Salton Sea Solutions Compared: Water Imports, Smaller Lakes and Lithium

I have attended several lectures about the Salton Sea. One idea stayed with me: bring water north from Mexico, cover the exposed lakebed and stop the dust. Lithium development was another possibility that caught my attention.

Both deserve a closer look. But “solve the Salton Sea” can mean several different things, and an appealing proposal is not the same as an approved, funded project. This guide compares the major documented approaches, the problem each targets and the evidence still needed.

One lake, several different problems

Water volume, salt concentration, exposed dust-producing ground, habitat, polluted inflow and long-term funding are connected, but they are not interchangeable. A project can improve one while leaving another largely unchanged. The State Water Board’s overview explains the links between reduced inflow, concentrated salts and nutrients, habitat stress and exposed lakebed. [1]

A useful first question is therefore: What result are we trying to buy? Water at an old boat ramp? Lower salinity? Less airborne dust from a specific source? Dependable bird habitat? A funded maintenance program? The answer changes which proposal makes sense.

Compare the approaches

The benefits and tradeoffs below are a reading guide, not a new feasibility study. Some entries are physical projects; others supply water, improve inflow or help pay for the work. They may need to be combined.

Could water from Mexico refill the Salton Sea?

The body of water usually meant is the Gulf of California, also called the Sea of Cortez. Import proposals vary: an open canal is not the same project as a pipeline; raw seawater is not the same product as desalinated water; importing water alone is not the same system as importing water while exporting salt.

The public forums archived by EcoMedia Compass show how many teams have worked on these ideas, including the Sea to Sea Development Team, Cordoba, Sephton, New Water Group and others. Without the lecture’s date or presenter, I cannot identify which specific cost calculation I heard. [7]

The attraction is easy to understand: additional water could cover exposed land and sustain a larger lake. The complication is that the job does not end when water arrives. Ocean water contains salt. In an evaporating basin without a natural outlet, that salt requires its own management plan. Desalinating first moves part of the treatment and waste problem to the coast. [8]

Nor does being below sea level make an entire route a free gravity feed. The Pacific Institute’s route critique identifies intermediate elevation, pumping, energy, rights-of-way and cross-border negotiations among the issues. That is an argument about a complete system, not just the elevation of its endpoints. [8]

Was importing seawater the cheapest solution?

The evidence reviewed here does not establish that. A proponent may have calculated a lower price for a particular canal, route or technology. That calculation should be considered on its stated assumptions, then compared with alternatives delivering the same result over the same period.

In 2022, the independent panel supported by UC Santa Cruz evaluated import submissions and developed a composite Sea of Cortez import concept from three proposals. Its review found engineering possibility alongside high expense, environmental risks, a long delivery timetable and limited benefits to Mexico. It did not recommend proceeding with the submitted importation concepts. [2]

A separate peer-reviewed 2020 study by Lucia Levers, S. Drew Story and Kurt Schwabe found agricultural water leasing substantially cheaper than ocean imports under its assumptions. Neither that study nor a 2022 review supplies a current construction bid. They do show why “cheapest” needs more qualification than a single headline. [6]

What is in the state’s long-range inventory?

The 2024 Long-Range Plan contains 13 numbered concepts in addition to the Phase 1 program. The names below help readers recognize plans they may have heard at meetings; they are not 13 approved projects. [3] [4]

That distinction matters for ideas such as floating solar or small ecological pilots: the proper next question is what a measured trial demonstrates, not whether inclusion in a report amounts to endorsement.

Where does lithium fit—and where is it now?

Lithium is primarily an industry and potential funding story. The projects discussed here recover lithium from deep geothermal brine. They are not draining lithium out of the surface lake. California’s Energy Commission describes a tax-revenue allocation under which 20 percent supports Salton Sea restoration; the other 80 percent goes to producing counties, with an additional community allocation rule for Imperial County. [13]

That is a route to funding, not a guarantee of a particular amount or delivery date. The CEC’s Summer 2026 update says development has been slower than anticipated amid difficult lithium prices and financing conditions. [14]

Our geothermal and lithium explainer shows how the process works. The practical restoration question is how much revenue is actually collected, what it funds and whether that funding lasts through operations and maintenance.

Cleaner water and dust control still matter

New River work illustrates why “supporting measure” does not mean unimportant. The Calexico project record lists construction completed and describes trash screening, a polluted-water bypass and treated-water return. It addresses a specific exposure and water-quality problem; it does not certify that the entire river or lake has been cleaned. [11]

Likewise, habitat ponds and dust treatments can help while bigger choices remain unsettled. SCH’s January 2026 record distinguishes 4,910 acres of constructed ponds from two filled ponds totaling 2,010 acres. That is why our restoration project guide separates plans, construction and functioning components. [9]

Playa is also only one contributor to regional air pollution. A cleaner future cannot be evaluated solely by the lake’s level, and controlling a dust source does not establish that every air-quality problem has disappeared. [18]

What could actually happen next?

In March 2026, the Army Corps described its study as evaluating 12 alternatives drawn from the long-range work, another Corps-developed proposal and a no-action alternative. Partners include DWR and the Salton Sea Authority. Its criteria include effectiveness, completeness, efficiency, acceptability, timing of ecological benefits and maintenance requirements. [5]

The records reviewed here do not establish a final, funded lakewide winner. A feasibility study can recommend a path toward construction; it is not itself the construction. Meanwhile, the current habitat and dust program continues. [5] [10]

My reading is that a combination deserves more attention than a single miracle: immediate dust and habitat work, explicit decisions about water and salt, cleaner inflows, demonstrated technology and dependable funding. That is an interpretation of the different jobs, not a claim that agencies have selected this exact package.

The next persuasive announcement should make clear what changed: a signed water agreement, a completed permit, a funded contract, operating results or independently reviewed costs. Those are stronger signals than a new rendering or another projected opening date.

Explore the Salton Sea guide, follow where its water goes, or plan a visit to the North Shore Beach and Yacht Club, State Recreation Area and Sonny Bono refuge. These places reveal different sides of the same question.