What Others Are Saying 

 About the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project


  • “Cadiz water would be among the most expensive in the Southland, nearly $1,100 an acre-foot for untreated supplies. Treatment would further jack up the price.” (Source: LA Times Article, May 16, 2012)
  • “It appears that the two most important aspects of this project, water and power, do not exist in sufficient supply at the site to support a ‘sustainable’ project. . . .  [T]he proponent is substantially overestimating the amount of natural precipitation recharging the groundwater. . . .  [Its] estimates of the annual recharge . . . are not reasonable and should not even be considered.  [¶¶ ]  Instead [of discussing earlier studies that conclude the area’s recharge rate is much lower], the [EIR] discussion focuses on the most recent work by CH2M Hill, who was contracted by Cadiz for this Project.  By focusing solely on one study and neglecting the other studies, the SMWD is biasing the EIR toward a specific set of results.” (Source: National Park Service DEIR Comment Letter, February 13, 2012)
  • “This project is predicated on the capture of groundwater ‘wasted’ to evaporation. . . .  [Y]et very little convincing data are presented to show that this discharge actually exists.  [The data] indicate extensive evaporation from the playa is unlikely.  [¶¶ ]  [Based on recent USGS studies] the estimated groundwater discharge by direct evaporation is . . . considerably less than the Project’s assumed discharge estimate of 32,000 AFY . . . and therefore calls into question the accuracy of Cadiz, Inc.’s unconstrained recharge estimate.”  [¶¶ ]  While this excessive pumping [proposed by the Project] might optimistically ‘conserve’ 1.36 MAF of groundwater . . . , what is not mentioned is that out of the 2.5 MAF of groundwater that will be withdrawn during this 50-year period, approximately 1.14 MAF of it represents mining of other groundwater in storage.”  (Source: National Park Service DEIR Comment Letter, February 13, 2012)
  • “Aspects of the project are lacking necessary detail to effectively determine potential impacts to Metropolitan and feasibility of the proposed Project.” – Metropolitan Water District  (Source: MWD Comment Letter, March 12, 2012)
  • “The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) fails to consider whether there is sufficient capacity available in the Colorado River Aqueduct to accommodate the Project’s needs.” (Source: Metropolitan Water District Comment Letter, March 12, 2012)
  • “The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) does not adequately assess potential impacts to the CRA from construction and operation of new facilities. Potential for seepage from the proposed reservoir and fore bay is of particular concern.” (Source: Metropolitan Water District Comment Letter, March 12, 2012)
  • “The water quality discussion associated with the proposal to introduce the extracted groundwater into the Colorado River Aqueduct is inadequate.” (Source: Metropolitan Water District Comment Letter, March 12, 2012)
  •  “The Santa Margarita Water District has failed to adequately consider inclusion of monitoring and mitigation measures developed under the earlier Cadiz Project.” (Source: National Park Service DEIR Comment Letter, February 13, 2012)
  • “Non-Project related groundwater studies conducted in the study area indicate that natural recharge…ranges from 2,000 to 10,000 acre-feet per year…the Project’s recharge estimate is 3 to 16 TOO HIGH.” (Source: National Park Service DEIR Comment Letter, February 13, 2012)
  • “The ability of the numerical groundwater flow model to accurately simulate groundwater discharge by evapotranspiration is questionable.”(Source: National Park Service DEIR Comment Letter, February 13, 2012)
  • “The City of Needles cannot endorse a project that will take 50,000 acre-feet of ground water annually from an extremely fragile ecosystem with no concrete plan for replenishment of the aquifer. Natural recharge is estimated to be 14,000 acre-feet per annum. Taking the other 36,000 acre-feet from the Colorado River, the most oversubscribed waterway in America is unacceptable.” Edward T. Paget, Mayor of Needles (Source: City of Needles DEIR Comment Letter March 1, 2012)
  • “San Bernardino County supervisors — who have received $79,500 combined in campaign contributions from Cadiz since 2007 — recently voted to give Cadiz an exemption from the county’s desert groundwater ordinance, instead approving an agreement that gives the county authority to enforce the project’s monitoring and management plan.” (Source: LA Times Article, May 16, 2012)
  • “In total, there have been 30 illegal closed-session discussions by these public water agencies under the guise of “real estate” negotiations.” Debbie Cook (Source: VoiceOC, May 31, 2012)
  • “California’s Mojave Desert is a unique and special place … that must be protected.” Senator Diane Feinstein, U.S. Senate (Source: LA Times Article, May 16, 2012)
  • “…There are adverse consequences for other humans and for the local environment.” Dr. Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute (Source: Huffington Post Green Blog, January 24, 2012)
  • “It’s taking a public resource that originates on public land, privatizing it and selling it back to the public…This water is going to Orange County lawns and swimming pools. The desert is being asked to shoulder the burden.” – Seth Shteir, National Parks Conservation Association (Source: LA Times Article, May 16, 2012)
  • “The Cadiz Land Company and the Santa Margarita Water District are promising the residents of the desert a short term gain in the form of temporary construction jobs in exchange for this huge long term detriment.” Ruth Musser-Lopez, Local Environmentalist (Source: SBC Sentinel, February 26, 2012)
  • “It is water piracy, a vile theft from desert wildlife and human beings…”  Leigh Adams, Desert Landowner (Source: SBC Sentinel, February 26, 2012)
  • “This is one of the most outrageous proposals I have seen in my 25 years as an environmental activist.” Debbie Cook, Former Mayor of Huntington Beach (Source: SBC Sentinel, February 26, 2012)
  • “What this project is about is having water taken from San Bernardino County’s desert to be used in Orange County. Why should we allow a small company to utilize that water resource elsewhere?” Ruth Musser-Lopez, Local Environmentalist  (Source: SBC Sentinel, February 26, 2012)
  • “Two members of Santa Margarita’s board, Roger Faubel and Saundra Jacobs, initially said they don’t remember whether the board held a policy discussion on Cadiz before approving negotiations.” (Source: VoiceOC, June 2, 2012)

Stop This Costly, Corrupt and Catastrophic Project Now! Join us!


Download What Others Are Saying