|
EPR Archived News |
Petition to Form the Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of Riverside CountyReleased on = August 18, 2005, 11:04 am Press Release Author = National Outdoor Recreation Council Industry = Environment Press Release Summary = Owners of property, within the proposed harbor improvement district, petitioned the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (CA) today to form the Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of Riverside County Press Release
Body = PREAMBLE TO THE PETITION TO FORM This preamble
is part of the Petition to form the Salton Sea Harbor Improvement
District of Riverside County (hereinafter the “Petition”).
Its purpose is to provide additional information, in the way of
further explanation, to the “freeholders” (the real
property owners) within the proposed Salton Sea Harbor Improvement
District of Riverside County, (hereinafter the “Harbor District
of Riverside Co.”), so that they will more apply be able to
make informed decisions as to; As they are
written for the freeholders to understand, this Preamble to the
Petition, the Petition, and the Ordinance, are not written in legal
jargon; though, they do not shy away from tackling the pertinent
legal issues. Complex subjects, especially the cost estimate and
profit potential sections, were intentionally oversimplified. The
National Outdoor Recreation Council or (NORC), the writer, oversimplified
complex issues, at the risk of incurring criticism, so that each
and NATIONAL OUTDOOR
RECREATION COUNCIL (a Calif. Non-profit Corp.) ADOPTION OF THE SALTON SEA When the U.S. Congress enacted the National Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 they found “it to be desirable that all American people of present and future generations be assured adequate outdoor recreation resources.” (16 USCS § 460l) In the past, the U.S. Congress dedicated a prolific amount of outdoor recreation facilities. In recent years, however, the emphasis has shifted to the protection of threatened and endangered species (T&E species). Rather than mitigating the impact of outdoor recreation or working towards recovery of T&E species, government has selected to, instead, close the brunt of existing outdoor recreation facilities. The need to protect existing outdoor recreation facilities, from permanent closure, thus arose. NORC (a California non-profit Corp.) was formed to fill that gap. NORC is dedicated to preserving as much of the prior existing outdoor recreation facilities as possible. It does this, primarily, by adopting threatened prior existing outdoor recreation facilities, upon application. After adoption, NORC provides mitigation and restoration to maintain those facilities; to the extent it is able to, and where applicable. Not too long
ago, many people looked forward to recreating at the Salton Sea.
Fred Dungan said; “When my father first took me to the Salton
Sea 40 years ago, it was one of the most popular recreational areas
in Southern California with almost as many visitors as Yosemite.”
(Fred Dungan, www.fdungan.com/salton.htm) This is no To seek NORC’s
help to restore the Salton Sea, Branko Belicevski applied for its
adoption. After investigation, NORC determined that assistance was
necessary and that it could provide a significant portion of it.
Upon that determination, NORC adopted the Salton Sea. After adoption,
NORC studied the matter of restoration and, upon the information
gathered, decided it would be best to begin by PETITION’S PROPOSED METHOD FOR RESTORATION OF THE SALTON SEA Upon study,
NORC found a number of proposals for restoration of the Salton Sea.
(See Salton Sea Restoration: Final Preferred Project Report, Salton
Sea Authority, July 2004, www.saltonsea.ca.gov) A similar proposal
to NORC’s, one which was to convey (channel) water from the
Salton Sea to the Gulf of California and back, was considered by
the Salton Sea Authority. (p. 18) That proposal was rejected by The Salton
Sea Authority proposes to reduce contamination, for their Preferred
Project, in various ways. They propose to create more wetlands which
are labeled “contaminate traps” by their critiques.
(p. 60) NORC concurs with their critiques. Wetlands do not dispose
of hazardous waste such as selenium; they merely collect (trap)
it elsewhere. The new $100 million addition to the wastewater treatment
plant in Mexicali is only going to remove (10) percent of the The Salton
Sea Authority is not the only ones to have considered channels from
the Gulf of California as a means for restoration of the Salton
Sea. Fred Dungan presented a similar proposal to theirs; one that
also called for two channels. (www.fdungan.com/salton.htm) One engineering
firm (Metcalf & Eddy) has even drawn up plans for channels to
convey sea water from the Gulf of California to, and from, Fred Dungan’s
proposal significantly differs from NORC’s, though. His proposal
entails “expanding the Salton Sea’s boundaries to approximately
those of ancient Lake Cahuilla”. This would, effectively,
inundate a lot of existing cities and development. That was an agency
of the U.S. Federal government’s proposal in 1938; one which
was drawn up before all the new cities and new development occurred
out NORC’s
proposal does not entail the building of a series of locks. Locks,
to allow for direct shipping access to the Salton Sea, may, however,
be added later. If ancient Lake Cahuilla is not inundated, then
locks would have to be built to allow direct shipping access to
the Salton Sea (because it is more than 220 feet below sea level).
To restore the Salton Sea, all that would be necessary is to draw
no AUTHORITY TO BRING THE PETITION The Petition
is to develop a harbor in the County of Riverside, California. More
than the required fifty qualified persons, (registered voters, residents,
and also freeholders within the proposed Harbor District of Riverside
Co.), will have indicated their desire to form the Harbor District
of Riverside Co. by signing it. (Cal Harb & Nav Code §
5824) A “freeholder” is an owner of real property or
an owner of interest in real property. The Petitioners have a lawful
right to present
The Petition is to petition to form a harbor improvement district to develop a harbor; the portion within Riverside County. It assumes that a connecting harbor (channel) will be built through Mexico from the Gulf of California to the United States/Mexico border by Mexico; and that another connecting harbor (channel), to that one, will be built through California from the United States/Mexico border to the Imperial County/Riverside County border by the Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of Imperial County. In the event
that Mexico does not commit, in time, to build a connecting harbor,
(channel), the Petition assumes that a connecting harbor (channel)
will be built, in the alternative, through California from the Pacific
Ocean to the San Diego County/Imperial County border by the Salton
Sea Harbor Improvement District of San AFFECT OF SIGNING THE PETITION Essentially, by signing the Petition, one is petitioning the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside to place the issue, as to whether to form the proposed Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of Riverside County, up for election on a special ballot. Only freeholders, within the proposed Harbor District of Riverside Co., will be able to vote upon it. A summary of the sequence of events to expect follows. No less than
fifty freeholders can petition the board of supervisors of the county
to form a harbor improvement district for the development of a harbor.
(Cal Harb & Nav Code §§ 5821 and 5824) Notification
of the time and place for the hearing on that petition is then to
be published in a local newspaper. (Cal Harb & Nav Code §
5825) The board must consider the petition, investigate the matter,
and make a JURISDICTION TO FORM THE HARBOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The California
Harbors and Navigation Code, for the formation of a harbor improvement
district, raises the presumption that the State of California has
sole jurisdiction to develop harbors in the state. Moreover, authorization
to cooperate with agencies of the U.S. Federal government, and procedures
for that, are expressly provided for by California statute. (Cal
Harb & Nav Code § 5903) There is no United States Code,
or Code of Federal Regulation, to the contrary. Nor, is It has been asserted that the mere fact that the Harbor District of Riverside Co.’s main channel will connect to a channel in Mexico is enough grounds to warrant U.S. Federal agency sole jurisdiction. Were that the case, California Interstate 5 and numerous other state highways, throughout the United States, would be U.S. Federal agency owned, managed, and controlled; which, they not. It has been asserted that the freeholders could not petition to form a harbor district until preliminary planning and engineering is completed; and, that the cost of such preliminary planning and engineering is so high that U.S. Federal agency funding would be required to perform it. It has been further asserted that if U.S. Federal agency funding is provided, for preliminary planning and engineering, that it would be enough grounds to warrant U.S. Federal agency sole jurisdiction. Preliminary planning and engineering is indeed very high; estimated at $372 million, (1) percent of estimated planning and engineering, for both Harbor Districts. The required contents of the Petition are specific in California statutes and none require the extent of preliminary planning and engineering so envisioned. A “general description” of the proposed improvement and development work, as was adequately provided for with the Petition, is sufficient. (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5822) Were it otherwise, only the extremely wealthy could petition to form a harbor district; and, that is not the law. (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5824) In other words, it would be unconscionable to require the freeholders of the proposed Harbor District of Riverside Co. to pay, or come up with, $136 million in preliminary planning and engineering work before they would be allowed to petition for the formation of the Harbor District of Riverside Co.; that is, assuming that the freeholders of the proposed Harbor District of Imperial Co. pay, or come up with, their share, $236 million. Such preliminary planning and engineering is simply just not required for decision making. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside and the freeholders within the proposed Harbor District of Riverside Co. will not find it necessary to review detailed engineering plans and drawings to make their decisions as to whether to form the Harbor District of Riverside Co. Their decisions are expected to be premised, primarily, upon economic factors, as are presented and discussed here. Even were U.S. Federal agency funding provided, there is a mechanism for that (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5903) and it does not call for turning over ownership, management, or control of the Harbor District of Riverside Co. to any agency of the U.S. Federal government. POTENTIAL TAKEOVER BY A U.S. FEDERAL AGENCY An agency of
the U.S. Federal government can conceivably, through future legislation,
(a long drawn out process by itself), take control of the land area
slated here as the, to be formed, Harbor Districts; and, for the
same purpose, to build a channel. Forming the Harbor District of
Riverside Co., or attempting to form the Harbor District of Riverside
Co., however, is likely to fend off a U.S. Federal agency takeover
because it will shed light on it. Conversely, failing to form or
failing to attempt to form, the Harbor District of Riverside Co.
is to invite a U.S. Federal agency takeover. For this reason, NORC
will have succeeded (1) the freeholders
therein; Were freeholders to have their properties taken by an agency of the U.S. Federal government, (by right of eminent domain), they would not receive even current (pre-Harbor District of Riverside Co.) value in compensation because of how those properties would be assessed. More than likely, freeholders will have to wait 20 years, after the taking of their properties is affected, before they will receive any payment in compensation from an agency of the U.S. Federal government, whatsoever; and, payment won’t include any real interest. They probably won’t even be able to borrow against their properties or the expected, so called, “just compensation”, in the interim. Such loan are not usually given. Worse, is that an agency of the U.S. Federal government, because of the recent Kelo v. City of New London U.S. Supreme Court decision, is, more than likely, going to take all the property in the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and then re-sell the portions which can be privately developed to the highest private bidder. (Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108, Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011) In other words, should an agency of the U.S. Federal government take control of the Harbor District of Riverside Co., more than likely, all of the freeholders are going to lose all their properties therein; and, without receiving any compensation, whatsoever, for that taking. Local government is not expected to fair any better under U.S. Federal agency control. Not only would the local governments, the local agencies, and the State of California lose their tax base, more than likely, they would not see a penny in revenue from any agency of the U.S. Federal government, in return. COOPERATION WITH MEXICO Mexico has as much, if not more, to gain from a channel from the Gulf of California to the United States; and, not just in increased profits. To restore the Salton Sea it will be necessary to restore the New and the Alamo Rivers and their watersheds; much of which is in Mexico. To take seawater from the Gulf of California it will be necessary to restore that ecosystem, as well. It is NORC’s
understanding that the Fox Administration, in principle, is in favor
of such a channel. The Mexican government may desire to see preliminary
engineered plans before initiating formal negotiations, though.
Such preliminary engineered plans would cost approximately $372
million; (roughly (1) percent of estimated planning and engineering).
That is too large an investment to expect of anyone COOPERATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES As was discussed, cooperation between the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and the agencies of the U.S. Federal government is authorized and circumscribed by State law. (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5903) Transfers of U.S. Federal agency land, however, are circumscribed by U.S. Federal law. U.S. Federal
agency lands are excluded until transferred. Some U.S. Federal agency
land, within the Harbor District of Riverside Co., will have to
be transferred to the Harbor District of Riverside Co. for harbor
development purposes. The Secretary of the U.S. Army is the only
one authorized to make such transfers. Application for the transfer
of U.S. Federal agency lands, sought for harbor development purposes,
is made to the Secretary of the U.S. Army, pursuant to (33 In light of
the fact that the U.S. Forest Service may attempt to exercise control
over most of the water in California, (and in all other states),
there is a concern that an agency of the U.S. Federal government
will do so over the Harbor District of Riverside Co., as well. The
U.S. Congress can conceivably take control of the Harbor District
of Riverside Co. through future legislation; though it is very
Much incorporated and unincorporated land, other than for direct harbor development purposes, is also included in the Harbor Districts. This was done to facilitate specific planning so as to maximize the economic potential of the Harbor Districts. All of the lands, within the Harbor Districts, will diminish the tax base of the affected cities and counties. To offset this loss, the Harbor District of Riverside Co., (by this condition), will provide (25) percent of its net revenue to the affected cities and county, proportionately. Still, even at this percentage, they are expected to gain far more than they would otherwise have.
State lands
are excluded until transferred. Some State land, within the Harbor
District of Riverside Co., will have to be transferred to the Harbor
District of Riverside Co. for harbor development purposes. Other
State lands would best be transferred to facilitate specific planning.
Yet, other State lands would best be moved, (have their boundaries
adjusted), also to facilitate specific planning. State permitting
will be required for the desalination and electric generation
Sovereign Tribal
Indian lands are neither incorporated or unincorporated; and, as
such, the County of Riverside, for this purpose, has no jurisdiction
over them. Sovereign Tribal Indian lands are therefore excluded
from the Harbor District of Riverside Co. Should the affected Indian
Tribes, of said sovereign Trial Indian lands, wish to negotiate
to participate in the specific planning of the Harbor NEGOTIATING WITH FREEHOLDERS “The
harbor district may, in any year, levy assessments, reassessments,
or special taxes and issue bonds to finance waterway construction
projects and related operations and maintenance, or operations and
maintenance projects independent of construction projects”.
(Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5904) That power, however, is “The
board may exercise the right of eminent domain to take any property
necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers conferred.”
(Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5900.4) The Board of Supervisors
of Riverside County, by concurrent Ordinance, (a condition of the
Petition), will have delegated that power to the Harbor Commission.
This right of eminent domain raises four major concerns. First,
the (1) Any property
to be taken by the right of eminent domain is to be compensated
for by payment of three times its current (pre-Harbor District of
Riverside Co.) tax appraised value; HARBOR DISTRICT’S OBLIGATIONS TO PARKS, RECREATION, AND SPORTS NORC facilitated
the bringing of the Petition forward to insure that its adopted
outdoor recreation facility, the Salton Sea, will be restored. NORC
’s interest in restoring the Salton Sea is to assure the citizens
of the United States adequate and quality recreation and sports
facilities. The Petition is, hereby, conditioned to make certain
that this purpose is accomplished. The Petition does this by conditioning
the Harbor Districts to provide (by this condition) NORC with, a
fee Total land
area, encompassed by the boundaries of the Harbor Districts, is
approximately (2,164 sq mi). Less the water surface area of the
Salton Sea (365 sq mi) the Harbor Districts bound approximately
(1,799 sq mi) of land. About ⅓ of that is either Federal,
State, or Sovereign Tribal Indian, etc., land. Thus, the Harbor
Districts may include as much as (1,199 sq mi) of land. One percent
of The Petition (by this condition) is also giving NORC second choice of land in the Harbor Districts. The main channel and pipeline to the Salton Sea, therefrom, are first choice; and, nothing else is. The Petition
(by this condition) is conditioning the Harbor Districts to provide
NORC with (1) percent of their total net income, from all sources,
or $300 million per year, ($110 million for the Harbor District
of Riverside Co. and $190 million for the Harbor District of Imperial
Co.), whichever is the greater amount, so that NORC can acquire,
develop, operate and maintain these lands and the facilities it The Petition (by this condition) is making these conditions in addition to and not in lieu of the Harbor Districts’ legal obligations to provide for open space, parks, beaches, recreation and sports. The Harbor
Districts are authorized to comply to the above conditions of the
Petition. (Cal Harb & Nav Code §§ 5950, 5950.5, and
5955) In addition to these obligations to NORC, the Harbor Districts
are to devote, by law, at least (75) percent of their annual expenditures,
initially, and at least (50) percent of their annual expenditures,
thereafter, to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain inland
An ordinance
(the “Ordinance”) to appoint a Harbor Commission by
the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County is processed concurrently
with the Petition. The Petition is withdrawn, by the Petitioners,
if that Ordinance is not passed, concurrently with it. The reason
being that the Harbor Districts will not likely be approved unless
the environmental community (at large) supports it. The environmental
community is not expected to support passage of the Harbor Districts The board of supervisors may only appoint seven members to the harbor commission, by law. (Harb. & Nav. Code § 5902) That is the reason that the number of Harbor Commissioners was limited to seven. Marta (Marcias) Brown was selected to lead (Chair) the Harbor Commission, and delegated with the power to select three other Harbor Commissioners, (two in the alternate circumstance where a Harbor District of San Diego Co. would be necessary), for five compelling reasons: (1) She is
a member of the Board of Governors for the United States-Mexico
Foundation for Science (FUMEC). Walter H. Eason, Jr. was selected as a Harbor Commissioner for five compelling reasons: (1) The method
being proposed for restoring the Salton Sea, by the Petition, was
his idea to begin with; that is, before it was discovered by NORC
that others had similar ideas. Branko Belicevski was selected as a Special Advisor for five compelling reasons: (1) He worked
with Marta Brown and the late George E. Brown, Jr. in their attempt
to restore the Salton Sea. Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, of the State of California, was delegated with the
power to appoint a Special Advisor to the Harbor Commission because
he is the leader of the state which has given, by statute, the lawful
jurisdiction to authorize the formation of the Harbor District of
Riverside Co. President George W. Bush, of the RESTORATION OF THE SALTON SEA WOULD BE A PROFITABLE VENTURE The Petition
encumbers the Harbor Districts (by this condition) with a specific
method of restoration of the Salton Sea, (channeling seawater from
the ocean); though, it is flexible about how. A number of other
things, besides channeling seawater, will have to be done to complete
restoration of the Salton Sea. They are not discussed at any length
here, even if mentioned. It is presumed that the Harbor Commission
will study and employ all necessary methods to fully restore the The method
of restoration of the Salton Sea (channeling seawater) conditioned
on Petition here was considered by the Salton Sea Authority to be
a net expense (a loss); one so large, “$10s of billions”,
that the government would not afford it. (Salton Sea Restoration:
Final Preferred Project Report, Salton Sea Authority, July NORC found the inverse to be true; that restoration of the Salton Sea will result in a net profit, instead. There is a good amount of evidence to support the conclusion that the Salton Sea is rich in accumulated precious metals. There may even have been mining operations there in the past. This can and should be verified. If assaying shows value, then the precious metals should be extracted and the proceeds, therefrom, used to restore the Salton Sea. The selenium and other contaminates will have to be removed from the soil to restore the Salton Sea anyway. Mining is just as good a method as any for doing that. In this way, the precious metals can be extracted and the hazardous waste can be removed. It would be unconscionable to return that hazardous waste back to the Salton Sea after extracting the precious metals from the soil containing it. No one in their right mind would do that. Hazardous waste, of course, will have to be disposed of properly. The proceeds from the sale of any precious metals extracted will be credited to the Harbor Districts’ Salton Sea Restoration Fund; and, they could be in the $10s of billions. Precious metals are not the only potential assets available to offset the cost of restoration of the Salton Sea. The Salton
Sea receives (1.3 maf/yr) in an apportionment from the Colorado
River to maintain its level. This water will no longer be needed
for that purpose for the Harbor Districts will provide seawater
to maintain (and restore) the Salton Sea. As the apportionment of
Colorado River water is to the Salton Sea, it is considered an asset
of the Salton Sea. (Salton Sea Restoration; Final Preferred Project
Report, July 2004, pp. 1 & 70) As such, any application of that The proposed
Harbor Districts will build a main channel for shipping which will
cause a tremendous amount of development to occur; estimated at
between $400 and 600 trillion in assessed value, on the United States
side alone. Most of that development, by far, will cause, on balance,
a huge initial and ongoing revenue gain to the Harbor Districts.
As that revenue is to be shared with the affected The above is a conservative estimate of the revenue to be expected from development in and around the proposed Harbor Districts. The Unified Port of San Diego’s August 2003 Economic Impact Analysis showed that the Port and its tenants generate $8.4 billion in total revenue. (Unified Port of San Diego Strategic Plan 2002 - 2006, Update June 2004, p. 4, www.portofsandiego.org) That is a more realistic estimate of revenue to be expected from development in and around the proposed Harbor Districts. The proposed
Harbor Districts will build desalination plants and electric generation
facilities to provide water (and maybe electricity) for themselves
and a vast number of other people. The Harbor Districts may very
well have commitments for no less than (30 maf/yr) to as much as
(300 maf/yr) of fresh drinking water. The net gain to be expected
from the sale of that water boggles the mind. Even at The proposed
Harbor Districts will build shipping and port facilities such as;
channels, shipways, ship berths, anchorage places, turning basins,
jetties, breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls, wharves, ferry slips,
and warehouses. The net gain the Harbor Districts will realize from
the fees for the use of these facilities are also expected to be
high; ranging from between $100 to $300 million a year; (between
$36.5 and $109.5 million for the Harbor District of Riverside Co. The major ongoing
cost to the Harbor Districts would be that of servicing the bonds
for the initial construction. Even at the lowest yield, (1) percent
real net profit, developers are expected to buy all the bonds necessary
to complete construction, regardless of the cost. This is because
they have so much more to gain from private development; $400 to
600 trillion. Were actual cost of initial
The proposed
channel, for both Harbor Districts, would travel from the United
States/Mexico border, just west of Calexico, northerly to Palm Desert,
Ca.; 115 miles through Imperial County and 66 miles through Riverside
County. The Petition makes the assumption that there will be a Mexican
harbor (channel) from the Gulf of California to the United States/Mexico
border. To form the Harbor District of Riverside Co., however, this
assumption will have to be formalized. A letter of If such a letter
of intent from Mexico cannot be obtained before the Board of Supervisors
of Riverside County votes on whether to form the Harbor District
of Riverside Co., an auxiliary channel is proposed, instead; (the
“Auxiliary Channel”). The Auxiliary Channel would originate
from the Pacific Ocean, within or near Border Field State Park,
and travel east through San Diego County to meet up with the channel
in the Harbor District of Imperial Co. It would add another 15 PETITION TO
FORM THE SALTON We, the signatory freeholders (the “Petitioners”) of the proposed Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of Riverside County, (hereinafter the “Harbor District of Riverside Co.”), by this Petition, do, hereby, petition the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County to form said Harbor District of Riverside Co. as follows. NAME OF THE PROPOSED HARBOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Pursuant to Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5822(a), the petition “shall show” the name of the proposed harbor improvement district. The name of this proposed harbor improvement district is to be the SALTON SEA HARBOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY. OFFICIAL NAME BY WHICH THE HARBOR WILL BE COMMONLY KNOWN Pursuant to Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5822(b), the petition “shall show” the official name or name by which the harbor will be commonly known. The name by which this harbor improvement district will commonly be known, if formed, is the “Harbor District of Riverside Co.”.
This Petition
to form the Harbor District of Riverside Co. is being proposed,
simultaneously, with the petition to form the Harbor District of
Imperial Co.; and, alternatively, the petition to form the Harbor
District of San Diego Co. Those petitions, like this Petition to
form the Harbor District of Riverside Co., are also being processed
concurrently with an ordinance to create a harbor commission. Those
ordinances to create harbor commissions are the same as the Ordinance,
here,
Pursuant to
Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5822(d), the petition “shall
show” the exterior boundaries of the proposed harbor improvement
district, which may include incorporated territory, or both incorporated
and unincorporated territory but shall include the whole or some
part of the harbor proposed to be improved or developed. Signatories
of this Petition, before signing, were shown the detailed maps of
the Request for Formation of the Harbor District of Riverside County Pursuant to Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5823, this Petition request that the territory included within the boundaries of the proposed Harbor District of Riverside Co., as shown, be formed into a harbor district for the purpose of the development of a harbor. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5822(e), the petition “shall show” a “general description” of the proposed improvement and development work. The work may include the dredging of channels, shipways, ship berths, anchorage places, and turning basins, and the construction of jetties, breakwaters, bulkheads, seawalls, wharves, ferry slips, and warehouses.(Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5820) A main channel,
(which is more fully described herein below), no less than 1/2 mile
wide and 80 feet high (carrying a 60 feet depth of seawater, MLLW),
will be built in the Harbor Districts. To take advantage of that
channel, for approximately 2 1/4 miles on both sides of it, development
will be specific planned. Specific planning Fred Dungan saw the vast potential of building the proposed channel; “Marinas could be built along the entire length of the canal, increasing the value of desert real estate in both the United States and Mexico.” (www.fdungan.com/salton.htm) The Salton
Sea is included in the Harbor Districts to insure its restoration
and because it will take seawater from the main channel. It is also
included in the Harbor Districts in the event that locks are built
to allow access to it by ships. Development will be specific planned
for (2) miles surrounding the Salton Sea. Specific planning will
include all types of development including all that which is authorized
under (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5820). It will also include
the public ESTIMATED COST OF DEVELOPMENT AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES Pursuant to Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5822(f), the petition “shall show” an estimated cost of the development, and the incidental expenses. Delimiting Channel Design Factor Initially, it was thought that the delimiting factor for determining the ultimate width of the main channel would be the berth and number of largest ships that may traverse it, at any given point and time. This is easily calculated. For one-way traffic, a multiplier of three times the design ship beam is a conservative design factor. This results in a conservative channel design width of (306 feet). For two-way traffic, a multiplier of six times the design ship beam is a conservative design factor, resulting in a conservative channel design width of (610 feet). (Draft San Diego Harbor Deepening Detailed Project Report, Nov. 2002, p. 6-5) Turning basins
require an even greater design width; in certain places. According
to EM 1110-2-1613, “the size of the turning basin should provide
a minimum turning diameter of at least 1.2 times the length of the
design ship where prevailing currents are 1/2 knots or less.”
The length of the design vessel is 650 feet; therefore, the diameter
of the basin should be a minimum of 780 feet. A conservative turning
basin design is 2 times the design ship’s length. For a design Other factors,
however, may require a wider design width. Depth is, relatively,
a constant. Depth will not much more than (53 feet) MLLW. (Draft
San Diego Harbor Deepening Detailed Project Report, Nov. 2002, p.
2-1) This is because depth must be, at least, (53 feet) MLLW to
allow for the larger Navy ships and (42 feet) MLLW to allow for
the larger cargo ships, fully loaded at low tide; and, cost increases The Harbor District of Riverside Co. is to produce desalinated water. It takes approximately (2) gallons of seawater to produce (1) gallon of fresh water. The amount of that water is directly proportional to the design width of the main channel. The larger the amount of desalinated water, to be produced, the larger the design width of the main channel. If the demand for water is large, then the design width of the main channel will also be large. For this estimate;
a main channel that is to produce (29 maf/yr) of fresh water, and
pipe another (2 maf/yr) of seawater for the Salton Sea, (60 maf/yr;
also, 164,384 ac ft/day) of seawater altogether, may have to hold,
at least, 20 times that daily volume to prevent entrainment and
a dangerous (un-navigable) flow; (3,287,671 ac ft). Such a channel,
at the depth of (60 ft) MLLW of seawater, would A (1/2) mile wide main channel would allow for 8 way traffic of large ships while allowing 2 way traffic for smaller vessels, at the same time. It could even allow, all along its length, two of the larger cargo ships to turn around at the same time. As such, the delimiting factor for determining the ultimate width of the main channel, should the Harbor Districts produce a large quantity of drinking water is the demand thereof.
As was previously established, the amount of drinking water to be produced (if large) is the delimiting factor in determining the ultimate design width of the main channel. To make a credible approximation of cost, the dimensions of the proposed main channel must be known. By law, a petition to form a harbor improvement district must include a credible estimate of cost. As such, for this Petition, the demand for desalinated drinking water must therefore be estimated. Given the choice,
one is expected to buy fresh water at the lower rate. If fresh water
is available from another source, at a cheaper rate, then one is
not expected to buy desalinated fresh water from the Harbor Districts.
California Department of Water Resoures (DWR) considers desalinated
water to be, cost wise, competitive with certain other sources.
(Draft California Water Plan, April 2005, p. 6-4) Whether
The Draft California Water Plan, April 2005, plans to provide for the water demands of Californians through the year 2030. This, of course, is without considering the Harbor Districts’ proposed addition. The Draft California Water Plan, April 2005, plans to provide for (2 maf/yr) of water to stop groundwater overdraft and one (1 maf/yr) of water to meet current environmental water objectives. (p. 4-14) According to
the Equal Footing Doctrine (that the Territories enter the Union
on an equal footing with the original 13 States) and a slew of other
U.S. laws, the States own title to and control the land under their
waters and the water therein. Through a series of relatively recent
legal actions, (the most recent being the Karuk Tribe Case), the
courts have whittled away to nothing that State ownership On October
8, 2004 the Karuk Tribe (of California) filed action against the
U.S. Forest Service in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, (Case No.: C 04-4275 SBA). On June
13, 2005 and again on July 1, 2005, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,
by her Orders of the Court, refused to consider arguments opposing
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service over the land under The U.S. Forest Service is expected to exercise control over most of the water in the State of California for a reason. That reason is that they plan to dedicate considerably more applied water to the environment than DWR did. As the change in jurisdiction occurred, quietly, and the decision was most recent, July 2005, the Draft California Water Plan of April 2005 does not show the additional amount of applied water to be dedicated to the environment by the U.S. Forest Service. Neither do any of the other States’ water plans. None of the States present that the U.S. Forest Service may now exercise control over most of their water. The States may simply be unaware that they may no longer be in control of the brunt of the water in their State. If they are aware, they did not reflect that fact in their water plans. The U.S. Forest Service would not exercise control over most of the water in a State to affect only a small increase in applied water to the environment. At the very least, they intend to double the applied water to be dedicated to the environment. It would be more realistic, though, to expect a quadruple increase or more. This estimate, however, will be premised on the lower figure. Colorado River Basin States Fresh Water Demand for the Environment The Draft California
Water Plan, April 2005, plans to provide for (3 maf/yr) for the
environment. (p. 4-14) As was established, the U.S. Forest Service
is expected to, at least, require an additional dedication of twice
that amount. Double that amount would be (6 maf/yr) of water for
the environment in California; (3 maf/yr) The Harbor
Districts could, effectively, provide water for all seven of the
Colorado River Basin States, and the regions of Texas which receive
Colorado River and Rio Grande River water. California is, roughly,
one fourth the size of all the Colorado River Basin States. (www.50states.com)
As such, the U.S. Forest Service is expected, at least, to require
an additional dedication of (9 maf/yr) of water Generally speaking,
the Harbor Districts will not pump desalinated water up to the hydraulic
regions that will require additional water for the environment.
Pumping both ways does not make good economic sense. Instead, the
Harbor Districts will simply provide desalinated water to the hydraulic
regions closest to it thereby allowing the farther hydraulic regions
to discontinue pumping water to those Mexican Fresh Water Demand on the United States Side As the main
channel would originate from the Gulf of California, a significant
portion of the main channel’s desalinated water, to be produced,
would be consumed by Mexico. As the main channel is at sea level,
the desalinated water to be produced for Mexico would be, more economically,
produced on the Mexico side. However, some of the desalinated water
to be produced from the main channel for Originally,
it was thought that the Harbor Districts, for their impending agreement
with Mexico, would have to foot much of the cost to build the main
channel, desalination plants, and electric generation facilities,
etc., in Mexico; from the border to the Gulf of California. Were
that the case, this Petition would also have to calculate (estimate)
that cost, as well. However, Mexico is not expected As far back
as 1929, Mexican officials demanded (4.5 maf/yr) of water to be
allocated to them from the Colorado River. (www.crwua.org/colorado_river/lor.htm)
The original 1944 Treaty, however only assured Mexico (1.5 maf/yr);
just (⅓) The Harbor
Districts will draw all their seawater from the Gulf of California.
Without fully restoring the ecosystem of the Gulf of California,
it is assumed that the environmental community will not allow the
Harbor Districts to do this. Full restoration of the Gulf of California
and the Cienega de Santa Clara may very well require allowing the
full amount of historic flow from the Colorado River to reach the
Gulf of California. This Petition assumes that the Mexican officials,
in 1929, demanded what they believed to be the average amount of
water which historically flowed from the Colorado River and reached
the Gulf of California. The demand of desalinated water to restore
the Gulf of California and the Cienega de Santa Clara It is estimated that the difference between what was agreed upon (the 1944 Treaty) and what is actually delivered to be about (0.25 maf/yr). It would take (0.5 maf/yr) to make up for the loss, over the years, though. As such, the total Mexican demand for fresh water on the United States side is estimated to be (5 maf/yr). Mexican Fresh Water Demand on the Mexico Side As the cost
of construction of the main channel, desalination plants, and electric
generation facilities, etc., on the Mexico side, will, more than
likely, be paid for by Mexico, (and/or businesses with interests
there and in the main channel itself), the Mexican demand for desalinated
water does not enter into the calculation (estimate) of the cost
to the Harbor Districts. Never-the-less, since the Mexican government
is to receive copies of this Petition, a short discussion on In 1929 Mexico demanded all the water which historically flowed from the Colorado River and reached the Gulf of California, through their country. For the purposes of this Petition, the assumption is that they expected to use it all. It is also assumed that demand for water (in the local hydraulic regions there) has significantly increased since then. Current demand for water in those hydraulic regions may be twice the amount demanded in 1929; now (9 maf/yr). Future demand in those hydraulic regions may be twice the current estimated demand; (18 maf/yr). This is considered to be a conservative estimate of demand for desalinated water for it does not take into account any other hydraulic regions. Business proponents
would have the main channel, on the Mexico side, produce as much
desalinated water as is possible. They claim that as much as can
be produced would be consumed. They may even pay to insure huge
reservations and that planning reflect those reservations. There
are limitations which would define the amount of Current Fresh Water Demand in and Adjacent to the Harbor Districts According to the California Water Plan, (April 2005 Draft), DWR is expecting, at most, an increase in demand for water in the hydraulic region of the Harbor Districts, and the adjoining hydraulic regions, of approximately (2 maf/yr) by 2030. (p. 4-42, Figure 4-4) This is planned for, and as such, is not considered a demand for which the Harbor Districts would be required to provide. Future Harbor Districts Fresh Water Demand Though, the
California Water Plan, (April 2005 Draft), planned for an increase
within the Harbor Districts, approximately (0.25 maf/yr), DWR did
not consider (foresee) the affect of the Harbor Districts because
they were conceived afterward. (p. 4-42, Figure 4-4) Development
will be far more intensive, because of the main channel, than originally
anticipated. Upon completion, demand for water is estimated to be
approximately (2 maf/yr) in the Harbor Districts. The main channel,
however, must be designed with maximum demand for water in mind.
Entrainment
is deemed to be so adverse to the environment that proponents, proposing
desalination plants along the coast of California, are not being
permitted to build any new inlet pipes. (www.carlsbaddesal.com)
For this reason, and the fact that no other source of water is as
economically feasible, the adjacent hydraulic regions are expected
to fill their future demand for water entirely from the Harbor Districts.
After all, the main channel solves the Growth in the South Coast Hydraulic Region is expected to increase but not as dramatically as in the Colorado River Region (where the Harbor District of Riverside Co. is located). This is because building in that Region is nearing saturation. Demand for water may increase as much as two fold there; to (3 maf/yr). Growth in the South Lahontan Hydraulic Region is expected to increase to a lessor degree to that within the Harbor Districts but to a greater degree to that within the South Coast Hydraulic Region. Demand for water may increase as much as three fold there; to (1 maf/yr). Salton Sea Restoration Seawater Demand Restoration
of the Salton Sea will not require desalinated water. However, conveying
seawater from the main channel to the Salton Sea has almost all
of the same design affects of desalination plants. Thus, that demand
is considered. Restoration may necessitate maintaining the Salton
Sea at its current level. Providing seawater in an amount equal
to or less than that which evaporates yearly
The main channel, itself, will experience significant pan evaporation; roughly (0.3 maf/yr) of seawater. To calculate the size of the main channel, this demand is also considered. Expected Demand for Fresh Water The Harbor Districts can expect to fill demand for fresh water that no other source can provide for, or which can be provided for at a competitive (lower actual cost) rate. Such demands for fresh water were discussed above and are totaled as follows: Expected Demand for Fresh Water maf/yr Colorado River
Basin States Environment 12 Conservatively, the Harbor Districts can expect to build a main channel to supply this demand for fresh water; (29 maf/yr). However, it is more than likely that the Harbor Districts will have to build a main channel to accommodate potential demand, as well. Of course, letters of intent to purchase fresh water will be required before any such planning or construction would occur. It is not incumbent upon the Petitioners to produce such letters. Still, it is advantageous to discuss what might occur. Potential Demand for Fresh Water in California Potential demand for fresh water is demand that is already being supplied (or is planned for) and which is comparable (or competitive) in cost. Potential demand does not include expected demand, discussed above. It is over and above that. The Colorado River Basin States, including California, may very well desire to pay for desalinated water to be transported to them from the Harbor Districts. This is because Harbor Districts’ water would be more reliable, of higher quality, less costly, less burdensome, and considerably more environmentally friendly, than current sources. Amongst the Colorado River Basin States, only the potential demand in California is discussed, here. About (75)
percent of the total dedicated supply of water in California is
consumed south of Sacramento. (California Water Plan, 1998, p. 3-2)
Normal total dedicated supply by DWR is (85 maf/yr); approximately
(64 maf/yr) of which is dedicated, on average, south of Sacramento.
(California Water Plan, April 2005 Draft, p. 3-4, Cost of Constructing Desalination Facilities Now that it
is known how much desalinated fresh water the main channel (on the
United States side) must produce, (29 maf/yr at a minium), the cost
to construct desalination facilities to produce, and to convey,
that amount can be estimated. This cost estimate is premised upon
the proposed (to be completed in 2008) Carlsbad Cost of Constructing Desalination Facilities miles maf/yr
$billions Cost of Constructing Electric Generation Facilities It takes a
constant flow of (33 MW) (megawatts) of electricity to produce (50,000
ac ft; also, 0.05 maf/yr) of fresh water. (California Water Plan,
April 2005 Draft, p. 6-5) To produce (29 maf/yr) of fresh water,
the Harbor Districts would have to generate an additional (19,140
MW; also,19.1 gigawatts) of electricity. The Harbor Cost of Constructing Electric Generation Facilities for Desalination Facilities miles maf/yr
gigawatts $billions Desalination
facilities are not the only demand for electricity that the Harbor
Districts will cause. The Harbor Districts will cause a great deal
of private development. They will have to produce the electricity
for that development, as well. Private development may be as much
as (4.5 square miles) for every linear mile of Channel. Each square
mile of private development will demand, roughly, (2 megawatts)
of electricity. There may be as much as (814.5 sq mi) of private Cost of Constructing Electric Generation Facilities for Private Development Channel Dev.
Cost of Land The Harbor Districts consist of approximately (1,199 sq mi). The main channel, through both Harbor Districts consist of (91 sq mi), altogether; (33 sq mi in the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and 58 sq mi in the Harbor District of Imperial Co.). The commitment to NORC is (1) percent of the Harbor Districts, (12 sq mi); (4.4 sq mi in the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and 7.6 sq mi in the Harbor District of Imperial Co.). The Harbor Districts may have to utilize another (77 sq mi) for recreation, sports, parks, open space, transfers, desalination facilities, electric generation facilities, and the like. Thus, a total of (200 sq mi; 73 sq mi in the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and 127 sq mi in the Harbor District of Imperial Co.) will have to be purchased for harbor development purposes. This Petition is conditioned on providing three times assessed value for land to be purchased for harbor development purposes. The average assessed value of land, in the Harbor Districts, is approximately $40,000/ac; and, three times that amount is $120,000/ac. As such the cost of land (128,000 ac; 46,720 ac in the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and 81,280 ac in the Harbor District of Imperial Co.) is estimated to be approximately $15.4 billion for both Harbor Districts; ($5.6 billion for the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and $9.8 billion for the Harbor District of Imperial Co.). Cost of Land Channel Harbor
Land Cost of Constructing the Main Channel The main channel is designed for the amount of seawater required.
maf/yr Seawater Demand to Produce Fresh Water (29 maf/yr x 2) Web Site = http://www.nationaloutdoorrecreationcouncil.us Contact Details
= Dan Cooper (VP) of NORC Amptronix, Inc. Introduces A New Battery Care Product Released on = August 18, 2005, 12:47 pm Press Release Author = Richard Morrow / Amptronix Industry = Energy Press Release Summary = Amptronix, Inc. is introducing ABC-DS12, an innovative 12V Battery Desulfator. This product is fairly new to the US market, but has been a popular money saving product in Europe. Press Release Body = Amptronix, Inc. is introducing ABC-DS12, an innovative 12V Battery Desulfator. This product is fairly new to the US market, but has been a popular money saving product in Europe. In order to
keep batteries in good shape, they require maintenance just like
any other product. The Battery Desulfator was developed to do just
that for lead batteries. By utilizing the power of the battery and
returning it as a surge or pulse, it actually delays and reduces
sulfation within the battery. “Sulfation is the primary cause
of premature battery failure,” explains Yvonne Wu, Vice President Availability About Amptronix Web Site = http://www.amptronix.com Contact Details
= 671 Brea Canyon Rd., Walnut, CA 91789
|
|
2025
