Cadiz water project should get a federal review

Editorial
San Bernardino Sun

Rep. Paul Cook's call for a federal review of the proposed Cadiz water project is perfectly reasonable -- despite protestations by the company planning to pump water from a Mojave Desert aquifer and the water district that would get most of the water.

For one thing, the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project hopes to use railroad right-of-way that crosses federal land for a 43-mile section of pipeline, which could give the federal government purview. But much more importantly, the project has potential impacts on nearby, protected federal lands.

Cadiz, Inc., aims to "harvest" water from an aquifer under land it owns in the Cadiz Valley and sell it to Santa Margarita Water District in Orange County and other water districts. The idea is to provide a new, reliable source of water for about 100,000 homes and, of course, a profit for Cadiz, Inc. Claremont-based Three Valleys Municipal Water District, San Dimas-based Golden State Water Co., Covina-based Suburban Water Systems and Jurupa Community Services District could all get some of the water, as could San Bernardino County.

Santa Margarita Water District certified the project under state environmental law, and San Bernardino County approved a groundwater management and monitoring plan. The water district has a vested interest in the project going forward; the county says it does not. The county has OK'd up to $1.5 million in legal fees to defend against lawsuits challenging the project, but Cadiz, Inc. has agreed to cover those costs.

Cadiz, Inc., and the Santa Margarita district both said a federal review would be superfluous and wasteful. A spokesman said the county is taking no position on Cook's call for a review.

Cook's letter to the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, sent in June but made public last week, cites "serious doubts about the validity of previous environmental studies," particularly claims by Cadiz that 32,500 acre-feet of recharge per year will refill the aquifer. Independent scientists put the recharge rate between 2,000 and 10,000 acre-feet per year, notes the Apple Valley Republican -- which would mean the project could pump the aquifer dry.

Cook worries that the pumping could harm springs in the nearby Mojave Natural Preserve, because groundwater flows from under the preserve to replenish the aquifer. Cook also cites possible harm to his desert district's constituents, including ranchers, rural communities, landowners and a company that mines salts from Bristol Dry Lake.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein last year made a similar request for a federal review.

There are safeguards against over-pumping in the county-approved groundwater management plan. But it's much harder to undo damage to the desert than it is to figure out the right approach ahead of time.

Using water from the remote aquifer -- water that otherwise would be lost to evaporation -- to supplement urban supplies sounds good. But not if excess withdrawals might lay waste to the Mojave Desert's wildlife and resources. Interior should heed Cook's request that the U.S. Geologic Survey analyze the project area's hydrology and make sure the pumping would be sustainable.