The Salton Sea: a Status Update

The Salton Sea: A Status Update MAC TAYLOR LEGISLATIVE ANALYST AUGUST 29, 2018 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Executive Summary The Salton Sea is California’s largest inland lake, located in Riverside and Imperial Counties. In this report, we discuss the changing conditions in and around the Sea, their statewide importance, and the Legislature’s role in overseeing projects to reduce potential negative effects on public health and wildlife. The Salton Sea is Highly Saline, Gradually Shrinking. The Salton Sea was created in 1905 when a nearby irrigation canal carrying Colorado River water breached and water overflowed into the lakebed for nearly two years. In the subsequent years, agricultural runoff from farms in the Imperial Valley has fed the Sea and prevented it from fully drying up. However, over the past several decades, changes in agricultural water use practices by farmers have gradually diminished inflow into the Sea. As a consequence, the Sea has slowly been shrinking. The Sea is also highly saline—more than 50 percent saltier than the Pacific Ocean. This is partially due to the high salinity of the agricultural runoff water that is the Sea’s primary source of replenishment. Additionally, because the Sea is a terminal lake with no outlet to the ocean, water that enters it can only depart through evaporation, leaving salts behind. The Sea, therefore, will continue to become increasingly saline over time. Water Transfer Agreement Will Reduce Salton Sea Inflow. In 2003, multiple parties— including the state and three water districts in the region—entered into a series of agreements to address longstanding issues regarding usage of Colorado River water. These agreements are known collectively as the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The QSA includes an agreement to transfer water that was historically used to irrigate farm fields near the Sea to two Southern California water districts for residential uses. By reducing the amount of water available for agricultural uses in the Imperial Valley, these transfers have the effect of decreasing the amount of fresh water that runs off fields into the Sea. This, in turn, will expedite the rate at which the Sea both shrinks and becomes more saline. Changes at the Salton Sea Pose Public Health and Environmental Risks. Absent mitigation, the reduction in inflow to the Salton Sea could lead to significant negative impacts on both public health and on wildlife. Specifically, as the Sea shrinks, an increasing amount of dry, dusty lakebed will become exposed. Some of this dust contains toxic elements that were transported through agricultural runoff, such as arsenic and selenium. Due to the high winds and arid climate around the Sea, this fine dust can become airborne, thereby increasing the amount of particulate matter in the air in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. This is dangerous for surrounding residents—particularly children and the elderly—as over time, particulate matter can become trapped in the lungs and cause asthma attacks, bronchitis, and lung diseases. Additionally, the shrinking Sea will impair wildlife habitats. As wetland habitat has been lost to development throughout California and northern Mexico, many bird species have come to rely on the Sea for food, rest, and nesting—particularly during their annual migrations. Hundreds of thousands of birds use the Sea as a stopover point each year. As the Sea evaporates, and thereby becomes more saline, conditions will become increasingly inhospitable for the fish upon which migratory birds depend as a source of food. www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Anticipating these potential effects associated with the QSA, the state required that the reductions in water flowing into the Sea be delayed to provide the state time to develop a long-term response plan. The requirement to provide those additional flows, however, expired at the end of 2017. State Bears Primary Financial Responsibility for Responding to Changes at the Salton Sea. Through the QSA agreements and implementing statute, the state of California has assumed much of the responsibility for responding to—and mitigating against—the potential negative impacts around the Salton Sea associated with the QSA water transfers. Specifically, the three primary water agencies that were party to the QSA are responsible for spending $133 million in 2003 dollars to begin to mitigate the effects of the water transfers, and the state has committed to implementing and funding the additional activities necessary to address public health and wildlife impacts. State Recently Developed Plan and Has Funding Available for Near-Term Management Activities . . . Despite 15 years having passed since the QSA, the state has only recently made notable progress in preparing to address the potential impacts at the Salton Sea. Specifically, in 2017, the state released a ten-year plan to guide state projects at the Salton Sea and address potential public health and environmental effects over the next decade. Some projects will provide both habitat and dust suppression benefits, while some are primarily to control dust emissions. The plan includes annual targets for acres of projects to be implemented, and the State Water Resources Control Board issued a water rights order requiring the state to meet those goals. (The order specifies that if the state fails to meet the specified acreage goals in a given year, it must “catch up” the following year, and report on how it will address the deficiency.) A total of $730 million has been authorized for Salton Sea mitigation and management activities from state, federal, and local sources, of which $507 million remained unspent as of June 2018. Of this amount, $280 million will be dedicated to begin implementing the projects in the state’s ten-year management plan. It is expected that additional funding will be necessary to fully implement the state’s plan. . . . But Plans and Funding for Longer Term Management Are Still Uncertain. The state has not yet identified funding sources for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the Salton Sea projects it plans to construct over the next ten years, estimated to total between $8 million and $10 million per year at full implementation. Moreover, the state has not yet developed a plan—or cost estimates or funding sources—for how it will respond to continuing changes at the Salton Sea past 2028. Legislature Has Important Oversight Role. After many years of inaction, activities at the Salton Sea are showing promising signs of progress. However, as the rate at which the Sea is shrinking begins to ramp up, the Legislature will want to ensure that the state remains on track to meet its obligations and avoid negative public health and environmental effects. In this report, we highlight key implementation and fiscal issues for the Legislature to monitor that will indicate whether the state is on track to manage negative impacts at the Salton Sea in the coming months and years. 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Although the Salton Sea is a lake located in an Sea represents a considerable and costly challenge area of Southern California with a relatively sparse for the state in the coming years. population, changing conditions in and around the This report provides a status update on Sea have statewide importance. This is due both conditions and activities at the Salton Sea. We to the potential for significant negative impacts describe the state’s role and obligations, as well to public health and the environment, as well as as funding and cost estimates associated with to the fiscal and programmatic commitments the activities at the Sea. We conclude by highlighting state has made to try to prevent such impacts. some key issues for the Legislature to monitor in Effectively responding to conditions at the Salton the coming years to ensure the state is effectively meeting its goals for the Salton Sea. OVERVIEW OF THE SALTON SEA History of the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management), California’s largest inland lake, stretching about the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), and the Torres 35 miles long and up to 15 miles wide, with a water Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. surface of approximately 360 square miles—almost Sea Was Once a Recreational Destination. In twice the surface area of Lake Tahoe. As shown earlier decades—particularly between the 1940s in Figure 1 (see next page), the Sea is located in and 1960s—the Sea was a popular recreational Riverside and Imperial Counties, in southeastern area. Because of the warm winter climate, proximity California. The Sea is a terminal lake, which means to Southern California cities, large size, and active that it has no outlet to the ocean. Over the past fishery, the Sea became a popular destination for several thousand years, the Sea has intermittently tourism, fishing, and water sports. The California both filled and dried up in this location. This Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) stocked happened when, through natural processes that the Sea with a variety of sport fish, and a number of occurred over time, the Colorado River changed communities were established around the shores of course and spilled water into the lake bed, followed the Sea for both permanent residents and tourists. by the water eventually evaporating away when Some sources cite that at its recreational peak, the river shifted course again. The modern Sea the Salton Sea was drawing 1.5 million visitors was created in 1905 when a nearby irrigation canal annually—at the time, more than Yosemite National carrying Colorado River water breached and water Park. However, due to episodes of flooding, fish overflowed into the lake bed for nearly two years. die-offs, and some of the other trends described in In the subsequent years, agricultural runoff from this report, tourism over recent decades has largely farms in the Imperial Valley fed the Sea, preventing faded away. it from fully drying up as had occurred in the past. Sea Is Extremely Saline. While the modern However, over the past several decades, changes Sea started off as a relatively fresh water body in in agricultural water use practices by nearby 1905, it is now more than 50 percent saltier than farmers—including increased efficiencies such the Pacific Ocean. This is partially due to the high as replacing sprinklers with drip irrigation—have salinity of the agricultural runoff water that has been gradually diminished inflow into the Sea. As such, the Sea’s primary source of replenishment for the the Sea has slowly been shrinking. past century. Additionally, because the Sea has The land under the Salton Sea is a patchwork no outlet to the ocean, water that enters the Sea of ownership spread across three primary entities: can only depart through evaporation, leaving salts the federal government (mostly the Bureau of behind. The Sea therefore has and will continue to www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT become increasingly saline Figure 1 over time. Sea Provides Important Map of the Salton Sea Bird Habitat. Despite being a relatively new water body in geologic terms, the Sea has become an important habitat area for a large Riverside County number of birds. As wetland Palm Springs habitat has been lost to 10 development throughout Salton Sea California and northern Mexico, many bird species Salton City 111 Imperial County have come to rely on the Sacramento 86 San Diego Sea for food, rest, and County nesting—particularly during their annual migrations. San Francisco 8 El Centro More than 270 species of birds use the Sea on a regular basis, including many that state and/or federal law have identified as being threatened or endangered. The Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge— now named for Sonny Bono—was established in 1930 for waterfowl and Los Angeles other migratory birds. San Diego Hundreds of thousands of birds use the Sea as a stopover point on their migrations each year. A CHANGING SALTON SEA 2003 Colorado River Agreement Will Reduce water from IID—which uses Colorado River water Salton Sea Inflow. In 2003, the state, the to irrigate farm fields near the Sea—to two other federal government, Indian tribes, and a number Southern California water districts (the Coachella of water districts in the region entered into a Valley Water District and the San Diego County series of agreements to address longstanding Water Authority) for residential uses. (An acre foot issues regarding usage of Colorado River water. is the amount of water that would cover an acre These agreements are known collectively as the of land at a depth of one foot.) To accommodate Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The the QSA transfer, IID has reduced its water use Legislature also enacted a package of legislation by increasing efficiencies and fallowing some to help implement the QSA. The QSA includes fields. By reducing the amount of water available an agreement to transfer 300,000 acre-feet of for agricultural uses in the Imperial Valley, these 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT transfers have the effect of decreasing the region consistently fails to meet federal air quality amount of water that runs off fields into the Sea. standards designed to protect public health. Unless Specifically, due to both the QSA transfers and action is taken to suppress the potential additional longer-term reduction trends, annual inflow to the emissions of fine dust from newly exposed playa, Sea is projected to drop from 1.2 million acre-feet the regional air quality and public health risks are in 2003 to between 700,000 and 800,000 acre-feet likely to significantly worsen as the Sea shrinks. after 2020. Therefore, while the Sea has been both . . . And on Wildlife. The shrinking Sea will also shrinking in size and increasing in salinity for many impair wildlife habitats. Specifically, as the Sea decades, the decrease in inflow resulting from the evaporates and thereby becomes more saline, QSA water transfers will expedite these trends. As conditions become increasingly inhospitable for we discuss later, state regulatory agencies also the fish upon which migratory birds depend as a imposed a number of requirements to mitigate the source of food. In addition to higher levels of salts, potential effects of the QSA. a decline in fresh water inflow will also increase State Water Board Order Delayed Impacts the proportions and influence of other nutrients of Water Transfers. Anticipating the potential that agricultural runoff brings to the Sea (such as effects of the QSA, the State Water Resources nitrogen and selenium), which will worsen water Control Board (SWRCB) required that the quality and negatively impact fish and birds. The reductions in water flowing into the Sea be delayed. increased proportion of such nutrients has already Specifically, the board issued a water rights order led to algae growth in the Sea, which has proven in 2002 requiring that for 15 years, IID had to fatal for fish under certain conditions. For example, continue to provide inflow water to the Sea at levels in a single day in August 1999, 7.6 million tilapia sufficient to maintain the salinity levels that would died from oxygen depletion due to the combined have existed absent the transfer. This was intended effects of heat, salinity, and algae. According to to provide the state time to develop a long-term news reports from that period, the resulting blanket plan to address the effects of the QSA transfers. of dead fish along the north side of the Sea was The requirement to provide mitigation flows expired ten miles long and three miles wide. Moreover, at the end of 2017. a retreating Sea will dry out the established Absent Mitigation, Changes Could Have vegetation and wetlands that exist along the edges Significant Negative Impacts on Both Public of the Sea, degrading that habitat for birds as Health . . . As the Sea shrinks, an increasing well as the fish and insects that they eat. These amount of dry lake bed—referred to as “playa”— changes threaten the survival of the hundreds of becomes exposed. In many areas, this playa thousands of birds that depend on the Sea as a key is covered with fine sediments that have been stop-off along the Pacific Flyway. deposited at the bottom of the Sea. Some of Additionally, desert pupfish—an endangered this dust contains toxic elements that were species under both the federal and state transported through agricultural runoff, such as endangered species acts—live in creeks and arsenic and selenium. Due to the high winds and drainage ditches around the Sea. While the pupfish arid climate around the Sea, this fine dust can do not live directly in the Sea, these fish are known become airborne, thereby increasing the amount to migrate between creeks and drainage ditches of particulate matter in the air in the Imperial and through the Sea’s shoreline waters. As the shoreline Coachella Valleys. Over time, particulate matter recedes, these pupfish populations may become can become trapped in the lungs—causing asthma isolated from one another. This would reduce the attacks, bronchitis, and lung diseases. Particulate genetic diversity of existing pupfish populations, matter is particularly dangerous to children and the which could make them less able to adapt to elderly. The air quality around the Sea is already disease or other environmental stresses. It would poor, due to existing airborne particulate matter also prevent existing pupfish populations from from the surrounding desert, agricultural activities, moving back and forth between habitat areas as and the nearby city of Mexicali, Mexico. The www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT conditions change. Both of these impacts could job opportunities and economic development reduce the species’ long-term chance of survival. around the Sea. For example, census data indicate Shrinking Sea Also Affects Local Economy. that median home prices in Salton City, the largest The changing Salton Sea has and will continue town along the Sea, dropped by 24 percent to have significant impacts for local residents. between 2010 and 2016 (from $113,500 to The Sea’s increase in salinity, combined with the $86,600), compared to about an 11 percent drop high levels of nutrients from agricultural runoff in statewide median home prices across the same and resulting growth of algae, has already led period. The unemployment rate for the region to some negative effects for residents. These around the Sea is also significantly higher than the include repeated and sometimes significant fish statewide average. The expedited pace of the Sea’s die-offs, as noted above. Additionally, the algae retreat and increased salinity resulting from the and nutrients in the Sea often cause it to emit a forthcoming decline in fresh water inflow is likely to distasteful sulfurous odor when temperatures are exacerbate negative conditions around the Sea and high. These types of unpleasant conditions have associated economic effects. Moreover, as the Sea contributed to a significant decline in recreation and shrinks it will increasingly leave formerly lakeside tourism over the past several decades—which has houses and boat docks stranded far from the water, correspondingly depressed home values and limited further depressing their desirability, recreational utility, and resale value. THE STATE’S ROLE AT THE SALTON SEA Many Agencies Have a Role to Play at the groups, and groups representing agricultural Salton Sea. Numerous agencies at all levels stakeholders. of government are involved in responding to State Bears Primary Financial Responsibility conditions at the Salton Sea. The principal agencies for Responding to Changes at the Salton Sea. and their major roles are described in Figure 2. As required by the QSA, the three QSA water As shown, both state and local agencies are agencies are responsible for spending $133 million implementing activities to address the impacts of in 2003 dollars to begin to mitigate the effects of changing conditions at the Sea. Many of the local the water transfers, and the state has committed to agency responsibilities result from mitigation and implementing and funding the additional activities environmental permitting requirements associated necessary to address public health and wildlife with the QSA, which we discuss in greater detail impacts. (As discussed later, because the QSA below. agencies are making their expenditures over a In addition to the agencies displayed in the period of many years, their total funding obligation figure, other state and federal regulatory agencies is estimated to ultimately total around $288 million, monitor the potential environmental impacts of including interest.) These commitments were conditions at the Salton Sea and issue permits codified through several pieces of legislation authorizing activities. These include regional air implementing the QSA, including Chapter 613 of districts, the California Air Resources Board, the 2003 (SB 654, Machado), which specified the Colorado Regional Water Resources Control Board, environmental mitigation spending requirement the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the for the QSA agencies. The legislation also stated federal Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United that “any future actions to restore the Salton States Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, there Sea will be the sole responsibility of the State of are numerous nongovernmental organizations that California.” These state responsibilities are focused advocate for certain activities at the Salton Sea, on responding to public health and wildlife-related including environmental groups, local community impacts. While statute requires the state to consider local economic impacts, it does not 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT assign fiscal responsibility to the state to address next page discusses the terms frequently used to any such impacts that may result from a shrinking distinguish between local and state responsibilities.) Salton Sea. Addressing such concerns would State Has Spent Many Years Considering fall under the jurisdiction of local governments Options, but Few Projects Underway. Despite and community organizations. (The box on the 15 years to plan between the QSA in 2003 and the Figure 2 Agencies With Major Responsibilities at the Salton Sea Entity Role Local Imperial Irrigation District As a party to QSA, transfers up to 300,000 acre-feet per year of its water to CVWD (IID) and SDWA. Helps fund the mitigation projects required by the QSA permits and implements those projects for the QSA JPA. One of the largest landowners in the region. Delivers Colorado River water to irrigate farmland in the Imperial Valley near the Salton Sea. Coachella Valley Water As a party to QSA, receives up to 100,000 acre-feet of additional water per year from District (CVWD) IID. Helps fund the mitigation projects required by the QSA permits and serves as legal counsel for the QSA JPA. Delivers water for irrigation and domestic uses in the Coachella Valley near the Sea. San Diego County Water As a party to QSA, receives up to 200,000 acre-feet of additional water per year from Authority (SDWA) IID. Helps fund the mitigation projects required by the QSA permits and handles administration and finance for the QSA JPA. QSA JPA JPA including IID, CVWD, SDWA, and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Administers funding for implementing the mitigation activities required by QSA permits. Salton Sea Authority JPA including IID, CVWD, the Torres-Martinez tribe, and Imperial and Riverside counties. Partners with other entities to develop projects to restore the Sea. State Natural Resources Agency Serves as lead agency overseeing and guiding state’s Salton Sea activities. Coordinates and negotiates with other local, state and federal agencies. Department of Water Implements most of state’s restoration projects at the Sea, including engineering and Resources design, contracting, construction, and operations and maintenance. State Water Resources Responsible for protecting water quality and water rights, including by: issuing permit Control Board for QSA water transfers, imposing certain permit conditions (such as provision of mitigation water for 15 years), and requiring that the state construct specified amounts of projects at the Sea each year. Department of Fish and Helps design Salton Sea habitat projects, will develop and implement wildlife Wildlife monitoring program for constructed habitat. Issues regulatory permits for projects at the Sea as required by state law. Administers Salton Sea Restoration Fund. Tribal Torres-Martinez Band of Largest private landowner of property around the Sea, including roughly half of the Desert Cahuilla Indians land under the Sea. Partners with other agencies on restoration projects, including pilot wetland project on tribal land at north end of Sea. Federal Bureau of Reclamation Owns significant amount of land under and around the Sea. QSA = Quantification Settlement Agreement and JPA = Joint Powers Authority. www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT end of the temporary inflow to the Sea in December conducting reviews of potential environmental 2017, the state has not yet implemented any major impacts. In 2014, frustration with the slow pace of management projects at the Salton Sea. In 2007, management activities led IID to petition SWRCB the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to amend its original QSA-related water rights released a study of eight potential approaches to permit and require the state to begin implementing restoring the Sea, and recommended a “preferred a management plan, leading to corresponding alternative” to the Legislature with a corresponding SWRCB action in 2017. Figure 3 displays these cost of $9 billion. Funding constraints—including and other significant events at the Salton Sea. those associated with the severe recession that As shown in the figure, the state only recently followed—rendered this plan infeasible. In the adopted—and began funding—a plan for making subsequent years, the state has given out some significant progress on management activities. We grants for partner agencies to implement small describe this plan in the next section. pilot projects at the Sea, but state activities have primarily been focused on studying options and Defining Mitigation, Management, and Restoration Projects As discussed throughout this report, a number of different agencies at both the local and state levels are undertaking projects in response to the changes occurring at the Salton Sea. While many of these projects have similar goals, statute and stakeholders often distinguish between them—and how they are funded—using different terms. Such terms include: • Mitigation Projects. Salton Sea mitigation projects are often referred to as those undertaken by the three water agencies that were party to the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) in response to QSA-related environmental permitting requirements. As a condition of approving the QSA water transfers, state and federal regulatory agencies conducted environmental reviews and required that the participating water agencies—the Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, and San Diego County Water Authority—implement specific actions to mitigate the resulting impacts. These included providing additional inflow water to the Sea until December 2017, developing marsh habitat areas, and implementing a defined air quality monitoring and dust mitigation program. The agencies’ responsibilities for funding these mitigation activities, however, are capped at $133 million (in 2003 dollars). • Restoration or Management Projects. Stakeholders commonly refer to the additional actions necessary to address the impacts of a shrinking Sea after the QSA parties have fulfilled their required mitigation expenditure levels as either restoration or management projects. The state agreed to assume the remaining financial responsibility for addressing these potential impacts. This semantic distinction between the locally funded and state-funded activities, however, is somewhat misleading. The state does not plan to “restore” the Sea to its original conditions, and its planned activities to decrease the potential harmful effects of the water transfers are somewhat similar to those being undertaken by the QSA agencies. As such, all of these activities could accurately be described as mitigation. Yet because statute and many stakeholders use different labels to distinguish between local and state efforts, to avoid confusion we refer to state-funded activities as “management projects” throughout this report. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Figure 3 Timeline of Significant Events at the Salton Sea 1905 Modern Salton Sea formed by floodwaters from breach in Colorado River canal; breach repaired nearly two years later. 1930 Salton Sea Wildlife Refuge established for protection of ducks, geese, and shore birds. 1950 Due to increasing recreational activity, salt water game fish introduced to the Sea. 1999 Due to deteriorating conditions at the Sea, 7.6 million fish die in one day from oxygen depletion resulting from combination of heat, salinity, and algae. 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) signed and companion legislation enacted. Required transfer of water from Imperial Irrigation District to San Diego County Water Authority and Coachella Valley Water District, established a fixed amount of funding for Salton Sea mitigation projects, and designated additional management activities as state responsibility. 2007 Plan Restoration plan developed by California Secretary for Natural Resources with $8.9 billion “preferred alternative” approach; no legislative action taken. 2014 Petition submitted by Imperial Irrigation District to State Water Resources Control Board to modify QSA-related water rights permit in order to “hold the [state] to its obligation to restore the Salton Sea.” Proposition 1 passed by California voters, authorizing $80 million for Salton Sea management activities. 2015 Salton Sea Task Force established by Governor to identify short- and medium-term goals for responding to conditions at the Sea. 2017 State’s Salton Sea Management Program established and associated Phase I Ten-Year Plan released. Plan Stipulated order adopted by State Water Resources Control Board, requiring implementation of state’s management plan and annual construction goals. Fifteen-year requirement to provide mitigation water inflows to the Sea ends. 2018 Proposition 68 passed by California voters, authorizing $200 million for Salton Sea management activities. www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT TEN-YEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN State Recently Developed Ten-Year the Phase I Ten-Year Plan (the Plan) to guide state Management Plan. In 2017, the state established projects at the Salton Sea and address potential the Salton Sea Management Program—led by public health and environmental effects over the CNRA in collaboration with the Department of next decade. Figure 4 displays the planned areas Water Resources (DWR) and CDFW—and published of focus for state activities, as well as how the Figure 4 Salton Sea Management Program Overview 2018-2028 Torres Martinez Wetland Project 2003 2018 Projected Shoreline 2023 Retreat Red Hill Bay 2028 Management Projects 2018-2023 Management Projects 2023-2028 Species Conservation Habitat 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT footprint of the Salton Sea is expected to shrink Figure 5 over the coming decade. The Plan focuses on Estimated Salton Sea Playa Exposure and activities at the north and south ends of the Sea Management Goals Over the Next Decade where the greatest playa exposure is expected and where water from agricultural return flows is more From Salton Sea Management Program Phase I Ten-Year Plan readily available to incorporate into management projects. Acres of Newly Acres of Projects Year Exposed Playa To Be Constructed Figure 5 shows estimates for the acreage of dry lake bed to be exposed in the coming years, 2018 3,500 500 alongside the Plan’s acreage goals for projects. The 2019 4,200 1,300 2020 5,000 1,700 actual playa exposure rates each year are likely to 2021 5,600 3,500 vary from these estimates based on factors such 2022 5,500 1,750 as heat, rainfall, and agricultural runoff. As shown, 2023 5,300 2,750 the state does not plan to undertake projects on 2024 4,900 2,700 every acre of playa as it is exposed. For example, 2025 4,300 3,400 between 2018 and the end of 2020, the state 2026 3,900 4,000 plans to construct projects on 3,500 acres, even 2027 3,300 4,000 though it estimates that 12,700 acres of playa will 2028 2,800 4,200 have become exposed during that period. This Totals 48,300 29,800 is because some of the exposed areas around the Sea may not be emissive—that is, the soil additional time, with plans to undertake projects conditions may be such that dust is not likely to on about one-quarter of newly exposed playa in become airborne—or the land may be used for the first three years, growing to about 60 percent other purposes such as agriculture or geothermal of cumulative exposed playa by the end of the energy. Additionally, the Plan states that a lag time ten-year period. of up to two years exists between when playa Projects Would Provide Both Habitat and is exposed and when it may become emissive, Dust Suppression. Figure 6 provides examples allowing additional time for project implementation. of the types of projects identified in the Plan. As The state’s construction schedule reflects this described in the figure, some projects provide both Figure 6 Key Types of Salton Sea Management Projects 9 Various Types of Habitat. Habitats near the Salton Sea—including along the exposed shoreline—can be designed and constructed to serve the needs of a variety of species. These include wetland, riparian, shallow- water mudflat, and mid- to deep-water habitats. Project activities will include providing a permanent source of fresh or brackish water, constructing islands for nesting grounds, and constructing berms to hold water in ponds. Most of these types of habitat projects also provide dust suppression. 9 Dust Suppression. A variety of projects can be implemented to minimize the amount of dust emitted from the playa. In addition to the habitat projects described above, other water-dependent dust suppression techniques include planting vegetation, applying water to help form a salt crust across the ground surface, and periodic flooding to keep the ground from drying out too much. Waterless techniques include tilling or roughening the ground surface, and applying a gravel cover. 9 Water Delivery Infrastructure. Water management ponds and a distribution system can be constructed to bring less salty water to habitat projects. Ponds along the edges of the lakeshore will blend Salton Sea water and agricultural return flow water, creating brackish water with a lower level of salinity. A distribution system— including outlets, pumps, channels, and pipelines—will bring agricultural return flow water from nearby rivers to water management ponds and habitat and dust suppression project areas. www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT habitat and dust suppression benefits, while some that will be undertaken across the full ten year are primarily to control dust emissions. The state period. Instead, it lays out a high-level schedule may opt to implement projects primarily designed for target project locations and establishes the for dust suppression in areas not well-suited for acreage goals described in Figure 5. CNRA and habitat, and/or because in many cases they are DWR have indicated they intend to develop a easier and less costly to implement than habitat more detailed implementation plan as conditions— projects (which generally require provision of water). such as funding availability, Sea salinity levels, A key activity for developing functional habitats is environmental permits, playa exposure, and to create ponds containing water with salinity levels land-use agreements with landowners—develop that migrating birds—and the fish and insects upon over the coming years. Additionally, the Plan which they feed—can tolerate. Construction is states that future activities will be informed by currently underway on two pilot habitat projects— lessons learned from projects that are currently Red Hill Bay and Torres Martinez Wetlands, both underway. In initial years, the Plan states that work shown in Figure 4. will focus on expanding the Species Conservation Plan’s Annual Management Goals Formalized Habitat (SCH) project, shown in Figure 4 in the Through SWRCB Order. In response to the southwest region of the Sea. This project, on which 2014 petition from IID, SWRCB approved a construction is scheduled to begin by the end of stipulated water rights order in November 2017 that 2018, will provide two ponds of brackish water for revised the conditions of the permit approval that fish and bird habitat and dust suppression. The SWRCB granted for the QSA. Specifically, the order state has spent millions of dollars and many years requires the state to meet the annual acreage goals planning for this project, and funding for initial included in the Plan and displayed in Figure 5. construction has already been appropriated by The order also requires that for each year, at least the Legislature. According to the Plan, the SCH half of the project acres that the state constructs project will be expanded with additional ponds, must provide habitat benefits for fish and wildlife; address newly exposed playa, and help meet the that is, no more than half of annual construction Plan’s acreage goals for the next few years. The can be solely focused on dust suppression. Plan states that such work could progress relatively Every year, SWRCB will hold a public meeting by quickly because environmental reviews and March 31 to hear a progress report on the previous permitting have already been completed. year, including updates on completed projects Progress on Achieving Plan’s Goals Already and the amount of acreage, as well as plans for Delayed. As shown in Figure 5, the state planned— the coming year and funding availability. The order and the SWRCB stipulated order required— specifies that if the state fails to meet the specified construction of 500 acres of new projects by the acreage goals in a given year, it must “catch up” end of 2018. The state envisioned meeting this the following year, and report to SWRCB on how it goal by constructing the second, expanded stage will address the deficiency. of the SCH project. However, delays in negotiating In addition to the SWRCB order, implementation land-use agreements from IID—which owns the of the Plan is supported by an agreement with the land where the project will be constructed—mean federal government. Specifically, CNRA entered into that the first stage of that project likely will not a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the begin until near the end of 2018. As such, the state federal Department of the Interior affirming that the will not even select a contractor for the second state has the lead role in Salton Sea management stage until 2019, and thus will fail to meet the efforts, and expressing mutual intent to try to SWRCB stipulated order goals. CNRA and DWR are support achievement of the goals in the Plan (such in the process of revising their annual management as by expediting permitting processes). targets accordingly and indicate that they plan to construct additional acres at the SCH project in the Specific Project Activities to Be Determined coming years in order to catch up to the cumulative Over Coming Years. The Plan does not contain requirement of 3,500 acres by the end of 2020. a detailed list and timeline for specific projects 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Long-Term Management Plans Not Yet The state has created a committee to begin Developed. The state has not yet developed a developing these plans. In addition to the types plan for how it will respond to changes at the of projects described in Figure 6, potential future Salton Sea past 2028. Estimates suggest that projects under consideration include carving off the the Sea will continue to shrink until around 2045, north part of the Sea to create a separate, more at which point it will become so salty that it will sustainable lake. (The Riverside County Board of stop evaporating. The SWRCB stipulated order Supervisors is considering creating an enhanced requires that CNRA develop subsequent ten-year infrastructure finance district to help fund this management plans based on updated information “North Lake” proposal.) Additionally, CNRA solicited midway through each current planning phase; as proposals for how the state might import water to such, by 2022 it must develop a Phase 2 plan the Salton Sea, and is considering the feasibility to address changes through at the Sea through of incorporating ideas from the 11 responses it 2038. The order also directs CNRA to develop a received into a long-term management strategy. long-term management plan by the end of 2022. FUNDING AND COSTS FOR SALTON SEA MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Over $700 Million Has Been Authorized for Additionally, the QSA agreements required that the Management Activities. As shown in Figure 7 three agencies provide $30 million in 2003 dollars (see next page), a total of $730 million has into the “Salton Sea Restoration Fund” to be used been authorized for Salton Sea mitigation and for state-led restoration activities. This funding, management activities from state, federal, and local which is estimated to total $68.5 million over time sources. This total represents funding that has been including interest, is administered by CDFW. set aside or committed specifically for activities Significant Funding Remains Unspent. at the Salton Sea by voters, the Legislature, the As shown in Figure 7, more than two-thirds federal government, and local water agencies. As ($507.5 million) of the total amount authorized shown, the bulk of this funding has come from remains unspent, largely because a significant voter-approved state general obligation bonds. Of amount ($280 million) was only recently approved the state funding that has been expended thus far, by voters through Proposition 1 in November 2014 most has been used for planning activities including and Proposition 68 in June 2018. Additionally, the permitting and environmental reviews. multiyear payment schedule established for the Local Funding Provided by Three Water required QSA mitigation payments means that Agencies Associated With QSA. The local funding nearly half of the required funding from the QSA displayed in the figure is shown in two categories, Joint Powers Authority ($130.5 million) has not both of which represent required contributions yet been provided or expended. The QSA Joint from the three QSA water agencies. As noted Powers Authority estimates that two of its member earlier, the QSA included an agreement that IID, agencies will make their final mitigation payments in the Coachella Valley Water District, and the San 2025, and the third will do so in 2036. Diego County Water Authority provide $133 million State Estimates Implementing Ten-Year in 2003 dollars to mitigate for the effects of the Management Plan Will Cost $420 Million. As water transfers. This funding, which is estimated shown in Figure 8 (see next page), the state to total $288 million over time including interest, is estimates it will face costs of $420 million to managed by the QSA Joint Powers Authority. The implement the goals included in the Phase I bulk of those expenditures thus far has been to Ten-Year Plan and required by the SWRCB order. provide mitigation water into the Sea through 2017. These costs reflect updated estimates from www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Figure 7 Funding for Salton Sea Mitigation and Management As of June 2018 (In Millions) Source Authorized Unspent Use State Proposition 12 (2000) $4.8 $4.8 Constructing Species Conservation Habitat (SCH) project. Proposition 50 (2002) 33.6a 9.7 Environmental Impact Report and related studies and planning activities, SCH project. Proposition 84 (2006) 47.0 23.4 Staffing and planning activities; SCH project planning and design; partial funding for projects including Red Hill Bay, Seawater Marine Habitat Pilot, and Torres-Martinez Wetlands. Proposition 1 (2014) 80.0 77.3 Projects to meet goals identified in Phase I Ten-Year Plan. Proposition 68 (2018) 200.0 200.0 Projects to meet goals identified in Phase I Ten-Year Plan. Federal NRCS (to Salton Sea Authority) $7.5 $7.5 Agricultural dust suppression and wetlands projects. NRCS (to state) 0.8 0.8 Planning activities. Local QSA Joint Powers Authority $288.0 $130.5 Various mitigation requirements associated with the QSA. Salton Sea Restoration Fund 68.5 53.5 Various restoration activities. Totals $730.1 $507.5 a The bond authorized $58.6 million for various purposes in the Colorado River basin, of which $33.6 million has been allocated specifically for activities at the Salton Sea. NRCS = National Resources Conservation Service and QSA = Quantification Settlement Agreement. DWR as of August 2018, including addressing only a small amount has been expended for the SWRCB requirement that half of the acres staff and planning costs thus far. The state has completed each year provide a habitat benefit not identified a funding source to support the (which was not reflected in the original Plan). As remaining $140 million in Plan implementation shown, these estimates do not break out costs by year but rather by multiyear construction stages, Figure 8 and reflect an updated plan to construct slightly more (600 acres) than was included in the original Estimated Costs for Implementation of Salton Plan and SWRCB requirement. Sea Management Program Phase I Ten-Year Plan As of the writing of this report, $280 million is From the Department of Water Resources, August 2018 available from Propositions 1 and 68 to support Projects Constructed Costs the $420 million in estimated costs. To date, Period (in Acres) (in Millions) the Legislature has appropriated $110 million of 2018-2019 2,068 $3 this funding—$80 million from Proposition 1 in 2020-2022 11,318 206 the 2016-17 Budget Act and $30 million from 2023-2026 8,253 107 Proposition 68 in the 2018-19 Budget Act. Since 2027-2028 8,776 104 project construction has not yet commenced, Totals 30,415 $420 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT costs—the difference between the $420 million as energy for pumping water to habitat ponds, cost estimate and the $280 million in bond staff time to monitor project conditions and funds authorized. However, Proposition 3 on effectiveness, addressing erosion of or damage to the November 2018 ballot would provide an earthen berms, and replacing damaged or worn-out additional $200 million in bond funds for Salton Sea equipment. In the MOU between CNRA and the management activities if it is approved by voters. federal Department of the Interior, the federal Future Costs and Funding Sources Yet to Be government committed to pursuing $30 million in Identified. The state also has not yet determined federal funds to help with the state’s operations, how it will fund either ongoing operations and maintenance, and monitoring costs. However, no maintenance costs or future management activities such congressional appropriation has yet been beyond 2028. DWR estimates that ongoing made. Additionally, cost estimates and funding operations and maintenance costs will likely sources for addressing impacts at the Sea as it total between $8 million and $10 million annually continues to shrink beyond the next ten years still once all of the Phase I projects are complete. are unknown because long-term management These ongoing costs would be for activities such plans have not yet been developed. KEY ISSUES FOR LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT Legislature Has Important Oversight Role. ensure not only that the state is meeting its annual After many years of inaction, activities at the Salton construction goals, but—more importantly—that Sea are showing promising signs of progress. it is achieving its larger objectives of avoiding However, as the rate at which the Sea is shrinking negative health and environmental impacts over begins to ramp up, the Legislature will want to the coming decade. Specific questions for the ensure that the state remains on track to meet Legislature to monitor in the coming months and its obligations and avoid negative public health years include: and environmental effects. The Legislature has • Is the state consistently achieving its annual several opportunities for exercising its oversight acreage construction goals? If not, what are role, monitoring progress at the Salton Sea, and its remediation plans? determining whether legislative intervention might • Are there specific barriers that are impeding be needed. These include legislative oversight the state’s progress, and are there legislative hearings, consideration of future funding requests actions that could help to address those through the annual budget process, and reviews challenges? of CNRA’s required annual progress reports to SWRCB. If delays continue or other concerns • Does the state have sufficient staffing and arise, the Legislature could also request to receive project management structures in place to intermittent or regular status updates directly from achieve its goals? the administration. Below, we describe key issues • What criteria is the state utilizing to select the for the Legislature to monitor in the coming months types and locations of projects to undertake and years that will indicate whether the state is on each year? track to manage negative impacts at the Salton • What monitoring processes is the state putting Sea. in place, and what indicators will it use to Short-Term Management. While the state’s ensure it is effectively meeting its objectives? Phase I Plan lays out goals and high-level How will the state ensure that its efforts are descriptions of potential projects, it does not successful in avoiding negative public health contain a detailed description or timeline for exactly and environmental impacts? which projects will be undertaken. The Legislature will want to track implementation of the Plan to www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT • What adaptive management practices is the reduced Colorado River allocations, droughts, state putting into place to modify its approach and hotter temperatures? and respond to new information or changing • Are there ways to ensure effective participation conditions? How will the state learn from the of relevant parties in the region—such as the successes and challenges it has faced in its federal government and local stakeholders—in management efforts and ensure those lessons long-term planning? are incorporated into subsequent plans, Funding and Costs. As noted earlier, how the projects, and activities? state will fund future activities at the Salton Sea Long-Term Management. Although the state is still uncertain. Of particular concern is the lack has made significant progress over the past two of identified funding for ongoing operations and years in its short-term planning efforts, it still lacks maintenance for the management projects the a plan for how it will manage changes at the Salton state plans to construct in the coming ten years. Sea that will occur after 2028. The Legislature will Questions for the Legislature to monitor over the want to ensure that the state does not delay such coming months and years include: planning efforts to the point where it faces risks to • Have cost estimates for implementing the public health and the environment that could have Phase I Management Plan changed? been avoided. This is of particular concern given the state’s track record of slow progress between • What are the estimated costs for long-term 2003 and 2017 in planning for impending changes management activities at the Salton Sea? at the Sea. Key oversight questions include: • How will the state fund (1) remaining costs to implement the Ten-Year Plan; (2) ongoing • Is the state making adequate progress on operations, maintenance, and monitoring developing a long-term plan for the continually activities; and (3) long-term management shrinking Sea? activities? • How are long-term planning efforts accounting • Are there other funding sources (such as for potential new developments and the federal funds) that could be attained to help possible impacts of climate change at the supplement state funding? Sea, such as additional inflow reductions from 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Rachel Ehlers and reviewed by Brian Brown. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE