Mojave Desert Water Project Rejected

LOS ANGELES, California, October 9, 2002 (ENS) - The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California voted Tuesday to reject a proposed water storage project in the Mojave Desert. Critics of the controversial plan warned that the project would jeopardize wildlife, including endangered desert bighorn sheep and desert tortoises, and harm wilderness habitat at great economic cost.

Critics argued that depleting the aquifer beneath the Mojave Desert could dry up natural seeps and springs, like Cornfield Spring in the Mojave Desert Preserve. (All photos courtesy National Park Service)

"We firmly disagree with Metropolitan in that we believe the decision ignores both the letter and spirit of Metropolitan's contracts with Cadiz, which collectively obligate Metropolitan to complete the environmental review process and turn the entitlements over to its venture partner Cadiz," said Keith Brackpool, Cadiz chair and chief executive officer, in a prepared statement.

The MWD vote was "astonishing since it was without the benefit of any hearings or briefings on the current environmental safeguards approved by the Department of the Interior or status of the contractual negotiation process," Brackpool added.

Brackpool made a personal appeal to the MWD board Tuesday night, arguing that remaining economic and environmental questions about the project could soon be answered.

Dried up springs would threaten the survival of the desert's rare moisture loving species, like this maidenhair fern at Cornfield Spring. (Photo by C. Munill)

The MWD board said that it was rejecting the project due to concerns raised by environmental experts and lawmakers, along with drought conditions on the Colorado River that made it less likely that enough water could be diverted to make the project practical.

The proposed project called for Cadiz and MWD to share the costs of building a 35 mile pipeline to transport water from the Colorado River Aqueduct to an underground aquifer beneath the Mojave Desert north of Palm Springs.

During wet years, surplus Colorado River water would be diverted to the aquifer, which could hold up to 1.5 million acre feet along with a similar amount of groundwater stored their naturally. In dry years, Cadiz would sell water to MWD.

Endangered desert bighorn sheep find refuge in the Mojave Desert near the proposed project. (Photo by D. Schramm)

If California does not settle on a water saving plan by December 31, 2002, the state could be penalized by losing part of its current water allotment. But critics of the Cadiz project said that harming the Mojave Desert was not a fair tradeoff for an uncertain chance of meeting some of California's water needs.

"This is the right decision," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who led opposition to the Cadiz project. "The Cadiz project may have harmed the desert and was not in the best interest of the MWD or the state of California."

In March, Feinstein wrote to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, warning that the project could jeopardize the nearby Mojave National Preserve.

Environmental groups echoed that sentiment. Courtney Cuff, director of the Pacific region of the National Parks Conservation Association, said MWD's vote means that "California's deserts are protected from a potential disaster."

Desert tortoises need undisturbed tracts of Mojave Desert. (Photo by C. Munill)

The project may not yet be completely dead, however. Cadiz chair Blackpool suggested Tuesday that the company might take legal action over the board vote, charging that MWD broke its contract with Cadiz by rejecting the plan before all environmental reviews are completed.

"Given the need for reliable water supplies and given that the program has received all federal approvals, we respectfully suggest that the public interest is best served by an open, public review of the environmental documentation prepared by MWD staff and consultants," the company stated. "A great deal of public and private resources have been expended. To not complete the evaluation and review would not best serve the public interest."