Senator Feinstein Urges MWD to Reject
Controversial Mojave Water Project

August 21, 2002

Washington, DC - California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today urged the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to vote down the controversial Cadiz water storage program in the Mojave Desert. The following is a letter from Senator Feinstein to Phillip J. Pace, chairman of the MWD Board, and all the Board Members.

"I am writing to explain my reasons for placing an amendment on the Fiscal Year 2003 Interior Appropriations Bill to prohibit the use of federal funds for the Cadiz Project. I also wish to express those concerns which caused my opposition to the Cadiz Project.

As the author of the California Desert Protection Act, I have carefully examined the proposal for Cadiz to store and sell water from an aquifer under the Mojave Desert to the MWD since it was brought to my attention early last year. I have come to the conclusion that the project may adversely affect the future of the California Desert and should not be allowed to proceed at this time.

On August 1, 2001, Congressmen Jerry Lewis and Ken Calvert and I wrote Interior Secretary Gale Norton asking for her assistance in addressing a number of concerns about the potential impact of the project on the California desert. We noted that: "While we strongly support the concept of storing excess water in the desert, we are particularly concerned about the potential effects of pumping water from the aquifer and the possible depletion of water for desert wildlife."

The issues we asked Secretary Norton to address included the following:

• What is the recharge rate of the water in the Mojave aquifer?
• How much water is needed to protect the Federal lands including the Mojave National Preserve?
• Has the National Park Service articulated the water needs of the Mojave National Preserve? If not, why not? Will this project proceed before the data is made available?
• Since the California Desert Protection Act stipulates that the Bureau of Land Management can utilize the water necessary to sustain the ecosystem of the wilderness areas, will this project move forward without first assessing the federal need of water?
• What water level is necessary to maintain the desert springs?
• What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management can exercise its authority? When do these safeguards go into place?

There were a number of additional questions in this letter and as I learned more about the project, I wrote Secretary Norton again on September 28, 2001; January 29, 2002; March 26, 2002; and July 29, 2002.

Unfortunately, I do not believe Secretary Norton has adequately addressed these concerns. And now, the Department has indicated it may be moving ahead to issue a Record of Decision and right-of-way permits for the project.

As I wrote Secretary Norton on July 29, 2002: "Because the Mojave Preserve relies on the same underground aquifer as the Cadiz project, there is an enormous potential for abuse if adequate safeguards are not put in place."

In my mind, it does not make sense to siphon off water from this critical area of the California Desert to send to the MWD when the region has other options for water and when the aquifer is vital to the health of the desert and its animal and plant life.

The likelihood that this could result in the destruction of the California desert as we know it - similar to what happened in Owens Valley -- is why I strongly oppose this project and added language to the Senate FY2003 Appropriations Bill.

My staff and I have spoken with various other federal agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which has estimated that the recharge rate for the aquifer cited by the Cadiz company is 5 to 25 times too high. Based on this assessment, in my January 29, 2002 letter to Secretary Norton, I suggested placing a temporary cap of about 5,000 acre-feet of water that could be exported through this project. But the Department rejected any limitation on the amount of water that could be exported.

Additionally, the Quantification Settlement Agreement, through which California would meet the requirements of the Colorado River Agreement governing the distribution of water among the seven Colorado Basin states, will result in the loss of 800,000 acre feet of water for our State. The big question is whether California loses this water in a gradual way over a 10 year period ending in 2012 or whether the loss of the 800,000 acre feet would occur as soon as January 1, 2003. This is a decision that will be made by the Interior Department.

Since the Cadiz project relies on surplus water from the Colorado River being available, it would be prudent to wait until the impact of the settlement is fully assessed. As you know, your Executive Director earlier this month wrote to the Bureau of Land Management suggesting that the Record of Decision for this project should only be issued after the Colorado River Agreement and the Quantification Settlement Agreement are in place.

MWD also indicates that there are other realistic and practical options to Cadiz, which the MWD can pursue to fulfill any necessary water needs. Several of these options are more cost-effective for MWD, I am told. In my view, this raises the question: "Why proceed with Cadiz when it isn't necessary and when it may very well result in serious adverse impacts to California's pristine desert?"

Additionally, serious financial concerns have been raised with respect to Cadiz. While I will not go into them here, I believe these financial issues are worthy of close scrutiny.

The bottom line, as I wrote to Secretary Norton, is this project should not move ahead "until the Department has taken all the necessary measures to fully ensure that none of the Mojave's water will be used to supplement the Cadiz project's water supply."

For this same reason, I do not believe that the Cadiz Project is in the best interest of Southern California and to allow it to move ahead would be a terrible mistake. I would hope your honorable Board will give my concerns consideration and that you are prepared to take action on this matter shortly.

Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the MWD Board for your service in this difficult arena."

###