VICTORVILLE, Calif., July 18 (High Desert News Online) — A federal agency has approved a key permit for a long-debated pipeline project in California’s High Desert, opening the door for Cadiz Inc. to move groundwater from beneath the Mojave Desert toward Southern California communities.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management approved a 50-year right-of-way for the pipeline conversion, according to BLM decision materials cited by Cadiz and reporting on the agency action. Cadiz says the project could eventually move water from its proposed Mojave Groundwater Bank in eastern San Bernardino County, with the company describing the project as ready to begin construction.
The scale is large. Cadiz says the project targets 1.25 million acre-feet of groundwater over 50 years. An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover one acre of land one foot deep.
What the federal approval does
The BLM approval covers the pipeline route across federal land in the Mojave Desert. Reporting on the decision says the agency issued a Finding of No Significant Impact, or FONSI, and decided a full environmental impact statement was not necessary.
That matters because a right-of-way is not the same thing as a full water-extraction approval. In the materials cited in the reporting, BLM said its review covered the pipeline conversion itself, not the groundwater pumping and its effects on the aquifer, springs or wildlife.
BLM said the pumping would happen on private property and fall under state and local oversight, placing it outside the agency’s authority in this review.
Why the dispute is about more than a pipe
Cadiz has described the project as a way to move water from the Fenner Basin aquifer area to communities in California. The company says the approved system would support that delivery.
But opponents say the project cannot be separated so neatly from the desert groundwater beneath it.
Environmental advocates and Native tribes have said the plan threatens desert springs and wildlife habitat. Their concern is that pumping water from a desert aquifer can reduce groundwater levels, which can affect springs, plants and animals that depend on that water.
That is the core of the fight: Cadiz treats the pipeline as a transportation project, while critics see the pipeline as part of a larger groundwater mining scheme.
How much water is involved?
The project is described in reporting as being able to move about 25,000 acre-feet of water a year, while Cadiz says it plans to pump as much as 50,000 acre-feet annually.
Cadiz’s overall target, as reported in coverage, is 1.25 million acre-feet over 50 years.
The exact length of the pipeline has been reported differently in different sources, so the key number for readers is the amount of water Cadiz says it wants to move and the fact that the route crosses federal land in the High Desert.
What supporters say happened next
Cadiz chair and chief executive Susan Kennedy said the approval was a “pivotal milestone” and said the company had reached the construction stage after years of planning and review.
In its release, Cadiz said the BLM right-of-way approval allows the project to proceed.
Why critics are still focused on the groundwater issue
The approval does not appear to settle the larger question of whether the groundwater pumping itself should move forward, and one report says BLM has not approved that separate permit.
That separation is part of what critics object to. They argue that approving the pipeline without resolving the pumping issue leaves the most important environmental question unanswered: whether the desert can sustain the water withdrawals the company wants.
Earthjustice says it previously challenged Cadiz’s pipeline approval in court and that a federal judge ruled the pipeline should not have been approved. The group has long argued that the project would harm the desert environment.
For the High Desert, that means the debate is still not over. The federal government has now cleared the pipe route across public land, but the broader fight over groundwater, springs and desert habitat remains at the center of the controversy.
