Petition to Form the Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of Riverside County

Released 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
THE SALTON SEA HARBOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY

PURPOSE OF THE PREAMBLE

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;

(1) whether to sign the Petition; and,
(2) whether to vote in favor of formation of the proposed Harbor District of Riverside Co., when and if it is presented on special ballot.

The Petition will, often, mention its adjoining, to be formed, Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of Imperial County (hereinafter the “Harbor District of Imperial Co.”); and its adjoining, alternative, to be formed, Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of San Diego County (hereinafter the “Harbor District of San Diego Co.”). However, throughout this Preamble and the Petition, only the two, the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and the Harbor District of Imperial Co., will
be referred to, hereinafter, as (the “Harbor Districts”).

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
every freeholder could understand them. If any freeholder does not understand what NORC has written here, they will explain further. For more information, contact NORC at:

NATIONAL OUTDOOR RECREATION COUNCIL (a Calif. Non-profit Corp.)
(www.nationaloutdoorrecreationcouncil.us) 39565 Terwilliger Rd., Ste. A Anza, CA 92539
Tele.: (951) 763-0604
Attn: Walter H. Eason, Jr., President and CEO (riversideharbordistrict@norc.us)

As the Petition was not targeted for the professional reader, professionals are directed to contact NORC, and in writing, should they have any professional questions. Such questions should be presented in writing to allow for a meaningful response. Though, NORC’s funding is scant, they will make every possible effort to
respond appropriately.

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
longer true because, as is well known, the Salton Sea is in dire need of restoration.

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
facilitating the bringing of the Petition.

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
them, however, because they found it to be too costly; in the “$10s of billions”. NORC discovered that the Salton Sea Authority was very wrong in their calculations for that alternative, as will be shown. NORC found the inverse to be the true; that, a channel from the Gulf of California would realize a net profit in the $10s of billions, instead. The Salton Sea Authority published its preferred alternative, (the “Preferred Project”).(ES-8) That alternative was rejected by NORC because it would significantly reduce the water surface area of the Salton Sea, would signific antly increase (further concentrate) contaminates in the remaining portion; and, on balance, would result in a net expense, (a loss), to be born by the taxpayers, in the $10s of billions. The actual cost of the Preferred Project is not revealed in
the Salton Sea Authority’s, July 2004, Final Preferred Project Report.

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
phosphorous that now reaches the Salton Sea. (p. 61) That means that it will probably cost $10 billion, or more, to eliminate all the phosphorous. In addition, they propose to extend the Alamo and New Rivers for (21 miles). That’s going to cost $10s of billions, as well, and will create even more contaminate traps. Worse, is that the Preferred Project is conspicuous by the absence of any real provision to remove contaminates now in the Salton Sea. To be polite, the
Preferred Project is not actually a restora tion project. It passes off actual restoration to some undisclosed point far, far, into the future. In reality, the Preferred Project is nothing more than a water
allotment reduction project, in the guise of a restoration project. This is unacceptable to NORC.

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,
the Salton Sea. (www.fdungan.com/salton.htm)

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
there. For this reason, that it would inundate a large amount of existing cities and existing development, NORC found Mr. Dungan’s proposal wholly infeasible, economically.

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
more than (1.7 million acre feet a year (maf/yr)) of sea water from the Gulf of California. To prevent entrainment and a dangerous rate of flow, that channel would have to hold a much greater amount of seawater. As will be shown, such a channel would be large enough for ships to travel. Thus, to restore the Salton Sea, NORC concluded that a harbor would necessarily have to be developed. After that discovery, the question then became, by whom; and, how? California code
revealed the answers to these questions.

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
their Petition to the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County for formal disposition. (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5821) After publication of notice in a local newspaper, “at the time and place specified in the notice the board of supervisors shall consider the petition”. (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5830)

ASSUMPTION OF COMMITMENTS TO BUILD CONNECTING HARBORS

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
Diego County. That harbor (channel) will then connect to a harbor (channel) at the San Diego County/Imperial County border, and which will first travel east then north to the Riverside County/Imperial County border to be built by the Salton Sea Harbor Improvement District of Imperial County.

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
determination upon that investigation. (Cal Harb & Nav Code §§ 5830 and 5835) The board can adjust the boundaries of the proposed harbor improvement district but must give notice of any adjustments they may make. (Cal Harb & Nav Code §§ 5832 to 5834) The board may continue the hearing (to study the matter) but, for no longer than six (6) months. (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5836) The board is to make specific findings after the hearing of the matter. (Cal Harb & Nav Code §§ 5839 to 5841) Should the board approve the petition, it is to put it to a vote, to the freeholders in the harbor improvement district, as to whether to form the harbor improvement district, etc. (Cal Harb & Nav Code §§ 5859 to 5874)

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
there any United States Code, or Code of Federal Regulation, which confers sole jurisdiction of harbor development unto any agency of the United States government.

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
in staying off a U.S. Federal agency takeover just by facilitating this attempt to form the Harbor District of Riverside Co. NORC is adamantly opposed to a U.S. Federal agency takeover, here, because it would be devastating to:

(1) the freeholders therein;
(2) the local governments;
(3) the local agencies; and,
(4) the State of California.

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
before committing to build the channel. In addition, there is much to be discussed, between the two Nations, before such detailed engineered plans can be prepared. Not only is forming the Harbor District of Riverside Co. necessary to raise the vast funds required for such preliminary planning and engineering but, its formation is necessary to show California’s resolve to build the channel. The
commitment to raise funds for preliminary planning and engineering coupled with the resolve to build the channel (which formation of the Harbor Districts would show) should be a suff icient enough impetus to initiate formal negotiations between the two Nations.

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
USCS § 558b), and not to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to (43 USCS § 869). To offset the loss of those lands, the Harbor District of Riverside Co. will, primarily, pay in desalinated water. Payment in water should be sufficient since the agencies of the U.S. Federal government have no other source for additional water. The Harbor District of Riverside Co. can also pay with an exchange of lands, if need be.

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
unlikely that they will. Even if they try, no U.S. Congressional Committee can do it (take control of the Harbor District of Riverside Co.) acting alone. (33 USCS § 568) This is because the U.S. Congress considered the channel from the Gulf of California in 1938. Now, only the full U.S. Congress, acting together, can take the Harbor District of Riverside Co., if that is what an agency of the U.S. Federal government intends to do.

COOPERATION WITH LOCAL CITIES AND COUNTIES

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.

COOPERATION WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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
facilities, etc. The Harbor District of Riverside Co. can provide a reasonable percentage of its net revenue for this cooperation. It can also pay in water and/or the exchange of lands, if need be. As will be explained more fully later, such payment may very well extinguish the State Debt; and, within 10 years.

NEGOTIATING WITH SOVEREIGN INDIAN TRIBES

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
District of Riverside Co., to include some of their properties in that planning, they may do so. This they are expected to do, however, with the, to be concurrently formed, Harbor Commission.

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
precisely limited by the statute which created it. Those limitations insure that existing development will not be unduly taxed. It also limits taxation of new development to existing law. Thus, there will be no extraordinary taxation. Moreover, a condition of the Petition, hereby made, is that there will be no extraordinary assessment or taxation on existing development, and properties, or on new development.

“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
freeholders in the Harbor District of Riverside Co. will not know who’s properties, amongst them, are to be taken because the actual channel is not drawn (shown). Second, the freeholders who will not have their properties taken are expected to profit to a far greater degree do to the substantial increase in value that the harbor will bring. Third, the freeholders, who will have their properties taken, may not receive compensation, at all; what to speak of within a reasonable time.
Fourth, is that, according to the recent Kelo v. City of New London U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Harbor District of Riverside Co. may take all the properties in the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and re-sell the ones that can be developed by private developers to the highest private bidder. To resolve these dilemmas, the Petition
provides, hereby makes, the following conditions:

(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;
(2) Payment for that compensation is to be made immediately;
(3) The Harbor District of Riverside Co. is to provide a date certain when compensation will be paid, in full, upon and on notice of the taking;
(4) Payment for that compensation is to be in any combination (at the freeholder’s choice only) of U.S. dollars and highest yield bonds of the Harbor District of Riverside Co.;
(5) Interest is paid from the time of notice of taking until full payment on the unpaid balance in the amount of 1 percent over inflation or 7 percent, whichever is greater;
(6) No property shall be taken for private (for profit) development purposes by the Harbor District of Riverside Co.
(7) The Harbor District of Riverside Co. is to guarantee loans for that
compensation as long as any such loan is assigned to the Harbor District of Riverside Co. to collect should the freeholder default.

The term “immediately”, here, means paid before any other non-imperative allocations of funds are made, as soon as funds become reasonably available.

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
simple, one (1) percent of their total land area.

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
that, which is to be deeded to NORC, is (12.0 sq mi). This land is to be used for developing, operating, and maintaining inland parks and recreation/sports areas.

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
will build on them.

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
parks and recreation areas. (Cal Harb & Nav Code §§ 5952 and 5953) As such, the Harbor Districts’ obligations to NORC are relatively minimal compared to the Harbor Districts’ significant obligations to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain inland parks and recreation areas.

ORDINANCE TO APPOINT A HARBOR COMMISSION

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
unless it can be assured (at the onset) that (overall) it will be a tremendous (net) asset to the environment. The Ordinance provides that assurance.

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).
(2) She, along with the her late husband, U.S. Congress - Representative George E. Brown, Jr., tried to restore the Salton Sea.
(3) She, given the power and funding which the Petition and the Ordinance does, will restore the Salton Sea and not compromise its restoration to achieve any other party objectives.
(4) She, given the power and funding which the Petition and the Ordinance does, will make certain that the ecosystems affected by the Harbor District of Riverside Co. will be protected and not compromise them to achieve any other party objectives.
(5) She has the trust of the environmental community (at large).

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.
(2) He is the leader of the organization (the National Outdoor Recreation Council, “NORC”) which facilitated the bringing of the Petition forward, which designed the method of restoration proposed by it, and which adopted the Salton Sea.
(3) He is committed to public recreation and sports.
(4) He will make certain that adequate and quality recreation and sports facilities are provided to the public.
(5) He believes in strict adherence to the law (as codified) and for that reason he will bring levity and integrity to the Harbor Commission.

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.
(2) He applied to NORC for it to adopt the Salton Sea, which NORC did.
(3) He, given the power and funding, will restore the Salton Sea.
(4) He is fluent in Spanish and has access to and regular contact with the Mexican officials who will make decisions pertaining to the Harbor District of Riverside Co.
(5) He has access to and regular contact with the United States officials who will make decisions pertaining to the Harbor District of Riverside Co..

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
United States, was delegated the power to appoint a Special Advisor to the Harbor Commission because he is the leader of the country in which the Harbor District of Riverside Co. occurs and is ultimately responsible for negotiations with Mexico on behalf of the Harbor District of Riverside Co. President Vicente Fox, of the Republic of Mexico, was delegated the power to appoint a Special Advisor to the
Harbor Commission to instill trust and to facilitate planning. Special Advisors have all the same powers of Harbor Commissioners except one; they cannot vote. Thus, all information gathered by the Harbor Commission is accessible to Special Advisors, at all times. In addition, the advice given by Special Advisors, because they have the same right to speak at all Harbor Commission meetings as do Harbor
Commissioners, must be formally considered.

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
Salton Sea. The Petition, however, commits (by this condition) the Harbor Districts to complete restoration of the Salton Sea; and, within 40 years (20 years for planning, engineering and construction of all necessary facilities; and, 20 years to affect a (99) percent completion of actual restoration). The Petition also conditions, (by this condition), that restoration of the Salton Sea will not entail a reduction of water level of the Salton Sea below that of its 1959 to 2003 levels.

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
2004, p. 18) Recently, it has been agreed (by the Quantification Settlement Agreement of 2003 (QSA), p. 1) that much of the water, apportioned to the Salton Sea from the Colorado River, (1.3 maf/yr), would be better utilized elsewhere. The Salton Sea Authority, for its Preferred Project, proposes that to a degree; a reduction of that apportionment between (0.4 and 0.5 maf/yr). (p. ES-3).

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
apportionment should be credited to the Harbor Districts’ Salton Sea Restoration Fund.

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
Counties, Cities and the State of California, it will be a huge initial and ongoing revenue gain for them, as well. Even at a very simplistic (1) percent net revenue gain, the Harbor Districts are expected to receive a net revenue gain, from their share of that development, of between $2.0 to 3.0 billion a year; a good portion of which will be credited to the Harbor Districts’ Salton Sea Restoration Fund. The
State of California’s share of the revenue from that development may be so high, between $0.50 to $0.75 billion a year, that it, alone, may pay off the California State Debt within less than 10 years. California’s “total debt-service costs will be $4.8 billion in 2004-05, rising to a peak of $7.4 billion in 2009-10.” (An Overview of State Bond Debt, July 2004, www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/bond_11_2004.htm)

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
a meager (25) percent net gain ($250/ac ft) that is no less than $7.5 billion a year, and as much as $75.0 billion a year, to be credited to the Harbor Districts; a good portion of which will be credited to the Harbor Districts’ Salton Sea Restoration Fund. At the more realistic (50) percent net gain figure, ($500/ac ft), that is between $15.0 to $150.0 billion a year to be credited to the Harbor Districts; (between $5.5 and $55.0 billion for the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and between $9.5 and $95 billion for the Harbor District of Imperial Co.).

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.
and between $63.5 and $190.5 million for the Harbor District of Imperial Co.); a good portion of which will be credited to the Harbor Districts’ Salton Sea Restoration Fund.

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
construction (on the U.S. side) to be more than twice that estimated, here, roughly $1 trillion, cost to the Harbor Districts would only be approximately $10.0 billion a year to service those bonds; ($3.7 billion a year for the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and $6.3 billion a year for the Harbor District of Imperial Co.). Even for the most extravagant option, (the one that would produce 300 maf/yr of fresh water), at the high estimate of $5 trillion for initial construction, cost to the Harbor Districts would still be within range, approximately $50.0 billion a
year to service those bonds; ($18.2 billion a year for the Harbor District of Riverside Co. and $31.8 billion a year for the Harbor District of Imperial Co.). In other words, the Harbor Districts will profit no matter how extravagant the cost of construction may be and, regardless of the cost necessary to fully restore the Salton Sea.

AUXILIARY CHANNEL

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
intent from Mexico should be sufficient for that purpose.

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
miles of channel through Imperial County and 63 miles through San Diego County. The map of this Auxiliary Channel can be obtained, after publication, from the NORC web site; (www.nationaloutdoorrecreationcouncil.us).

PETITION TO FORM THE SALTON
SEA HARBOR IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY

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.”.

NOT VESTED, NOR EXERCISED BY, AN EXISTING HARBOR COMMISSIONPursuant to Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5822(c), the petition “shall show” whether the improvement, development, protection, maintenance, management or control of the harbor, or any part of it, is vested in or exercised by a harbor commission. The improvement, development, protection, maintenance, management or control of the
proposed Harbor District of Riverside Co., or any part of it, is not vested in, nor exercised by, any existing harbor commission.

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,
to create the Harbor Commission for the Harbor District of Riverside Co. In other words, the Harbor Commissioners and Special Advisors for the Harbor District of Riverside Co. are the same persons who will make up the harbor commission for the Harbor District of Imperial Co.; and, alternatively, the Harbor District of San Diego Co. As all the Harbor Commissions will be made up of the same persons, there
cannot be any conflict between the Harbor Commissioners, the Special Advisors, or the Harbor Commissions.

PROPOSED HARBOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

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
exterior boundaries of the proposed Harbor District of Riverside Co., the proposed Harbor District of Imperial Co. and, the alternative proposed Harbor District of San Diego Co. A single map (of less detail) showing the exterior boundaries of the proposed Harbor Districts will be included with the published notice. The more detailed maps can be viewed, after that publication, on the NORC web site;
(www.nationaloutdoorrecreationcouncil.us).

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
will include all types of development including all that which is authorized under (Cal Harb & Nav Code § 5820). It will also include the public recreation and sports facilities to be built, maintained, and managed, by NORC. It will also include the desalination and electric generation facilities (which are more fully described herein below) to be built, maintained, and managed, by the Harbor Districts.

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
recreation and sports facilities to be built, maintained, and managed, by NORC. It will also include the desalination and electric generation facilities to be built, maintained, and managed, by the Harbor Districts.

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
ship (650 feet) in length, this calls for a (1300 ft) diameter turning basin. (Draft San Diego Harbor Deepening Detailed Project Report, Nov. 2002, p. 6-6)

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
significantly to make a channel deeper. With a (5 ft) under keel clearance, (p. 6-5), the depth of the seawater in the main channel should be no less than (58 feet) MLLW. A couple of feet more were added for good measure; making the total seawater depth to be (60 feet) MLLW.

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
be (2,440 ft) wide along the bottom. Its sides would add another (180 ft) to the width across the top of the main channel; (2,620 ft). With just one (20 ft) service road that would be a main channel (1/2 ) mile wide; (2,640 ft).

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.

Desalinated Fresh Water Demand

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
desalinated water is actually competitive, or just comparable, to other sources may not be relevant. If no other source can provide the demand for fresh water, and more fresh water must be had, then desalinated fresh water makes good economic sense, even at a somewhat (comparably) greater cost.

California Water Plan’s (2005 – 2030) Provision of Water for the Environment

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)

Affect of the Karuk Tribe Legal Action on Water Demand for the Environment

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
and control.

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 waters of the State of California and to the water therein. Instead, she assumed, hypothetically, that the U.S. Forest Service had jurisdiction and then, under that assumption, ruled on the issues presented by the Tribe. Essentially, by ignored the law and facts to the contrary, she is allowing the U.S. Forest Service to assume control over all waters, occurring within the National Forests. Most waters and headwaters occur within the National Forests. As a consequence of Judge Armstrong's decisions, the U.S. Forest Service may now take control of almost all water in th e United States.

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)
for which is unplanned.

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
for the environment for the other Colorado River Basin States, other than California. Altogether, the U.S Forest Service is expected, at least, to require an additional dedication of (12 maf/yr) of water for the environment for the Colorado River Basin States, all for which is unplanned.

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
hydraulic regions. Not only will those farther hydraulic regions gain water but they will no longer have to dedicate electricity for pumping or have to maintain the canals for transporting water to the hydraulic regions close to the Harbor Districts.

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
Mexico must, by necessity, be produced on the United States side. For design purposes in the Harbor Districts, the concern is, primarily, for water demand to be produced on the United States side.

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
to have a problem raising the necessary monies needed. Businesses (developers, manufacturers, and such, who will benefit directly) on both sides of the border are expected to buy all the bonds necessary to build the main channel, desalination plants, and electric generation facilities, etc., in Mexico. Even were the Harbor Districts to offer (negotiate) to pay for construction, Mexico may not allow them
to do so for fear of possible interference, in its business affairs, and for fear of possible unfair distribution of the profits.

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)
of that originally demanded. In recent years, the United States has had difficulty not only in maintaining the agreed upon level of water quality (evidenced by the 1974 Treaty) but in providing the amount originally agreed upon. Worse, is that the integrity of the ecosystems of the Gulf of California and the Cienega de Santa Clara are being “devastated” by, amongst other things, the failure to allow a
sufficient amount of the Colorado River water to reach the Gulf of California. (www.itt.com/waterbook/arizona.asp and
www.mechdir.com/press/catalog/106/index.html)

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
is therefore estimated to be no more than (4.5 maf/yr).

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
the subject is in order.

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
desalinated water which can be used but it is not known whether they exceed the limitations on production. For these reasons, and a proliferation of others, planning and engineering on the Mexico side is expected to be very challenging.

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.
Otherwise development along the edge of the main channel would not be feasible for a buffer zone would have to be maintained in order to allow for future expansion. To allow for development along the edge of the main channel, total potential future demand will have to be conservatively estimated. To be conservative, demand for water may increase as much as four fold within the Harbor Districts; to (8 maf/yr).

Future Fresh Water Demand in Adjacent Hydraulic Regions

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
entrainment problem in a way that would not be economically feasible to duplicate along the South Coast.

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
would do that. Pan evaporation, less rainfall, of the Salton Sea is 1.7 maf/yr. Less seawater may be required to restore the Salton Sea due to agricultural runoff. However, if that runoff is treated, which may very well be the case, then the full amount may be required. The full amount, (1.7 maf/yr) of seawater, is the amount for which this estimate uses.

Channel Pan Evaporation Seawater Demand

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
Mexican Demand Affecting the Harbor Districts 5
Unplanned for Demand Within the Harbor Districts 8
Unplanned for Demand in Adjacent Hydraulic Regions 4
Total Demand of (desalinated fresh water) 29

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,
Table 3-1) A potential demand of (64 maf/yr) of fresh water would require the Harbor Districts to plan for (128 maf/yr) of additional draw down of seawater.

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
desalination facility. (Daily Transcript, 6-27-05) Because that plant will only produce, initially, (56,000 ac ft/yr; also, 0.056 maf/yr), this cost estimate, premised thereupon, may be unreasonably high. Economies of scale are expected to yield a much lower actual cost. The Carlsbad facility is estimated to cost $270 million to construct the plant and another $42 million to construct the facilities to convey the water produced by that plant. The combined cost to construct
facilities to produce, and to convey (29 maf/yr) of desalinated freshwater is estimated at $161.5 billion. Of course, that amount is for both Harbor Districts.

Cost of Constructing Desalination Facilities

miles maf/yr $billions
Harb. Dist. of Riverside Co. 66 10.6 59.0
Harb. Dist. of Imperial Co. 115 18.4 102.5
Both Harb. Districts 181 29.0 161.5

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
Districts will utilize, amongst other sources, hydroelectric generation facilities. It cost Turlock Irrigation District approximately $2.3 million, per megawatt, to construct such hydroelectric generation facilities. (www.tid.org) The cost to construct facilities to produce (19.1 GW) of electricity is estimated at $43.9 billion. Of course, that amount is for both Harbor Districts.

Cost of Constructing Electric Generation Facilities for Desalination Facilities

miles maf/yr gigawatts $billions
Harb. Dist. of Riverside Co. 66 10.6 7.0 16.1
Harb. Dist. of Imperial Co. 115 18.4 12.1 27.8
Both Harb. Districts 181 29.0 19.1 43.9

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
development in the Harbor Districts. The cost to construct facilities to produce (1629 MW; also, 1.6 GW) of electricity is estimated at $3.8 billion. Of course, that amount is for both Harbor Districts.

Cost of Constructing Electric Generation Facilities for Private Development

Channel Dev.
miles sq mi gigawatts $billions
Harb. Dist. of Riverside Co. 66 297.0 0.6 1.4
Harb. Dist. of Imperial Co. 115 517.5 1.0 2.4
Both Harb. Districts 181 814.5 1.6 3.8

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
miles sq mi $billions
Harb. Dist. of Riverside Co. 66 73.0 5.6
Harb. Dist. of Imperial Co. 115 127.0 9.8
Both Harb. Districts 181 200.0 15.4

Cost of Constructing the Main Channel

The main channel is designed for the amount of seawater required.

Demand for Seawater

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
57874 Ivanhoe Dr.
Yucca Valley, CA 92284
760-365-3346 dtcooper1111@hotmail.com

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
of Amptronics, Inc. “The Desulfator actually has the ability to revive old batteries back to a state of normal functionality.”

Availability
The ABC-DS12 is available immediately by calling Amptronix, Inc. at (909) 839.2858 or visiting its Web site at www.amptronix.com.

About Amptronix
Amptronix, Inc. manufactures and markets a variety of mobile electronic products, including 3-stage battery chargers, true sinewave / pure sinewave inverters, modified sinewave power inverters, battery-care products, automotive TFT displays, MP3 player, MP4 players with 2.5" to 7" display, and mobile coolers. With more than 20 years of OEM experience, our manufacturing has successfully supported name brands worldwide with quality products. With a strong R&D capability and TUV audited ISO-9001 production facilities, we are dedicated to providing our partners with competitive services in price, quality, and local support.

Web Site = http://www.amptronix.com

Contact Details = 671 Brea Canyon Rd., Walnut, CA 91789
909.839.2858
web@amptronix.com