Army Corps outlines feasibility study, screens numerous Salt and Sea alternatives

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers told the State Water Resources Control Board and the public that it is advancing a comprehensive feasibility study to evaluate large‑scale restoration alternatives for the Salt and Sea watershed.

Susie Ming, the Corps’ project manager, walked through the Corps’ six‑step planning process and study objectives: restore degraded habitat, reduce dust emissions and enable recreation where compatible. She emphasized that Corps guidance requires strict policy compliance and a national‑standard approach so taxpayer funds are invested efficiently.

The Corps explained why several alternative ideas were screened out at this stage. Options that relied on temporary water purchases or voluntary transfers were screened because federal policy prohibits spending construction dollars on temporary water supplies. Alternatives such as ocean water import and large pump‑out/recycling schemes were screened early for prohibitively high cost, long timelines to achieve benefits (decades), and potential significant and permanent environmental impacts. Some vegetation‑only or modest approaches were screened because they would not provide sufficient habitat at the scale of degradation.

The Corps retained a smaller set of large alternative families for further evaluation and said it will develop a combined alternative (Alternative 15) that blends best‑performing measures. Its evaluation will test performance against multiple future inflow scenarios (including conservative Colorado River allocation scenarios), construction and long‑term operation and maintenance costs (ordinarily borne by non‑federal sponsors), mitigation requirements and time to realize benefits. Corps staff said feasible federal cost sharing could reach 65% of construction should a project be recommended and authorized by Congress; feasibility work is being cost‑shared 50/50 with non‑federal sponsors (California Department of Water Resources and the Salt and Sea Authority).

The Corps stressed the study’s national‑scale review criteria and said it will look for a plan that maximizes habitat benefits per dollar, is resilient to future hydrology and has manageable mitigation requirements. It expects additional public engagement and release of a draft report for review as it refines modeling and alternative analysis.

What this means: the Corps’ screening narrows the universe of options and sets priorities for the technical analyses that will determine whether and how a federal recommendation is made to Congress. The recommendation — if it arrives — could unlock substantial federal construction funds and reshape the long‑term funding and governance of Salt and Sea restoration projects.