Showing posts with label water wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water wars. Show all posts

August 30, 2015

How a 1930s water war between California and Arizona delayed Parker Dam

Parker Dam and Lake Havasu on the Colorado River in 1939. In 1922, six of seven states signed the Colorado River Compact. Upset with its allotment, Arizona refused to sign. So when Parker Dam construction began, Arizona sought to block the project. (U.S. Department of the Interior)

by Scott Harrison
Los Angeles Times


"Water war" has for decades been a term used to describe the political battles over water in the West.

But back in the 1930s, a fight between California and Arizona over water actually veered from cold war to hot war — almost.

In 1934, the Metropolitan Water District began construction on Parker Dam, which was opposed by Arizona. The resulting Lake Havasu would feed the new Colorado Aqueduct.

Before, in 1922, six of seven states signed the Colorado River Compact. Upset with its allotment, Arizona refused to sign.

So when Parker Dam construction began, Arizona sought to block the project.

In March 1934, Arizona Gov. Benjamin Moeur called up the Arizona National Guard. Six soldiers arrived in Parker, Ariz., to observe the construction.

National media, including the Los Angeles Times, ridiculed the deployment.

When an Associated Press photo appeared in the March 10, 1934, edition of The Times, the accompanying caption reported:

"Arizona Troops Leave For (Water) Front.

"Without any flare of trumpets or a band playing martial airs, this squad of Arizona National Guardsmen left Phoenix and arrived at Parker yesterday preparatory to patrolling the dam site to prevent 'encroachment' on Arizona's rights by the Metropolitan Water District. Maj. Pomeroy, commanding the detail, is shown on the extreme right."

For the next several months, the troops patrolled the Arizona side of the dam site.

In November, the construction of a trestle bridge from the California side prompted action. On Nov. 10, Moeur declared martial law. He dispatched more than 100 National Guard troops to block construction on Arizona's shore.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes intervened and halted construction. The troops were recalled.

The resulting legal action led to an April 29, 1935, Supreme Court decision. The April 30, 1935, Los Angeles Times reported:

"Without a dissenting voice, the United States Supreme Court yesterday forced an indefinite suspension of work on Parker Dam by upholding Arizona's right to object and interfere with construction....

"Arizona officials, a dispatch from Phoenix said, hailed the decision as a victory in their battle over the Colorado River, which has been waged for twelve years.

"Gov. Moeur, who last November ordered out the Militia to stop construction, was quoted as saying he was pleased; and he and other State authorities indicated they now intend to let other sides in the controversy make the first move.

"By its far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court virtually justified Gov. Moeur's action in ordering out the troops.

"The decision, written by Justice (Pierce) Butler, assert the dam project never has been authorized by law."

Political compromises were made. Congress passed legislation allowing construction to proceed. Parker Dam was finished in 1938.

November 25, 2014

SMWD establishes agency to oversee Cadiz groundwater project


By TOMOYA SHIMURA
Orange County Register


A project that will pump drinking water from a Mojave Desert aquifer and pipe it to south Orange County has taken another step forward.

The Santa Margarita Water District board of directors recently approved establishing the Fenner Valley Water Authority to control and operate the delivery of the groundwater.

The district is moving forward with the plan after an Orange County Superior Court judge in May shot down lawsuits filed over the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project by environmental groups trying to stop the project.

District spokesman Jonathan Volzke said operating under the joint powers authority shields Santa Margarita and its customers from liabilities.

Los Angeles-based Cadiz Inc. plans to install wells to capture water from the natural aquifer that lies beneath 70 square miles of remote valley east of Twentynine Palms. The private developer which owns the land would also build an underground 43-mile pipeline along railroad right-of-way to the Colorado River Aqueduct, which delivers water to Southern California residents.

Cadiz is estimated to spend $225 to $275 million for the construction, spokeswoman Courtney Degener said.

There’s no timeline for the beginning of construction, Degener said. The company needs to reach an agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles on moving water through its aqueduct, she said.

The opposition has so far filed appeals in four of the six lawsuits, but the project will continue moving forward regardless, Degener said.

The well would pump some 16 billion gallons of water a year, and Volzke said Santa Margarita plans to purchase at least 5,000 acre feet a year, or 20 percent of its water supply, from the Cadiz project. The district serves 165,000 people in Coto de Caza, Ladera Ranch, Rancho Santa Margarita and parts of Mission Viejo and San Clemente.

Santa Margarita buys 85 percent of its water from the Metropolitan Water District, which has increased water prices each year for the last two decades, Volzke said. The Cadiz project could reduce the district’s reliance on the Metropolitan Water District.

“It would give us more local control over the cost of water,” Volzke said.

Once built, Cadiz plans to lease the facilities to the Fenner Valley Water Authority, which will oversee day-to-day operation of the well and pipeline.

Cadiz is trying to reach an agreement with other water agencies that have shown interest in buying water from the project, Degener said. They include: Jurupa Community Services District, Golden State Water Company, Suburban Water Systems, California Water Service Company and Three Valleys Municipal Water District, San Luis Water District and Lake Arrowhead Community Services District.

June 20, 2014

Water war bubbling up between California and Arizona

Low water levels are plainly visible on Lake Mead, which is fed by the Colorado River. (Michael Robinson Chavez / Los Angeles Times)

Michael Hiltzik
LOS ANGELES TIMES


Once upon a time, California and Arizona went to war over water.

The year was 1934, and Arizona was convinced that the construction of Parker Dam on the lower Colorado River was merely a plot to enable California to steal its water rights. Its governor, Benjamin Moeur, dispatched a squad of National Guardsmen up the river to secure the eastern bank from the decks of the ferryboat Julia B. — derisively dubbed "Arizona's navy" by a Times war correspondent assigned to cover the skirmish. After the federal government imposed a truce, the guardsmen returned home as "conquering heroes."

The next water war between California and Arizona won't be such an amusing little affair. And it's coming soon.

The issue still is the Colorado River. Over-consumption and climate change have placed the river in long-term decline. It's never provided the bounty that was expected in 1922, when the initial allocations among the seven states of the Colorado River basin were penciled out as part of the landmark Colorado River Compact, which enabled Hoover Dam to be built, and the shortfall is growing.

The signs of decline are impossible to miss. One is the wide white bathtub ring around Lake Mead, the reservoir behind Hoover Dam, showing the difference between its maximum level and today's. Lake Mead is currently at 40% of capacity, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the dam. At 1084.63 feet on Wednesday, it's a couple of feet above its lowest water level since it began filling in 1935.

But the rules governing appropriations from the river are unforgiving and don't provide for much shared sacrifice among the states, or among farmers and city dwellers.

The developing crisis can't be caricatured as farmers versus fish, as it is by Central Valley growers irked at environmental diversions of water into the region's streams. It can't be addressed by building more dams, because reservoirs can't be filled with water that doesn't come. And it can't be addressed by technological solutions such as desalination, which can provide only marginal supplies of fresh water, and then only at enormous expense.

Nor can a few wet years alleviate the need for long-term solutions. "We had a solid year this year, which takes a bit of the panic out," says Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves 19 million residents and gets about half of its water supply from the Colorado. But because "demand outstrips supply, we expect a long-term decline. And possibly because the crisis has been developing slowly, we're nowhere near a solution."

What will be necessary is a fundamental reconsideration of 100 years of water-appropriation practices and patterns. Farmers, whose claims on Colorado river water are senior to all others, may have to give up, or sell off, some of their rights. Strict legal provisions that would turn whole swaths of the inhabited Southwest back into desert to slake the thirst of California cities will have to be reconsidered.

"Nineteenth century water law is meeting 20th century infrastructure and 21st century climate change," says Bradley Udall, a senior fellow at the University of Colorado Law School, "and it leads to a nonsensical outcome."

If the Western drought continues, Arizona would have to bear almost the entire brunt of water shortages before California gives up a drop of its appropriation from the river. Few observers of Western water affairs believe that's politically practical, but few have offered practical alternatives.

A quick history lesson: The Colorado Compact, reached by six of the seven basin states in 1922 under then-Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover, aimed to replace the tangle of state water allocation laws with a single legal regime in order to get the dam built. (Arizona finally signed the deal in 1944.) But the compact was based on a fraud — an estimate of river flows that Hoover and the states' negotiators almost certainly knew was wildly optimistic.

Many times, the compact has been revised and supplemented to meet changing conditions. In 1968, Congress authorized construction of the Central Arizona Project, a massive aqueduct serving Phoenix and Tucson, by passing the Colorado River Basin Project Act. Arizona agreed to be last in line for water from the Colorado if a serious drought struck.

The bill's drafters probably never thought supplies would become so tight. But the bill from nearly a century of overuse is on the verge of coming due. During the last 50 years, according to figures from the Reclamation Bureau, the population served by the river has grown from 12 million to 30 million. Over that period, the average flow on the river has fallen from 15.5 million acre-feet to as low as 12 million. (An acre-foot serves two households a year.)

The river's apparent abundance has encouraged exceptionally wasteful usage. For example, thirsty forage crops such as alfalfa and pasture land account for as much as half the irrigated acreage in California, according to a report last year by the Pacific Institute. And as my colleague David Pierson reported recently, much of the harvest is shipped to China.

The Pacific Institute finds that stingier but still effective irrigation practices could save nearly 1 million acre-feet a year throughout the Colorado basin, and replacing alfalfa with cotton and wheat would save 250,000 acre-feet. But plainly, a trade pattern that effectively exports the West's scarce water to China isn't sustainable.

Other old assumptions will also have be discarded. One crucial need is to keep Lake Mead's water level well above 1,000 feet, the point at which it is unable to deliver water to Las Vegas and its ability to generate hydroelectricity is compromised. That task would be considerably eased by draining Lake Powell, the reservoir behind Glen Canyon Dam, upstream of the Grand Canyon.

That proposal has been pushed by the Glen Canyon Institute, a Salt Lake City-based environmental group, but faces hurdles in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico, where residents fear that draining Lake Powell will only allow California, Arizona and Nevada to deprive them of their legal right to the river's flow.

The political resistance to shutting down Lake Powell is intense, though in time it may be trumped by the sheer scale of the water crisis. "We've gone from seeming to be the lunatic fringe to being taken seriously," says M. Lea Rudee, a board member of the Glen Canyon Institute.

Another assumption being challenged is the primacy of agriculture's claim on water. The solution is to buy farmers out, trading cash for their water rights to keep supplies flowing to urban areas. The MWD is working to develop a plan to pay growers to fallow their land to raise the water level of Lake Mead. "But we really don't know what the response will be to a cash offer to take land out of production," Kightlinger says.

What is certain is that the solutions will be complicated and contentious. The last major effort to settle legal rights on the Colorado River involved a sheaf of interstate and interagency pacts known collectively as the Quantification Settlement Agreement. The QSA was reached in 2003 and then litigated for the next 11 years. Last month a federal appeals court upheld the QSA against an environmental challenge, but that may not be the last word — a petition for rehearing is in the works, and a challenge in California state court is still alive.

But they these efforts still don't provide a framework for the future. "The arrangements in place right now are politically untenable," Udall says. But what can be done when the solutions are, too?

May 29, 2013

Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging Cadiz water project

Seven suits from three groups still pending over plan to pump Mojave Desert groundwater.

By BROOKE EDWARDS STAGGS
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER


SANTA ANA – An Orange County judge last week dismissed a citizen group's lawsuit challenging the Cadiz Valley water project, with trials expected to start soon in seven suits from three other groups opposing plans to tap a remote Mojave Desert aquifer.

Cadiz Inc., which owns land above the groundwater basin in eastern San Bernardino County, still needs to secure some $225 million in funding and approval from public agencies such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California before it can begin drilling wells and laying pipeline for the project, which would deliver 50,000 acre-feet of water to Southern California districts each year.

Citizens and Ratepayers Opposing Water Nonsense sued Santa Margarita Water District and its board of directors on Aug. 31, a month after the district approved a 1,668-page environmental impact review for the project.

The district hopes to buy 5,000 acre-feet a year, or 20 percent of its water supply, from Cadiz. The water district – which serves more than 155,000 customers in Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Talega in San Clemente and surrounding unincorporated areas – volunteered to serve as lead agency on the project, overseeing nearly two years of environmental reviews and supervising development going forward.

The citizens group also named Los Angeles-based Cadiz, San Bernardino County and other public agencies in the lawsuit, saying environmental reviews weren't conducted in accordance with state law and that the agencies didn't do enough to protect groundwater supplies.

"Obviously we're pleased it was dismissed and dismissed with prejudice," district spokeswoman Michele Miller said Tuesday, with the citizens group unable to again challenge the project's environmental impact review or its groundwater management, monitoring and mitigation plan in Orange County Superior Court.

Corey Briggs, who represented the citizens group in the suit, said the group has no plans to appeal or pursue further action over the project.

"There are other parties that are perfectly capable of continuing the lawsuit, and we don't need any more cooks in the kitchen," Briggs said by phone from his San Diego office. "That just drives up costs for everyone."

Texas-based Tetra Technologies Inc. has filed four claims over potential impacts to its liquid calcium chloride operations in the area. Laborers' International Union of North America is suing over potential danger from munitions used in the project area during World War II training operations. A coalition including the Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club and San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society filed two claims protesting potential environmental impacts.

All of the cases are being coordinated under Judge Gail Andler, with a hearing set for Monday to consider consolidating the seven outstanding claims.

What is the Cadiz project?

The Cadiz Valley Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project involves installing wells to tap the natural aquifer that lies beneath 70 square miles of Mojave Desert land owned by Cadiz Inc. The private developer would also build a 43-mile pipeline from its eastern San Bernardino County property along railroad right-of-way to the Colorado River Aqueduct, which supplies water to residents in Orange County and beyond.

Proponents say the project will capture groundwater that otherwise flows to nearby dry lake beds. Rather than let it evaporate, they say the additional 50,000 acre-feet of water each year could be used to shore up local supplies and stabilize rates.

Opponents have cried foul over potential impacts on the environment, water quality and nearby mining operations, along with questioning how the project's environmental reviews were conducted.

November 1, 2012

Environmentalists sue over Cadiz water project


Karen Tracy of Joshua Tree protests a groundwater management plan for the Cadiz project outside a San Bernardino County Supervisors meeting last month. (KURT MILLER/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)

BY JANET ZIMMERMAN
Press-Enterprise


Four environmental groups filed their second lawsuit against San Bernardino County on Thursday, Nov. 1, over a hotly contested proposal to pump water from Mojave Desert aquifers and send it to cities across the state.

The Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project would extract groundwater from an open valley beneath 45,000 acres that Los Angeles-based Cadiz Inc. owns south of the Marble Mountains, 40 miles east of Twentynine Palms. The area lies between the Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park in eastern San Bernardino County.

The $225 million project would provide water for about 400,000 people served by six water districts throughout California, including Jurupa Community Services District in Riverside County.

On Oct. 1, county supervisors approved a groundwater management plan for the project that would allow them to shut down operations when the water table drops to a certain threshold. That action gave the go-ahead for the plan to pump 50,000 acre-feet per year.

In their lawsuit, the Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club San Gorgonio chapter and the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society say San Bernardino County failed to provide an environmental review and did not comply with its own groundwater ordinance, designed to protect resources in the desert.

“This shortsighted water grab will benefit those pushing more sprawl in Orange County, but it’ll rob some of California’s rare species of the water they need to survive,” said Adam Lazar, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Our desert, the residents of San Bernardino County and Orange County ratepayers all deserve better.”

County spokesman David Wert disagreed. “We believe the groundwater ordinance was adhered to and the approval followed the county’s procedures. It was proper and in the best interests of the county and the environment.”

This is the third lawsuit challenging the project. The same four environmental groups filed a lawsuit Aug. 31 against San Bernardino County and an Orange County water district, contending the county should have led the environmental review of the project, not the Santa Margarita Water District in Mission Viejo, which has signed on as a future buyer of the water from Cadiz Inc.

The water district is named in the August suit for approving the environmental impact report on the project on July 31.

Also suing is Delaware Tetra Technologies Inc., which operates a brine mining operation at two dry lakes near Cadiz Inc.’s property. The company filed suit against San Bernardino County and Santa Margarita Water District, saying they violated state environmental law by not making the county the lead agency, instead of Santa Margarita.

Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, who has received more than $48,000 in campaign contributions from Cadiz in the past five years, has said the project would benefit the county by creating jobs and providing a hedge against uncertain water supplies from Northern California.

Environmentalists said the pumping would cause a drop in the water table that would dry up springs supporting bighorn sheep and other wildlife, could cause dust storms on nearby dry lake beds that would adversely affect air quality, and overdraw the water table.

October 22, 2012

Mojave National Preserve Proposal Threatens Wildlife

ALERT: Under the guise of a comprehensive water management plan, the National Park Service is proposing the removal of critical water sources in the Mojave National Preserve, imposing a certain death sentence on desert wildlife. Comment on EIS now!

Water source near Hackberry Spring, Mojave National Preserve

Water Resources Management Plan for Mojave National Preserve

Mojave National Preserve proposes to develop a comprehensive, ecosystem-scale management plan for water throughout this 1.6-million acre unit of the national park system. Mojave National Preserve has natural, modified, and artificial sources of water throughout its lands. The NPS seeks to determine desired future conditions through a public scoping process with hunters groups, environmental organization, park visitors, and state and federal agencies. Future condition targets will be defined in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and NPS management policies. Park staff is working with the NPS Environmental Quality Division to develop a comprehensive approach to management of water resources in Mojave National Preserve.

October 22, 2012: A Preliminary Alternatives newsletter is available for review. Please send your comments in here or in writing, addressed to the Superintendent. We are accepting comments through November 20, 2012.

Contact Information
Stephanie Dubois, Superintendent
Attention: Water Resources Management Plan
Mojave National Preserve
2701 Barstow Road
Barstow, CA 92311

October 5, 2012

Board Endorses LA & Orange Counties Draining Desert Aquifer

San Bernardino County Sentinel

Seth Shteir, of the National Parks Conservation Association, speaks during a protest of the groundwater management plan for the Cadiz project, before the San Bernardino County Supervisors meeting, on Monday, October 1, 2012. (KURT MILLER/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)

In an action of historic proportion, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on October 1 voted 4-1 to allow a water extraction project in the east Mojave Desert to proceed, removing the last procedural obstacle to a Los Angeles-based company’s plan to profit from the exportation of billions of gallons of San Bernardino County’s water up to 230 miles westward for sale and use in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties.

Notably, San Bernardino County was not the lead agency on the project. Rather, Monday’s hearing was a formality required under the terms of a memorandum of understanding between the company undertaking the project, Cadiz, Inc., and Orange County-based Santa Margarita Water District, which served as the agency-of-record for the approval of the project and its environmental certification, and the Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company, an entity owned by Cadiz, Inc. The county by its action signed off on the Santa Margarita Water District’s approval of the project and certification of the environmental impact report, and it approved a groundwater management, monitoring, and mitigation plan to facilitate it.

On July 31, the Santa Margarita Water District, which lies 217 miles from the Cadiz Valley and serves the affluent communities of Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, Coto de Caza, Las Flores, Ladera Ranch and Talega, approved the project, officially known as the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation and Recovery Project, certified the environmental impact report for the project and agreed to purchase 20 percent of the water Cadiz, Inc. drafts as a consequence of that approval. The environmental impact report states that Cadiz, Inc. can draw an average of 50,000 acre-feet of water per year from the desert aquifer for the next century.

The controversial plan was given go-ahead over the strident objections of desert residents and landowners, who said they viewed the project as an unprincipled theft of the desert’s water resource by Cadiz, Inc. and the water district. Environmentalists registered opposition to the project, asserting the amount of water to be extracted from the desert will exceed the natural recharge rate of the region’s groundwater basins, that springs within the immediate area of the project’s well field will dry up, and near-lying aquifers that are linked to the Cadiz Valley and Fenner Valley’s water tables will be depleted.

While Scott Slater, the president and general counsel for the Cadiz Land Company, and Christian Marsh, an attorney representing the county of San Bernardino, asserted that the October 1 hearing fulfills all of the procedural requirements for the project to proceed, John Goss, a former assistant administrative officer with San Bernardino County who had worked for 18 months drafting the county’s desert groundwater management ordinance before it was adopted in 2002, said that ordinance was violated when the memorandum of understanding between the county, Cadiz, Inc. and the Santa Margarita Water District had been entered into before a groundwater management plan for the Cadiz project was adopted. There were also suggestions that the county had failed to live up to its own procedural requirements when it failed to provide a ten-day public review of the documentation considered by the board on October 1. That documentation, consisting of the groundwater management, monitoring, and mitigation plan, was not made available until September 26.

The board of supervisors would have normally been the lead agency responsible for approving the project and granting it environmental certification. After Cadiz, Inc. arranged for the Santa Margarita Water District to commandeer that process, San Bernardino County officials initially contemplated filing an appeal with the California Office of Planning and Research to wrest from Santa Margarita authority over the project and its application for approval. The county, however, did not file such an appeal and acceded to the Santa Margarita Water District’s assumption of lead agency authority over the project application and environmental certification. Earlier this year, the county upon a vote by the board of supervisors entered into a memorandum of understanding with Cadiz, Inc. and the Santa Margarita Water District that gave the county limited power to second-guess the district’s decision on the environmental certification and compliance with its own ground water management ordinance as well as requiring that Cadiz, Inc. defray the cost of any legal action taken by parties against the project or in reaction to its impacts.

The project still faces four legal challenges.

A brine mining operation in the desert, Tetra Technologies, has already filed a lawsuit against San Bernardino County over the memorandum of understanding. Tetra alleges the monopolization of water in the area will harm its operation.

Four environmental groups – the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Parks Conservation Association, the San Gorgonio chapter of the Sierra Club and the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society – filed a suit in San Bernardino County Superior Court, naming both the county of San Bernardino and the Santa Margarita Water District. That suit asserts the county should not have allowed the environmental review of the project to be carried out by the Mission Viejo-based Santa Margarita Water District. The suit challenges the county for allowing Santa Margarita to assume lead agency status and calls into question as well the water district’s approval of the environmental impact report.

The Colorado River branch of the Archaeological Heritage Association filed suit in federal court against Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and San Bernardino County, further naming the Santa Margarita Water District, project proponent Cadiz, Inc. and the Cadiz, Inc. corporate offshoot Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company, as real parties in interest. That suit cited the failure of Salazar and the Department of the Interior to invoke the protocols and requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as the National Environmental Protection Act, which the association maintains should have been done because part of the project will involve a 42-mile right-of-way for the aqueduct on federal land. The suit further alleges the county failed to live up to its obligation to comply with federal law in reviewing the impact a permitted project might have on federal public resources in transferring the authority for environmental certification of the project to the Santa Margarita Water District.

A group of Orange County residents calling itself Citizens and Ratepayers Opposing Water Nonsense have sued the Santa Margarita Water District over its approval of the environmental impact report and the water purchase agreement it entered into with Cadiz, Inc.

In addition, Senator Dianne Feinstein has signaled continuing opposition to the project, which is consistent with the stance she took when Cadiz, Inc. floated a similar water mining operation more than a decade ago. In an October 1 letter to board chairwoman Josie Gonzales, Feinsten reiterated that opposition, urging Gonzales and her board colleagues to deny the project endorsement if the amount of groundwater to be extracted from the aquifers exceeds the natural annual recharge rate of the local desert basins, which was determined by the United States Geological Survey in 2001 to be 5,000 acre feet per year.

Only supervisor Neil Derry, whose Third District includes a portion of the East Mojave, voted against the project.

Project proponents asserted the project represented no harm to the desert and its environment, and they said the county should embrace it because it represented economic development and employment opportunities. Opponents retorted that the jobs to be created would be temporary and that the monopolization of the region’s water by areas outside of the county would inhibit or outright prevent future economic growth and development in the Eastern Mojave.

October 1, 2012

County supervisors approve Cadiz desert water pumping plan

Ruth Musser-Lopez, a former council member from Needles, speaks during a protest of the groundwater management plan for the Cadiz project, before the San Bernardino County Supervisors meeting, on Monday, October 1, 2012. (KURT MILLER/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)

BY JANET ZIMMERMAN
Press-Enterprise


An ambitious private water project that would draw water from deep under the Mojave Desert and pipe it across California was given the go-ahead Monday, Oct. 1, by San Bernardino County supervisors.

Opponents and supporters spoke for five hours during a special hearing on the controversial Cadiz project, which would pump an average of 50,000 acre-feet per year from beneath a remote valley south of the Mojave National Preserve and pipe it to cities across the state.

The vote was 4-1, with Supervisor Neil Derry dissenting.

“My constituents have been very vocal about not taking water out of the desert,” Derry said.

The supervisor said he also opposes the Santa Margarita Water District in Mission Viejo acting as lead agency on the project instead of the county. The Orange County water agency has agreed to buy water from Cadiz Inc., along with Jurupa Community Services District in Riverside County, and five other agencies as far north as San Jose.

Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt cited several benefits for the county, including a hedge against uncertain supplies from Northern California and new jobs in a region that needs them.

Part of the agreement reserves 20 percent of whatever is pumped for the county, plus 25,000 acre-feet, he said.

“How much would it cost us to build a project that could access that much water?” Mitzelfelt asked. “I see a benefit at a very reasonable cost.”

Numerous representatives of the manufacturing industry, pipe layers, surveyors and the Building Industry Association said it would create thousands of jobs and bring water supply reliability that would boost the economy by billions of dollars.

Environmentalists said the pumping would cause a drop in the water table that would dry up springs supporting bighorn sheep and other wildlife, could cause dust storms on nearby dry lake beds that would adversely affect air quality, and overdraw the water table.

The board approved an amended version of a management plan to govern project operations.

The plan includes a water-withdrawal threshold that, if reached, would allow the county to shut down pumping from the Cadiz Valley.

The 80-foot floor was established because the county doubts Cadiz Inc.’s assertion that natural recharge — the rate at which rain and snow replenish the water — is 32,000 acre-feet per year, said Christian Marsh, the county’s special counsel.

A study by the U.S. Geological Survey showed recharge at 5,000 acre-feet per year.

“If the recharge is only 5,000 acre-feet per year and they pump 50,000, they’ll hit the (80-foot) floor within 10 years,” Marsh said.

The threshold eliminates widespread worries about the aquifer’s rate of recharge, he said. The county also will monitor vegetation in the area and watch for sinking land, among other indicators of potential harm, he said.

Many project opponents complained about the threshold.

“By 80 feet, the damage will be done,” said Michael Valdez, a lawyer with the UC Irvine Environmental Law Clinic.

Several speakers alleged campaign donations by Cadiz Inc. had influenced the supervisors’ decisions in favor of the project. From 2007 to June 30, 2012, Cadiz has donated more than $107,000 to supervisors and candidates for the office, according to county records.

Among them: Mitzelfelt received $48,100; Gary Ovitt, $11,745; Josie Gonzales, $8,450; Janice Rutherford, $5,999; and Derry, $5,250.

Supervisors did not respond to calls from the public to address how much money they have received from the company.

This is the second incarnation of the Cadiz project. Since it was first proposed in 1999, Cadiz general counsel Scott Slater said his company has downsized the project, spent $10 million to drill wells and map the area and change the pipeline route.

“The project has made a promise to conserve millions of acre-feet of groundwater without harm to others and the environment and, with its action today, the county will ensure that this promise is fulfilled,” Slater said.

It will be years before the $225 million project is operational because the company must still reach an agreement with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to use its pipelines. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is critical of the project. In addition, it may require a federal environmental review.

Meanwhile, two lawsuits are pending, one by the National Parks Conservation Association and other environmental groups, and the other from Delaware Tetra Technologies Inc., which runs a brine mining operation at two dry lakes near the 45,000 acres that Cadiz owns.

August 31, 2012

Environmental groups sue over Cadiz water project

Cadiz Inc. has proposed pumping 16 billion gallons of water per year from beneath land it owns and beyond in the Mojave Desert.

BY JANET ZIMMERMAN STAFF WRITER
Press-Enterprise


Four environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday, Aug. 31, against San Bernardino County and an Orange County water district to challenge a controversial groundwater mining project in the Mojave Desert.

The crux of the lawsuit is the question of which agency should serve as lead on the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project, which would pump 16 billion gallons of groundwater per year from ancient aquifers.

The Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club San Gorgonio chapter and the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society contend the county should have led the environmental review of the project, not the Santa Margarita Water District in Mission Viejo, which has signed on as a future buyer of the water from Cadiz Inc.

The water district is named in the suit for approving the environmental impact report on the project on July 31. The county has 90 days from that date to approve or reject the environmental impact report, and can issue or deny a permit for the project.

The project “is in San Bernardino County, that’s where all the impacts are going to be; they should be in charge, not some Orange County water agency,” said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity.

San Bernardino County spokesman David Wert said the county has no authority over whether it is the lead agency.

“Santa Margarita claimed lead status before the county had a chance to,” he said. “The county can’t just switch that.”

County lawyers said that historically, once an agency claims lead status, the state doesn’t overturn it, Wert said. The county didn’t challenge the status because if defeated, it would have been locked out of the process, he said.

“This way, at least we have a seat at the table,” Wert said.

Adam Lazar, a staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, disagreed.
The California Environmental Quality Act says that such a dispute would be submitted to the state Office of Planning and Research for a decision. If defeated, the county would still be the responsible agency, which can give a thumbs-up or down to the environmental impact report, Lazar said.

The groups want the report voided and redone by the county, and they want the county named lead agency.

The project would extract groundwater from an open valley beneath 45,000 acres that Cadiz Inc. owns south of the Marble Mountains, 40 miles east of Twentynine Palms. The area lies between the Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park in eastern San Bernardino County.

The $225 million project would provide water for about 400,000 people served by six water districts throughout California, including Jurupa Community Services District in Riverside County.

Critics say the pumping would cause a drop in the water table that would dry up springs supporting bighorn sheep and other wildlife. They also have raised concerns that it could cause dust storms on nearby dry lake beds, adversely affect air quality, overdraw the water table and alter the flow of groundwater beneath the Mojave Preserve over the 50-year life of the project.

Hydrologists from the U.S. Geological Survey and elsewhere say Cadiz’s estimates of natural recharge to the aquifer are overstated.

This is the second lawsuit challenging the project. Delaware Tetra Technologies Inc., which operates a brine mining operation at two dry lakes near Cadiz’s property, also is contesting Santa Margarita as the lead agency.

Both lawsuits center on the county’s groundwater management ordinance, designed to protect resources in the desert. The ordinance was passed in 2002, after an earlier version of the Cadiz project was proposed. Metropolitan Water District was a partner on that earlier version but abandoned it amid environmentalists' opposition and cost concerns.

Lazar, the attorney for the environmentalists, said the county violated the ordinance by not setting an acceptable rate of decline for the aquifer or danger levels that would trigger alerts of harm, before the environmental impact report was approved.

August 6, 2012

Is this Mojave water project worth the risk?

A private company's plan to tap a desert aquifer needs more study before going forward.

Editorial
Los Angeles Times


The search for reliable water supplies for Southern California has been going on for as long as Americans have lived here, and continues today. State officials are examining a proposal to draw water from the Sacramento River and ship it to this part of California, bypassing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and its shaky levees. Los Angeles officials are also trying to balance the water needs of the city against their obligations to hold down dust in the Owens Valley, which has long supplied much of Los Angeles' water and whose brackish lake dried up in the process. The debates over water often are complicated and weighted by competing and compelling interests.

But all water projects are not the same, and one that deserves special scrutiny is a recent proposal to draw thousands of acre-feet of water out of an aquifer that sits beneath the Mojave Desert and send it to users throughout the region, especially the Santa Margarita Water District, which supplies part of Orange County. The water district last week gave the project a boost by approving its environmental impact report.

That's the latest step in a long march. The project has been pursued for more than a decade by Keith Brackpool, an influential Southern California businessman (Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa once worked for Brackpool, who also served as a key water advisor to Gov. Gray Davis). If approved, it would clear the way for Brackpool and his company, Cadiz Inc., to sell enough water every year to serve 100,000 homes. Cadiz could make $1 billion to $2 billion over the 50-year span of the deal.

Some may flinch at the philosophical implications of a private investor selling water that accumulated for centuries beneath his land to public agencies for his own profit. But for better or worse, that bridge was long ago crossed. The farmers of the Owens Valley, for instance, sold their water rights to representatives of Los Angeles in the early 20th century, and that water continues to provide this city with much of its supply.

What makes the Cadiz project unique are two factors: its size and its location. Selling 50,000 to 75,000 acre-feet of water a year, as the company proposes to do, is an extraordinary exchange of water. It would require the construction of a 43-mile pipeline, and it would pump more water out of the ground than any previous private project in California. More important, the water would be drawn from the ancient aquifer that has undergirded the Mojave Desert from time immemorial. No one knows precisely how quickly that aquifer replenishes. If the Cadiz project draws water faster than rain and snow can refill it, the aquifer will dry up — and the desert will die.

Will that happen? Cadiz's experts say no, that the aquifer can sustain the anticipated withdrawals and replenish annually. But other experts take a far more conservative view of how much water can safely be drawn from the aquifer. The gap between Cadiz's estimates of the replenishment rate and those of the government is staggering and of great consequence: The Cadiz estimates are three to 16 times higher than those of the U.S. Geological Survey and other experts, according to the National Park Service. If the USGS is right and Cadiz is wrong, the project would rapidly destroy the aquifer.

Recognizing the potentially grave implications for the Mojave, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wrote this year to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to urge his department to perform an assessment of the project's likely impact on the ecology of the region. That's a prudent proposal. Salazar should heed it.

Yes, federal intervention could slow this deal, which Rancho Santa Margarita and Cadiz understandably are eager to get underway. But the range of the estimates in play here — and the clear interest that Cadiz and Rancho Santa Margarita have in accepting best-case scenarios — suggest that an objective agency with a broader perspective should conduct its own analysis.

It may be that Cadiz's estimates will stand up to scrutiny; if so, this deal could provide precious water to areas that need it. Before it's allowed to go forward, however, neutral experts need to give it their best appraisal.

August 2, 2012

O.C. water board approves Cadiz's desert-pumping plans

The Santa Margarita Water District signs off on the Cadiz groundwater pumping project's environmental impact report, despite expected legal challenges by opponents.

Water pours out into a spreading basin which holds water from a pilot well, part of a possible water storage component on Cadiz Ranch. Cadiz Inc. recently received environmental approval, allowing the company to move a step closer to pumping and selling Mojave Desert groundwater. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

Bettina Boxall
Los Angeles Times


One of the West's most ambitious private water marketing proposals has taken a step forward with the environmental approval ofCadiz Inc.'s plans to sell massive amounts of Mojave Desert groundwater to Southern California.

The board of the Santa Margarita Water District, which serves 155,000 customers in south Orange County, voted 5 to 0 Tuesday night to sign off on the project's environmental impact report under state law. The board also agreed to buy one-tenth of the project's proposed annual yield.

The actions are a boost for Cadiz, whose owner, British-born entrepreneur Keith Brackpool, has been trying for 15 years to make money off the aquifer that lies beneath his desert holdings 200 miles east of Los Angeles.

But Cadiz has many more hoops to jump through before Brackpool's dream becomes a reality. The project, with a preliminary price tag of $225 milion to $275 million, lacks financing. It faces legal challenges and the possibility that it may still have to win approval from the federal government, which manages public lands surrounding the proposed well field.

In an interview Wednesday, Santa Margarita board member Charley Wilsonsaid the district views the project as a way to diversify supplies, but he acknowledged that it was far from guaranteed. "We thought [it] was worth taking the next step to see if it comes to fruition."

The district's authority to act as lead in the environmental review process has been challenged in lawsuits filed by opponents, who are expected to take additional legal action to try to overturn the board's decision.

"We believe that the board made a terrible mistake last night and that this move will jeopardize the Mojave National Preserve springs, groundwater resources and air quality," said Seth Shteir of the National Parks Conservation Assn., one of a number of environmental groups fighting the proposal.

Cadiz wants to withdraw enough groundwater every year to supply 100,000 homes and sell it at prices that could produce $1 billion to $2 billion in corporate revenue over the 50-year life of the project. Though Central Valley farmers pump and sell groundwater during drought, the scale of the desert project is unprecedented for a private venture in California.

The planned pumping rate would exceed the aquifer's natural recharge rate, lowering the groundwater table not just beneath the Cadiz property but also below neighboring federal land that is home to bighorn sheep herds and the desert tortoise.

Three former superintendents of the nearby Mojave National Preserve and a former regional director of the National Park Service recently urged the water board to reject the environmental review as inadequate.

Wilson said the board based its decision on a review of scientific data. The district's general manager, Dan Ferons, said the monitoring and management plan approved by the board would provide "plenty of warning signals" if the operation was harming the desert environment.

Experts hired by Cadiz have said the withdrawals would not hurt springs in the area or cause significant environmental damage. But their analysis has been disputed by preserve officials and experts hired by conservation groups, who say Cadiz has greatly overestimated the aquifer's recharge rate — and underestimated the possible effects of a half century of pumping.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., whose 1994 desert protection legislation established the preserve, has asked the U.S. Interior Department to review the proposal under federal environmental law, a process that would slow the project and possibly lead to the adoption of stricter monitoring and management guidelines.

"At a bare minimum, this project must undergo thorough federal environmental reviews — not just reviews at the state level," Feinstein said in a statement to The Times. "Cadiz could deplete the aquifer to the extent that it would effectively destroy that portion of the Mojave which I have worked to protect."

Cadiz has insisted it doesn't need federal approval because the 43-mile pipeline connecting the well field to the Colorado River Aqueduct would be buried along an existing railroad right-of-way across federal land. But a 2011 opinion by the Interior solicitor threw that rationale into question by concluding that railroads can't authorize activities that don't further the railroad's purpose.

The Interior Department says it is evaluating Cadiz's argument that the project would aid the railroad by providing water to douse railroad trestle fires, wash rail cars and operate a steam engine train, which the railroad is considering launching with Cadiz as a weekend tourist attraction.

Also pending is permission from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to transport Cadiz supplies in the river aqueduct, which Metropolitan owns and operates. The agency has expressed concerns about the presence of hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, in the aquifer that Cadiz would draw from, raising the possibility that expensive well field treatment would be required. Metropolitan has also informed Cadiz that aqueduct space may not always be available for its shipments.

July 21, 2012

Carcinogen in Mojave ground water could require costly treatment

High levels of hexavalent chromium, a toxic heavy metal, add to the hurdles Cadiz Inc. faces in its plan to ship water to the Southland.
Water is pumped into a spreading basin at the Cadiz Inc. facility in the Mojave Desert. The water that Cadiz wants to sell to the Southland contains a carcinogen, in amounts that are hundreds of times greater than the state’s public health goal for drinking water. (Joe Cavaretta, Associated Press)

Bettina Boxall
Los Angeles Times


The Mojave Desert ground water that Cadiz Inc. wants to sell to Southland suburbs contains hexavalent chromium, a carcinogen, in amounts that are hundreds of times greater than the state's public health goal for drinking water.

The presence of the toxic heavy metal, which occurs naturally in the aquifer Cadiz proposes to tap, could force the company to undertake expensive treatment, driving up the cost of the project and ultimately the price of its water.

The chromium contamination is one of several concerns raised by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which owns and operates the 242-mile-long Colorado River Aqueduct that Cadiz would use to transport its supplies to customers.

Metropolitan has also informed Cadiz that the aqueduct space the company is counting on may not always be available, especially during dry years when demand for the Cadiz water would likely be the greatest.

The issues, described in environmental documents released last week, add to the hurdles Cadiz faces as it pursues a project that would push the boundaries of California’s nascent private water market.

They also underscore that though the company is promoting its water as an alternative to imported supplies threatened by drought and environmental restrictions, its ground water would also be imported 200 miles from the eastern Mojave to coastal customers and could be subject to delivery limits.

“Our aqueduct is probably the most valuable possession we have. So we’re going to be extremely careful,” said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of Metropolitan, which built the aqueduct and has for decades used it to convey Colorado River supplies to millions of Southern Californians.

Metropolitan and Cadiz have a complicated history. More than a decade ago they planned a major water storage and pumping project in the Mojave that the Metropolitan board voted down in 2002, killing the proposal. Cadiz subsequently sued the agency, waging a costly legal battle that ended when it dropped the lawsuit shortly before a scheduled trial.

Now Cadiz needs Metropolitan’s approval for use of the aqueduct, which is key to its latest proposal to withdraw and sell enough ground water from beneath its Mojave holdings near Amboy to supply 100,000 homes each year. The sales could reap $1 billion to $2 billion in revenue for Cadiz over the life of the project.

The proposal has drawn opposition from U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a powerful Mojave advocate, conservation groups and desert residents who fear the pumping will harm the environment of surrounding public lands, including the Mojave National Preserve.

An international company that operates industrial salt works at neighboring dry lakes has filed two lawsuits to block the project and environmental groups are expected to file more legal challenges.

There are currently no federal or state standards for hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium 6, in drinking water. But the state, citing international research that drinking water exposure has been linked to an increase in stomach tumors and liver cancer deaths, last year set a public health goal that will be used in the development of a regulatory standard.

At 14 parts per billion to 16 parts per billion, the chromium 6 levels in the Cadiz water far exceed the public health goal of .02 parts per billion. The ultimate state standard, expected in two to three years, will undoubtedly be higher than the health goal. But even if Cadiz supplies meet the new standard, Metropolitan could still require treatment before the ground water is pumped into the aqueduct.

“Just having some chromium in our water could be a detriment to some of our folks,” Kightlinger said, noting that some Southland cities blend Metropolitan supplies with their own chromium-tainted ground water to reduce pollution levels. “We would have to do more analysis and see what the final standard is and do some modeling” before deciding whether treatment by Cadiz would be required, he added.

Scott Slater, president and general counsel of Cadiz, said chromium treatment could cost as much as $400 an acre-foot.

“The worst case would be that we had to treat at every individual well,” he said, adding that the company hopes some form of limited treatment combined with blending the ground water with river water in the aqueduct would suffice, bringing costs to below $150 an acre-foot. (Cadiz proposes to pump an annual average of 50,000 acre-feet.)

Whatever the costs, they would be covered by contract provisions, Slater said. “The price of the water could go up or the profits of the company could go down.”

He dismissed Metropolitan’s suggestion that there might not be enough room in the aqueduct to accommodate Cadiz shipments, noting that long-term drought in the Colorado River basin has reduced the agency’s deliveries.

“The Colorado River Aqueduct has not been full since 2003,” he said. “I don’t think that you can project forward and come to the reasonable conclusion that the aqueduct’s not going to be able to take 50,000 acre-feet of water.”

But Kightlinger said Metropolitan has spent the past decade developing supplementary programs, such as acquiring irrigation water and holding supplies in Lake Mead, that could fill the aqueduct in dry years.

“We would pull the Mead water and say there is no wheeling capacity available. We’ve filled up our aqueduct,” Kightlinger said. “That’s just something they need to understand.”

July 18, 2012

Cadiz water project progresses

By Janet Zimmerman
Press-Enterprise


A final environmental report has been issued for a long-running and controversial project that proposes pumping water from an ancient Mojave Desert aquifer and exporting it to cities in California, which is now the subject of a lawsuit.

The Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project would provide a new water source for about 400,000 people by extracting the groundwater in an open valley between the Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park in eastern San Bernardino County.

A public hearing on the environmental impact report is set for Wednesday, July 25, in Orange County and via video conferencing in Joshua Tree.

The company, Cadiz Inc., says the $225 million project would make use of water that would otherwise be lost to evaporation, delivering up to 50,000 acre-feet per year to water agencies, including Jurupa Community Services District in Riverside County. A second phase also would provide underground storage for surplus Colorado River water.

But environmentalists say the pumping would cause a drop in the water table that would dry up springs supporting bighorn sheep and other wildlife. They have also raised concerns that it could cause dust storms on nearby dry lake beds, adversely affect air quality, overdraw the water table and alter the flow of groundwater beneath the Mojave Preserve.

The 1,664-page environmental impact report was prepared by Santa Margarita Water District in Orange County, the lead agency for the permitting process under the California Environmental Quality Act that also is a potential buyer of the water. The other interested agencies are Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Claremont, Suburban Water Systems in Covina, Golden State Water Company in San Dimas and California Water Service Co. in San Jose.

The report released this week addresses comments from nearly 200 individuals and state and federal agencies. Many of them reiterated their earlier worries about the project, particularly that the recharge rate for the basin was overestimated.

In May, San Bernardino County supervisors approved a memorandum of understanding that laid out the review process for the controversial project and gave the county authority to approve or deny a permit for the project. The Santa Margarita Water District was named as the lead agency responsible for reviewing and approving the environmental impact report.

Delaware Tetra Technologies Inc., which operates a brine mining operation at two dry lakes adjacent to Cadiz Inc.’s property, has filed suit against San Bernardino County and Santa Margarita Water District.

The company claims the two violated state environmental law by not making the county the lead agency, since it has the principle authority for approving the project, said Robert Bower, Tetra’s attorney. Tetra also claims the county violated its own Desert Groundwater Management Ordinance.

“What is Santa Margarita Water District’s approval authority here? How can Santa Margarita Water District, which is over 200 miles away from this project and is going to benefit from it, objectively weigh the benefits of the project against the environmental cost?” Bower asked.

A drop in the water table of even one foot would harm the mining of the salt from sediment in Bristol and Cadiz dry lake beds, the company said in comments included in the environmental report.

The county’s spokesman, David Wert, could not be reached for comment.

Scott Slater, Cadiz’s president and general counsel, said in a statement that his company stands by the project’s “extensive monitoring program, the county’s enforcement role and believes this case has no merit.”

Cadiz project
Public hearings on the final environmental impact report for the Cadiz groundwater pumping project will be held July 25 at 6:30 p.m. at:

Norman P. Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission Viejo

Copper Mountain College, Bell Center Community Room (via video conference), 6162 Rotary Way, Joshua Tree.

For information, go to www.smwd.com, or call 949-459-6400

July 17, 2012

Former Mayor Says There's "Nothing" Out in the Desert

Commentary by Steve Brown
The Sun Runner


"You've all been out there, there's nothing out there in that desert anyway." Garry Thompson, Cadiz Water Project supporter, public comment at SMWD Engineering Committee meeting July 13, 2012.

There's nothing out there?

Oh really.

If the folks behind the Cadiz water mining operation (known euphemistically as the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery & Storage Project as it siphons off the desert's water to soak the lawns of Orange County) wanted to prove their ignorance of the desert region without a doubt, they could not have found a better person to demonstrate that ignorance than former Rancho Santa Margarita mayor, Garry Thompson.

Thompson proves that the "minds" behind the Cadiz water mining project don't know much about the desert, the place where they're planning on getting their water.

What that means is their ignorance, which is evidently acceptable to them, could lead to disasterous results for the desert.

According to Thompson, there's nothing out here in the desert. Just the fact that he would make that statement as a supporter of the Cadiz water mining project is an indicator of the Orange County mindset that whatever happens to the desert as a result of their project doesn't matter.

There's nothing here, ergo there can be no harm done to nothing.

Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

The "science" used in their studies has been challenged in various aspects, by numerous groups, while the Cadiz backers charge that mysterious forces in Sacramento are all that oppose their project, a tawdry ploy to divert attention from the fact that their project could lead to irreperable harm to desert wildlife, including plant life, and that by the time monitoring provided conclusive evidence of the harm, the damage would be done.

The desert is a vibrant and diverse set of ecosystems, a beautiful but delicate land, where life has learned to thrive with limited resources. The downside of that is when you extract some of those limited resources, you remove a portion of those resources that elsewhere may not lead to extreme and disasterous consequences, but here could lead to the destruction of entire populations of effected species.

Dry up the seeps and springs that desert bighorn sheep rely upon during the summer months, for instance, and by the time your monitoring confirms that there are no more seeps and springs during the summer, the bighorn will have all died off.

That may not bother Cadiz backers like Thompson very much as they water their green lawns with pristine desert water, but it sure as hell bothers me and many of us who know and value what there really is in this desert.

The Sun Runner Magazine officially opposes the Cadiz water mining project because of the likely devastating environmental consequences for the nearby Mojave Desert wildlands, and the Mojave National Preserve. The blatantly ignorant comments of folks like Thompson do nothing to further our confidence in the assertions of the organizations behind the Cadiz water mining project that there will be no environmental harm done to the desert by the project.

They clearly don't know about, or care about the desert, so therefore, it is up to those of us in the desert, and those who do care about the desert, to stand up for our home.

Perhaps the former mayor is confused. Maybe there's nothing in his head - a desolate landscape devoid of life.

July 16, 2012

Environmental report released for Cadiz water project

Needles Desert Star

MISSION VIEJO — The Santa Margarita Water District released a final environmental impact report for the proposed Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project and scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, July 25.

The meeting will be held in the Sycamore Room of the Norman P. Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission Viejo. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m.

A video conference option will be available in Joshua Tree in the Bell Center Community Room of Cooper Mountain College, 6162 Rotary Way. Anyone attending the video conference will also have a chance to interact and make comments related to the final EIR.

During the public hearing, the SMWD board of directors will decide whether or not to certify the final impact report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. The board is also asked to consider a draft purchase and sales agreement, which will further detail the financial terms for purchasing water from the proposed Cadiz project.

Thirdly, the board will be asked to consider the groundwater monitoring, management and mitigation plan, which authorizes San Bernardino County to provide separate oversight and monitoring of the proposed project.

The proposed project is two phases. The first would be to capture and conserve the Cadiz aquifer’s average annual recharge. The aquifer is under Cadiz and Fenner Valleys. Approximately 50,000 acre-feet per year would be delivered to southern California water providers. In wet years, the water district would have the option of decreasing or foregoing its water delivery for that year and carry it over to another year when it may be needed. The carry-over would be stored in the Cadiz aquifer.

The second phase of the project contemplates storage of imported water from the Colorado River in the Cadiz aquifer system. In wet years, surplus water from the Colorado River could be conveyed to recharge basins on Cadiz-owned land and would percolate into the underground aquifer for storage.

All are encouraged to attend the public hearing and to present written and/or oral comments. Letters must be received on or before the date of the hearing, or can be submitted at the hearing. Submit written comments to SMWD at 26111 Antonio Parkway, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, 92688.

For additional information contact Michele Miller at 949-459-6548 or send email to cadizproject@smwd.com.

Opponents organize transport

Transportation will be provided from Needles and Goffs to the Santa Margarita Water District Board Meeting in Mission Viejo.

Those interested in transportation on July 25 to Mission Viejo to voice their objection to the proposed Cadiz Project should contact Ruth Musser-Lopez at 760-885-9374 for the van schedule. Vans leave Needles at 10:30 a.m. on July 25.

July 13, 2012

Firm is spearheading opposition to Mojave Desert groundwater pumping

A Texas-based oil and gas services company files two lawsuits to combat an effort to withdraw Mojave groundwater and sell it to urban Southern California.

Water pours out into a spreading basin that holds water from a pilot well used for testing. Cadiz Inc. hopes to pump groundwater from the Mojave Desert to sell to urban Southern California. (Al Seib, Los Angeles Times / April 18, 2012)

By Bettina Boxall
Los Angeles Times


The company that wants to pump large amounts of Mojave Desert groundwater and sell it for a profit to Southern California suburbs has run into opposition from an unexpected quarter: an international corporation that runs industrial salt operations next door to the proposed project.

Texas-based Tetra Technologies Inc., an oil and gas services enterprise, has come out swinging at Cadiz Inc.'s pumping plans, filing two lawsuits, mounting a public relations campaign and dismissing the water project's environmental review as a sham designed to escape serious scrutiny.

"There are so many games that they've played to make this thing 'work,' " said Robert Bower, a partner in the California law firm of Rutan & Tucker, which is representing Tetra.

The company's combativeness has given a boost to conservationists and desert residents who are fighting the project, which would annually withdraw enough Mojave groundwater to supply 100,000 homes and sell it to urban Southern California at prices that could earn Cadiz $1 billion to $2 billion in revenue over a 50-year period.

The proposal, a long-held dream of British-born entrepreneur Keith Brackpool, has stirred concern that it would harm surrounding public lands and open California's desert aquifers, a public resource, to unprecedented water exports by private interests.

In Tetra, opponents have a deep-pocketed ally, a corporation with operations on six continents that is the world's largest producer of calcium chloride, a salt that is used in oil and gas production, water treatment, food processing and road maintenance — and that has for a century been commercially extracted from the aquifer system Cadiz wants to tap.

Just south of Cadiz's proposed well field and 200 miles east of Los Angeles are several dry lakes, beneath which lie shallow reserves of calcium chloride-rich brine replenished by the groundwater flow. The lakes are the end point of the basin's subterranean drainage and when the groundwater collects there, it picks up salts from ancient lake bed sediments.

In 1998, Tetra bought a long-standing brine-mining operation on Bristol Dry Lake and a few years later purchased a similar one on nearby Cadiz Dry Lake. The operations are almost primitive in their simplicity. Brine is drawn from shallow depths and collected into solar evaporation ponds where it is reduced to a concentrated calcium chloride liquid that is pumped off, leaving sodium chloride, or common salt, which is also gathered and sold for industrial purposes.

The collision between Tetra and Cadiz lies in Cadiz's plans to divert groundwater to its wells before it reaches the dry lakes. Cadiz officials have made the diversion a major selling point of their project, which they are pitching as a "water conservation program" that would capture water that would otherwise naturally evaporate from the lake beds and "be wasted."

That is not the way Tetra sees it. "The groundwater migrating to the dry lakes has been used for decades…for the production of brine and commercial chemicals and the groundwater that does evaporate is beneficial to local ecosystems. Evaporation comes back as precipitation," Bower wrote in a recent letter to San Bernardino County supervisors.

Cadiz says that if necessary it would pay to drill deeper brine wells for Tetra and would also consider buying out the salt operations. "I've done everything I can and I continue to reach out," Cadiz general counsel and president Scott Slater said in an interview. "I'm puzzled as to why [Tetra's legal fight] is proceeding."

Tetra's Superior Court lawsuits, filed against San Bernardino County and the Santa Margarita Water District, also name Cadiz as a party. The actions challenge the project's review under state environmental law and an agreement Cadiz struck with the county that exempted the project from the county's groundwater ordinance while setting certain conditions on the pumping. Tetra argues that the county should have taken the lead in reviewing the project instead of the Orange County water district, which has signed an option to buy the largest share of Cadiz water.

"Why could they possibly be the lead agency on a project that's going to extract San Bernardino [County] groundwater and send it to them as a customer?" Bower asked. "You think there may be a conflict of interest there?"

San Bernardino County spokesman David Wert called Tetra's legal action "misguided and without merit." The county has said previously that it retained authority over the pumping because Cadiz has agreed that its monitoring and management plan requires the final approval of the board of supervisors. But that accord has also been questioned by Tetra, which contends it effectively gives free rein to Cadiz.

Dan Ferons, the Santa Margarita Water District's new general manager, declined to comment on Tetra's legal challenge. But his predecessor, John Schatz, has said it was appropriate for the district to assume the lead in the environmental review. "We think as a public agency in the water business we can adequately assess the environmental impacts."

The district plans to release its final environmental impact report today and has scheduled a public hearing for July 25, when its board is expected to approve the project.

Tetra is not confining its fight to the courtroom. Working with other opponents, Bower's law firm set up a nonprofit opposition group that sent mailers to Santa Margarita district customers warning that the Cadiz project would send their water rates soaring. Bower also hired a public relations company that created an opposition website.

Cadiz in turn hired a public relations firm that set up a pro-project website. And, in a shot at the Sacramento-based public relations firm Tetra retained, the South Orange County Regional Chamber of Commerce sent a mailer to Santa Margarita customers warning that "Sacramento operatives" were trying to dictate the county's water future.

Not to be outdone, the Santa Margarita district sent a mailer of its own, denying that rates would skyrocket and saying that water otherwise lost to the "desert air" would be "collected and conserved."

June 8, 2012

SB County History Full Of Outside Efforts To Commandeer Desert’s Water

By Mark Gutglueck
San Bernardino Sentinel


The Cadiz Water Project is not the first effort by outside business entities to lay claim to San Bernardino County’s water resources and utilize them elsewhere in Southern California.

For nearly 120 years, speculators have sought to capture local water rights and profiteer by selling the water to local users or diverting it elsewhere within or outside of the county. Most of those efforts pertain to water which originates in the San Bernardino Mountains and front page flows northward into the Mojave River or southward into the Santa Ana River.

Between October and December of 1892, a group of investors from Minneapolis and St. Paul raised $1.5 million and before the close of the year used a portion of that money to purchase from the Hesperia Land and Water Company an option on the water rights and dam site at Victor Narrows. Working in conjunction with Dr. Joseph Jarvis from Riverside, James E. Mack of Bloomington as well as A. H. Koebig and O.J. Perkins of Los Angeles, the group was purposed to buy outright or otherwise purchase options on property that carried with it the existing water claims around the Mojave River and a suitable site for a 171-foot high and from 75-foot-to-150-foot-wide dam and reservoir above the Upper Mojave Narrows that would house enough water to irrigate 250,000 acres in the High Desert.

When the Panic of ‘93 hit later that year, the resolve to continue the effort dissolved. A handful of the participants reformed as another corporation headquartered in Springfield, Illinois led by J. C. Dickson of Sierra Madre and the previously referenced James E. Mack, still intent upon a venture to harness the Mojave River. That effort, too, foundered. But in 1895, J. W. Wilson, together with O. O. Howard, formed a corporation, the Columbia Colonization Company of Chicago, and bought the Victor reservoir project for a promissory note of $80,000. Later that year, Howard dropped out of the venture, to be replaced by H. P. Sweet. The Columbia Colonization Company entered into agreements with homesteaders of 320-acre ranges provided for in the Desert Land Act to permanently provide those homesteaders with water in exchange for 280 of their claimed acres. The company then sought to sell land thus obtained to investors or buyers interested in occupying it. Questions about the legality of the company’s sales of land to which the government still held title emerged, resulting in a federal district court order enjoining the Columbia Colonization Company from marketing unpatented government land or their bonds outside of California. The company subsequently faltered when it failed to deliver on its promissory note to the Springfield, Illinois company, which then attempted to reassert its water rights and possession of the dam site.

That scheme was superseded by one pursued by another group of speculators, the Appleton Land and Water Company of Los Angeles, led by P. D. Hatch. Hatch’s plan was to construct a dam much closer to the ultimate source of the water, more than 11 miles above the Victor reservoir, to not only control the flow of the Mojave River itself but to reroute a major portion of the water flow coming northward down the slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains in flumes and aqueducts eastward on the other side of Hesperia.

At that time, both wells and the Mojave River were being tapped by a handful of farmers who planted non-citrus orchards in what would eventually become known as Apple Valley.

In the 1890s, hundreds of acres in Hesperia had been converted to vineyards, which yielded fruit utilized as much for raisins as wine.

Simultaneously, up in the San Bernardino Mountains, the Arrowhead Reservoir Company had formed. That company’s goal was in no small part crosswise of what were the intentions of the Appleton Land and Water Company and other speculators in the desert, in that it had designs to dam up the water at a spot in the mountains and then divert the water through a tunnel to be dug and blasted out through the mountains southward to irrigate San Bernardino, Highland, Redlands, Colton and other growing communities well removed from the Victor Valley.

These competing designs and claims on the Mojave River’s water intensified in the late 1890s.

In 1899, Gifford Pinchot, head of the U.S. Division of Forestry, which would later become the United States Forest Service, personally came through the Victor Valley during a tour of California and its vast undeveloped wildlands. Upon his return to Washington, he commissioned a comprehensive survey of the Mojave River watershed. After President William McKinley was succeeded by the more conservation-minded Theodore Roosevelt, the Newlands Reclamation Act, authored by congressman Francis G. Newlands of Nevada, was passed by Congress in 1902, funding irrigation projects for the arid lands of the American West.

The act’s passage set off a second round of even more intensive and bitter legal battles between the Arrowhead Reservoir Company and nearly all of the water interests along the Mojave River. The Hesperia Land and Water Company, led by its then-president, W. A. Field, in both legal and bureaucratic filings maintained that the Arrowhead Reservoir Company’s proposed project would deplete, obstruct or eradicate the natural flow of water into the Mojave River.

Simultaneously, a group of small stakes West Coast investors who were backed by a syndicate of larger stakeholders from the East Coast assembled and headed by James Westwater of Ohio, employed Arthur E. Poole of Los Angeles, whose brother Charles was an engineer working on the city of Los Angeles’ Owens River Aqueduct, to purchase options on the properties and ranches lying along the lower Mojave River. By these purchases, Poole secured the lion’s share of water rights along the Mojave River through the Victor Valley, including the property that had been intended as dam and reservoir sites in the area. In 1904, the Arrowhead Reservoir Company commenced construction of a dam in the mountains.

In early 1906, Poole and Westwater announced they intended to initiate by July 1906 the construction of a dam in the Victor Valley along the Mojave River that would be used for both irrigation and power generation. By that summer, Westwater’s East Coast co-investors were expressing doubts about any large projects in California in the wake of the San Francisco Earthquake. As Westwater’s access to capital dried up and Poole failed to make good on promissory notes he had provided to secure property along the river, the duo ultimately were unable to retain control of any of the river bank property or the attendant water rights.

Over the next two-and-a-half years, The Arrowhead Reservoir Company continued to assert its Mojave River Basin water claims, making renewals on them every two months. But during the same time frame, Field and his Hesperia Land and Water Company claimed to have indisputable possession or control over 33,000 acres bordering the river. Field marshaled his company’s filing for one million miner’s inches (equal to 1.5 million cubic feet of water per minute) on both forks of the Mojave, which predated the Arrowhead Reservoir Company’s competing claims by more than two years, to assert that his company’s rights to the disputed water eclipsed the rights Arrowhead adduced. The Hesperia Land and Water Company had consistently utilized 5,000 inches of water from the East Fork every year for two decades, establishing, Field maintained, an inviolable right that would legally preclude the Arrowhead Reservoir Company or any other entity from diverting the Mojave River’s water away from the desert.

In 1909, a slew of other riparian owners along the Mojave filed suits against the Arrowhead Reservoir Company to prevent the diversion of the San Bernardino Mountain water away from the Mojave River Basin. While these suits were pending, the California Supreme Court entered a judgment in a case in the San Joaquin Valley involving a similar proposed rechanneling of water from its natural drainage area which barred such diversions where they would negatively impact existing agricultural operations.

Thereafter, the company’s subsidiary, the Arrowhead Lake Company, pursued transforming the once-contemplated reservoir site into a resort, completing that project, which had only minimal impact on the flow of water northward into the Mojave Desert, in 1922.

In October 1913, a San Francisco corporation, of which J. R. Wilbur was president, Ray K. Barrows vice president and A. L. Dahl secretary and treasurer, filed an application at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Forestry Service for a right-of-way to dig a tunnel twenty miles long through a portion of the San Bernardino Mountains to divert flood waters from the Mojave River to provide power and irrigation to citrus orchards in and around the cities of San Bernardino, Redlands, Riverside and that vicinity, where water would be used for citrus groves. One of the corporation’s board members was A. E. Boynton, at that time the speaker pro tem of the California State Senate. Wilbur’s corporation proposed locating a reservoir for the water at Victorville and a powerhouse to be driven by the gravity-fed water in San Bernardino.

Opposition to that undertaking involving the Victor Chamber of Commerce and local agricultural interests formed. The Victor Chamber of Commerce reclamation committee, led by its chairman, John D. Reavis, moved, according to a report in the Victor News-Herald, “to retain the most competent water attorney and engineer available” and immediately filed a protest with the government against the granting of a permit for right-of-way for a tunnel to divert water from the Victor Valley’s watershed to the San Bernardino Valley “on the grounds that it is contrary to law.” The tunnel project was not undertaken.

In 1921, the city of Pasadena filed with the California Water Commission to divert Mojave River water to Los Angeles County, spurring the Mojave River Irrigation District to take action to ensure that water rights along the river be secured by interests which would not allow the water to be appropriated by irrigation or municipal uses outside the local area. In the spring of 1922, the Mojave River Irrigation District asked a judge to set for trial the district’s request for condemnation of the Arrowhead Reservoir & Power Company’s land holdings along the Mojave River, which had gone unused since 1909, when the Arrowhead Reservoir & Power Company had abandoned its plans to divert a large portion of Mojave River water southward. Throughout late 1921 and early 1922, the Mojave Irrigation District along with a collection of Victor Valley residents lobbied San Bernardino County officials to use the authority of the county to oppose the city of Pasadena’s effort. In June 1922, interests in San Bernardino, in apparent reaction to Pasadena’s effort to secure water from the Mojave River, undertook an effort to divert an annual flow of 2,000 inches of water from Lake Arrowhead and an additional 4,000 inches from Deep Creek to San Bernardino, Redlands, Colton, Rialto and other cities south of the Cajon Pass.

In November 1926, a dispute within the Victor Valley over the use and monopolization of Mojave River water erupted when land owners along the lower Mojave River, objecting to the proposed use of river water in the Apple Valley region, filed suit to test the validity of the state water commission’s granting of a permit to the Mojave Irrigation District to impound the headwaters of the Mojave and use that supply in Apple Valley for agricultural purposes. The suit alleged the use of the water in Apple Valley would cause a shortage in the lower region.

In August 1927, sixteen cities located in Riverside, Orange, Los Angles and lower San Bernardino counties organized to form a metropolitan water district to undertake a $150,000,000 project to bring water to thirsty Southern California from the Colorado River. The effort represented a landmark in terms of lessening, though not eliminating, the threat that entities outside of the Victor Valley would divert Mojave River water away from the High Desert.

In December 1930, residents of the Victor Valley were shocked to learn that Ralph E. Swing, the attorney who was hired to represent the county before the state water commission to resist the city of Pasadena’s attempts to appropriate water rights along the Mojave River in 1921 and who was now a state senator, was assisting the city of San Bernardino in its filing to obtain 1,000 inches of surplus water in the Mojave river basin and transport it through the mountains in a three-mile tunnel and an aqueduct as part of a $3 million project to deliver the water to San Bernardino, Riverside, Rialto and Redlands to provide irrigation for citrus groves. The proposal also entailed plans to utilize the water to generate electrical power at a powerhouse in Devil Canyon as well as a 160- foot high dam near the junction of the east and west fork of the Mojave River to impound water at an elevation of 3,800 feet. The Victor Valley Chamber of Commerce immediately went on record against the project proposal.

Less than two weeks later the chamber hastily formed a committee composed of E. E. Kiggins of Oro Grande, L. G. Merritt of Helendale, T. J. Thomas of Apple Valley, Frank Hubbard and C. M. Moon of Victorville with Judge J. P. Hoffman elected as temporary chairman, to formulate some method of organization which would guard against encroachments on Mojave River water.

In February 1931, the Mojave River Irrigation District filed with the California Department of Water Resources to divert 85,000 acre feet per annum from Deep Creek and the West Fork tributary to the Mojave River for irrigation and domestic purposes onto 26,878 acres. This application was made as part of an effort to protect the Mojave River basin and forestall any diversion to the Mojave River water south of the mountains by establishing rights of priority over any applications which were to follow, subject to existing rights. The same month, 23 ranchers, well owners, riparian rights holders and other citizens formed the Mojave River Valley Protective Association with Judge J.P. Hoffman as chairman to safeguard the waters of the Mojave River from diversion. The association engaged attorneys Grant Holcomb and Byron Waters to protect its members’ water rights.

In June 1931 the Mojave River Valley Protective Association lodged a petition to the county board of supervisors for an election for the formation of a county water district, resulting in just such an election on August 21, at which the creation of a local water district passed by a vote of 183 to 41.

On August 4, 1932, the state filed a suit to cancel the rights of the Arrowhead Lake Company granted 18 years previously. According to the action, the rights in question pertained to the proposed construction of a 150-foot dam on the Mojave River for irrigating the 35,000 acres of land near Victorville. The state asserted in its suit that the Arrowhead Company failed to carry out provisions of the agreement on which the rights were granted, specifically undertaking the $3.25 million dam and reservoir construction project.

In December 1933 the directors of the Orange County Water District in Tustin advanced a $6 million-to-$10 million plan to purchase land along the Mojave River and develop a water project near Victorville and divert water to the Santa Ana River in Orange County.

While the Orange County water officials alleged in excess of 100,000 acre feet of water from the Mojave River was available annually and that only 6,000 acres in the Victor Valley were being irrigated with the available water, water owners and the communities in the Mojave Basin held a different viewpoint regarding the surplus water of the Mojave River and its availability for any use on the south side of the mountains. On Sunday, January 7, 1934, the Mojave Basin Protective Association authorized the expediting of conservation measures on the Mojave River, including the construction of dams at several points, as part of an effort to utilize the water locally and stave off the attempts of outside interests to seize a portion of the river’s water.

In July 1934, as the High Desert was gripped by a drought and Mojave Valley farmers and stockmen were applying through the county to the federal government for drought relief funding, Orange County water interests renewed their effort, which had lain dormant for several months, to divert to their county a portion of the Mojave River’s flow. At a meeting in Anaheim held under the auspices of the Orange County Chamber of Commerce, a resolution seeking an engineering survey to determine the cost of such a venture and the amount of water it might yield was passed.

In December 1934, before the interests in Orange and Riverside counties could themselves appropriate Mojave River water, the city of Los Angeles filed for 400,000 cubic feet of water from Seeley Creek, a tributary of the West Fork of the Mojave. Los Angeles’ stated intention for the water was to use it for domestic purposes at the “city playground at Camp Seeley,” owned by the city of Los Angeles. By establishing water usage there, the city of Los Angeles could at some indefinite future date discontinue its local utilization of the water and then divert a like amount to Los Angeles.

On January 12 1935 the Mojave Basin Protective Association met at the office of A. S. Amaral to ready protests of the Los Angeles filing and the anticipated filing by the Riverside, Orange and lower San Bernardino county interests.
On February 16, 1935 a meeting of the Mojave River Basin Protective Association was held in Helendale and an effort was initiated to organize all of the territory along the Mojave River from Yermo to the mountains into a county water district, incorporating the communities of Barstow, Helendale, Oro Grande, Victorville and Hesperia.

On June 12, 1935, the California state assembly, at the importuning of Assemblyman Gordon Corwin, amended legislation related to the Orange County Water District, Senate Bill 112, to prevent Mojave River basin water from being diverted to the headwaters of the Santa Ana River for use in Orange County. As originally drafted and passed by the state senate, Senate Bill 112 granted the Orange County Water District the power of eminent domain in areas beyond its jurisdiction, permitting that entity to condemn lands and water rights along the Mojave River. Though the measure passed the senate, it was amended and eventually defeated in the assembly.

In September 1935, a report by irrigation engineer Harry F. Blaney and irrigation economist Paul A. Ewing made at the request of the Riverside Water Company and other water organizations in Orange and Riverside counties entitled Utilization of the Waters of the Mojave River became public. Although the Orange County and Riverside County interests had hoped the report would serve them in an effort to appropriate a portion of the High Desert’s water, Blaney and Ewing made findings that any substantial diversion of water from the Mojave River at its headwaters would produce a small deficiency between the forks and Victorville, some deficiency between Victorville and Bastow and very likely a substantial deficiency below Barstow. According to the report, “Any diversion of Mojave River water outside its watershed should be made only after care is taken of the normal agricultural, domestic and industrial needs (including those of railroads) of the valley itself. The valley’s rights should stand in the preferred position, and outside claimants should be satisfied with what is left. Hence, provision should be made to protect the present water needs of the valley before the diversion is begun in any year.”

In the first week of October 1935, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County District Attorney James L. King filed upon all the surplus water of the Mojave River with the proviso that the filing would within sixty days be turned over to a water district to be formed within the Mojave River Basin. The action was taken in response to reports that water interests in Riverside and Orange counties were planning to file on a portion of the Mojave River’s water for diversion into the Santa Ana River.

On October 9, 1935 a meeting of Orange and Riverside county’s governmental officials and public and private water interests was held in Riverside. San Bernardino County First District Supervisor Arthur Doran and district attorney James L. King attended the meeting to represent San Bernardino County. Also present were San Bernardino mayor C. T. Johnson and a number of water users from the Mojave basin. Discussion at the meeting centered around a report by federal engineers regarding the amount of water that might be diverted from the Mojave River. After the San Bernardino County contingent went on record as being opposed to any diversion of Mojave River water to Riverside or Orange counties, the other attendees of the meeting protested the San Bernardino County delegation’s continued participation, and Doran and King left the confab.

On January 21, 1936 voters within the boundaries of the proposed 60,000-acre Mojave River County Water District between Victorville and Barstow ratified its creation 149 to 28.

In 2001, Los Angeles-based Cadiz, Inc. proposed a project calling for pumping water from the Colorado River during wet years, storing it in an underground aquifer beneath the Cadiz Valley in the Eastern Mojave, and selling as much as 60,000 acre-feet of the native groundwater and Colorado River water mix to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) in Los Angeles during dry years. That proposal was ultimately rejected by the Metropolitan Water District’s board of directors after conservationists raised concerns over possible environmental damage.

In 2009, the city of Riverside proposed laying claim to a considerable amount of Santa Ana River water at the south end of San Bernardino County through an undertaking to be known as the Riverside North Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.

Through its public utilities division, Riverside has plans to construct a 700-foot wide dam extending across the Santa Ana River north of the Riverside County Line on 30 acres of unincorporated San Bernardino County land owned by the city of Riverside just beyond the outskirts of Colton to capture the river’s flow and provide a ready supply of millions of gallons of water that originates in the San Bernardino Mountains to be conveyed by aqueducts or pipes to areas of the city of Riverside’s choosing for use in recharging groundwater basins.

The part concrete, part vulcanized rubber dam, has been designed to be retracted, i.e., deflated, at will to allow the river to continue its southward flow.

Plans are that the $15 million project’s cost would be borne entirely by the city of Riverside. The undertaking would be of primary benefit to the Western Municipal Water District in Riverside, which is to be the recipient of over 80 percent of the water to be collected by the dam. The city of Riverside intends to sell some of the water to the city of Colton and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. The project has not yet proceeded to completion and Riverside is yet working on the environmental impact report for the project, according to Kevin Milligan, the chief financial officer and interim chief assistant general manager of Riverside’s utility division.