According to SANDAG and Airport Authority studies, the current airport, Lindberg Field, will reach capacity as early as 2015. Other studies show that if a new international airport does not get built to replace Lindbergh, the potential economic loss to the region could be as much as $100 billion.

The search for a new airport goes back 35 years. Most recently, after three years of study, the Airport Authority determined that the last and best hope for a site in the County would be Miramar MCAS, either jointly with the Marines or if they were to leave the base. The Authority could find no other suitable location in the County. However, when the selection of Miramar was put to a vote on November 7, 2006, San Diego County voters overwhelmingly defeated the proposition.

No. Over the last 35 years, several groups have proposed offshore airport concepts for San Diego.

World-wide, the ocean-based airfield idea has been put forward for more than 70 years. In the late 60s and 70s, New York was among many cities that seriously studied the approach. On the Pacific Rim, most notably Japan, there are currently several offshore airfields - built on fill, all accessed by bridges and causeways. However our proposed airfield would be the first anchored, offshore international airfield.

Several factors, including:

• The cold California Current (extremely rare hurricanes),
• The relatively benign winds and waves of the Southern California Bight and
• The pressing need for a major airport to serve the San Diego region without any viable land-based option.

Using the Airport Authority's, "Tier One" criteria, their hired consultants, Landrum & Brown, found no fatal negatives with the offshore site other than that it had never been done before. The Authority's Public Working Group recommended it; and it was placed on the short list of seven out of more than thirty potential sites. But, in a perfunctory review, the Authority dismissed the offshore site based upon specious and wholly unsubstantiated rationales.

• Constructing an underground, undersea tunnel to an anchored offshore facility.

(Perhaps surprisingly, technologies for stabilizing the 3 square mile platform are well proven.)

Yes, it would be the largest floating structure ever constructed. But there are several platform technologies that will enable this offshore airfield to meet FAA and all other operational requirements, including accommodating the new super-jumbo jets.

Not as much as many people think. All commercial aircraft are equipped with instrumentation and controls that permit landings and take-offs in zero-visibility conditions down to the deck, provided there are no geographic obstructions like mountains or tall buildings to worry about. So the open ocean location is ideal. Certainly, fog could hamper surface access craft. However, technologies are being developed today in San Diego to mitigate the impact of fog on safe navigation.

An offshore airport would, on balance, be a positive addition to the San Diego environment. Besides keeping an enormously negative environmental impact from occurring on land, the offshore airport would disturb no human or sensitive habitat and would in fact provide a substrate for myriad flora and fauna, resulting in an entire marine biosphere that will help to replenish fisheries, Giant Kelp forests and ocean life generally.

Fish have sporadic and unpredictable migratory patterns, but could swim under, around and through the structure. They do not need to surface to breathe.

Reptiles must breathe air. However, the only pelagic reptile, the Leatherback Turtle, does not generally migrate to latitudes this far north.

The Pacific Grey Whale, removed from the endangered species list in the mid-1990s has the longest migration of any mammal - from Alaska around the tip of Baja California to breed in the Gulf of California. Their route from the north generally hugs the coast until it reaches the California Bight - from Point Conception south, their route widens to thirty miles. The platform would likely be out of their migratory paths. But even if they went directly through, even the largest whales could surface within the semi-submersible structure to breathe.

We propose that the airfield be located sufficiently far offshore that jets on a "precision descent" will cross the coastline at an altitude (~3,000 ft.) that will have an insignificant noise impact below.

And as to creatures in the ocean, when sound reflects off water at a right angle, only 4/3500 or 0.1% of the intensity makes it through. That is a reduction of almost 30 dB in the intensity of the sound. So, most marine life would not be exposed to high levels of sound.

No, in fact, the opposite is true. The structure is located in 1,200 to 3,000 ft/ 400 to 600 meters of water. Light penetrates water effectively only down to about 100 feet. Deeper than that, the water casts its own shadow. Conversely, the facility will provide a substrate - at a consistent depth on which marine life will attach and grow. A buffer forest of Giant Kelp will hug sections of the structure. The kelp beds smooth the water and provide habitat for a wide assortment of marine plant and animal life.

Not at all. Most of the earth (about 70%) is covered by ocean so there is plenty of offshore room. Still, as with every newly applied technology, we must maintain a keen awareness of its consequences. Accordingly, as one of the first pioneers of offshore development, Euphlotea is committed to addressing environmental impacts in a most serious manner.

Four options are under investigation for transiting to and from the airport:

• A light-rail tunnel through an underground/underwater tunnel from a main terminal that is central to the County to the airfield.
• High speed ferries may serve the several coastal terminals.
• A floating bridge for automobiles and trains - our least desirable and most expensive option
• Any one of the above modes will satisfy all of the requirements for the movement of passengers, cargo, employees and supplies. Shuttle aircraft from local airfields could supplement the other modes.

Permitting and entitlements: 5-10 years (The Airport Authority allocated ten years to this process.
Construction: 5-10 years.
Total: 10 to 20 years. (Which is why we must start now.)

Numerous local, state and federal agencies will have a say. Overall, two to three dozen government agencies will need to sign off on the project. Also, the County and coastal cities would need to approve the on-shore access terminals.

Including all onshore terminals, the tunnel, rail system and ferries, the airfield and basic infrastructure is estimated to cost $15 billion. By comparison,

• Hong Kong's new airport cost $20 billion.
• The O'Hare make-over is budgeted at $15 billion.
• The Airport Authority estimated that construction of a mag-lev train alone to serve an airport in Imperial County would cost $20 billion - not including land acquisition and environmental impact.

The facility would ultimately be paid for by the airport operator and other lessees. The airport would collect income from landing fees and ancillary sources. For design and construction, the federal government could finance all dedicated airport facilities, including land based terminals and all accesses dedicated to the airport. There would be no need for local taxes.

Lindbergh Field as a major airfield will likely close, resulting in some mix of:

• San Diego River and wetlands restoration
• Harbor-front development
• A shore-based terminal connected to the floating airfield
• New neighborhoods
• Quiet