Attorneys for the mining conglomerate Cemex filed their latest appeal in the effort to build a sand-and-gravel mine in Soledad Canyon, just east of the city of Santa Clarita.  The mining company purchased the mineral rights to extract 56 million tons of aggregate, a material vital for constr uction that’s in rich supply there, according to the federal government.  Cemex needs a beneficial-use permit from the State Water Resources Control Board to use the Santa Clara River in order to sustain its mining operations. And that’s been the object of the mine’s current legal fight.  The mine’s permit application to the board has been part of a legal and political battle for decades between Cemex and Santa Clarita, a developing bedroom suburb pursuing advanced manufacturing, technology and filming jobs that has spent millions to avoid any potential transition to a mining town.  Opponents of the mine, which include the city, argue that the facility would add hundreds of truckloads daily to an already congested Highway 14, a massive amount of air pollution from mining operations, and impacts to the river, including about 322-acre-feet of water use annually. That’s the annual average amount for about 650 homes.  In an opening brief arguing that Cemex should have the right to appeal a State Water Board decision to publicly notice its water-permit application, the miners’ attorneys mention several needs for the mine and problems with the opposition to it.  Cemex argues that the city did not file a timely appeal of the project, and instead has only challenged its project in the courts.  Cemex originally filed an application for the local water rights in 1991, according to its appeal, when Santa Clarita was barely 4 years old, and Soledad Canyon was identified for its “regionally significant economic mineral resources.”  “The (State Water Resources Control Board), in 2004 and 2016, rejected the city’s requests that the board re-notice the application, recognizing that there were no changed circumstances that would allow for that relief,” according to Cemex’s opening brief. “Then, in 2023, elected officials representing the city sponsored legislation that would have required the board to re-notice the application. Although the legislation was not adopted, the (state water) board’s executive director ignored precedent and let political pressure drive a decision to issue the new notice. When Cemex sought board review of the executive director’s action through a petition for reconsideration under board regulations, the board’s chief counsel sent a letter dismissing the petition on procedural grounds.”  Cemex argues that its permit application has lingered since the George H.W. Bush administration, and the consequences of re-noticing it “are great,” according to the appeal for a judicial review.  “Re-noticing means that new parties are allowed to intervene and new protests are allowed to be filed,” according to the argument from Cemex.  “Cemex will need to engage new experts and complete new technical studies. The protests and responding reports will need to be analyzed, addressed and decided. All of which is sure to cause years of additional delay. Judicial review of the re-noticing decision at the end of that process would be meaningless,” according to the argument from Kerry Shapiro, chair of the Natural Resources and Mining Group for Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, which represents Cemex, referring to a Superior Court ruling that supported the State Water Board.  The brief argues that in 2013, the state’s Department of Conservation concluded the Soledad Canyon Project was in the “public interest” and “has many economic and environmental advantages over other options … in the region.”  The argument also notes “the city challenged in state and federal courts each entitlement and environmental clearance Cemex secured” — however, it also notes the arguments began 11 years after the original application was filed.  City officials wrote Monday in response to a request for comment on the March 12 brief that it did not have a copy or a chance to review the filing, and once it did, it would provide comment.  Cemex’s brief quoted the State Water Board’s reason for re-noticing the mine’s permit application in its appeal: “Since that time (of the original permit application), the circumstances of affected downstream water users or other interested persons have changed. For example, many of the entities that have filed protests against the application no longer exist due to changes in property ownership and other factors; and in addition, multiple entities which did not file protests in response to the 1993 notice have contacted the division to request that the application be re-noticed so that they have an opportunity to file a protest and participate in the proceedings related to the application.”  The respondent’s brief is due to Justice Elwood Lui, presiding judge of the 2nd District Court of Appeals, by June 10.  The post Cemex files latest appeal in mine fight  appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal. ...read more read less