguing the importance of it. I agree with

the importance of it.

I made an effort, in discussion with friends on the Appropriations Committee, to get $2 million to allow you to do a more effective job

on that and to also do some planning for a restoration plan for the

Sea, and I was informed from a number of sources that representatives of the department and the Fish and Wildlife were very

unenthusiastic about taking that money. Do you have any information about that?

[Laughter.]

Mr. BROWN. Well, as a taxpayer, I think this is noble, but as a

person trying to save the Salton Sea Authority, I have serious

qualms here.

Mr. SPEAR. I believe you talked to Mr. Garamendi about that

Monday. I heard about it, about 30 minutes later.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SPEAR. I was on a field trip in San Diego, and he found me

on top of San Miguel Mountain, and——

Mr. BROWN. I’m delighted to know he’s as responsive as I always

knew he could be.

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I indicated to him that we were aware of the

proposal you were making and that we had given our support for

that.

I sense what has happened here—and I do not know for sure—

is that what’s happened is that we’re at the end of the appropriations process, the beginning of conference, and the budget folks, in

essence, get very concerned about whether that will be new money

or taken out of somewhere else, and it’s the end of the process.

And I think that’s the major—so it probably was not about the

substance of the issue, it was more about where it was in the process.

Mr. BROWN. We’re all students of the governmental process here,

and we’re interested in learning how it works, so this answer is

very illuminating. Thank you.
36

Mr. LEWIS. But the problem is that, overnight, the $2 million

dropped to $1 million in the actual bill that was written, and that’s

a little disconcerting to me.

Mr. SPEAR. Me, too.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I’d like to thank the members of this panel for

your testimony and the members of the Subcommittee. You’ve kept

us on schedule, and that’s good.

There will be further questions that we would wish to direct to

you, and the record will be held open for your responses. We would

encourage you to make your responses in a very timely fashion. Did

you want to—yes, sir.

Mr. CODEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one thing

before we close the session. The Authority has no crabs if Fish and

Wildlife wants to do more studies, but we think you should start

now reducing the salinity of the Sea. That’s our position.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Thank you. Please respond quickly. With

that, we will excuse the members of this panel. We are going to

keep right on going, and I would invite the next panel, and final

panel of witnesses, to come forward.

In the interim, while they are coming forward, I would like to acknowledge that Senator Feinstein has submitted a written statement for the record, expressing her views in this important matter

of the Salton Sea, and those views will be incorporated into the

record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein may be found

at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Gentlemen, will you please remain standing. Let

me encourage our Subcommittee members, if they need, to take

their conversations outside, so we can proceed and keep on schedule.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask the audience, please, we’re trying to conduct a hearing. It’s going to be difficult if we have this

level of background noise.

I’d like to welcome Mr. Jim Stubchaer, Mr. Norm Niver, Dr. Philip Roberts, and Dr. John Zirschky.

Mr. LEWIS. Ladies and gentlemen, if you could, kindly keep

quiet. If you must talk, please leave the room.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. All right, gentlemen, will you raise

your right hands? Let’s see. Do we have Mr. Gruenberg up here,

too? Yes, we’ve got him. All right. Good.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Let the record reflect that each answered in the affirmative. Please have a seat. I think you all heard

me explain how the lights work.

Let us begin by recognizing Mr. Jim Stubchaer, who is the vice

chair of CAL–EPA within the State Water Resources Control

Board.

He will be accompanied by Mr. Phil Gruenberg, the executive officer of the State Regional Water Quality Board. Mr. Gruenberg

will be available for questions. Mr. Stubchaer will be offering the

testimony.

You are recognized, sir.
37

STATEMENT OF JIM STUBCHAER, VICE CHAIR, STATE WATER

RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, CAL–EPA

Mr. STUBCHAER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of CAL–

EPA, I would like to thank the Committee for holding this hearing

on this important subject. I am the vice chair of the Water Resources Control Board, which is a member agency of CAL–EPA,

and I am representing them today.

I also represent CAL–EPA on the Mexican border affairs, so I

have some familiarity with some of the issues you were discussing

with the previous panel.

As Mr. Lewis mentioned, Proposition 204, which was passed by the voters last year, does include $2.5 million of the Federal research moneys for the Salton Sea.

Mr. Doolittle, I’m sorry. It was a little confusing. Mr. Gruenberg

is going to make the presentation for us, and we will both be able

to answer questions.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Oh, that will be fine. Then, Mr. Gruenberg, you

are recognized.

STATEMENT OF PHIL GRUENBERG, EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,

COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION

Mr. GRUENBERG. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,

I’ve lived in the Imperial and Coachella Valley most of my life, so

I’ve got a special interest in the Salton Sea. In fact, as executive

officer of the Regional Board, I’ve set two goals, personal goals, for

myself.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, folks in the back indicate they can’t

hear.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You’re going to just about have to pick that up

like I’m doing it in order for people to hear you. Yes, there you go.

Mr. GRUENBERG. As executive officer of the Regional Board, I’ve

set two personal goals for myself. One is clean up of the New River

and the other one is the restoration of the Salton Sea.

However, this cannot be done via regulation alone. I’m going to

need help, and I come here humbly today asking for your help in

achieving the goal of restoring the Salton Sea.

I think one of the problems in the past, why not much has been

done, is there has been too much finger-pointing and blame-placing

on the issue of the Sea. You hear too many comments along the

lines of ‘‘They don’t care,’’ ‘‘They need to clean it up,’’ ‘‘They’re not

doing anything.’’ I think we need to think about who ‘‘they’’ really

are—maybe me, maybe you.

I think the bottom line on this is that we all share responsibility

toward the problems of the Sea, and we’re all going to have to work

together to effectively realize a solution.

As far as what that solution is, there’s been a lot of studies done

on the Sea. In 1965, the Regional Board contracted with Pomeroy

Engineers to review the Sea’s problems. What they concluded was

that, as salinity increases, the fishery was going to decline and, ultimately, die out.

Now, with that warning, not much happened. My feeling is not

much happened because not that many cared about the loss of the

sport fishery.
38

In the last 5 years, it’s been a lot more than that. There’s been

catastrophic die-offs of birds and what appears to be a total ecological collapse. It’s something that we simply can’t walk away from.

It’s more than just a sport fishery.

What Pomeroy recommended was that an in-sea evaporation

basin be constructed to control the Sea’s salinity problem, to address this situation. Back at that time, I thought, ‘‘There’s got to

be something better than this,’’ and a lot of people thought the

same way. But now, 32 years later, I’m back at that point exactly

again, and I think they were right on target. I don’t think there

are many options, and I believe that’s really it.

There have been some other ideas that sound attractive—a twoway exchange with the Gulf of California. But with the high salinity of ocean water and the high evaporation of the Salton Sea, it

simply isn’t going to work.

There are some flaws with diking. One of them is going to be the

challenge of keeping waterfowl out of the diked area. The other one

is, people have said dikes are ugly.

Well, consider San Diego and Mission Bays. Those are largely

diked, and they’re actually quite attractive, so diking doesn’t need

to be ugly. It could be landscaped and have access for fishing and

so on.

It is also going to be important with diking to have the proper

size of a dike and location. Pomeroy Engineers had recommended

a 40 to 50 square mile dike. That’s going to be too small. The salinity is too high now. I think 125 square miles is more on target.

As far as where it’s located, it needs to be away from the portion

of the sea which is of greatest importance, and I kind of hate to

suggest where this is, but the south end is important for fish

spawning. There’s a wildlife refuge, and it was a good area for

corvina fishing. So I believe that the deep water area at the north

would be the best, something along these lines.

To conclude, I believe that salinity needs to be addressed as a

priority, and we need to do it expeditiously.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gruenberg may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Norm Niver,

who is with the Salton Sea Citizens Advisory Board. Mr. Niver, you

are recognized.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN E. NIVER, SALTON SEA CITIZENS

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. NIVER. Thank you all, this whole panel, for being here. We’ve

waited a long time for you guys to come, and I really appreciate

your interest. I’ll get on with my testimony.

I live on the water. I live in the Sea. I fish the Sea every day.

So I come from there.

In 1956, scientists doing studies on the Salton Sea were predicting the Salton Sea’s demise by high salt levels. A study at the

time, the best of its kind to date, found massive fish die-offs along

the seashores. Death of the fish due to algae blooms were creating

oxygen insults to fish caught up in them.

At the time, scientists were aware of the wind-driven currents

that would gather floating dead fish and assemble them into large
39

bodies of death, floating from here to there, meandering from the

direction of the wind.

Fish were observed swimming upside down, spiraling like airplanes at air shows, up and down, all near death, brain dead with

enough nerve movement left in their bodies to fulfill their waning

wiggles in their final moments. The fittest of the fish always survived.

The question to these scientists was where would this die-off accumulation of fish end up? They thought out the areas well, to get

a more accurate dead fish count than they do today.

Fish populations grew, from 1950 to 1955, millions of healthy

sport fish. Many fish died. Some fish died from starvation. Most

died from algae blooms created by the rich nutrients flowing into

the sea from local farmlands.

The point of this is, fish have been dying here at the Sea from

1955 until now. I personally actually see less fish dying at this

time than I have ever witnessed since being involved with the Sea

30 years ago.

Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, we could always find fresh

dead corvina and croaker in some given place, as we fished the Sea.

These kills always occurred during the summer months—big

corvina, floating belly up, areas as big as football fields heading toward shore. It looked like a white floating freeway.

The fish would back up against shore, out at least 200 feet, only

to drift away with the help of a Borego wind from the southwest,

the next day.

What we are seeing today is tilapia that died perhaps a week to

3 weeks ago, very few fresh dead fish found along the west shores.

It’s unlike it used to be.

Over the years, the public’s feelings have changed from acceptance of the Salton Sea to rejection of the Sea because of the fear

of people to use it for recreational purposes. The public, since the

selenium scare, have progressively turned their back on the Salton

Sea as an option.

There has been, and continues, an unnecessary assault on this

maligned sea. The thousands of people surrounding the Sea, people

that know the Sea well, are amused at the ongoing redundant

press releases about fish in the Sea, at the same time being very

sympathetic to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their hard

and depressing work, last year and today, to some degree, cleaning

up the bird die-offs.

Press releases still pour from them, even though the bird deaths

are much lower than last year. I say the world already knows

about what happened at the Salton Sea. I think it is about time

to tell the people that avian botulism kills 500,000 birds in the

United States each year. Forty thousand perfectly healthy birds

left the United States and died in Mexico of the same problem.

Why do they keep blasting the Salton Sea with ‘‘I think so’s,’’

‘‘It’s a hypothesis,’’ or ‘‘It’s a theory,’’ or the assumption that it is

the ‘‘sewage from Mexico’’? This current opinion of the Salton Sea

has grown rapidly over the last 10 years. Our people have never

read so much negative hits on this sea.
40

If it is the ‘‘squeaky wheel gets the grease’’ bit, it has never

worked until now. However, why would taxpayers invest in a cesspool that is sick and dying?

Some teachers even teach the filth, the ilk, and the cesspool concept of the Salton Sea with their data based on press releases, assumptions, and theories brought forth by their reading of the local

news media.

Unfortunately, these false impressions have been placed in the

public’s mind all over the earth, repeatedly. The public and the

schools are provided with misleading information that add to their

already preconceived ideas of the Salton Sea.

New workers coming to agencies involved with the Sea arrive

knowing everything about the Sea, they think when, in fact, they

only know what they read or watched on the electronic media.

The support groups, everywhere, the local economy, businesses,

property values, along with people’s lives, have been destroyed by

this action. They laugh and yet cry over the loss of this valuable

resource to all.

Dead fish, windblown, gather in certain areas. The press will

photograph them and call them massive fish kills—killed on this

very spot, they think. This adds to preconceived opinions of the

Salton Sea and drives the public away while devaluing the very

Salton Sea that we would hope that taxpayers would be willing to

pay to have it saved.

All dead fish were fresh dead at one time, but where did they

come from? Where did they die? Where did they originate?

Today, is it a natural cycle working on this wall to wall population of this perch-like fish, the tilapia? Die-offs are different

today. Dead fish counts are far from accurate—and that’s emphasis

added.

The water quality issue is salts. Nine million tons each year flow

down the Colorado River. This river water comes to the Coachella

and Imperial Valley’s farmlands—comes from.

Each year, 4 million tons of salts arrive at the Salton Sea in agriculture runoff water to add to the 460 million tons that are currently in suspension in the water of the Sea today.

This is for sure: evaporation of Salton Sea water is the only

means of water leaving the sea so far. These salts, left behind, accumulate into the amounts that are currently stressing the fish

and birds at the Salton Sea.

Salt removing can be corrected quickly by building a dike option,

as proposed by the 1974 and 1975 and the 1986 and 1992 efforts

to find a salt-removing project for the Salton Sea. The great Salton

Sea Authority and its talented Technical Advisory Committee has

also come up with these options, once again.

A dike, for the first time, will give the Salton Sea an outlet. Salt

removal is faster on some options. More study will have to be done

on the final option.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Niver, can I just interrupt? You’re making

an excellent statement, but can you summarize the remainder of

it, rather than read the remainder?

Mr. NIVER. Sure. Gentlemen, I could go on for hours and hours.

[Laughter.]
41

Mr. NIVER. The beautiful birds and the great fishing is outstanding at this time. It is about time to bring a billion dollars income to both Riverside and Imperial Counties in the future. It is

about time to recognize that only 16 percent of the people in California even play golf; 17 percent play tennis.

If you look into the problems of California, you will find that onehalf the population live from Los Angeles to the border. Fifty-nine

percent of those want and need water-oriented recreation areas. It

is a positive for the fish and wildlife. It is another positive for the

counties and the State of California.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Niver may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much, sir. Our next witness is

Dr. Philip Roberts, Associate Dean of the College of Natural and

Agricultural Science, the University of California at Riverside. Dr.

Roberts.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP A. ROBERTS, ASSOCIATE DEAN, COLLEGE OF NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Committee for their time.

My testimony will present the proposed role of the University of

California in the coordination and conduct of research and implementation addressing the solution options to the stabilization and

water quality improvement of the Salton Sea.

The University of California at Riverside has been asked to coordinate research efforts for the UC system because of its concentration of relevant programs and expertise and its proximity to

the Sea. We propose to provide a research coordination for not only

the UC system but also with other institutions and state and Federal agencies.

Why is such coordination needed?

We recognize that there have been a number of helpful, numerous previous research activities and assessments, many referred to

today, over the last several years. However, in general, they’ve

been limited by the complexity of the scientific issues involved.

These issues include hydrology, engineering, biological-ecological

systems, soil and toxics, chemistry and bioremediation, salinity and

wastewater management, economics, agricultural interests, and

human social and cultural considerations.

Although good evaluations and some data are available for some

components, a holistic approach that integrates the component

issues across disciplines we feel is lacking still, at this time. We do

not have the cause-effect-solution relationships for all component

parts and their solution options when we try to target a decision

on a solution.

The university proposes to provide the objective forum and a core

of expertise to pursue a comprehensive research-based analysis of

primary proposals for solutions. We are now in the process of pulling together an action team of UC and other scientists, to this end.

Now, what can we contribute?
42

Within the system, we have research expertise, programs, and facilities. At UC Riverside alone, we have about 25 faculty who have

expertise bearing on the many complex issues which face the Sea.

Coordination of scientists from several UC campuses will be necessary, and we recognize that about 12 percent of the water expertise scientifically in this country is found at the University of California.

We have made contacts with scientists at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine,

UCLA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and preliminary contact with

Los Alamos.

Coordination of scientists from other institutions and agencies

will be necessary, obviously. Therefore, we will coordinate also with

state and Federal agencies and other universities in this coordination role.

The University of California is the state’s land-grant institution

and we have, as our mission, to provide educational research and

public service programs which can help you, as policymakers.

We are well positioned, therefore, to serve in a role of honest

broker and provide coordination of the research, rather than the

policy end of providing a solution.

I’d like to highlight a few programs that have direct relevance

and facilities with relevance to the Salton Sea, within the UC system.

We have the Salinity and Drainage Program, headquartered at

UCR. It’s a consortium of scientists which have been studying similar problems in the Central Valley, most notably took a successful

leadership role in addressing the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge Problems.

We have the University’s Water Resources Center, founded in

1957. It’s a multi-campus research unit established to stimulate

and aid research on water-related issues.

At the UC Riverside campus, we have the U.S. Salinity Laboratory located on the campus site, devoted specifically to the study

and amelioration of salinity and pesticide-related agricultural and

environmental problems. Many of the scientists there have UC-adjunct appointments.

We have also headquartered at the university the University of

California Institute for Mexico and the United States, commonly

referred to as UC–MEXUS.

This program has undertaken a long-term research focus on binational issues of water and the environment in the CaliforniaMexico border region, which we feel would be critical to assessing

and implementing any solution that would involve a binational

component to the solution. Here, we could draw policy and science

together in terms of the binational issues.

We also have a newly formed Center for Conservation Biology at

UC Riverside that focuses on issues related to habitat restoration,

constructed wetlands, et cetera.

Finally, in terms of facilities, we have a 540-acre agricultural research station four miles from the north shore of the Salton Sea.

We believe that this would be most suitable for a research base

for efforts involving scientists from other UC campuses than our

own, and also from other universities and state and Federal agencies.
43

In terms of an action plan, we envisage a four-phased approach

to this phase, in terms of the coordination of an action of research.

Phase I is an evaluation phase, a short timeframe of two to three

months in which a further review of existing data would determine

information gaps and research needs.The purpose here is to integrate priorities across disciplines.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Dr. Roberts, can you summarize the rest of your

excellent testimony, just in the interest of time?

Mr. ROBERTS. OK. The other phases would follow a testing phase

of from one to three years, to do a feasibility study. This would

work in parallel, then, with Phase III, an implementation phase,

in which we would monitor the actual implementation of a solution

from a research standpoint.

My final point is that the university would look at a long-term

partnership and monitoring relationship in this process and take

ownership of the health of the sea long after the actual solution to

be adopted has been put in place.

I thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, sir. Our final witness is Dr. John

Zirschky, who is the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Civil Works. Dr. Zirschky.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. ZIRSCHKY, ACTING ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. Thank you, sir. I’ll be very brief—three minutes

or less.

I would like to spend the first minutes telling the people in the

audience—you know us well—to tell those in the audience why the

Army Corps of Engineers is here; two minutes saying what we’ve

done in the one year that we’ve been involved in this project.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers is about 222 years

old. We’ve served our country as the nation’s problem-solvers.

We’re one of the few Federal agencies the founding fathers would

still recognize. In fact, we are the first environmental protection

agency in this country.

Almost 100 years ago, in 1899, Congress directed the Army to

keep people from throwing their garbage into the rivers. So you

may want to, in 1999, take credit for your predecessors and celebrate the 100 years of Federal protection of our water quality.

We are the world’s leader in ecosystem restoration—from Lake

Tahoe to the Florida Everglades, from San Francisco Bay to coastal

Louisiana to the upper Mississippi. We support the Department of

Defense, the Department of Energy, EPA, other Federal agencies,

countries from Russia to Papua, New Guinea.

I would add that a lot of the work we do for foreign countries

is paid for by those governments. They’re not American tax dollars.

For example, the Papua-New Guineans asked us to come clean up

a river system that they had, that was contaminated.

These type of projects keep our military engineers in the Corps

of Engineers trained and ready for other contingencies, such as

natural disasters. It is how we get our training as the Army’s engineers.
44

When there’s a North Ridge earthquake, for example, the same

people that will be working on the project here will be crawling

through the damaged buildings, making sure they’re safe. So essentially, we think we provide two things for the price of one.

Enough of the commercial, I suppose, although I might also

add—Congressman Bono, you’re interested in water recreation—

we’re also the No. 1 provider in the world of water-based recreation, 400 million visits to our water projects, creating about

600,000 jobs.

We got involved in this ecosystem a little over a year ago, in the

beginning of 1996. In the first year that we were involved, we

worked with the Imperial County and the Imperial Irrigation District to pick eight sites on the New River and the Alamo River that

we could do some ecosystem restoration.

Why these rivers? You noted in the first panel that 90 percent

of the flow coming into the Salton Sea comes in through these rivers. About 10 percent of the flow in the New River comes out of

Mexicali. The rest of it is added by return flow and drainage.

The health of these rivers, we believe, is very important to the

health of the Sea. While salinity is a key issue, there are other contaminants going in there, and our ecosystem restoration projects,

we believe, will help improve water quality.

We are hoping to continue our partnership with the county and

the Imperial Irrigation District, and build at least two of these

projects, one for each river.

What they will consist of are essentially wetlands and riparian

habitat. Those projects will improve water quality and provide safe

habitat for the birds. In other words, you will have additional

places for the birds to go to, that will be safe. There will be no

question the projects will extend the amount of habitat for them.

We’ll stop sediment transport and, we believe, also help the Pacific

flyway route.

Our actions, we think, are 100 percent compatible with and complementary to the other efforts discussed here today. We have some

pictures of what a project would look like. I can take you up to the

Sonoma Bay, Northern California, and show you some of the types

of projects on the ground that we are contemplating building and

helping to build here.

We can support other efforts of the team that you’ve put together. Someone had mentioned removing sediments. We are well

known for dredging. That’s not always a plus with everybody. But

if dredging needed to be done to deepen the Salton Sea in some

areas, we obviously are the experts in that.

We think such actions would not only get out contaminated sediment, but also create deeper water columns with cooler water

which would be less apt to help bacteria grow. Cooler water also

has more dissolved oxygen that the fish need to breathe.

I think I’ve just about made my three minutes. I want to thank

you and just mention we are the world’s leader in ecosystem restoration. We think we’re the A-team, and we’re proud to be part of

your team.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zirschky may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Thank you.
45

We’ve heard the testimony, and I think just about everybody

agrees that the increasing salinity of the Salton Sea is undesirable,

but, after all, it’s far less saline than the Great Salt Lake and, as

Mr. Hunter brought out in the questioning, we’re not having bird

kills, as far as I know, in the Great Salt Lake. I guess, to one degree or another, these things just happen naturally from time to

time on their own.

You were saying, Dr. Zirschky, that you provide safe habitat for

birds. But they don’t know it’s safe, right?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. True.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. As far as they’re concerned, providing that habitat isn’t necessarily going to solve this problem, because they’re

still going to go to the Salton Sea, I presume.

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. Some will. Some would also go to our habitat.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We don’t even really know, do we—I don’t think

anybody claimed to know—why exactly these birds are dying, anyway, or what the source is. Mr. Niver, I thought, brought that out

in his testimony.

So I guess in that sense, you could study these things forever.

But the fact of the matter is, if there is a common agreement that

the increased salinity is negative, then we ought to at least be able

to proceed along those lines to deal with that, as I think the gentleman representing the Salton Sea Authority was stating.

Any disagreement with that?

[No response.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Dr. Roberts, how can we ensure that all further

research is going to be done on a coordinate basis?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, we see it as being a missing link in what’s

being presented.

There’s some 50-plus proposed solutions but, in almost every one

you look at, there’s a bias or an absence. Either that’s a central engineering component, but how is that placed with the biological

concerns? And you can go around in terms of the different components, and see that we don’t have them pulled together.

I guess what I have proposed to you in the testimony here is our

system, which has been historically in the business of taking a coordination role in research directed at problems—and I gave you

the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge problem and cleanup as an

example.

We have a large system, but we have within it mechanisms that

would allow targeted and rapid response in a pooling of research

to try to get at this integrated approach.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you would recommend using your system,

then, as the clearinghouse, because you coordinate?

Mr. ROBERTS. Our system, we are offering that as a possibility,

and we have historically had success in providing that objective

forum.

I would like to restate that we see this as an inclusive, not an

exclusive process, with our other university institutions outside the

UC system, as well as the state and Federal agencies, the scientists

and experts in those areas, too.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Thank you. A question to any of you who

wishes to volunteer.
46

Which agency should be the lead agency to deal with this problem?

Mr. NIVER. Locally?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, local, state, Federal.

Mr. NIVER. The Salton Sea Authority, in my estimation, has done

an excellent job.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. And which percentage of the cost should we

bear for rehabilitating this?

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think we have to know the answer to some of

these questions. I don’t want to hear that you think the Federal

Government ought to be responsible for all of it.

Dr. Zirschky.

Dr. ZIRSCHKY. In our program, cost sharing is required for all of

our projects, ranging from a 50/50 cost share to a 75 percent Federal/25 percent local cost share, depending on what types of

projects are needed.

So the law specifies, for our activities, how much the locals must

provide.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Stubchaer, would you care to volunteer

the level of the state’s participation in this project?

Mr. STUBCHAER. Well, I agree that some cost participation makes

people more responsible. No, I can’t volunteer how much the state

participation would be.

I think it would take a bond issue by the voters of the state,

probably part of a bigger bond issue, that provides benefits to

other, more populous areas of the state, before substantial amounts

of state money should be available.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Would we get some sort of a commitment from

the state to arrange for that bond issue, or to find the money somewhere else?

Mr. STUBCHAER. There may be legislation pending for the next

bond issue that would include some funds for the Salton Sea. It

would either be done by the initiative process or by legislation to

foreclose the bond issue.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Gruenberg, will you hold up that picture of

one of those dikes? Is there an island or something you had there?

Let’s see that again.

Mr. GRUENBERG. This one here?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. No, the other one. All right. That would be the

dike containing this pond of highly saline water which you said—

it looks like what you’re proposing, this thing in the upper part of

the Salton Sea, that would be roughly about a third of the area of

the entire Salton Sea that would be contained within that dike; is

that right?

Mr. GRUENBERG. That is correct. Because the salinity is greater

now than it was before, and because water conservation is coming,

I think you have to design it bigger than what had originally been

recommended back in 1965.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Niver, would this offend your feelings about

the Salton Sea, to have this constructed?

Mr. NIVER. Yes, it would, at that particular end. Riverside County is out, and my friends from the state park are out, and it looks

to me like Desert Shores is out.
47

I prefer the dike in the center of the sea, just for beginning, now

to get the salt out, turn it into an island later, and let the research

go on to find a better and bigger way of doing the whole Sea.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Gruenberg, do you want to respond to that?

Mr. GRUENBERG. This diagram doesn’t show it real well, but the

intent was to dike the Sea at the 20 to 30-foot contour. There

would be no shoreline community cutoff in the beneficial uses or

access using the Sea, including navigation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, with that stipulation, does that change

your opinion, Mr. Niver?

Mr. NIVER. Looking closer, it would be like we would have a river

leaving the north shore. We could go toward the Whitewater River

and come around and arrive at Desert Shores. So it would be like

a river, and coming down the river outlet would be right out in

front of my house, which is OK with me.

But I don’t know. I question why you want it at that particular

end, when what’s wrong with the contour at the south end?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. My time is up. Having flown over the San Francisco Bay a number of times, you can see the dikes and the impoundment. I believe Leslie Salt either owns or used to own those.

Is this similar to what we would be talking about, with these

dikes where, through evaporation, they concentrate the salts? I

don’t think we’ll be using it for table salt in this case.

Mr. GRUENBERG. Exactly. The salinity would buildup in there

with time, and ultimately you would have to dispose of that, so

that would take yet another project. But it would take quite a

while for that to happen, because if the impoundment was this

large, it would take a long time for that to buildup to the point

where the salt would begin precipitating. So I would guess it would

probably be 100 years or more before that problem would become

an immediate need.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Brown, you are recognized for

your questions.

Mr. BROWN. May I continue with Mr. Gruenberg for a couple of

minutes or more.

You apparently have been a supporter of the dike solution for

quite a number of years, according to your statement; am I correct

in this?

Mr. GRUENBERG. I would say, in the last 3 years, I have become

absolutely convinced that the evaporation basin in the Sea is the

best way to go.

Mr. BROWN. Have you made a cost estimate of the diked solution?

Mr. GRUENBERG. No, but others have.

Mr. BROWN. Would you submit those for the record, the one that

you seem to be most inclined to support, the diking off about a

third of the northern end of the Sea?

Mr. GRUENBERG. That is going to be more costly and, frankly, I

have not costed that out, but it will be more costly than some other

diking proposals.

Mr. BROWN. Well, some of the diking proposals went up to half

a billion dollars. Is this going to be more costly than that?

Mr. GRUENBERG. My guess—and this is just a guess—is that it

would be in that ballpark, in that vicinity.
48

Mr. BROWN. If you were presented with a pump-out solution,

pump-out only, with the figures that were indicated by the gentleman from Los Alamos, of $300 million plus $5 million O&M,

would you be inclined to slightly shift your views toward that kind

of a solution?

Mr. GRUENBERG. Not necessarily, because a pump-out solution

would require cooperation from Mexico, and——

Mr. BROWN. If you were assured of cooperation from Mexico,

would you be inclined to support it?

Mr. GRUENBERG. Yes, I would be inclined to support it, if that

cooperation was guaranteed off into the future for a long period of

time.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for that informative response.

Have the board analyzed the long-term inflow to the Sea in light

of the proposal to export irrigation water, the possibility of a cutoff

of some part of the New River, and other circumstances, like the

Metropolitan Water District buying up all the Alamo River and

shifting it to Los Angeles?

Mr. GRUENBERG. The Regional Board is responsible for water

quality control. The water rights associated with those other flows

is a decision outside of our responsibility.

Mr. BROWN. Another matter of diffuse jurisdiction?

Mr. GRUENBERG. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. Do you wish to comment on that, sir?

Mr. STUBCHAER. Yes. I’m with the State Water Board, which

hears appeals from Regional Board actions. We’re part of the same

agency.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. STUBCHAER. So we do handle the water rights.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. STUBCHAER. The application that you were talking about was

just received and sent out for public notice, so that people can file

protests.

Mr. BROWN. Which application is this?

Mr. STUBCHAER. The one for the Alamo and Whitewater

Rivers——

Mr. BROWN. They actually had the gall to file that?

Mr. STUBCHAER. Yes.

[Laughter.]

Mr. STUBCHAER. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. All right. And when are you going to act on it?

Mr. STUBCHAER. It’s gone out. As I said, it’s circulated for public

comment, to give people the opportunity to protest.

Mr. BROWN. Tell me where to send the public comment, and

you’ll get mine very quickly.

Mr. STUBCHAER. I’ll give you my card. No, but seriously——

Mr. BROWN. You know, if that goes through, the Salton Sea immediately is reduced by 100,000 acres and the salinity goes up to

the level of the Dead Sea.

Mr. STUBCHAER. Mr. Brown, I’m just the message bearer. Please

don’t shoot me.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BROWN. If I get excited, I’ll shoot anybody.

[Laughter.]
49

Mr. STUBCHAER. But I also have to say that, if this matter comes

before the board, when I’m on the board, I don’t want to have any

ex parte contacts on my record that will disable me to consider the

evidence fairly, so I don’t want to express any opinions of what I

know or do not know.

Mr. BROWN. All right. Let me tell you where I’m coming from,

you know. For 35 years, we’ve been looking at dike solutions, and

only within the last two or three years have we recognized that it’s

inevitable that the Salton Sea is going to have less water flowing

into it.

Most people don’t realize that there is a one-to-one connection between the amount of water flowing in and the surface of the Sea.

If a third of the water is cutoff, the Sea shrinks by at least a third.

Now, I’m asking you if you’ve made any projections as to what

the situation will be, say, 10 years from now.

Mr. STUBCHAER. I have personally set up a computer model that

analyzes the inflow, outflow, evaporation, concentration in the Sea.

However, this Metropolitan application just came in a week or so

ago, so we haven’t had a chance to analyze what that would be. We

hadn’t foreseen this eventuality.

Mr. BROWN. Another thing that that does, if the Sea shrinks by

one third, is to leave an awful lot of dikes sitting up in the desert.

Have you considered that?

Mr. STUBCHAER. Again, I will say we haven’t considered the exporting of the Alamo or Whitewater River water away from the

Salton Sea, because we just heard about it. We haven’t had time

to consider it.

Mr. BROWN. Have you heard about the possible sale of conserved

irrigation water to San Diego?

Mr. STUBCHAER. I’ve heard about that.

Mr. BROWN. Now, how much would that reduce the Salton Sea?

Mr. STUBCHAER. We have not studied that.

Mr. BROWN. You have not studied that? Well, I’ll tell you. If they

go to 600,000 acre feet export, that will reduce the inflow by

200,000 acre feet and that ought to leave you with a beach about

a mile wide, all around the Salton Sea. You haven’t studied that

yet?

Mr. STUBCHAER. No.

Mr. BROWN. Could I ask you to study it?

Mr. STUBCHAER. Well, you can ask.

Mr. BROWN. But the state wants to continue to be a player in

this game, don’t they, or do you just want to criticize what the Federal Government is doing?

Mr. STUBCHAER. The sale of the conserved irrigation water from

the Imperial Irrigation District to other areas of the state is being

studied by other folks right now, and the director of the Department of Water Resources, David Kennedy, is trying to broker a solution to that issue. And so it would be inappropriate for me to say

anything more right now.

Mr. BROWN. All right. I’m not trying to bug you that much. We’ll

bug Mr. Kennedy next time.

Mr. Chairman, I have used my 5 minutes, and I will gladly terminate it at this point, but if there’s a second round, I would use

it.
50

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Lewis is recognized.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’m not sure who to address this initial question to, but it is my

understanding that the Colorado River is in somewhat excess, in

terms of water flows at this point, at this moment, versus what we

often find ourselves with, the past history. A lot of people are talking about El Nino. That could create all kinds of circumstance.

Is there, in the real world, a prospect of excess that might very

well be diverted to the Salton Sea, providing a short-term freshwater input that would give us some time here to meet the challenge of these very difficult problems that we study and work on?

Yes, sir.

Mr. NIVER. On the Salton Sea Task Force, which lasted for 7

years, we studied that, and all we did really was talk about that

excess water.

And there are times, if I remember right, like every 10 years, at

least, depending on how the snow pack on the Rockies was—what

they can tell you is that the mouth of the—as the Colorado empties

into the Gulf of California, it doesn’t do that too often, it ends in

rancid salt flats.

So, during our talks with the Salton Sea Task Force, it was discussed that we could actually, in high runoff years, run down water

from the old Alamo Canal, right back into the sea, without too

much problems.

When Mr. Calvert talked about that earlier, it was talked about

very seriously, about high runoff years, running fresh water for

flushing into the Sea, but only on the high runoff years, and I don’t

think they’re that seldom particularly any more.

Mr. LEWIS. Other comments on that? Yes, sir.

Mr. GRUENBERG. Putting Colorado River surplus water in the

Sea would be extremely beneficial to the Sea from the standpoint

of its salinity and water quality problems, but there is another

problem with doing that right now.

The Sea is at the elevation whereby if you put more water in

there right now, it’s going to cause more flooding. So that’s something that could be done if the elevation drops down more effectively, to fill it back up, but right now would not be the time.

Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate that. That leads to my second question,

and I would ask Mr. Zirschky specifically.

The Corps has had a lot of experience with dredging. Would

dredging on the southern end of the Salton Sea have an impact

that would be positive in terms of this solution, especially if there

were excess waters that we might tap, and thereby give us all more

time to work toward a long-term solution here?

Mr. Zirschky?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. It could be very well worth looking at, sir. By taking out some of the sediments that have contamination in them,

that would allow for a deeper water column. The water would be

cooler. The bacteria that are causing some of the disease wouldn’t

have as good a climate to grow in.

The cooler water also has more oxygen in it than warmer water.

That helps the fish breathe.

One of the reasons for the salinity is the evaporation coming out

of the lake. If you have two lakes with the same amount of water,
51

one that’s broad and shallow, one that has very little surface area

but is deep, you will lose a lot more water out of the broad and

shallow one.

So if you deepen the lake, put more water in, you’ll have less

evaporation in relation to the total volume of water in the lake.

Mr. LEWIS. As we’re going through, Mr. Chairman, with trying

to coordinate these studies and attempting to find new sources of

revenue, it sure seems to me that we ought to very quickly look to

two possible elements.

One is deepening the lake, dredging being a piece of that, a very,

very important part of that. The other is if, indeed, there’s excess

and the prospect for excess in the near term, we need to some way

facilitate the diversion of that water.

I know that MWD has a good deal of interest here, and for all

the right reasons. They’re trying to serve water to a burgeoning

population in Los Angeles. In the meantime, this asset is at risk

if potential water sources that could help us with this, short term,

end up being diverted too quickly, or other than they might otherwise, to maybe L.A.’s needs.

Mr. CALVERT. [presiding] An excellent idea, Mr. Lewis, and I’m

sure the Committee will pursue that.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Bono.

Mr. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going along with Mr. Lewis’s comments, the Army Corps of Engineers, we had a meeting last

week, and brought up the dredging, and it was the first time that

I had heard about it, but it seemed to make a lot of sense, from

the standpoint that, if the water were deeper, the evaporation

would be much slower and thus reduce the salinity from that point.

However, the other logical thing seems to be, going along with

what you’re talking about, if you get the water lower, you don’t

have the problem of additional flooding, you could just refill the

basin.

With all the discussion that we’ve had here, and all the talk

here, there seems to be in this a need for some action on an immediate basis. This certainly isn’t a cure-all, but it seems like it would

have to reduce the salinity, to add a great deal more clean water

into that area and to deepen the water so that it would have all

the plus qualities that you talked about.

Are there any comments on that from any of you? Because if we

could, one shot, fill that basin again, fill the Sea again, with purely

clean water, and reduce the level of the water, I think it would be

a quick solution to a bad problem.

Mr. NIVER. I wanted to add to that what he talked about. Yes,

you have to have pump-out to Laguna Salada, and then reflush

from here.

One thing I remember from the task force, they suggested, if we

were going to put that water into Laguna Salada, pump-out, they

would like it down toward the south end if I remember right, because it would revive their brine shrimp industry, which showed an

interest. And that came across the Salton Sea Task Force.

So the two together—bring in fresh water, pump out to Laguna

Salada.
52

Mr. BONO. OK. I agree, George. As I told you, George knows everything about the Sea there is to know, and he displayed it today.

I just wonder if there’s any comments on doing something really

fast and reducing the salinity, soon, just to relieve the crisis. Does

anybody want to comment on that? Yes.

Mr. GRUENBERG. One comment on the dredgeout idea. We know

that the Sea’s bottom mud contains potentially toxic materials, so

that would have to be done very cautiously, and I would have some

great concerns with that.

Mr. BONO. OK. What do you have to say about that, Mr.

Zirschky?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. I don’t know the actual chemical makeup of the

sediments, but I have heard that there are some toxins in them,

and that makes dredging oftentimes difficult. We would have to

work very closely with the State of California to make sure that we

did it in a manner that would not temporarily increase pollution

in the water, and second, that we had a place to put the sediments

that was safe, if they were highly contaminated.

Mr. BONO. Can that be done?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. We’ve succeeded, but it sometimes takes time.

Mr. BONO. When you say time, are you talking another long

time, or is it something that we could do on an immediate basis?

Is this another study?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. Interagency coordination would be required. We

could not do any dredging, however, without specific authorization

and funding—when they talk about a line-item veto and a line-item

agency, that’s the Corps of Engineers. Everything we do is lineitem-funded.

We would need specific authorization and funding for that activity.

Mr. BONO. What do you think would be a ball park cost?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. No idea, sir.

Mr. BONO. No idea?

Mr. HUNTER. Ask what their unit dredging costs are.

Mr. BONO. What’s your unit dredging costs?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. I do not know what they would be in the Salton

Sea, but they range anywhere from 67 cents a cubic yard to over

$4.00 a cubic yard, just for the dredging.

The disposal cost is often much more expensive. That can range

from essentially free, where we’re putting clean sand on a beach for

shore protection to over $50 to $100 a cubic yard, if it has to go

into a hazardous waste facility.

Mr. BONO. Piece of cake.

[Laughter.]

Mr. STUBCHAER. Mr. Bono?

Mr. BONO. Yes.

Mr. STUBCHAER. I would like to just add to that, if you were to

create 100,000 acre feet of storage by dredging, that’s roughly 200

million cubic yards, and if it’s a dollar a cubic yard, that’s $200 million.

So we think it would be much cheaper to get rid of the salty

water, if you’re going to replace it with fresh water, by exporting

it, than by dredging, in this case. And then, as Mr. Gruenberg

mentioned, you do have a potential selenium problem in the sediments, especially at the south end of the Sea.
53

Mr. BONO. What about the notion that the Sea is too shallow,

and that we have this evaporation occurring on a rapid basis, and

creating a bigger salinity problem in the process?

Mr. STUBCHAER. Dredging an area like that would be extremely

costly—I mean, really costly. And I doubt if it would compete with

the diking or pump-out alternative. As you know now we’re under

oath here. This is just my best engineer’s guesstimate, you might

say.

Mr. BONO. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Bono.

My first question to Mr. Gruenberg is on your chart here, on

your conceptual dike layout. And we were discussing local participation when the Chairman was here earlier.

I’m sure Mr. Bono probably doesn’t like this particular conceptual dike layout, because Riverside County would have the evaporation basin, where Imperial County would have basically the balance of the Sea.

Mr. BONO. That would be awful.

Mr. CALVERT. When we get into local participation, all of a sudden Riverside County may feel less, you know, enthusiastic about

involving themselves in this project.

So, from a political perspective, I don’t know if that’s the solution, quite frankly.

I’m going to go back to the concept of a pump-out theory. We’ve

been talking about pumping out to Laguna Salada, which is an interesting idea, and I think it should be pursued.

Going back to, say, evaporation ponds, somewhere nearby the

Salton Sea, is it possible to create evaporation ponds that we can

stack in a particular area, spreading water in those areas, allowing

that water to evaporate, and then obviously, charging water back

into the Sea through excess years from the Colorado River?

Mr. GRUENBERG. Yes, that would be very possible. That’s been

considered.

I would say the problems, though, with that, are the environmental impacts in that outlying area, wherever it is.

At least if the dike is located within the Sea’s basin itself, you’ve

eliminated a lot of those environmental issue because, if nothing is

done about the Sea, we’re just going to have a big problem, rather

than this smaller dike problem.

So you get into groundwater issues, and quite a few different

things, by moving this outside of the Sea’s area, and that has been

suggested before, but I would say it’s run into too many snags to

get something done expeditiously.

Mr. CALVERT. Just from a layman who is not looking at this from

an engineering perspective, but from a concept where this could be

done reasonably quickly, with your pumping costs considerably cut,

because you’re not talking about a long pump up to Laguna Salada,

if you could do something within several miles of the Sea, and I

suspect that evaporation, if it’s done properly in shallow ponds, can

take place very rapidly—you can continue to pump water into those

ponds—especially on a day like today; I think it’s 102 degrees—and

then convert water from the Colorado River in good years.

Now, this obviously would be a short-term solution, and I think

we’d have to look into things, as Mr. Bono pointed out, for a long-
54

term solution, because we would be dependent upon water from the

Colorado River, which is probably not something we can depend on,

but the Chairman has some ideas about some additional waters

that I think we ought to pursue in the long run.

Do you think that that’s something that we can do rapidly if we

all work together?

Mr. GRUENBERG. Well, it’s been discussed before, and the difficulty is locating a place, a site to store this water. If that can be

done, and the process expedited, environmental review and such,

sure, it would work, and it’s a possibility.

But it’s been suggested before, and we ran into a lot of snags in

a hurry, so it just seemed to be much more difficult to proceed on

than the dike inside of the Sea.

But it’s a good idea.

Mr. CALVERT. I can tell you, Mr. Gruenberg, that Mr. Bono here

is not going to be excited about a dike that cuts out Riverside

County, and I don’t think that that’s going to be an acceptable solution.

I do think, though, evaporation ponds will get everyone here,

maybe, I think, involved in a short-term solution, potentially, while

we work on a long-term solution.

Mr. GRUENBERG. Let me make one thing clear. That dike is kind

of my personal idea. The location of that, you could put that dike

in many different locations within the——

Mr. CALVERT. Can we put it in Imperial County?

Mr. GRUENBERG. Yes, it could. It could definitely be put in Imperial County,

[Laughter.]

Mr. CALVERT. Never mind. I didn’t ask that question.

Dr. Zirschky, I have one last question. We understand that salt

concentrations, obviously, is the major problem we’re talking here

today, and the problems that we associate with the Salton Sea.

Outside of dredging, that you just mentioned, which may be too

costly, how can the Corps use its expertise and resources to rapidly

reduce salt concentrations in the Sea? The one I just mentioned, is

that something you can come out and do?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. On dredging, what we would be looking at would

be hot spots, or areas of highly contaminated material—not a

dredging, probably, of the whole lake. That would take years just

to get the permission to do something like that, but if there are

highly contaminated areas, we would find those and get those out.

We have done some work in salt environments up at Sonoma

Bay, Yolo Basin, and Salt Bayou project in Texas. Basically our

studies to date, though, have stopped at the border of the Salton

Sea. We focused on cleaning up the Alamo River and the New

River.

I couldn’t give you an answer on what we could do quickly, because we’re not that familiar with what everyone has done on the

Salton Sea.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK, Mr. Hunter, we’re back to you.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While you were out, the

task force had a little consultation on the cost-sharing that you
55

brought up. We thought it would be roughly approximate that that

took place with the Auburn Dam, between Federal and state government.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. Well, I hope you can achieve a more effective solution than they have so far with that.

Mr. HUNTER. That’s true. Fifty percent of nothing is not going to

help us here.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think I’ve asked—I know I’ve got a

lot of questions that I think have emanated from the outstanding

questioning of my colleagues and the responses. There’s just a lot

of information we have to get here.

And, Dr. Zirschky, if I think there’s a lot of questions that surround the idea of recharge, this idea of maybe using surge in the

Colorado to recharge. I think Ken’s question with respect to the

evaporation ponds at least raises a possibility, because you’ve got

500,000 acres of bombing range immediately attendant to the east

of the Sea, so we should at least look at that.

But we probably will have a lot of questions for you. Could you

folks help us over the next three or four weeks, and respond to

those?

Mr. ZIRSCHKY. We would be delighted to answer any question.

Mr. HUNTER. I’m sure our task force will get some written questions to you.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you and my colleagues. We

haven’t solved everything here, but I think we’ve got a pretty good

picture painted of the problem, and I think we know what areas

we have to go into to gather more information before we can make

a call.

I think it’s pretty clear that we’ve got to take action quickly, and

that that doesn’t preclude continued investigation, extended scientific analysis, which must attend that. But nonetheless, I think

we’re kind of putting together at least the embryo of an action plan

here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all my colleagues.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I compliment

you on your succinct testimony, and I compliment the members of

the panel. We will have further questions, I am sure. I know Mr.

Brown and I have further questions, and I think everyone in the

panel up here does. So we will tender those in writing and ask you

please to respond expeditiously.

I will just conclude by observing, as a Northern Californian,

where two-thirds of this state’s water originates, that——

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. No, no. There’s no bitterness.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HUNTER. That water comes from Colorado.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, it does, and Arizona, when they start taking

their full share, and Utah and some of those other states, there’s

not going to be all this excess that we’re presently using, let along

finding a few hundred thousand extra acre feet like we’ve been

talking about, and a temporary base to solve the Salton Sea’s problems.
56

As an interim basis that, I think, is a very interesting idea that

we ought to explore, but that will eventually be gone, for all intents

and purposes.

I would just observe, though, that it’s been now nearly 20 years

since we have added any on-stream storage reservoirs to the water

supply of this state. During that 20 years, our population has increased by more than 20 percent.

You have all heard the testimony here today, and you all know

that reducing the salinity of the Salton Sea is critical. If you had

extra water, you could do that.

We’re going to have to, as citizens of this state and as citizens

of the United States, recognize that additional water development

is essential for maintaining and enhancing the quality of life that

we have all been used to. We have just about run out of our ability,

through conservation, to make do.

So I just share that observation with you. We will all work hard

to work on a solution for the Salton Sea. It’s going to be very expensive, as you’ve heard, and it will be a combination of state and

local and Federal.

I think it’s vital that we begin to recognize that there are other

issues at play out there that we need to develop. These things take

time. You don’t have much time with the Salton Sea if you’re going

to stop it, as Mr. Hunter said, from becoming a dead sea.

That dam he referred to up in our area, which will provide vital

flood control for the city of Sacramento and will also provide several hundred thousand acre feet of some of the finest water known,

is a potential source for the solution to this problem way down at

this end of the state.

So I’m going to propose to the Bureau that we take a look at

that, and some of our officials, and see how we might—and the

Salton Sea Authority—might incorporate possibly some aspect of

that into the future for this area.

We will now conclude the hearing. Before I conclude, I want to

recognize—someone mentioned his name, but I want to recognize—

the former Representative in the House of Representatives for this

area, Mr. Victor Veysey. Will you just stand up, Vic, and be acknowledged?

[Applause.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Veysey had a very distinguished career in

both the state legislature and in the House of Representatives, and

it’s wonderful to see you here.

With that, ladies and gentlemen, the hearing of the subcommittee is now concluded.

[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
57

STATEMENT OF TELLIS CODEKAS, CHAIRMAN, SALTON SEA AUTHORITY

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee and Members of the Salton Sea Authority Task Force:

I’m Tellis Codekas, Chairman of the Salton Sea Authority, and today I’m speaking

on behalf of the Salton Sea Authority. My testimony begins with a short history of

the Salton Sea and the Salton Sea Authority and why we have taken the lead in

trying to save the Sea. Then, I’ll tell you why we believe the problems of the Salton

Sea need to be addressed and why we think it’s a national issue and thus the need

for Federal involvement. I’ll close with an overview of the Authority’s preferred alternative to solving some of the Sea’s problems and the objectives we have targeted

through implementation of the plan.

History

The Salton Sink, which is largely below sea level, was once the bottom of a prehistoric sea. The Gulf of California originally extended north into what is now the

Imperial and Coachella valleys. Periodically the Colorado River overflowed its natural levees and filled the valley between mountain ranges to form a vast lake, which

rose to about 30 feet above sea level.

The Sink was dry when construction of the Imperial Canal was completed in

1901. The Canal diverted irrigation water from the Colorado River just upstream

of the Mexican Border. After about four years, silt deposits led to an attempt to relocate the diversion a short distance downstream from the border of Mexico. But unusual winter floods breached the diversion structure in 1905 and, for 18 months, the

entire flow of the Colorado River poured through the Mexicali and Imperial valleys

into the Salton Sink. The river break was finally closed in the spring of 1907 and

the reestablished lake was named Salton Sea. So, the Sea is an accident created by

both natural and man-made events. Since its creation, the Salton Sea has been sustained by flows consisting largely of agricultural drainage from the Imperial,

Coachella and Mexicali valleys and from rainfall, storm runoff and groundwater inflow. Since the Sea exists in a closed basin, evaporation is its only outflow. Because

of this fact, the high and increasing levels of salinity of the Sea’s water is its greatest and best-known problem. Currently, the Sea is about 25 percent saltier than the

ocean and approximately 11 thousand tons of salt are added every day. This chart

illustrates the current trend.

Additionally, for the past several decades, concerns about elevation at the Salton

Sea have been linked to increased agricultural runoff, above-average rainfall and increasing wastewater flows from Mexico. The rising water has damaged some agricultural, recreational and residential properties along the Sea’s shores.

The Salton Sea Authority

Over the years groups of many kinds have organized seeking to solve the problems of the Salton Sea. They were never short on ideas, but always short on funding.

In 1986, 20 interested agencies joined to form the Salton Sea Task Force with a

goal of finding a workable plan to stabilize the elevation and salinity of the Salton

Sea. The Task Force was organized under the California Resources Agency at the

direction of the Governor of California. The Task Force studied solar pond technology, pump-out facilities and diked impoundments, among other options, along

with possible funding sources. A preliminary report was released by the Task Force

in 1988 showing pump-out/solar pond technology to control elevation and salinity

might be feasible, although certainly costly. While the work of the Task Force did

not result in the start of a project, it did, in 1993, lead to the formation of the Salton

Sea Authority—a joint powers agreement among the Counties of Imperial and Riverside, Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. The Authority was organized to work with the State of California, the Federal Government

and the Republic of Mexico to develop programs to ensure continued beneficial uses

of the Salton Sea. Over the last two years, the Authority has worked intensively

with state and Federal agencies to develop practical, affordable and effective solutions to reducing the primary problem facing the Sea of high salinity.

Save The Sea

The Authority faced two key questions: (1) what do we need to save the Sea from

and, (2) what do we need to save the Sea for. We believe that the Sea needs to be

saved from increasing salinity and fluctuating elevation and it needs to be saved

for economic and environmental reasons. The Authority recognizes the unique and

valuable nature of the Sea as a national and regional resource, and recognizes the

need to address its economic and environmental problems. As an agricultural drainage reservoir, the Sea is critical to the agricultural economics of the Imperial,
58

Coachella and Mexicali valleys. In addition, there are other extensive developments

around the Sea, including geothermal, recreational and cultural, which need to be

protected from the impacts of rising salinity and fluctuating elevation.

From an environmental perspective, the Sea provides important and diverse habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. The Salton Sea serves as a critical link in

the Pacific Flyway for waterfowl, marsh and shore birds. We see the Flyway as

being of great national interest and that by saving the Salton Sea we are in effect

mitigating for the development that has taken place on the Coastal Plain of California, which is where the Flyway was previously located. It is our view that by reducing salinity, the environment in and around the Sea will be greatly improved

and the problems of the Sea greatly reduced. This is a situation where, if we do

not undertake a project very soon, the environmental resources of the Sea will be

damaged in a significant and irreversible way. So, let’s do first things first and reduce the level of salinity.

The fluctuating elevation has been a problem and remains a great concern. A stable and sustainable elevation at the sea is of particular local interest. The Imperial

Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District have spent over $44 million

to landowners along the seashore as flooding compensation.

Our Preferred Alternative

After extensive research and public input, last year the Salton Sea Authority

adopted within-Sea diked impoundment as the preferred approach to cleaning up

some areas to restore recreational uses. Although a specific project has not been

identified, the designation of a diked impoundment as the recommended option allows the Authority to proceed with determining the best project alternative and

eventually preparing the necessary environmental reports and other documents.

Managing salinity with diked impoundments is based on the concept of providing

an artificial outlet for the Sea by creating an evaporation pond. Water would be admitted into the impoundment through an inlet structure in the dike and carry a

heavy salt load, while the relatively fresh inflows to the Sea from the Alamo, New

and Whitewater rivers and other sources would reduce the salinity of the Sea. Within the impoundment, water would evaporate leaving the salt behind. The capacity

of an impoundment depends on size and average depth as well as other factors to

be defined through the feasibility analysis, including possibly pumping the concentrate to an acceptable location.

This preferred alternative was selected after evaluating 55 plans based on their

capability of (1) reducing the Sea’s salinity to equal that of ocean water; (2) controlling Sea elevation at the minus 230- to 235-foot level; (3) holding operations and

maintenance costs to no more than $10 million per year and (4) using only proven

technology.

On the basis of our analysis and considerable public input, I would urge Congress

to join the Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation in supporting diking as the

most reasonable and cost effective solution to Salton Sea problems. Diking is a vital

first step toward a permanent solution for the Salton Sea. By concentrating the salt

in a brine pond the volume of material needed to be moved is reduced to a manageable level. Furthermore, the Salton Sea Authority would like to continue our effort

to save the Sea as lead agency. The Authority, of course, will continue to work in

a collaborative and coordinated way with local, state and Federal agencies into and

through the implementation phase. We feel such an approach is the most practical,

affordable and effective road to success and we are in the process of hiring staff for

the Authority to do the foregoing.

Mr. Chairman, the demand for Colorado River water in Southern California and

throughout the lower basin is very high and I expect water conservation and transfers to start within the next few years. Given the current circumstances and the

likely future, the Authority believes a partnership must be formed among the Federal, state and local interests to address the problems. As shown in this chart, the

Authority has a viable method for planning, building, operating and maintaining a

diking system and we need your help to bring this plan to fruition.

The ‘‘fix’’ for the Salton Sea will be expensive and ongoing, but the Salton Sea

Authority has limited resources, so we are asking for your help to save the Sea. If

we do nothing, the Sea will continue as a drainage reservoir and the other economic

and environmental values and uses will ultimately be lost. The Salton Sea never

was and never will be a Lake Tahoe but it has been and can again be a great economic and environmental asset to our communities and nation. I ask you to join the

Authority in moving forward now.

Finally, I would like to thank you for your interest in the Salton Sea and the support you have given us. We look forward to working with you.
59

STATEMENT OF BOB JOHNSON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, LOWER COLORADO REGION,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation

to appear today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Reclamation’s

involvement in efforts to address important issues affecting Salton Sea in southern

California.

Background

The Salton Sea lies in a closed basin in the Salton Desert, and has existed intermittently throughout recent geologic time. Most recently, the Salton Sea was formed

from 1906-1908 when a diversion of the Colorado River failed, and the Colorado

River flowed into the Salton Desert to create the Salton Sea. The sea is presently

about 40 miles long and 15 miles wide. Its greatest depth is about 45 feet. Over

time, salinity levels at Salton Sea have increased. Presently the salinity is about

44,000 parts per million—about 1.25 times more saline than ocean water.

In this century, the Salton Sea has provided significant recreation, environmental

and economic values to the local area. As the Sea’s salinity has increased and overall water quality has decreased, these values have suffered. Recreation visits, for example, have dropped dramatically over the last 10 years. During the same period,

significant numbers of grebes, pelicans and cormorants have died at Salton Sea, and

the sport fishery appears to be in decline.

In an effort to address salinity and other issues at Salton Sea, the Congress

throughout the years has established study programs. Reclamation’s involvement

dates back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s when Reclamation and the State of

California jointly prepared a feasibility study and environmental impact statement

for a salinity management project.

In 1985, the Congress created the National Irrigation Water Quality Program to

identify the nature and extent of irrigation-induced water quality problems that

may exist in western states, including the Salton Sea. The National Irrigation

Water Quality Program has provided a total of about $2.6 million to Interior Department agencies for fiscal years 1986-1997 to conduct studies and prepare reports

concerning irrigation-related trace elements and pesticide contamination in the

Salton Sea. Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey has conducted water quality

sudies at Salton Sea and the New River, one of the principal inputs to the Sea

In 1992, Congress enacted Title XI of Public Law 102-575 which authorized the

Bureau of Reclamation to participate in a research project to develop methods to reduce and control salinity, provide endangered species habitat, enhance fisheries and

protect recreational values at Salton Sea, and report to Congress. In fiscal year

1998, the President requested $400,000 in the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget request for this purpose. Reclamation anticipates that the Congress will be provided

the report later this year.

In a partnership effort with the Imperial Irrigation District, and with support

from the National Irrigation Water Quality Program, Reclamation since fiscal year

1996 has been exploring opportunities to use low technology biological processes to

improve the quality of surface water in the Imperial Valley. Because waters from

the Imperial Valley flow into the Salton Sea, this study has ramifications for the

Salton Sea. The three-year study is well underway. Identification of the most contaminated drains was completed, and a membrane treatment process was tested in

the field. Designs are being completed for in-drain biological treatment facilities.

In addition to the roughly $2.6 million provided through the National Irrigation

Water Quality Program, Congress has provided about $8.5 million more since fiscal

year 1986 for Salton Sea efforts conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey.

In August 1997, the Department of the Interior sponsored the ‘‘Save the Salton

Sea’’ workshop which brought together scientists to address Salton Sea problems.

A report on the results of the workshop is expected later this year.

Alternative Solutions

The Bureau of Reclamation is participating with the State of California and local

entities, including the Salton Sea Authority in an effort to address Salton Sea concerns. Presently, there are more than 50 separate solutions. Reclamation has not

evaluated all of them and is not recommending Federal participation in any specific

alternative. However, I would like to provide a brief description of some of the alternatives under consideration.

Diked Impoundments. A number of alternatives are variations on the concept of

diking off portions of the Salton Sea to create evaporation ponds in the Salton Sea.

These alternatives range from impounding different sizes of closed areas within the
60

Salton Sea that would act as an evaporation pond, to compartmentalizing larger

portions of the sea into separate zones with dikes. Some alternatives would bring

fresher water to portions of the sea, and allow other portions to become highly saline.

Pump-Out. Various proposals would create an outlet by pumping water out of the

Salton Sea. Some alternatives would pump the sea water to on-shore evaporation

ponds. Other alternatives would pump the sea water to Laguna Salada, a dry lake

bed north of Mexico’s Gulf of California. Still others would pump the water to a

desalting plant or even to the Pacific Ocean .

Other Solutions. There are a range of other alternatives that have been suggested.

As examples, there are proposals to dilute the Salton Sea with surplus imported

water from the Colorado River, and proposals for deep well injection of Salton Sea

water.

Evaluation of Alternatives

Reclamation, the Salton Sea Authority and the State of California are evaluating

the proposed solutions. In public sessions held in California, the reviewing entities

agreed on evaluation criteria in an effort to narrow the number of alternatives that

could be studied in feasibility reports. Construction costs for various proposed solutions are estimated to range from $40 million to more than $2 billion. Additionally,

there would be significant costs associated with conducting related scientific studies

such as developing Sea circulation models and completing basic geologic hazard

studies.

Conclusion

In summary, the Bureau of Reclamation has participated in a number of studies

related to water quality and other issues at the Salton Sea. At the present time,

Reclamation and other State, local and Federal agencies are evaluating various proposed solutions. Reclamation does not have enough information to recommend Federal participation in any of the proposals at this time.

Thank you for the opportunity to attend today’s hearing. I would be pleased to

answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF TOM VEYSEY, FARMER, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Honorable Congress Members:

My name is Tom Veysey and I am a resident of Brawley in Imperial County (also

known as Imperial Valley), California, where I have farming interests and also engage in public service as a member of the Salton Sea Authority and serve the voters

in District 4 on the County Board of Supervisors. District 4 encompasses all of Imperial County’s portion of the Salton Sea.

I wish to visit with you as an agricultural producer. Agriculture is far and away

the cornerstone of the Imperial Valley economy and its destiny is as dependent on

the Salton Sea for drainage as it is on the Colorado River for water. But producers

are anxious for the Salton Sea’s restoration for reasons beyond the role of an irrigation drain water repository. We take pride in our participation as community-builders who are vitally interested in the quality of life available to our families and communities. We look on the Salton Sea as a tremendous asset with vast economic opportunity for all of the desert southwest and the so-called Inland Empire. Indeed

the sea is sick, but given its restoration and renewed vitality, it will be a magnet

for enterprise facilitating recreational activities and environmental gratification.

In its restored state the sea will be embraced by the Inland Empire and Southern

California as a major recreational and environmental resource.

In its revitalized state, the Salton Sea will partner with agriculture to support the

region’s economy in ways that will not undermine its infrastructure of services. I

envision a healthy sea as adding greatly to our tourism and visitor market and vastly enlarging the region’s business opportunity base. This will provide new initiatives

that should contribute to expanded, qualitative employment opportunities, contributing to better prosperity for rural and city life.

When it is restored the sea will be essentially reliant on agriculture for drain

water inflow to help maintain its elevation. The development of the sea into a

healthy, thriving recreational mecca will bring greater understanding of its relationship to our region’s agricultural system.

The business of food production is fiercely competitive and increasingly fraught

with high cost, risk and calamity. Farmers have to farm smarter and manage more

effectively with each new crop year in this changing world. It will be challenging

for agriculture to sustain a role in the new millenium as the principal job-producer
61

and wealth-maker of the County. Our cropping patterns are now in the throes of

major change from the traditional ones as we seek newer crops and methods to sustain agriculture’s economic engine. However, the necessity to force the salts through

the soils and the resulting drainage will continue. Some of this change is due to

pests and disease from such indomitable foes as the Silverleaf Whitefly that throttled our melon deal and afflicted numerous other crops. Some is due to market price

decline in what used to be a bellwether of economic vitality—vegetables. Some is

due to bad luck such as occurred in our tremendously promising durum wheat industry that was dealt a crushing blow with the unjustifiable imposition of a quarantine following the discovery of Karnal bunt in Arizona. Multi-faceted industries

such as cotton that once was a hub-bub of activity with its production, harvesting,

ginning, warehousing and shipping long has been in decline from natural pests. Cattle production, another major leg of the County’s stool of economic vitality, has

waned significantly in need of meat and slaughtering facilities.

Producers are struggling to find crops they can depend on that will yield a return.

It might appear that we are not being true to our badge as conservationists and

environmentalists when we plant crops that are more water-intensive than others

and have to use chemicals to control pests and disease. But we sometimes have to

do what we have to for survival. I remember when we used to take a pause in our

farming in August and recommence in September. Now we don’t stop. We really

can’t afford to. We have to make tremendous investments in plastic-lined rows,

sprinklers and drip irrigation systems to attain higher yields to offset the eternal

crunch of spriraling input and handling costs. Then when our crops reach a delicate,

critical state and are smitten with, say, a whitefly invasion we need to have a chemical to go with integrated pest management practices to protect the crop. We are

trusting that the EPA’s administration of the Food Quality Protection Act doesn’t

take away all of the means to survive major pest assaults and disease unless there

are affordable alternatives and many of these appear a long way from reality.

Little wonder that producers are interested in water transfer. When such transfer

occurs it will provide some very necessary funds to producers that can be used to

modernize and equip themselves to deal with a turbulent business environment so

they can stay in business.

Even when we are able to retool and fully refuel agriculture’s economic engine in

Imperial Valley, we will continue to need state and Federal research support to help

us find better production practices, embracing both conservation and environmental

needs, as well as methods to deal with pests and disease. The Whitefly Management

Committee of Imperial County is spearheading a unique, applaudable association of

county, state, university, and Federal resources which might be able to get that

dreaded pest under control. Continued research on such problems will be necessary.

Additional creative planning both within our county and in surrounding counties,

together with the state and Federal resources might help us attract a cattle processing facility to the region. Alternative agriculture enterprises providing valueadded products from agricultural refuse could fortify our agricultural economic base.

And many more opportunities are before us with some additional research and strategic planning.

As a producer and a general citizen, I applaud the united interest of our legislators in seeking serious, meaningful funding for the restoration of the Salton Sea as

well as the New River. All of my life I have been associated with the Salton Sea.

It’s like an old friend whom you never want to see in a state of decline. As a youngster I enjoyed many recreational activies there. I got to know it extremely well one

night after taking it for granted during an outing of fishing and water skiing, becoming incapacited and having to spend the night in the center of the sea and the

subject of search parties. Two others that night weren’t as fortunate as I, for they

lost their lives. Needless to say I have a lot of respect for the sea. But it has pained

me to witness the decline of the sea and nothing would please me more than to be

a part of its restoration. That is why I am at this moment working with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and supporting Congressman Duncan Hunter’s citizen’s

task force on the New River headed by Leon Lesica, involving our residents and

communities in a New River cleanup project that will contribute importantly to the

restoration of the Salton Sea. It’s a simplified yet exciting concept of building holding ponds which would allow the water to rest and purify and then be released into

the sea as it is needed to maintain the critical elevation posture.

And further, I am supporting the concept of a diked impoundment as the preferred approach to restoring the Salton Sea. Salinity is clearly the most paramount

problem associated with the restoration. Diking appears to me to offer the best buy

for the dollar in dealing with the heavy salt load of the sea and its critical water

level. The diked impoundment concept coupled with the management of cleaner

inflows from the New River, Alamo River, Whitewater and other sources seem to
62

me to be wise, doable choices. The concept also offers future opportunities to include

other solutions which require longer timelines for implementation and effectiveness.

I am glad that the Salton Sea Authority scores agriculture highest in its evaluation of criteria associated with the restoration project. In as much as Imperial County has the highest unemployment rate in California and the lowest median income,

the one billion dollar industry of agriculture must be preserved and enhanced. We

accept this challenge to change our future by working with you to improve this

major resource and allow Southern California to further diversify by benefiting from

the resources we enjoy. I have endeavored to outline for you some of my beliefs as

a farmer why agriculture vitally needs the Salton Sea and why the sea cannot do

with agriculture.

STATEMENT OF PHIL GRUENBERG, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COLORADO RIVER BASIN

REGION

The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region (Regional Board) is the primary responsible agency for water pollution control throughout California’s Salton Sea watershed. The Regional Board regulates water pollution

through issuance of discharge permits, enforcement orders, and implementation of

best management practices for agriculture. Unfortunately, many of the Salton Sea’s

water quality problems fall outside of the realm of conventional regulatory control,

and the primary problem—salinity—is not resolvable at all from the regulatory

standpoint.

A discussion will follow of the primary water quality problems facing the Sea (in

order of perceived severity), and an assessment of control options and correctability.

Salinity

Increasing salinity is the Sea’s foremost problem. This problem was recognized

over 30 years ago and as predicted back then appears to be directly and indirectly

responsible for many of the Sea’s adverse conditions now. The present salinity of

the Sea is approaching 45 ppt. The salinity of ocean water is 35 ppt. It was forecast

that when salinity reached 40 ppt that it would begin to adversely affect the Sea’s

food chain and ultimately lead to collapse of the sportfishery. Although in the past

10 years the sportfishery has had its ups and downs, the overall trend clearly appears to be down. The food chain has been disrupted, Tilapia are now the dominant

fish in the Sea, have overpopulated, and apparently become more subject to disease

because of overcrowding. What was not forecast was that due to disruption of the

food chain that disease would be passed on to waterfowl causing catastrophic

dieoffs. Last year over 14,000 birds died at the Salton Sea which included threatened/endangered species.

Although costly, correction of the Sea’s salinity problem is relatively simple. The

Sea is a closed basin and needs an outlet (or the equivalent thereof) to prevent salt

buildup. Thus, the problem is naturally occurring with no identifiable responsible

party. Potential resolution of the problem remains with the public via government.

Although the solution is simple, realistic corrective alternatives appear to be very

limited. A 1965 report prepared by an engineering firm for the Regional Board concluded that ‘‘of various plans considered for salinity control, the one appearing best

from the economic standpoint is to dike off a section of the Sea to serve as a final

sink for collecting salt.’’ Thirty two years later this recommendation still seems to

make the most amount of sense. This solution avoids the environmental controversy

associated with transferring brine to outlying disposal sites and the impacts thereof.

Salt would thus accumulate in a smaller portion of the Sea than would otherwise

occur under a no-action scenario.

As with any of the suggested solutions to address the Sea’s salinity there are

some negatives associated with diking. Foremost, is the challenge of keeping waterfowl out of the evaporation basin, where the existence of undesirable conditions due

to salt buildup is likely. Another concern is that diking will create an unaesthetic,

visually offensive sight. This need not be the case. Much of San Diego Bay and Mission Bay, for example, have been diked with attractive results. Dikes can be

landscaped with greenbelts, access roads can be built, and the rock walls can be

used for shoreline fishing. There is potential to make diking positive rather than

negative, although of course costs will be increased somewhat to implement some

of these improvements.

Siting and size of a diked evaporation basin is an important consideration. In

1965 it was suggested that a 40 or 50 square mile basin would suffice. However,

at that time salinity was considerably lower, and the freshwater inflows to the Sea

were considered stable. At present, with the Sea facing reduced freshwater inflows
63

in the future as a result of water conservation implementation, a 40 or 50 square

mile dike would be much too small. Diking off about a third of the Sea, approximately 125 square miles is a much more practical and workable solution. Siting of

the evaporation basin should be in an area which is of least importance for fish and

wildlife, and recreational activity. The southern portion of the Sea near the New

and Alamo River deltas is believed to be important for fish spawning and is also

the site of the Federal wildlife refuge. The sportfishery has centered on this area

as the premier fishing location since its inception. Tinkering with the hydrology of

the Sea in this area could be very disruptive. To the contrary, the northern deepwater portion of the Sea is not considered a prime fishery area and with less fish

present attracts less waterfowl. Diking this area off at the 20-30 foot depth contour

would not cut off the shoreline communities’ use of the Sea and would simply remove the least utilized and least important northerly mid-portion of the Sea from

use.

A proposal to create a two-way exchange with the Gulf of California has some attractive facets to it, but should be disregarded for a number of reasons. Foremost,

is that the inflow of ocean water (which is much more saline than the present

inflows into the Sea) coupled with the high evaporation rate will exacerbate the

Sea’s salinity problem, rather than improving it. Other problems are political (securing and maintaining permission from Mexico), cost (upwards of $1 Billion), and biological (undesirable marine life from the ocean such as stingrays may find the Sea

to their liking and become dominant).

In summary, salinity control is technically the simplest of the Sea’s water quality

problems to resolve, and also the problem whose correction will provide the most

positive return. As time goes on, and salinity further increases, it will become more

costly and difficult to correct. This needs to be addressed expeditiously as a number

one priority.

Selenium

Although selenium has not created problems anywhere near the magnitude of

those at the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge in Central California, this remains a concern

because of a health advisory posted recommending limited consumption of Salton

Sea fish and fears of wildlife biologists that increases could lead to bird mortality.

Selenium is present in Colorado River at about 2 ppb and concentrates to about

5-8 ppb in drainage water in Imperial Valley. Selenium apparently enters the food

chain in the Sea in the New and Alamo River delta area with some of the element

settling in the bottom muds. The actual selenium level of Salton Sea water in the

middle of the Sea is relatively low at 1 ppb or even less.

Although regulatory control of selenium is possible, regulation must consider technical and economic practicalities. Presently the Regional Board has set a water

quality objective of 5 ppb for selenium. Much of the inflow to the Salton Sea is in

noncompliance with this objective. Imperial Irrigation District, as a primary responsible agency, is cooperating with the Regional Board in addressing reduction of pollutants in drainage water inflows to the Sea via implementation of best management practices. Unfortunately economically practical technologies for reducing selenium levels have presently not been developed. So realistically the present goal is

to merely keep selenium from increasing. This is actually more difficult than it

sounds, since most water conservation which is being implemented in Imperial Valley will focus on efforts which tend to decrease the volume of low selenium drainage

water in the system and thus increase the proportion of high selenium tile drainage

water.

Because selenium levels are relatively low in Salton Sea water, an in-Sea diked

evaporation basin, located away from the high selenium inflows at the south end

of the Sea, is not expected to accumulate problematic amounts of selenium.

Nutrients

The Sea has long been regarded as a highly eutrophic water body. Nutrients enter

the Sea primarily via agriculture drainage conveying crop fertilizers, and sewage

from Mexico. On the positive side the nutrients have helped make the Sea one of

California’s most productive inland sportfisheries. On the negative side eutrophic

conditions can lead to unaesthetic algal blooms, oxygen depletion, fish kills, and foul

odors. As with selenium, nutrients are amenable to regulatory controls, but at

present stringent control on agricultural sources is considered technically and economically impractical. However, agricultural sources are required to investigate/implement best management practices to reduce pollutants including nutrients.

There has been some discussion of utilizing wetlands treatment to remove nutrients from agricultural drainage water. This could be beneficial with proper design,

and should be pursued. Using wetlands to improve New River water is potentially
64

more problematic partially due to variable levels of pollutants beyond our control

and should be pursued much more cautiously.

Pollution from Mexico

Mexicali, a City of about one million people, discharges raw and inadequately

treated sewage, industrial waste, and solid waste into the New River some 60 miles

upstream of the discharge point into Salton Sea. Although the gross pollution

around the border City of Calexico presents a severe public health hazard, the impacts to Salton Sea appear to be much reduced due to a natural cleansing process

before reaching Salton Sea.

With Mexico now accepting U.S. economic and technical assistance in addressing

cleanup of the New River, real progress is now being made, and it is possible that

the river will be substantially cleaned up in two to three years if present efforts continue.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP A. ROBERTS, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DEAN, COLLEGE OF NATURAL

AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA

Introduction: This testimony presents information on the proposed role of the

University of California in the coordination and conduct of research addressing solution options to the stabilization and water quality improvement of the Salton Sea.

It represents not only the relevant research resources in faculty expertise, programs,

and facilities of the Riverside campus of the University of California, but in addition, the resources of the entire University of California system.

While there have been a number of independent research activities and assessments made on the Salton Sea over the last several years, a continual challenge to

determining viable options to solve the problems has been the complexity of the

issues involved. These issues include hydrology, engineering, biological/ecological

systems, soil and toxics chemistry, bioremediation, salinity and wastewater management, economics, agricultural interests, and human social/cultural considerations.

Although good scientific evaluations and baseline data are available to address some

component aspects, the major gap in our ability to advise policy makers is a holistic

analysis of potential solutions. A holistic approach that integrates the component

issues to determine and implement the best solution must be followed in order to

understand the ‘‘cause effect-solution’’ relationships for all component parts. For example, a solution to stabilizing salinization and elevation of the Salton Sea can be

designed effectively from the engineering standpoint, but that design must be made

while understanding the implications for the biological and ecological systems, and

within a full economics context.

Until now, the proposed options, including their evaluations, have lacked an integrated and interdisciplinary understanding. The University of California proposes to

provide the objective forum and a core of scientific expertise to pursue a comprehensive, research-based analysis of the primary proposals for solutions. We believe such

an integrative and inter-disciplinary approach will allow the policy makers to make

the most rational and informed decisions for a solution. This approach will serve the

best long-term interests of the state and the nation, from environmental, cultural,

and economic perspectives.

Faculty research expertise: About 25 faculty at UC Riverside have expertise

bearing on the many complex issues which face the Salton Sea. We have prepared

a directory of researchers at UCR, ranging from soil and water scientists who study

such issues as salinity and drainage, to engineers who may deal with wastewater

treatment or bioremediation, to biologists who are looking at the impact on fish and

birds, to economists who evaluate issues related to resource management and the

future development of the region. We are in the process of compiling a directory of

programs and expertise for the entire UC system, within which is found 12 percent

of the water-related expertise in the country. We have initiated contact with scientists at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, UCLA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Los Alamos. These scientists represent the full range of specialized knowledge and research

capability needed to provide the comprehensive, objective analyses to target the solution and to fully understand its environmental, economic, and cultural implications. To accomplish this, the coordination of scientists from several UC campuses

as well as other institutions and agencies will be necessary. As described in the introductory remarks, the problems facing the Salton Sea are so complex that it will

take more than one entity to solve them.

The University of California is the state’s land grant institution. As such, it is our

mission to provide the educational, research, and public service programs which can

help policy makers such as this Congressional Subcommittee deal with problems
65

such as the Salton Sea. The University is well positioned to serve in the role of

‘‘honest broker,’’ providing coordination of research efforts and offering sound, scientific based information. Therefore, we propose to coordinate both internally,

among our campuses and national laboratories, and with state and Federal agencies

and other universities

Program expertise and Facilities: In addition to our faculty expertise, the University of California has a number of programs and facilities relevant to the Salton

Sea:

•The Salinity and Drainage Research Program, headquartered at UCR, was initiated in 1985 to mobilize a team of experts to address critical agricultural and

environmental problems in the San Joaquin Valley. Working closely with state

and Federal agencies, this consortium of scientists is developing, interpreting,

and disseminating research-based information on salinity, drainage, selenium,

and other toxic element problems similar to those found at the Salton Sea.

•The University’s Water Resources Center, founded in 1957, is a multi-campus

research unit established to stimulate and support research on water related

issues. Its broad research focus includes conservation, development, management, distribution, and utilization of water resources with a view to their optimum present and future use. The Water Resources Center maintains close relationships with governmental agencies, quasi-public organizations, and other research institutions for the purpose of keeping both the University and outside

organizations aware of one another’s activities.

•The U.S. Salinity Laboratory, a USDA facility located on the Riverside campus, is the only research facility in the nation devoted specifically to the study

and amelioration of salinity and pesticide related agricultural and environmental problems. We have discussed with the U.S. Salinity Lab the desirable

collaborative involvement in the Salton Sea effort of their scientists, many of

whom have adjunct appointments at UC Riverside.

• UC MEXUS, or the University of California Institute for Mexico and the

United States, is another multi-campus research unit, headquartered at UCR.

UC MEXUS has recently undertaken a long-term research focus on binational

issues of water and the environment in the California-Mexico border region, including the lower Colorado River basin. The binational, policy oriented focus of

UC MEXUS will be critical to assessing and implementing any solution that involves Mexico.

• A newly formed Center for Conservation Biology at UCR is intended to assist

in the conservation of species and ecosystems for the benefit of society by facilitating the collection and dissemination of objective, scientific information. The

Center seeks to provide information to guide the development of sound public

policy for addressing conflicts such as the Salton Sea. Several dozen UCR faculty—ecologists, entomologists, botanists, population biologists, soil scientists,

engineers, natural resource specialists and others—comprise a rich pool of academic talent and expertise aimed at assisting Southern California address these

problems.

• UCR’s 540-acre Coachella Valley Agricultural Research Station is just four

miles from the north shore of the Salton Sea, offering nearby research facilities.

These facilities could be used to serve collaborative research efforts involving

scientists from other UC campuses and other universities and state and Federal

agencies.

Coordination and Research plan: Because of this concentration of programs

and expertise, and because of our proximity to the Salton Sea, UC Riverside has

been asked to coordinate research efforts for the UC system. In addition, we will

coordinate with state and Federal agencies and other universities. The University

is now in the process of garnering internal and external resources to pull together

an action team of UC and other scientists. Using this as seed money, we hope to

attract state and Federal funding as well. Historically, it has been shown that state

and Federal support for University programs is leveraged 4:1 by UC resources of

scientists, staff, facilities, equipment, and funds.

Research: We see three broad areas in which research is imperative to the eventual solution of the Salton Sea. These are water, biology, and economics. As illustrated in Attachment 1, these issues are overlapping. You cannot look at engineering a solution to stabilize the Sea’s elevation, for example, without considering the

hydrology, economics, and the impact on fish and waterfowl. By providing a forum

for scientific exchange, the University can help both to look at the overall picture,

and to integrate the research that has been conducted in each of these broad areas.

It is at the intersection of these three issues that the solution to the Salton Sea

must lie. It is at this nexus where good public policy decisions can be made.
66

Although the Salton Sea has already been studied in some detail (fine studies

have been done by the Bureau of Reclamation, various consultants, and most recently Los Alamos National Laboratory), the needed multidisciplinary, comprehensive approach that we propose has not been put into action. What we propose to

do that is different from previous studies is to marshal the interdisciplinary scientific expertise into an action oriented approach along a defined timeline, as follows.

Action Plan: We envisage a four-phase, long-term process, as summarized in Attachment 2. We have identified timelines here, but it must be stressed that the

phases—like the subject areas in Attachment 2—may be overlapping and flexible.

Phase I is the evaluation phase. We propose to look at existing data to determine

what is known and where the gaps are. The purpose is to integrate priorities across

disciplines, as described above. The timeframe is short: 2-3 months. Likewise, this

phase is relatively inexpensive, costing $25,000-$50,000 to bring together a team of

scientists to review existing research and make recommendations. While we recognize that some attempts at this have been made that added to the information base,

most recently the summit in Palm Springs coordinated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, there were important gaps in represented expertise such as economics.

Phase II is the testing phase. The feasibility of proposed options will be tested by

conducting solution-oriented and demonstration research. This may be done by modeling or, in some cases—such as constructed wetlands—by field testing. The purpose

is to evaluate solutions to enable policy makers to decide on a course of action. The

timeframe could be 1-3 years, and the research testing of various solution components could be conducted in a staged manner. For example, evaluation of some solution components such as wetlands and habitat restoration, could be done at the

same time primary solution components such as pipeline or impoundment engineering were already being implemented. Effective coordination of the testing will be

vital. The scientific summit recently held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the cost of research to be as much as $40 million, but it could be considerably

less, pending the outcome of Phase I.

Phase III is the implementation phase. It is not the University’s role to implement

the solution to the Salton Sea, but rather to conduct research to assess how well

the solution is working as it is being implemented. The purpose of such research

is to determine if the solution is performing as expected and what adjustments, if

any, need to be made. The estimated timeframe is 2-5 years, but could be longer.

The cost of the solution itself ranges widely, depending on the option(s) chosen. The

cost of research during this phase would be only a small fraction of the cost of the

selected solution.

Phase IV is the long-term management and monitoring phase. Once a solution is

implemented, we cannot simply walk away. The University will be here for the long

haul, evaluating the solution and its hydrological, biological, and economic impacts

over the long term. The longer term commitment under this phase is compatible

with the University’s responsibility as the land grant institution for the state of

California. It will provide a continuing objective scientific partner for the Salton Sea

region as a whole, with the overall sustained health of the Salton Sea as a motivational force. The timeframe, of course, is indefinite, and the cost a small percentage

of the operating costs of any solution which is implemented.

The four-phase approach is necessary whatever the chosen solution. The possible

courses of action include not only the active salinity and elevation management approaches, but also the option to allow the Salton Sea to salinize (see Attachment

3, fact sheet). In the event that this becomes the option chosen by policy makers,

it too would require important research-based inputs for its management. For example, lowering nutrients and pathogens entering from river inflow and improving waterfowl habitat along the rivers and delta would require testing.

Programmatic mechanism: Our proposed plan is action-based and solution-targeted recognizing the immediacy of the problem and the need for rapid policy decisions. We propose to coordinate the Salton Sea efforts through an existing University-wide program structure that will provide a flexible and responsive vehicle for

scientific exchange as well as research coordination and funding. The UC Centers

for Water and Wildland Resources is a multi-campus research unit that focuses activities on solving priority problems in agriculture, natural resources, and human

development throughout California. It provides an umbrella mechanism for research

and scientific exchange for four distinct programs dealing with water and wildland

issues. One existing program under the Centers is the highly successful Salinity/

Drainage Research Program, described earlier. After consultation with the leadership of the Centers and the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, we

have determined that the Salton Sea action program outlined here should be a new

branch of the Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. This branch will be
67

headquartered at UC Riverside. It will take advantage of the experienced programmatic structure in place, and it will have independence from existing programs

to facilitate its responsiveness to the proposed timeline for action. Our ability to provide this much needed coordination and action program is dependent upon our ability utilize University seed money and expertise to attract new state and Federal resources. Summary: This testimony has outlined a plan for how the University can best

serve the state of California and, indeed, the nation, in dealing with the Salton Sea.

The University of California is the only entity with the full breadth and depth of

expertise required in the needed areas of biology, economics, soil and water/engineering. It can bring to bear expertise, facilities, and programs, including a coordinating program structure, as well as some seed money. The plan will overcome existing coordination problems, whereby UC and other scientists have been responding

on an ad hoc basis. The University will provide objective, scientific-based research

information to help policy makers form decisions, and coordinate across entities,

with no agenda or bias of its own. Finally, the proposed research will be done in

parallel with the chosen solution along the phased timeline.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. ZIRSCHKY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

(CIVIL WORKS)

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

INTRODUCTION

I am John Zirschky, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

Thank you for inviting me to testify on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

involvement in the evaluation of the causes and proposed solutions for addressing

the water quality and lake level stabilization issues facing the Salton Sea. My statement will consist of brief descriptions of the Corps environmental expertise in the

civil works arena; our project evaluation and management strengths; and the past

and current involvement of the Corps in Imperial County, particularly in the Salton

Sea basin, California.

The Corps has a long history in water resources management, including environmental and ecosystem protection and restoration. The Corps role as this Nation’s

first environmental protection agency dates back to the ‘‘Refuse Act of 1899.’’ The

Act states that:

‘‘It shall not be lawful to throw . . . any refuse matter of any kind or description

whatever other than that flowing from the streets and sewers . . . into any navigable water of the United States, or into any tributary of a any navigable water

. . .’’

The Army was put in charge of enforcing this statute. We kept the garbage out

of the rivers. Even earlier than that, in 1883, the Corps was entrusted with the sensitive ecosystem of Yellowstone National Park, which had been established 11 years

earlier.

Today, the Corps has increased the priority of its environmental mission and

gained widespread expertise and experience in all phases of environmental planning

and ecosystem restoration.

CORPS ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM SOLVING

For more than two centuries, the Corps of Engineers has been committed to providing comprehensive engineering, management and technical support to the Nation. It is the Corps ecosystem restoration activities and problem-solving approach

that I will highlight today.

The Corps interdisciplinary planning and engineering staff combines the resources

necessary to identify problems and to develop, evaluate, and implement solutions to

these problems. The well trained staff is accustomed to analyzing difficult problems

and developing implementable solutions, and understands the importance of testing

these solutions under the light of public scrutiny. In addition to the many planners,

engineers, economists, biologists, and social scientists at Corps district offices, the

Corps maintains very specialized technical expertise at several support facilities or

laboratories located throughout the United States that can be mobilized to assist on

an as needed basis. The Waterways Expenment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi

and the Hydrologic Engineering Center in Davis, California are world-renowned

centers of expertise. It is the unique problem solving capability of the Corps that

sets it apart and makes it a leader in the environmental restoration area.

The Corps is a leader in ecosystem restoration. We have broad experience on a

range of related technical and legal issues, such as protection of private property

rights and public involvement, as well as extraordinary experience in resolving mul-
68

tiple stakeholder issues. Our experience has increased through such projects as the

following:

—Restoring the south Florida ecosystem including the Florida Everglades;

—Helping ensure the future health of Lake Tahoe;

—Planning and executing the highly successful Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program;

—Working sensitive hypoxia and other issues on the Gulf Coast;

—Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Program;

—the ‘‘Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment’’ program,

with such projects as Yolo Basin Wetlands in California, Sammamish River Restoration in Washington, Salt Bayou, Texas, and Anacostia River and Tributaries, Maryland;

—Papua New Guinea mine operation impact consultation; and

—the Land Management System research program.

Further infonnation on these projects and the Corps capabilities is available to

the Subcommittee on request.

CORPS EXPERIENCE IN IMPERIAL COUNTY

I will turn now to a discussion of some of the Corps experience in Imperial County, California. The Corps earliest investigations in Imperial County focused on flood

damage reduction. A 1943 investigation recommended construction of dikes and a

dam to provide flood protection for the irrigation canals on the west side of the Imperial Valley. A 1976 flood plain report included approximate delineations of 100-

year and 500-year flood events as well as water profiles for the 10-, 50-, and 100-

year events. Following the Imperial County flood of 1976, which caused damages in

the San Bernardino and Riverside areas, the Corps prepared a report describing the

flood and summarizing its damages. Temporary emergency work was perfonned at

Bombay Beach, consisting of strengthening a non-Federal dike threatened by the

rise in the Salton Sea water level. A reconnaissance level study in 1977, conducted

at the request of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, investigated flood control in the town of Ocotillo.

In 1989, a broader study was performed to develop and evaluate potential solutions to flooding and related problems on Imperial County and San Diego County

tributaries of the Salton Sea. Investigations included flooding threats from runoff

from the Chocolate Mountains to the east, from several mountain ranges to the

west, and from overflow from the New and Alamo Rivers. Flood damages were identified as destruction of canal embankments, clogging of canals with sediment, inundation of agricultural fields, and destruction of precise grading of agricultural fields

by deposition of sediment.

Under the authorization of the Flood Control Act of 1941 (Public Law 77-228) and

with funds appropriated in fiscal year’s 1996 and 1997, a Reconnaissance Report on

the Imperial County Watershed Study was completed by the Los Angeles District

of the Corps in January 1997. Through evaluation of the baseline conditions and

identification of key problems, the study approach was refined to focus on ecosystem

restoration, with emphasis on the New River and Alamo River. In partnership with

the Imperial County and Imperial litigation District (IID), the Los Angeles District

is proceeding with a feasibility phase study called the Imperial County Ecosystem

Restoration Study.

Imperial County and the IID have mainlined support for a cost-shared feasibility

study for the development of an ecosystem restoration plan for the New River and

Alamo River. Negotiations of the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) between the Corps and the potential sponsors for the Imperial County Ecosystem Restoration Study are in the final stage. Upon completion of the FCSA, which includes

the Final Project Study Plan, by the Los Angeles District, it will be submitted

through the Corps South Pacific Division to Corps Headquarters for review and approval.

The focus of the feasibility study will be to formulate and develop an ecosystem

restoration plan for both the New River and Alamo River, which will concentrate

on wetland and/or riparian habitat restoration. The Reconnaissance Report identified eight potential restoration sites (four on each river) for further consideration.

The recommended plan for the Feasibility Study will include the design of at least

one restoration area on each river. The development of this plan will require evaluation of the following water resource issues: (1) hydrology and hydraulics; (2) sediment transport; and (3) ecosystem restoration opportunities. As you are aware,

water quality within the New River, Alamo River and Salton Sea Ecosystem continues to be of great concern to Federal and State agencies and environmental

groups. Approximately 95 percent of the water supply needed to sustain the Salton

Sea comes from the New River and Alamo River, which serve as collectors of

agricul-
69

tural, industrial and domestic runoff water. Restoration of ecosystem values along

these rivers which have been degraded by adverse water quality impacts may be

accomplished by wetland and riparian habitat restoration measures. These restoration measures could contribute to the improvement of the water quality in the New

and Alamo Rivers.

The Corps feasibility study will implement a coordinated stakeholders awareness

program for the development of ecosystem restoration opportunities. Some of the

key issues consist of (1) existing short-term and long-term impacts to water quality

and the ecological resources; (2) increased surface elevations of the Salton Sea due

to inadequate flood control facilities within Imperial County; and (3) the lack of data

on sediment yield and transport for both the New River and Alamo River, which

would promote understanding of the discharge of agricultural drainage runoff versus

river degradation. A technical understanding of these issues and their roles in this

sensitive ecosystem is required to better predict future environmental conditions.

Improving the environmental and water resources of the New River and Alamo

River will be a major step towards restoring the Imperial County ecosystem.

CONCLUSION

In summary, Mr. Chairman and other members of the Subcommittee, the Corps

of Engineers is a leader in environmental problem solving. Each member of the

Corps team is committed to integrity, quality, professionalism and caring. This concludes my statement. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Corps of Engineers experience and capabilities.
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112