Connect with us

Business

Column: California's most improbable water project rebrands itself as a crusader for environmental justice

Published

on

Column: California's most improbable water project rebrands itself as a crusader for environmental justice

It’s hard to think of a California company that carries more toxic baggage than Cadiz Inc.

The Los Angeles firm has been trying for more than 20 years to advance a plan to siphon water from under the Mojave Desert and pump it to users throughout Southern California. It has long been stymied by environmental objections, but kept on life support by wielding political influence and regular financings such as private stock placements and junk bond-rated debt.

Now Cadiz is trying a new tack. Under its newly installed chief executive, the veteran government aide Susan Kennedy, it has affiliated itself with the so-called human right to water movement, which ties the inaccessibility of clean water for disadvantaged communities to other social justice quests such as developing more affordable housing.

Kennedy has a long and distinguished record in government, including stints working for former Govs. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and service on the state Public Utilities Commission and on the board that oversees Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act exchange.

Advertisement

I have a long way to go to change opinions.

— Cadiz CEO Susan Kennedy

Kennedy, who joined the Cadiz board in February 2021, became its chair a year later and took over as CEO on Jan. 1, freely acknowledges that this is a heavy lift for a company with Cadiz’s lengthy and discreditable history.

“In Sacramento, the Cadiz name is a poison pill,” she told me. Upon becoming CEO, she says, “the first thing I had to do was change the company so people think about it differently.”

That approach, Kennedy says, includes dumping the company’s long-term lobbyist firm, which was closely connected with the Trump administration, and placing more community activists on its board.

Advertisement

Most important, in her view, is refashioning Cadiz’s water project from one aimed at serving urban users throughout Southern California to a narrower goal of filling the admittedly serious gaps in the accessibility of clean water in San Bernardino County.

“The problem before,” she says, was that the Cadiz project involved “taking water out of the Mojave Desert and shipping it halfway across California to fill swimming pools in Los Angeles.”

That left locals in the lnland Empire with little reason to favor the company’s proposal. “This is very different,” she says. “This is keeping water local — Mojave water staying in the Mojave basin. It’s a key solution for the area,” which has limited access to water from the Colorado River or the State Water Project, two of the principal sources of water in California.

Kennedy says Cadiz’s new focus will initially be on converting an old natural gas pipeline running 86 miles between its desert acreage and Barstow to carry its water. The recipients would be “severely disadvantaged communities” currently dependent on the state water project, supplies from which are heavily impact by drought.

It’s an understatement to say that California environmentalists, who have fought the company tooth and nail for more than 20 years, are skeptical.

Advertisement

“Cadiz is conducting a rebranding effort because its project has been a massive failure for decades, it carries significant financial risk, and it stands zero chance of securing numerous required federal and state permits,” says Neal Desai, senior regional program director of the National Parks Conservation Assn.

To best understand this conflict, let’s start at the beginning.

The Cadiz desert water scheme was the brainchild of its CEO Keith Brackpool, a British former stock trader with a checkered history — in 1983 he pleaded guilty to criminal charges including dealing in securities without a license, and in 1993 had been forced out of an executive role with a British food company for some dealings with a direct competitor.

Cadiz owned 35,000 acres overlying a desert aquifer. Cadiz‘s proposal to the giant Metropolitan Water District in 1997 “had a charming 25-words-or-less simplicity,” I wrote in 2006: The MWD would store its surplus water beneath Cadiz’s acreage in wet years and retrieve it during droughts, paying Cadiz a fee at both ends.”

Difficulties soon surfaced. The storage site was 35 miles from the MWD’s Colorado aqueduct, requiring a $150-million pipeline to be strung over environmentally sensitive territory.

Advertisement

The proposal committed the district to buy huge quantities of groundwater from Cadiz’s aquifer, but experts disagreed about how much could be safely extracted from the site; Cadiz estimated 30,000 acre-feet a year, but the U.S. Geological Survey and other independent sources regarded the estimate as optimistic by at least a factor of 10. The persistent drought in the West raised doubts over whether there would ever be much surplus for the MWD to store.

Then there were the company’s finances. One doesn’t wish to be churlish, but if you decide to open its most recent financial statement covering the first nine months of 2023, I’d advise doing so in a well-ventilated space.

The company reported an operating loss of $24.7 million on revenue of $1.3 million for that period, compared with a loss of $17.9 million on sales of $927,000 a year earlier. All the revenue comes from a farming operation on its desert landholdings. Cadiz hasn’t reported a profit since its first public financial disclosure in 1994; its accumulated deficit reached $603.3 million in 2022.

The original plan called for the $150-million cost to be shared by Cadiz and the MWD. Since Cadiz didn’t have the proverbial pot to, er, fill, it proposed that the MWD lend it the money for its share, largely through a “prepayment” for the storage of MWD water. But the company’s existing lenders had the right to demand repayment of their loans from any funds provided by MWD, so almost nothing would be available for construction.

The MWD rejected the plan in 2002. By any rational expectation, that should have killed the project for good.

Advertisement

But its critics didn’t reckon with Brackpool’s ability to endow his firm with political supporters.

Although the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was a sworn adversary, her opposition was counterbalanced at first by advocates such as former Gov. Gray Davis, whose 1998 and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns collected $235,000 in donations from Cadiz.

In return, Davis made Brackpool his advisor on water. Their relationship put pressure on the MWD to play ball with Cadiz, which may have explained why it took the water district until 2002 to put the kibosh on the plan.

Over subsequent years, Brackpool hobnobbed with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who landed for a time on the company’s payroll. In 2006, he persuaded then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to endorse Cadiz as “a path-breaking, new, sustainable groundwater conservation and storage project.”

The most important support may have come from Donald Trump. He appointed David Bernhardt, a former lawyer and lobbyist for Cadiz, as his Interior Secretary in 2019, giving Bernhardt authority over crucial federal approvals the company needed for its desert pipeline.

Advertisement

Bernhardt came from the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which included Cadiz as a client; the company’s then-CEO, Scott Slater, was — and is — a partner in the firm. Cadiz had paid the Brownstein firm $2.75 million in lobbying fees and 200,000 shares of stock while Bernhardt was there. Bernhardt is now back at the firm, serving as a senior counsel in its Washington office. Slater, who no longer has an executive or governance role at Cadiz, is currently listed as a member of the law firm’s executive committee.

In December 2020, as the Trump administration was preparing to leave office, the Bureau of Land Management, an Interior Department subagency, abruptly approved Cadiz’s acquisition of the gas pipeline crossing the Mojave and for its conversion to carry water — ruling that the acquisition and conversion required no environmental impact studies. That was a “rushed, cursory decision,” a federal judge later found.

The Biden administration rescinded the approvals in 2021 so the BLM would have time to perform the environmental analysis required by law. Last month the agency reissued the approval for Cadiz to acquire the gas pipeline, but not to convert it for water. The latter decision, it had earlier assured Feinstein, would require “intensive environmental studies of … potential impacts,” including those caused by the extraction of water from the aquifer.

Kennedy says Cadiz no longer employs Brownstein and recognizes that the 2020 BLM ruling was vulnerable to legal challenge. Brackpool retired from the Cadiz board last year, which apparently ended his relationship with the company.

That points to perhaps the most serious obstacle to Cadiz’s project: Doubts about the environmental impact of taking water from the Mojave aquifer. Kennedy says the company has in hand technical studies indicating that it can safely extract 50,000 acre-feet of water annually for 50 years without causing environmental damage. But those studies are at odds with decades of independent and government studies placing the safe extraction level in the neighborhood of about 30,000 acre-feet and as low as 3,000. Settling this crucial technical issue could take years.

Advertisement

And that brings us to a linchpin of Kennedy’s efforts to change Cadiz’s image from water profiteer to responsible steward of a precious, and increasingly scarce, natural resource. She points out, accurately, that as many as 1 million Californians lack reliable access to clean water.

The question is whether Cadiz is the answer to the problem. Kennedy says it is, for inland water users. If environmental groups would only sit down with her “and map out an optimal water strategy, we would be part of that — what we’re doing would be key for that area of the state.”

Yet established organizations that have been focused on environmental justice say they haven’t heard from Cadiz. The company has associated itself with a new group called Groundswell for Water, which appears to be a coalition of community groups, few of which few have played any prior role in water policy, but which received startup funding from Cadiz.

Among the established groups that say they haven’t received outreach from Cadiz are the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water and Clean Water Action. The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity were plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit that challenged a Trump-era decision allowing the water project to move ahead.

Through its spokesman Ed Sanders, Groundswell says it’s doesn’t represent Cadiz but aims to represent “the one million Californians, primarily people of color, who don’t have access to clean water. “

Advertisement

The group’s major misstep may have been to imply an association with Dolores Huerta, who was a top associate of Cesar Chavez in the United Farm Workers movement and remains, at 93, an icon of progressive community activism.

Having discovered that it was posting photographs of her and using her name as though she was a member, an infuriated Huerta issued a public letter crisply condemning Groundswell as “an astroturf group … co-opting the language of environmental justice” and that “seeks to pit organizations of color against environmental groups.”

Can Cadiz succeed in its new guise? In her favor, Kennedy can cite the undeniably intensifying water crisis, not merely in the Inland Empire but statewide. This will dial up the pressure to exploit new water sources of all varieties.

Cadiz’s ambitions have distinctly shrunk since it first sprung from Brackpool’s imagination. Kennedy says that the firm’s plan today is to turn a profit entirely from the sale of water to Inland Empire water districts. They, not Cadiz, would be the applicants for state and federal permits, which she hopes might make it harder for regulatory agencies to ignore their interests.

On the other side is a very suspect corporate history. That’s the hill Kennedy still must still climb. She says outreach to environmental and community groups is high on her agenda, but their resistance to anything labeled “Cadiz” is potent indeed. “I have a long way to go to change to change opinions,” she says.

Advertisement

Business

Not ‘Just Ken’: Mattel shares Barbie’s longtime boyfriend’s full name

Published

on

Not ‘Just Ken’: Mattel shares Barbie’s longtime boyfriend’s full name

At the 2024 Oscars, Ryan Gosling, reprising his role as Ken in Greta Gerwig’s 2023 movie “Barbie,” donned a bedazzled pink suit and belted the ballad “I’m Just Ken.”

“I’m just Ken, anywhere else I’d be a 10,” the actor sang. “Is it my destiny to live and die a life of blond fragility?”

Barbie’s needy male counterpart, it turns out, is not “just Ken.” His full name is Kenneth Sean Carson, according to Mattel, which says the doll saw a uptick in popularity in the years following the hit movie’s release.

Ahead of Ken’s 65th birthday, the El Segundo-based toy giant shared a laundry list of niche biographical details about the doll, including his official “birthday” — March 11, 1961, making him a Pisces — as well as his relationship history with Barbie.

The company said in a statement Monday that Ken has “experienced a resurgence in recent years.”

Advertisement

A Mattel spokesperson cited the “Barbie” movie as a driving factor, as it showed a “different side” of Ken. In a meta move, the company later in 2023 released Ken dolls modeled after Ryan Gosling’s portrayal of Ken.

The “Kenbassador” line launched last year was a “great success,” the spokesperson said. The first product in that toy series was a $75 doll modeled after basketball player LeBron James released in April.

Mattel says it does not break out sales of Ken dolls, but in 2017, when Mattel unveiled Ken dolls with different body types, including one that invited “dad-bod” comparisons, the company told the Wall Street Journal that, on average, girls have one Ken doll for every seven Barbies they own.

Ruth Handler, the creator of Barbie, named the original doll after her daughter, Barbara. The glamorous doll, unique in that it depicted a grown woman rather than a baby, was an instant hit when it debuted at the New York Toy Fair in 1959. Barbie has significantly evolved in the decades since. Recent additions include Barbies with Type 1 diabetes and another with autism.

The Ken doll, created in 1961, was named after Handler’s son, Kenneth. He featured molded hair, wore red swim trunks and carried a yellow towel.

Advertisement

Kenneth Handler told The Times in a 1989 story that there were few similarities between him and the doll named after him. He died in 1994.

“Ken doll is Malibu,” he said. “He goes to the beach and surfs. He is all these perfect American things.”

But when Kenneth Handler was at Hamilton High School in Beverlywood, he “played the piano and went to movies with subtitles.” He continued, “I was a nerd — a real nerd. All the girls thought I was a jerk.”

Like Barbie, Ken dabbled in many different careers over the decades. There have been doctor, pilot, tennis player, firefighter, lifeguard, barista and even Olympic skier Kens, among many others. In 2006, he received a “mid-life makeover” from celebrity stylist Phillip Bloch.

According to the company, Ken and Barbie “met” on the set of their first television commercial in 1961 and soon began dating. After more than four decades, the doll couple broke up in 2004, but reunited in 2011.

Advertisement

Mattel was founded by Ruth Handler; her husband, Elliot Handler; and Harold “Matt” Matson in 1945 in a Los Angeles garage. The toy maker became a publicly traded company in 1960.

Mattel, which also owns Fisher-Price and Hot Wheels, wrote in its October Securities and Exchange Commission filing that “industry-wide shifts in retailer ordering patterns” pushed its third quarter net sales down 6%.

In 2024, Barbie gross billings — which measure the total value of products Mattel ships to retailers before sales adjustments — were down 12% from 2023, which had seen a boost from the movie, according to the company’s annual SEC filing.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Paramount outlines plans for Warner Bros. cuts

Published

on

Paramount outlines plans for Warner Bros. cuts

Many in Hollywood fear Warner Bros. Discovery’s sale will trigger steep job losses — at a time when the industry already has been ravaged by dramatic downsizing and the flight of productions from Los Angeles.

David Ellison‘s Paramount Skydance is seeking to allay some of those concerns by detailing its plans to save $6 billion, including job cuts, should Paramount succeed in its bid to buy the larger Warner Bros. Discovery.

Leaders of the combined company would search for savings by focusing on “duplicative operations across all aspects of the business — specifically back office, finance, corporate, legal, technology, infrastructure and real estate,” Paramount said in documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

Paramount is locked in an uphill battle to buy the storied studio behind Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo and “The Big Bang Theory.” The firm’s proposed $108.4-billion deal would include swallowing HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and other Warner cable channels.

Advertisement

Warner’s board prefers Netflix’s proposed $82.7-billion deal, and has repeatedly rebuffed the Ellison family’s proposals. That prompted Paramount to turn hostile last month and make its case directly to Warner investors on its website and in regulatory filings.

Shareholders may ultimately decide the winner.

Paramount previously disclosed that it would target $6 billion in synergies. And it has stressed the proposed merger would make Hollywood stronger — not weaker. The firm, however, recently acknowledged that it would shave about 10% from program spending should it succeed in combining Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount said the cuts would come from areas other than film and television studio operations.

A film enthusiast and longtime producer, David Ellison has long expressed a desire to grow the combined Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. slate to more than 30 movies a year. His goal is to keep Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. stand-alone studios.

Advertisement

This year, Warner Bros. plans to release 17 films. Paramount has said it wants to nearly double its output to 15 movies, which would bring the two-studio total to 32.

“We are very focused on maintaining the creative engines of the combined company,” Paramount said in its marketing materials for investors, which were submitted to the SEC on Monday.

“Our priority is to build a vibrant, healthy business and industry — one that supports Hollywood and creative, benefits consumers, encourages competition, and strengthens the overall job market,” Paramount said.

If the deal goes through, Paramount said that it would become Hollywood’s biggest spender — shelling out about $30 billion a year on programming.

In comparison, Walt Disney Co. has said it plans to spend $24 billion in the current fiscal year.

Advertisement

Paramount also added a dig at Warner management, saying: “We expect to make smarter decisions about licensing across linear networks and streaming.”

Some analysts have wondered whether Paramount would sell one of its most valuable assets — the historic Melrose Avenue movie lot — to raise money to pay down debt that a Warner acquisition would bring.

Paramount is the only major studio to be physically located in Hollywood and its studio lot is one of the company’s crown jewels. That’s where “Sunset Boulevard,” several “Star Trek” movies and parts of “Chinatown” were filmed.

A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment.

Sources close to the company said Paramount would scrutinize the numerous real estate leases in an effort to bring together far-flung teams into a more centralized space.

Advertisement

For example, CBS has much of its administrative offices on Gower in Hollywood, blocks away from the Paramount lot. And HBO maintains its operations in Culver City — miles from Warner’s Burbank lot.

Paramount pushed its deadline to Feb. 20 for Warner investors to tender their shares at $30 a piece.

The tender offer was set to expire last week, but Paramount extended the window after failing to solicit sufficient interest among Warner shareholders.

Some analysts believe Paramount may have to raise its bid to closer to $34 a share to turn heads. Paramount last raised its bid Dec. 4 — hours before the auction closed and Netflix was declared the winner.

Paramount also has filed proxy materials to ask Warner shareholders to reject the Netflix deal at an upcoming stockholder meeting.

Advertisement

Earlier this month, Netflix amended its bid, converting its $27.75-a-share offer to all-cash to defuse some of Paramount’s arguments that it had a stronger bid.

Should Paramount win Warner Bros., it would need to line up $94.65 billion in debt and equity.

Billionaire Larry Ellison has pledged to backstop $40.4 billion for the equity required. Paramount’s proposed financing relies on $24 billion from royal families in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

The deal would saddle Paramount with more than $60 billion of debt — which Warner board members have argued may be untenable.

“The extraordinary amount of debt financing as well as other terms of the PSKY offer heighten the risk of failure to close,” Warner board members said in a filing earlier this month.

Advertisement

Paramount would also have to absorb Warner’s debt load, which currently tops $30 billion.

Netflix is seeking to buy the Warner Bros. television and movie studios, HBO and HBO Max. It is not interested in Warner’s cable channels, including CNN. Warner wants to spin off its basic cable channels to facilitate the Netflix deal.

Analysts say both deals could face regulatory hurdles.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Southwest’s open seating ends with final flight

Published

on

Southwest’s open seating ends with final flight

After nearly 60 years of its unique and popular open-seating policy, Southwest Airlines flew its last flight with unassigned seats Monday night.

Customers on flights going forward will choose where they sit and whether they want to pay more for a preferred location or extra leg room. The change represents a significant shift for Southwest’s brand, which has been known as a no-frills, easygoing option compared to competing airlines.

While many loyal customers lament the loss of open seating, Southwest has been under pressure from investors to boost profitability. Last year, the airline also stopped offering free checked bags and began charging $35 for one bag and $80 for two.

Under the defunct open-seating policy, customers could choose their seats on a first-come, first-served basis. On social media, customers said the policy made boarding faster and fairer. The airline is now offering four new fare bundles that include tiered perks such as priority boarding, preferred seats, and premium drinks.

“We continue to make substantial progress as we execute the most significant transformation in Southwest Airlines’ history,” said chief executive Bob Jordan in a statement with the company’s third-quarter revenue report. “We quickly implemented many new product attributes and enhancements [and] we remain committed to meeting the evolving needs of our current and future customers.”

Advertisement

Eighty percent of Southwest customers and 86% of potential customers prefer an assigned seat, the airline said in 2024.

Experts said the change is a smart move as the airline tries to stabilize its finances.

In the third quarter of 2025, the company reported passenger revenues of $6.3 billion, a 1% increase from the year prior. Southwest’s shares have remained mostly stable this year and were trading at around $41.50 on Tuesday.

“You’re going to hear nostalgia about this, but I think it’s very logical and probably something the company should have done years ago,” said Duane Pfennigwerth, a global airlines analyst at Evercore, when the company announced the seating change in 2024.

Budget airlines are offering more premium options in an attempt to increase revenue, including Spirit, which introduced new fare bundles in 2024 with priority check-in and their take on a first-class experience.

Advertisement

With the end of open seating and its “bags fly free” policy, customers said Southwest has lost much of its appeal and flexibility. The airline used to stand out in an industry often associated with rigidity and high prices, customers said.

“Open seating and the easier boarding process is why I fly Southwest,” wrote one Reddit user. “I may start flying another airline in protest. After all, there will be nothing differentiating Southwest anymore.”

Continue Reading

Trending