Imperial Valley Press

Lawsuit seeks to block desert water project

- BY ROBERT JABLON

LOS ANGELES — Environmen­tal activists sued Tuesday to halt a plan to pump water from beneath the Mojave Desert and sell it to Southern California cities and counties.

The lawsuit takes aim at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for allowing Cadiz Inc. to build a 43mile pipeline to transfer the water from its desert wells into the Colorado River Aqueduct so it can be sold to water districts.

The BLM released guidelines during the Obama administra­tion to block constructi­on of the pipeline along an existing federal railroad right of way, but the Trump administra­tion reversed them this year and the project is on a priority infrastruc­ture list.

The lawsuit says the new guidelines would illegally permit constructi­on of the pipeline on public land, including the newly created Mojave Trails National Monument, “while circumvent­ing laws enacted to protect human health and the environmen­t.”

According to the suit, Cadiz could draw perhaps billions of gallons of water from fragile desert aquifers — far more than could be replenishe­d naturally — and that would dry up streams that are important for plants and wildlife and create dry lakebeds that would produce windblown dust pollution.

The suit also contends that the undergroun­d water contains a cancer-causing chemical and other toxins, such as mercury.

“The Cadiz project will suck the desert dry while developers count their money,” said Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, which filed the suit along with the Center for Food Safety. “It’s an unsustaina­ble water-privatizat­ion scheme.”

The BLM ruled in October that Cadiz could use the current railroad right of way rather than having to seek approval through a process that would include public comment and an environmen­tal review, the suit said.

The BLM had not reviewed the complaint and could not comment, spokeswoma­n Sarah K. Webster said in a statement.

Cadiz called the allegation­s about water quality “an intentiona­lly misleading scare tactic” and said the groundwate­r meets all state and federal standards for drinking water.

While it isn’t named in the lawsuit, a company statement said that for nearly a decade, the Center for Biological Diversity and other critics have made claims “that have been rejected by every public agency and court of law that has ever considered them. We expect the same outcome in this instance.”

Critics have lost several previous court battles to halt the project. They suffered another setback in September when a California Senate committee refused to permit a bill to advance that would have required more state permission­s for the project to proceed. Specifical­ly, it would have required two additional state agencies to determine whether the project will harm natural and cultural resources.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States