Cadiz, Inc.'s representatives have repeatedly and proudly stated that the company prevailed in nine lawsuits that were brought against it. That the company's integrity is good.

    When any company generates nine lawsuits over the issue of the acceptance of its Environmental Impact Report (EIR), one needs to ask, what happened?  This will explain it:

    The problem originated when a corrupt San Bernardino County board of supervisors in 2012, relinquished its right and duty to act as the lead EIR agency on the Cadiz, Inc. water project. They allowed the Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) in Orange County to take charge, despite knowing that the SMWD had a huge conflict of interest.

    The SMWD stood to profit immensely by approving Cadiz, Inc.'s written EIR as they would manage the water being pumped by Cadiz, Inc.  Consequently, during the EIR hearings, the water district gave greater weight to the expert testimony of Cadiz Inc.'s paid experts and ignored the unbiased expertise of the federal government and others.

    The EIR approval resulted in nine appeals being filed. There were numerous plaintiffs, including such notables as the Center for Biological Diversity, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra Club (San Gorgonio Chapter), the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, and the multi-billion-dollar Tetra Technologies, which has a subsidiary that could be impacted by the water withdrawal.

    Some other lesser-known organizations had filings or were co-sponsors.

    While there were nine initial filings, they were narrowed down through the legal process: (1) Two lawsuits were dismissed early on procedural grounds. (2) One federal challenge was withdrawn by the plaintiffs to focus on the state court cases.

    The remaining six cases were coordinated into a single trial in Orange County Superior Court under Judge Gail Andler, who ruled in favor of Cadiz and SMWD. The court deferred to the agency's legally presumed expertise as it was the lead agency.

    Despite their different backgrounds, all these appellants ran into the same legal wall: The "Substantial Evidence" Standard.

    Under California law (CEQA), if a government agency (like SMWD) provides a massive EIR filled with expert reports, a judge cannot overturn it just because the appellants have their own experts who disagree.

    The court decided that the SMWD's experts, paid for by Cadiz, Inc., had opinions "credible enough" for SMWD's findings (acceptance), and therefore, the law had been procedurally satisfied.

    Under CEQA, courts do not decide if a project is "good" or "bad" for the environment; they only decide if the lead agency had followed the correct process and provided enough evidence for its conclusions (even if the evidence is faulty and is based on a biased conflict of interest).

    As long as the SMWD's decision was based upon some evidence presented, it followed procedures.

    So, the appellants against Cadiz, Inc. did not lose on their merits, but on how California's imperfect law is written. What is legal is not necessarily ethical or moral.

    While the appellants lost, Cadiz, Inc. didn't win. The California State Legislature took notice of what happened, and it passed Senate Bill 307, which was signed by the Governor and made law.

    This goes far beyond the adjustment that the court failed to make. In essence, Senate Bill 307 prevents Cadiz, Inc. from exporting water.

    Hopefully, any prospective investor, or lender, will study the implications of Senate Bill 307.