April 21, 2015
Cadiz Inc.'s Bottom Appears Ready|
To Fall Out Beneath It!
Get the FULL story HERE.
"Cadiz Inc.'s posted Water Project Status conceals crisis."
Legal: Cadiz Investor Alert
OVER $1/3-BILLION IN CUMULATIVE SHAREHOLDER LOSSES !
". . .facing imminent project failure, collapse and bankruptcy."|
Reference: Seeking Alpha
Earlier, some previous rescues from supporters appear to have
kept resilient Cadiz afloat rather than writing off losses in a bankruptcy.
The rescue funds appear to have been bandaids for a terminal patient.
County of San Bernardino's Cadiz legal fees now set at $2.35-million.
Cadiz, Inc. is reimbursing the county's legal fees.
Cadiz, Inc. is contractually obligated to pay the legal fees for others, also!
Tougher Chromium-6 Standard May Impact Cadiz Water Project.
June 3, 2014
Association of California Water Agencies
Higher standards may impact Metropolitan Water Agency's concern over Cadiz water's contaminate.
Removal of Chromium-6 from Cadiz water may prove to be too costly.
2013 - Another Losing Fiscal Year for Cadiz, Inc.
But officers' salaries remain golden!
March 18, 2014
Chemehuevi tribe opposes Cadiz, Inc.'s violation.
September 2, 2013
Needles Desert Star
Yes, On Congressman's Request For Federal Review.
July 31, 2013
Opinion - Los Angeles News Group opinion staff.
Los Angeles Daily News, Long Beach Press-Telegram, Torrance Daily Breeze,
Pasadena Star-News, Whittier Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune,
San Bernardino Sun, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Redlands Daily Facts,
Congressman Calls For Federal Review Of Cadiz Project.
July 25, 2013
Los Angeles Times
The Consultant - the Desert Aquifer - Cadiz, Inc.
July 8, 2013
Voice of San Diego
County Supervisors mishandled the Cadiz project.
July 2, 2013
Opinion - San Bernardino County Sun.
Cadiz water project is cause for concern.
May 1, 2013
Opinion - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
Flawed Cadiz Project is good for no one.
April 8, 2013
A waste of taxpayers' money.
Cadiz, Inc.'s executives milk the debt ridden cow.
April 7, 2013
This is for leadership of a company
that hasn't shown a profit since it started!
How Low Can It Go?
March 14, 2013
Faced with financial restructuring and growing debt.
"Cadiz's Pipe Dream"
January 2, 2013
University of Denver Water Law Review
November 19, 2012
Another legal petition filed in Superior Court
over the Cadiz project.
November 1, 2012
Conservation coalition files their second petition.
Five related State Court filings are now active over project.
Cadiz Inc. makes threat against this website.
October 26, 2012
Cadiz Project Foes Move to Stop
Water Transfer at Federal Level
Newberry Springs Community Alliance national press release.
October 24, 2012
San Bernardino County Board Action
October 1, 2012
The San Bernardino county Board of Supervisors, after 5 hours of hearing on the
Groundwater Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation Plan (GMMMP) for
the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project,
voted 4 to 1 to accept the plan as presented.
The project involves the free transfer of county water to the applicant, Cadiz, Inc.,
that is expected to sell the water for $1-billion to $2-billion. The county doesn't receive
San Bernardino county First District supervisor, Brad Mitzelfelt, whose district
the project is located, claimed that the removal of the water would create new jobs and protect
against future shortages of imported aqueduct water. The export of the water would primarily
protect counties other than San Bernardino; that would lose the water.
This represents the largest corruption and rip-off of the citizens of San
Bernardino county ever! Postmus and Crossroads are very small in scale in comparison
to this massive giveaway of the desert's most valuable asset water.
Supervisors voting for the corrupt water transfer:
Voting against the project:
Withdrawal of Federal Lawsuit
October 1, 2012
Two important events happened on this date.
(1) The County of San Bernardino
Board of Supervisors, in shameful defiance to the will and best interests of their constitutents,
approved the GMMMP as shown above; and
(2) Ruth Musser-Lopez, representing the River Branch of the
Archaeological Heritage Association (RiverAHA), voluntarily withdrew the only federal litigation
against Cadiz, Inc., the County of San Bernardino, its Board, and a number of federal departments
in regards to the Cadiz water project.
Four other related lawsuits against the Cadiz project continue in
Following Musser-Lopez's withdrawal, Cadiz, Inc. released a nationally circulated
false public statement
four days later.
The Cadiz story was headlined: "Federal Court Dismisses
Case Against Cadiz Inc. - Action Eliminates Federal Court Litigation involving the Company."
Cadiz further wrote: "The Court determined that Petitioner RiverAHA
was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The dismissal now ends the pending Federal Court
The headlines and quoted sentences are blatantly false and untrue; leading the public to a
false understanding that important legal issues have been resolved. This can lead readers to
bad business investments based upon the misrepresentations.
The federal court did not dismiss the case as stated by Cadiz, Inc.; the
plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the case before arguments on the merits were heard. The
court had informed the plaintiffs that they did not have jurisdiction as the plaintiffs' cited
federal law now contains a requirement for the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The withdrawal does not "eliminate" federal
court litigation as directly implied by Cadiz, Inc. because the plaintiffs' withdrawal was without
prejudice; the court allowed the plaintiffs to resubmit the case immediately after the exhaustion
of administrative remedies.
Furthermore, the court did not determine "that
Petitioner RiverAHA was unlikely to succeed on the merits" as falsely stated by
Cadiz, Inc., as the court never heard the merits as the action was strategically withdrawn
The plaintiffs expect to eventually refile (if necessary) and win on
all the merits because the strong merits are based upon long established federal law.
Cadiz, Inc.'s willful and self-serving misstatements of fact to apparently
misguide potential investors has publicly defamed, ridiculed and tarnished the good character of
the plaintiffs as submitting a non-meritorious case before the court.
Mojave Water Agency Again Fails County Citizens
Posted: September 13, 2012
Agenda Item #9.
Mojave Water Agency considered a resolution
opposing the Cadiz water project.
During a regular scheduled board meeting, the MWA board failed to pass, by a
split vote, a resolution opposing the Cadiz water project. Opposition to the Cadiz project
required a YES vote.
An excuse given for not supporting the motion is that the Cadiz project is
outside of the Mojave Water Agency's boundary. Apparently, the board members holding
this position have no problem with another water agency in Orange County reaching outside of its
jurisdiction to steal water from San Bernardino County; but lets not have a local water agency
go on record against it.
These three spineless 'No' voters, as well as the no-show, need to be removed
It is reported that a weaker "letter of concern" about the Cadiz project
might be prepared by the board.
Posted: September 8, 2012
Beyond Rational Comprehension. Just Plain Wrong.
Contains an important background letter by John Goss.
Posted: August 27, 2012
Earlier science that Cadiz, Inc.'s numbers are grossly inflated.
Cadiz had the recharge numbers early - August 2009.
Posted: July 31, 2012
The Santa Margarita Water District Board of Directors on July 31, 2012
unanimously approved and certified the Cadiz water project's Final Environmental
The project still has a number of hurdles; the largest being two lawsuits
filed by Tetra Technologies. Additional litigation may also be filed by conservation groups
following the FEIR's certification.
Posted: July 26, 2012
The Santa Margarita Water District Board of Directors surprised many at
their July 25, 6:30 P.M. board meeting that ended this morning at
about 12:47 A.M.
The Board, that was expected to approve the Cadiz Final EIR, continued the decision until July 31, 2012.
Although the invited public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of the proposed project,
the opponents presented significant reasons why the proposal should not to be approved.
Questions were raised over the viability of Cadiz, Inc. since it has never had a profitable year
since it started and that it has lost millions of dollars; and whether the company would later be
in existence to handle the liabilities of the proposed project that it has openly assumed.
Questions were raised over a reported FBI and Exchange investigation on Cadiz, Inc. dealings.
Furthermore, questions were raised by local water district rate payers who didn't want to be
burden by the cost of protracted legal lawsuits and by water that has been reported to contain
unhealthly levels of Chromium-6.
Debbie Cook, an activist opponent, presented an alliance list of individuals inside Cadiz, Inc. and
the water district that have financial interests in the project's approval. Cook questioned
whether the board was receiving unbiased legal and staff recommendations.
The National Park Service recommend non-approval at this time. It was presented
with the FEIR within the previous ten days and had not had the time required to respond to many
Should the project dry the land and create air pollution, and if Cadiz, Inc. was insolvent,
the water district may be held liable. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has
spent over $1.2 billion in federally mandated dust remediation for the Owens lakebed.
Nov. 1, 2012 - Debt update.
Is Cadiz mining a hole for itself?
StockTwits on CDZI.
Cadiz, Inc. 5-year price chart.
Shares dropped sharply after the previous water grab attempt.
Despite the recent Santa Margarita
Water District and County of San Bernardino approvals, there hasn't been
a rush of project investors.
The Cadiz water project appears as a financial house-of-cards
with SMWD operating at a loss and Cadiz, Inc. reportedly
unprofitable for decades. Despirate people in desperate
times call for a desperate project.
Myth: "Cadiz still owns the water assets of the program -- "
No, the wells may be on Cadiz property, but most of the water
drawn by the proposed pumping will be sucked from under land
controlled by federal stewardship. This groundwater asset
belongs to the people of the state of California.
"Doesn't this constitute a conflict of interest under California Law...
for a (so-called) permitting authority to have a vested interest,
in partnership with, be a participant with a private enterprise
on something that they are to vote on?" - Ruth Lopez
"...a struggling private water company in Orange County collaborated with
a British felon in search of personal fortune to purchase San Bernardino
County's support for a project that is bad for the residents of
San Bernardino County." - Dr. Karen Tracy
" they set not God before their eyes " - Psalm 54:3
CadizWater.com is a Free Speech, not-for-profit grassroots
project of conservationists opposed to the proposed Cadiz Valley Water
Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project.
Our mission is to alert citizens
of this viewed corrupt giveaway of their public assets. Statements expressed within
CadizWater.com or attached links are the opinion of the individual
author(s). Should you have an interest in
supporting this movement, now is the time. Please contact:
Ted at: newberrysprings @ hotmail.com
Facebook/CadizWater Archaeological Heritage Association The Sun Runner
Center for Biological Diversity Audubon Society National Park Conservation Association.
The Orange Juice Blog Surf City Voice NewberrySpringsInfo.com
Transition Joshua Tree
Did you find an error or have an opinion? Let us know.
newberrysprings @ hotmail.com