Mojave Desert Water War

1. Mojave Desert Water War

2. Imagine a lake half as large as Lake Tahoe, containing 17 million to 34 million acre-feet of water. That is what lies under the Cadiz and Bristol valleys in the Eastern Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County. Cadiz Inc., a privately held company, owns 34,000 acres that overlie this vast groundwater basin. The company plans to extract 2.5 million acre-feet of the water, a public good, over the next 50 years and sell it back to the public at a profit. Sacramento Bee

3. Facts about the project • Here are some facts about the project: Cadiz is proposing to extract on average 50,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the basin each year for 50 years. The intended rate of extraction of groundwater is significantly greater than the estimated natural recharge rate (the speed that groundwater is refilled naturally by rain and snow) of 5,000-32,000 acre-feet a year, which will lead to unsustainable mining of groundwater during the life of the project. The groundwater will go into a 43-mile-long pipeline to transport it to the Colorado River Aqueduct, where it will be distributed to several water utilities in Southern California. Sacramento Bee

4. Claims of the Cadiz, Inc. • Cadiz claims that the project will facilitate the beneficial use of groundwater that would otherwise naturally drain toward Bristol and Cadiz dry lakes (ephemeral lakes) and be "lost" to evaporation at the lakes and to transpiration by plants in the adjoining valleys.

5. Claims by the opponents of Cadiz • But the project proponents' characterization of the water lost to evaporation and transpiration as non-beneficial is inaccurate. Some of the water that flows to the dry lakes and evaporates from the basin supports survival of local desert ecosystems, which depend upon the ability of groundwater reaching the surface; therefore, removal of this water would adversely affect these ecosystems. Sacramento Bee

6. Claims by the opponents of Cadiz • The bottom line is that the project relies on unsustainable mining of groundwater, designed to extract groundwater at a rate exceeding natural recharge. In other words, it uses water in excess of the estimates of the water lost to evaporation, which is both a nonrenewable use of water and unsustainable in the long term. Sacramento Bee

7. Draft Environmental Impact Report • According to the draft environmental impact report, the project will deplete groundwater storage in the valleys by 1 million to 2 million acre-feet. It will take from 50 to several hundred years for the basin to recover and refill after the project is terminated. If in that period the recharge rate decreases considerably or the evaporation rate increases under a long-term drought or more permanent climatic changes, then the long-term deleterious effects of the project might be even more significant and the recovery period much longer, if ever. Cadiz will make its profit for 50 years, and the public will be left to handle possible negative environmental and ecological consequences of this project for years to come. Sacramento Bee

8. The formal challenge • On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”), the National Parks Conservation Association (“NPCA”), the California Wilderness Coalition (CWC), San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Sierra Club Desert Committee, the Mojave Desert Land Trust, the Morongo Basin Conservation Association, Defenders of Wildlife, the Desert Tortoise Council, the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, Southern California Watershed Alliance, Desal Response Group and Desert Survivors, we appreciate and welcome the opportunity to comment on the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project (“Cadiz Water Project,” “Proposed Project” or “Project”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”).

9. Key arguments • For the reasons set forth below, commenters request that a new DEIR be prepared for the Proposed Project under the lead agency of San Bernardino County. Also, the right-of-way(“ROW”) for the Proposed Project requires Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) approval, andthe Proposed Project, therefore, requires full review under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. section 4321et seq. We urge the appropriate state agencies to coordinate with the appropriate federal agencies to prepare a joint EIR/DEIS for the Proposed Project that complies with both state and federal law.

10. Who has the burden of proof? • Cadiz, Inc. • The challengers

11. Who should decide? • Cadiz, the owners of 34,000 acres • The San Bernardino County Supervisors • The California State Courts as a matter of law • The Federal Courts because of the breadth of impact

12. The answer to “who decides” The temporary answer is that the Board of Supervisors approved it. Then the case for approval shifted to the Federal Bureau of Land Management. They had a legal role because Cadiz, to save money, wanted to use a railroad ‘right-of-way’ which was unused. In the next several slides the next steps as reported in “The Los Angeles Times” for Oct. 5, 2015 will be presented.

13. Cadiz Inc.'s plans to sell Mojave Desert groundwater to Southern California communities have hit a major federal roadblock. • In a long-awaited decision, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management says Cadiz cannot use an existing railroad right-of-way for a new water pipeline that would carry supplies from the project's proposed well field to the Colorado River Aqueduct.

14. But in a letter to Cadiz on Friday, BLM's California director informed the company that it needs U.S. approval for a separate pipeline right-of-way over federal land. That would trigger review under federal environmental law, a potentially lengthy and costly process that could impose new conditions on the project.

15. Cadiz has acknowledged that over the long term, the project will extract more groundwater than is replenished by nature. And federal scientists have expressed concern that the operation could dry up springs vital to wildlife on the nearby Mojave National Preserve and other public lands. Note: this is a major acknowledgement of the position of critics

16. "The BLM has the responsibility to objectively apply the law using the best available information to determine what rights were conveyed to the railroad under a 19th century law," BLM State Director Jim Kenna said in a statement. "Because the proposed pipeline is not within the rights conveyed to the railroad, a separate BLM authorization is necessary.

17. In a further complication for Cadiz, project opponent Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has for years added a rider to the federal budget barring the BLM from spending money on anything related to the groundwater project. A spokesman for Feinstein said the provision "will be in there again." As long as the rider is in effect, the BLM won't have the funds to review a pipeline application.

18. In a response sent to the BLM director in Washington, Cadiz President Scott Slater on Monday argued that the agency was misinterpreting an Interior Department solicitor's opinion and should rescind the determination. • "We're disappointed the BLM decided to take a political path," Slater said in an interview. "They wholly ignore the solicitor's opinion." • The decision is technically an "administrative determination" that cannot be appealed. But Slater, a well-known water attorney, said the company would "consider all legal remedies," including a federal lawsuit. "We'll press on," he added.