Emergency water plan close to approvalBy Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Leaders look for fair way to divvy up water in shortage
Regional water leaders are poised to approve a new emergency water plan in February that San Diego County officials say would divvy water up more fairly than during the state's last big drought in 1991.
County water leaders have long said that local residents and businesses were hit with harsher water cuts than other Southern California communities because equal "across-the-board" cuts actually affected communities unequally.
Longtime San Diego County Water Authority board member Mark Watton said the agency's normally-quiet board room was a madhouse at the drought's peak in 1991, as directors issued 30 percent ---- then 50 percent ---- water cuts.
"It was standing room only; we had security guards to keep the crowds out of the street," he said. "People were crying and screaming. Businesses were going down in flames. It was horrible."
With a new water crisis looming, many regional officials think the plan that board members of Southern California's main water supplier ---- the region's main water provider ---- will consider in February is more fair.
There are critics who say the plan would rob water from older, established communities and give it to others whose populations are still growing.
But Metropolitan officials say the plan is designed to be fair to retail water consumers ---- homeowners and businesses ---- in the six counties it serves.
"The hallmark of this plan is to try to create something that is as equitable as possible to our 18 million customers," Metropolitan General Manager Jeff Kightlinger said last week.
If the plan is approved in February, it could actually be used this year.
This year, Southern California is facing a possible a 30 percent cut to its imported water supplies from Northern California because a judge ruled in August that the pumps delivering the water must be cut back to protect an endangered fish, the delta smelt.
When water is short
The new plan is built around a complicated formula that would calculate how much each of Metropolitan's 26 member cities and water agencies would get if Metropolitan had to cut its supplies.
The calculation balances the "base demand" of the agencies and their customers ---- what they've bought from Metropolitan over a recent three-year period ---- against other factors. How much does each agency rely upon Metropolitan for their total water supplies? What have agencies done to conserve water? How much have their populations increased?
The plan would also punish water agencies that can't live within their water means.
It includes big financial penalties for water agencies that want to buy more water than they're allocated.
If an agency uses up to 10 percent more than its allocation, Metropolitan more than doubles the price of its water.
If they surpass the 10 percent figure, the prices shoots up to more than five times Metropolitan's highest rate.
Use more than 10 percent, and the price goes up more than five times Metropolitan's highest rate.
If approved and heeded, the plan would mark a huge departure from how Metropolitan administered water cutbacks in 1991.
At that time, the agency essentially implemented across-the-board percentage cuts. The idea was to spread cuts evenly.
Was it fair then?
But some officials, most vocally those from San Diego County, said across-the-board cuts were extremely unfair ---- because some agencies and cities depended more heavily upon Metropolitan than others for their water supplies.
The example San Diego leaders used most often to illustrate that point was the city of Los Angeles.
Los Angeles built its own aqueduct to Owens Valley early in the 20th century, creating a pipeline that delivers half of the city's water supplies every year. In addition, the city also has significant groundwater supplies.
Consequently, Los Angeles only buys about 34 percent of its water each year from Metropolitan.
In sharp contrast, San Diego County, which has few reservoirs and doesn't have the kind of porous rock needed to store water underground, buys 73 percent of all the water county residents use from Metropolitan. That reliance was even more extreme in 1991, when San Diego County got nearly 90 percent of its water from Metropolitan.
Metropolitan's across-the-board cuts meant that San Diego lost more of its overall water supply than Los Angeles, Water Authority officials say.
"They were on a 15 percent (overall supply) cut and we were going to 30 percent," Watton said.
The new plan evens out that disparity, though some argue it would create new ones.
If Metropolitan's water supplies decreased by 10 percent, no agency would get more than a 15 percent cut in what they could buy from Metropolitan. Some would get more water than others ---- again, depending on how much they rely upon Metropolitan for their total water supplies.
San Diego residents, through the Water Authority, would get about a 14 percent cut from Metropolitan. Los Angeles would get about a 9 percent cut.
Since 1991, the San Diego County Water Authority has reduced its reliance on Metropolitan. In 2003, after eight years of negotiations, the Water Authority reached a historic deal to buy billions of gallons of water a year from Imperial Valley farmers for the next 45 years to 75 years.
Will it be more fair now?
The new plan has its opponents.
Art Aguilar is general manager of the Central Basin Municipal Water District east of Los Angeles and north of Long Beach, which serves cities including Downey, Bell Gardens, Carson and Pico Rivera.
Aguilar says the new plan would steal water from built out and poorer communities, and unfairly give it to prosperous areas such as San Diego County, with still-growing populations.
"Straight across-the-board cuts are the only fair way," Aguilar said. "Then the people who use the most are going to have to find alternative sources."
Nonetheless, Aguilar said he thinks Metropolitan board members will approve the plan.
San Diego regional water leaders say the new plan is not just better for local residents, but more fair for all.
"I think it is the best, well-thought-out allocation plan I've seen in some time," said Jim Bond, Encinitas councilman that city's representative on the Water Authority board for years.
"There are some issues," he said. "Naturally, you can't have 26 agencies come together and not have some saying 'I'm not getting my share.' But this is probably as evenhanded and equitable as any I've seen." | 
En Español
Join Our Newsletter
