SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A bill introduced Wednesday in the California Legislature aims to protect water resources in the state's deserts.

Assembly member Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, introduced Assembly Bill 1000, known as the California Desert Protection Act, to strengthen safeguards for desert groundwater so that water transfers don't negatively impact natural or cultural resources.

David Lamfrom, the California deserts director for the National Parks Conservation Association, said the bill came at the right time because the Mojave Desert is facing urgent threats.

"Those include the Cadiz project, which stands to pump at least 16 billion gallons of water a year and to ship it out of the California desert,” Lamfrom said. "And we're also concerned about the impact that having, really, a loophole in water policy, what that could mean for the California desert moving forward."

The Trump administration recently paved the way for the Cadiz Water Project to move forward without a federal environmental review. The project to extract and export water from Mojave Desert aquifers and sell the water to Southern Californians has raised serious concerns that it could deplete desert springs vital to wildlife there.

Frazier Haney, conservation director for the Mojave Desert Land Trust, said the Cadiz project faced an uphill battle during the Obama administration but has found a clearer path to approval under the new president.

He pointed to Donald Trump's nomination of David Berhardt, a lobbyist for Cadiz, for the number two position in the Department of the Interior as one example of the president's ties to the project.

"There are deep financial ties to people that Donald Trump has nominated to his Cabinet and the Cadiz water pumping project,” Haney said. "So, it's troubling that an administration with financial ties to a project could be pushing a project along."

Lamfrom said even by Cadiz's calculations, its water extraction project isn't sustainable. He said if the federal government won't provide better oversight of this project, California should.

"It's vital that the state of California step up and make sure that the science is actually good and that we understand exactly what those impacts will be," he said, "because there's a lot at stake here.”

The bill will be heard in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee next Tues., July 11.


get more stories like this via email

April is National Native Plant Month, an observance at the core of South Dakota's identity.

People wanting to protect the state's beloved grasslands encourage landowners in urban and rural areas to set aside growing space. South Dakota's prairies often conjure up images of species like tallgrass, which have deep roots good at absorbing water. But some varieties have not fared as well because of different types of land use. The World Wildlife Fund said only 53% of the Great Plains region's grassland remains intact.

Drew Anderson, a farmer, rancher and conservation advocate from Lemmon, conserves native plants, noting every little bit helps, and they do not have to just grow in rural settings.

"There's just a growing appreciation for the native grasslands that are making their way into urban areas," Anderson pointed out. "People are using big bluestem in front of commercial buildings and places like that."

The desire is reflected in a recent ad campaign from the South Dakota Grasslands Coalition and statewide polling. In a survey commissioned by the group, there was broad bipartisan support among voters to prioritize effective grassland management. Anderson added patience is a challenge they are up against because it can take a year or two to see real evidence of native plant growth.

Anderson added it is not just livestock grazing standing to benefit from an abundance of grasslands.

"The grasses help provide habitat for many different wildlife species, whether it's migratory songbirds (or) pollinators," Anderson emphasized.

If you want to grow some native plants on your property but are unsure how to get started, Anderson recommended visiting your local Natural Resources Conservation Service office. The Grasslands Coalition also has guidance and other key information on its website.

New Mexico's national parks generally operate year-round - but they might not operate at 100% efficiency this year due to employee firings, layoffs and buyouts. Earlier this year, the Trump administration told some 2,500 National Park Service workers to resign or retire and promised still more cuts to the agency. Responding to criticism about the move, the U.S. Interior Secretary ordered national parks and historic sites to "remain open and accessible."

Kate Groetzinger, communications manager of the Center for Western Priorities, believes that's a dilemma for park-goers.

"Visitors could be put at risk by not having adequate search and rescue staff available. So, ordering the parks to reopen without adequate staff is a bad idea," she contended. "It doesn't serve anyone."

Frequent park users worry that cuts could result in staffing problems this summer, along with closed restrooms and maintenance issues including limited trash removal. New Mexico has 15 areas within the National Park System, including parks, monuments, historic sites and trails.

A former oil executive with links to the Department of Energy Efficiency led by Elon Musk has been promoted to oversee policy, management and budget at the Interior Department. Groetzinger says Western Priorities is concerned the public could be left in the dark about future park decisions being made by unelected officials.

"It really just is a full-on attack on outdoor recreation in the United States. Anyone who camps, hikes, bikes, climbs - anyone who enjoys our public lands should be shocked and concerned about the attacks," she continued.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also has ordered a detailed review of every park's operating hours, trail closures and other visitor services. Groetzinger believes trust in federal institutions like the parks is being eroded - opening the door to privatization and ultimately increased costs for users.


get more stories like this via email

The number of mining claims on U.S. public lands is growing. A 27% increase since 2019 has brought the total to nearly a half-million.

A new study showed many are in close proximity to, and could threaten, national parks. In Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, more than 15,000 mining claims are within 30 miles of a national park or monument, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.

Beau Kiklis, associate director of landscape conservation and energy policy for the association, said claims are easy to get, based on a system dating back to 1872. He added a bill now in the U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources could make it even simpler.

"We're seeing agencies and institutions being dismantled and protections for landscapes being reviewed and compromised," Kiklis pointed out. "When we look at this data, our parks and our monuments, they are threatened from the possibility of future mining."

Kiklis noted mining claims are not held to the same standards of review and public process as other public land uses, and residents receive no royalties from the claims. According to the report, holders of mining claims in 2023 paid less than $10 per acre.

Kiklis emphasized it takes, on average, just three years to permit a mine.

"That's pretty fast when you think about the potential threats that are associated with mining, like impacts to groundwater and water supply for communities, wildlife migration and habitat, air impacts," Kiklis outlined. "You think about other public land uses, like recreation and conservation and so forth."

Across the northern Rockies, there are 141 mining claims within the boundaries of national parks and monuments, including Yellowstone National Park and Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area.