Water Project Plans at Mojave Evaporate
Critics feared the project would threaten desert wildlife.
MOJAVE N.PRES., CALIF.— Plans for a massive water project that many feared would threaten the fragile ecosystem of the Mojave Desert have dried up.
The board of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California voted in October to scrap the $150 million project proposed by Cadiz Inc. The project would have mined groundwater from the aquifer beneath Cadiz's land in the Mojave Desert to sell at a profit to southern Californians.
Courtney Cuff, NPCA's Pacific regional director, said the board's decision would protect California's deserts from a "potential disaster."
"We couldn't hope for a better outcome to this environmentally flawed and economically unsound proposal," said Cuff. "[MWD] had the courage to stand up to gluttonous corporate interests and prevent damage to national treasures."
Cadiz stood to earn as much as $1 billion over 50 years from the project, which included plans to store up to 1.5-million-acre-feet of surplus Colorado River water in the aquifer. Cadiz hoped to sell the water to MWD, which sells water wholesale to local agencies.
Critics said the project would have seriously lowered the area's water table, causing shortages and dust storms that would be harmful to wildlife such as the desert bighorn sheep and desert tortoise.
"The project threatened the environment, made no economic sense, and would likely have advanced private interests at the expense of the public trust," said Cuff. "By mining groundwater, Cadiz would have, in effect, taken water out faster than natural cycles can replace it."
The aquifer supports four wilderness areas and Mojave National Preserve. The threat posed by the project compelled NPCA to include Mojave National Preserve on its "Ten Most Endangered National Parks" list earlier this year.
Opponents of the project did not believe that Cadiz would have spotted potential problems—such as groundwater overdraft—in time to prevent dust clouds. They also did not approve of construction of intrusive facilities, such as a large pipeline and five-story power lines and towers, across the desert.
The Department of Interior green-lighted the project in September, heightening concerns. But, in a surprising twist, MWD decided to vote on the plan in October, much sooner than expected.
"The Cadiz project at this point does not represent reliability," said MWD board member Timothy Brick. "It represents just the opposite—risk."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had publicly urged MWD to reject the proposal as both unnecessary and harmful to the Mojave Desert.
"To allow it to move ahead would be a terrible mistake," she said. "It does not make sense to siphon off water from this critical area of the California desert to send the MWD when the aquifer is vital to the health of the desert and its animal and plant life."
NPCA praised Feinstein for repeatedly expressing serious reservations about the environmental impacts of the project, and for relaying citizen concerns.
Opponents of the project also believed that Cadiz grossly overestimated the amount of groundwater it could have extracted from the Mojave aquifer, which would have rendered the cost of the project so high that consumers would have felt the pinch.
A recent Los Angeles Times editorial on the Cadiz project said that California voters would witness "another boondoggle," which would contribute to rising water prices if Cadiz's plan materialized. Other critics noted that private control of water in other states has sometimes resulted in higher prices and reduced water quality.
NPCA was a leading voice of opposition to the project for several years. In August, NPCA presented more than 3,000 letters from Californians opposing the Cadiz project to MWD, asking the board to nix it.
"We're thrilled to know that our concerns, and the concerns of thousands of Californians who opposed this senseless plan, were heard," said Cuff. "Our national parks, our wilderness areas, the more than 500,000 annual visitors to Mojave National Preserve, and all of California's residents are better off for this decision."
