Laserfiche WebLink
Re: Opposition to SB 307 <br />Complete the draft below and send to your State Senator, Sen. Roth (the bill's author) and the <br />members of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee below, with a copy to <br /> <br />senator.stern senate.ca.eov <br />senator.iones@senate.ca.gov <br />senator.aIle nPse nate.ca.go_v <br />senator.borgeas@senate.ca.gov <br />senator.caballero@senate.ca.eov <br />senator.h ueso @se nate.ca.gov <br />senator. iackson@senate.ca.aov <br />senator.monnine@senate.ca.eov <br />senator.roth@senate.ca.aov <br />Dear <br />I am writing to express the opposition of [organization] to SB 307 (Roth). [Describe <br />organization/who served]. Our city supports state and local efforts to expand water <br />conservation and develop sustainable new water sources, both of which are threatened by this <br />bill. <br />SB 307 seeks to create a new certification process for water conveyed in California's water <br />transportation systems, something that is unprecedented and unnecessary, given the <br />protections already in place through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and state <br />law governing water transfers. While the bill targets one specific project, the Cadiz Valley Water <br />Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the Cadiz Project), it sets a dangerous precedent <br />and poses a potential threat to any infrastructure project in the state. <br />SB 307 seeks to impose additional state environmental review on a project that has already <br />undergone environmental review under CEQA, arguing that questions still remain. If questions <br />remain about the validity of an environmental review of a project that has been publicly <br />reviewed and approved under CEQA, our court system is the established and appropriate <br />means for resolving those questions, not legislation from Sacramento. Indeed, opponents of <br />the Cadiz Project exercised the appeals process and failed, as the California Superior Court and <br />California Court of Appeals both affirmed the validity of the Project's CEQA review and found <br />the project can be operated without significant environmental risk. Thus, this bill disregards <br />CEQA as the final arbiter of environmental protection and sets a dangerous precedent that <br />once any infrastructure project goes through the CEQA process, it has not necessarily complied <br />fully with California environmental law. <br />