PROTECT WATER & JOBS
Myths & Facts
NO on SB 307. SB 307 Puts A Reliable Water Supply At Risk. SB 307 directly targets the Cadiz Water Project, a public- private partnership that would conserve 50,000 acre-feet of water a year that is now evaporating in the Mojave Desert and deliver it across Southern California, where it could serve up to 400,000 people a year.
NO on SB 307
17834
page-template-default,page,page-id-17834,bridge-core-1.0.4,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-18.0.9,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,qode_header_in_grid,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.0.3,vc_responsive
 

Myths & Facts

STOP SB 307: Myths vs. Facts

 

For the third legislative session in a row, proponents of Senate Bill 307 (Roth) are proposing a new set of environmental permitting rules for water projects in the inland Empire only, that are in additional to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The bill would undermining the state’s already rigorous environmental review laws, jeopardizing clean drinking water for communities across Southern California, and set a dangerous precedent for future infrastructure projects across the state. In an effort to advance this misguided policy, proponents of SB 307 have perpetuated a number of myths and false claims particularly about the Cadiz Water Project the intended target of the legislation:

 

MYTH: Proponents of SB 307 simply want to resolve an issue of conflicting science relating to the Cadiz Water Project’s potential impact on nearby springs.

 

FACT: As outlined in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee analysis: “What Is The Objective Of The Proponents? There are at least two camps. One group is clearly trying to simply kill the project. They won’t be satisfied until the project is totally abandoned. Another group simply wants to ensure that the project is sized appropriately, whatever that size might be.”

 

In fact, SB 307 proponents repeatedly refer to the measure as part of its effort to “stop Cadiz” and proponents have worked to garner support for the measure, they continually tout the fact that the bill is a way to kill the Project. As presently drafted, the bill gives new powers to the State Lands Commission to prohibit the Project from proceeding if it identifies any potential adverse impacts to any resource in the desert. It does not require that SLC propose mitigations or allow the project to address these findings via its existing CEQA mitigations or local permits. This standard of review is easily abused.

 

MYTH: SB 307 is necessary to replace a government review that would have happened under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

 

FACT: The Cadiz Water Project has gone through a thorough, transparent environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, which is widely known to be the most stringent environmental review law in the nation—far more stringent than NEPA, its federal counterpart. Numerous state, local and federal agencies participated in the CEQA review starting in 2011, and these approvals were upheld by multiple rulings by the California Superior Court and the Court of Appeal. The State Lands Commission and Department of Fish and Wildlife—the two agencies SB 307 charges with the new review process—both received the CEQA documents and had the opportunity to participate from the beginning. Neither agency challenged the Project’s final review.

 

MYTH: SB 307 is needed to protect a critical aquifer from being overdrafted.

FACT: The aquifer where the Cadiz Water Project is located is already draining under natural conditions, as billions of gallons of clean groundwater are flowing to salt sinks then becoming ten times saltier than the ocean and evaporating. The Project is designed to better manage the basin to reduce this evaporative loss and make conserved water available to communities in need or reliable supplies. The Project can only conserve less than one-half of one percent of the total groundwater in storage in the basin per year and is prohibited from overdrafting the basin by its groundwater management plan.

 

Moreover, rigorous checks are in place to ensure this project is always safe for the environment. In particular, San Bernardino County has enforcement authority in the project’s approved groundwater management plan to halt pumping or implement a myriad of corrective actions if any harm is anticipated or detected.

 

MYTH: SB 307 is needed to protect critical Mojave Desert springs from drying up.

FACT: As confirmed by a 2018 field study of Bonanza Spring—the closest natural spring to the Project—field work conducted during the CEQA process, and independent peer review, this claim is geologically, hydrologically and legally impossible. Not only is Bonanza Spring hydraulically separated from the Project area by a bounding fault, but multiple studies confirm that the spring—which is more than 11 miles away and 1,000 feet above the Project area—is fed by precipitation, not groundwater. The Project’s groundwater management plan, which will be independently enforced by San Bernardino County includes multiple monitoring mechanisms to continually ensure the health of Bonanza Spring.

 

MYTH: SB 307 is needed to protect national parks, monuments and other public lands.

FACT: The Cadiz Water Project will not impact any state or federal lands. The Project will be constructed on private agricultural land and within existing, permitted corridors. Detailed study of the Project further confirm that it will not have any adverse impacts on land surrounding the Project area.

 

MYTH: SB 307 is designed to slow down a project that was fast-tracked by the Trump Administration.

FACT: The Cadiz Water Project has been under development for more than a decade, well before the Trump Administration, and its federal engagement has lasted multiple administrations. This myth pertains to a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decision made in 2015 that changed more than a hundred years of federal policy encouraging the co-location of infrastructure in existing railroad right of ways. Not only were the BLM employees who issued the decision communicating with wealthy investors who stood to profit from a decision against Cadiz, but their decision was broadly opposed by bipartisan members of Congress, labor and land use experts. In 2017, BLM withdrew the evaluation as a result of the controversy and concerns raised by these stakeholders. By withdrawing the evaluation, the BLM merely put the Project back on its pre-existing review pathway.

 

MYTH: SB 307, as amended on April 30, fulfills the commitments made to members of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee during the measure’s April 9 hearing.

FACT: During the April 9 hearing, Senator Roth and Cadiz CEO Scott Slater committed to making several key amendments to the bill upon questioning by the committee: a front-end review with a focused scope, conducted by an unbiased agency, within a reasonable timeline. Senator Roth pledged to work with Cadiz to give it confidence that the process would be fair. The April 30 amendments fail to fulfill or reflect these commitments.

 

In particular, SB 307 as amended does NOT focus the scope of the science review to the impacts on the springs, as discussed in committee, but applies to every aspect of the project. This would essentially amount to a new CEQA-type review by the State Lands Commission, an agency with no expertise in groundwater management or projects. If SLC identifies any adverse impacts, it can prohibit the project. There is no remedy, such as recommended adjustments to operations or mitigations, in the event any adverse effect is identified. SLC has up to 24 months to conduct the review, longer than many CEQA and NEPA processes.

 

In contrast, Cadiz has requested the review be conducted by Department of Water Resources or another water agency within 12 months. The scope of the review would be focused on determining if the transfer of water would “unreasonably affect the fish, wildlife or other beneficial uses dependent upon mountain springs located in the surrounding watersheds”. This amendment would cover all springs in the surrounding watersheds. DWR could recommend/require adjustments to project operations based on its findings. This would allow the statute to focus on resolving a question of science rather than a CEQA do-over, which is a problematic precedent.