With the Cemex sand and gravel case “fully briefed,” now all that’s left on appeal is oral arguments on the fate of Soledad Canyon.
The Second Appellate District Court of California received briefs and then the replies to those briefs from both sides at the end of last month, in the battle over Soledad Canyon mining.
There’s no date scheduled for the next hearing, according to city officials who have closely watched the situation for decades.
“After oral arguments, the court would issue a decision, but that could take several months or longer,” said Masis Hagobian, city intergovernmental relations officer.
Cemex wants to exercise the mineral rights it purchased for 56 million tons of aggregate found there, and the State Water Resources Control Board, citing drastic changes the area has seen since Cemex first applied for the rights more than 30 years ago, said the application now needs to be publicly noticed.
Neither Cemex nor State Water Board officials have made any statements outside the courtroom regarding the recent appeal.
Cemex feels the State Water Board is abusing its discretionary authority in its decision to force a re-noticing, which gives the city of Santa Clarita, environmentalist groups and any other opposition the chance to file an official protest and potentially stop the mine.
The latest legal effort from Cemex is pursuit of a claim that the State Water Board erred in the decision not to allow Cemex to appeal the decision to hold the public hearing over the water rights.
The mining company is seeking permission to use about 322 acre-feet of water each year, which is the average annual amount needed for about 650 homes, based on average usage levels.
“The centerpiece of the board’s defense is its ‘finality’ argument — that the decisions to re-notice and deny reconsideration cannot be reviewed until some future, final action by the board on the application,” according to the latest brief. “But that position is both textually and logically indefensible. The Water Code expressly provides for judicial review of not just ‘decisions,’ but also ‘orders’ of the board, including those issued by its officers and employees.”
Cemex’s attorneys argued the State Water Board’s “June 1, 2023, decision to re-notice was unlawful, unsupported and politically motivated.”
A bill originally authored by then-Sen. Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, then taken up by Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo, D-Chatsworth, would have mandated a re-noticing of the water applications for projects as old as Cemex.
The legislation made it all the way to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, but he refused to sign it, saying the State Water Board already made its intent known on re-noticing, and Cemex would have been the only current application or project impacted by the law.
Cemex also argued in its filing against claims by the State Water Board officials who said that even if Cemex is successful in its appeal, the agency can designate interested parties per its procedure, which would allow protest.
For Cemex, there’s plenty on the line: The business would need to spend millions of dollars if the hearing is re-noticed.
“The board refers to the re-noticing decision as nothing more than a ‘request for more information’ with little substantive impact. Not true. As alleged, the re-noticing decision is no routine interlocutory step; it is a final determination on a significant issue that opens the door to new parties and protests, imposes new and costly obligations, and prejudices CEMEX’s rights in a manner that cannot be undone or remedied by subsequent review,” according to Cemex’s latest brief. “Moreover, the futility of delayed review is patent. If Cemex is forced to wait until the conclusion of the full administrative process, whenever that may be, the harms will have already occurred. Judicial review at that point would be meaningless.”
