Committee hears months-long fight over proposed pit dewatering near San Joaquin River

Assemblymember Arambulo introduced AB 1425, a narrowly drawn bill that would ban pit dewatering within the San Joaquin River Parkway where subsurface river flow or groundwater levels are shallower than 50 feet.

“Unfortunately, the river is at risk due to an unregulated process known as pit dewatering,” Arambulo told the committee, describing a proposed project that he said would be ‘‘a mere 200 feet from the river’’ and would include a ‘‘plan to blast and drill a 600 foot pit.’’ He and other supporters said the project’s draft environmental review failed to analyze future restoration flows and other hydrologic changes.

The bill drew more than an hour of public testimony in Sacramento and a long line of speakers traveling from the Fresno area. Sharon Weaver, executive director of the San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust, described the Parkway and urged support. “The San Joaquin River Parkway is a 22 mile stretch of the San Joaquin River between Friant Dam and Highway 99,” Weaver said. She and other witnesses described the river as extensively diverted and argued AB 1425 would protect a restored future river and nearby communities.

Indigenous speakers and local residents stressed cultural and health concerns. One witness who said she is Indigenous described the San Joaquin River as “a sacred” place and criticized what she said was inadequate tribal outreach and consultation on the project.

The project’s opponents, principally representatives and workers from the aggregate operator CEMEX and allied unions, urged the committee to reject the bill. “CEMEX has been involved in the CEQA process for 7 years. They've spent $5,000,000 preparing report after report after report. The process isn't even done,” said a representative identified in the hearing as speaking for CEMEX. Company employees testified that a ban would cost jobs and that dewatering has long been part of mining operations; witnesses said dewatered water is routed to holding ponds and used for dust control.

Both sides disputed technical points that the committee pressed on, including whether blasting would be used at the proposed site, how much water is pumped for dewatering, and whether the draft environmental impact report accounted for future river restoration flows. Supporters argued the draft EIR did not incorporate known future restoration flows from the San Joaquin River restoration program and therefore underestimates floodplain and groundwater connectivity risks.

Assemblymember Marasuchi moved to allow the bill to be considered; the committee took a recorded vote and moved AB 1425 forward with a due-pass recommendation to the Assembly appropriations committee. The record shows the item drew several “not voting” responses from members who were absent when the roll was called.