Readers React: Local projects can keep the water flowing in L.A.

To the editor: There’s no denying Jim Newton’s point that the issue of how water is sourced and distributed throughout California is contentious. Yet the future of Los Angeles’ water supply is less about fighting others for water than it is about making smart investments and using ratepayer dollars wisely. (“The contentious, complicated fight for water in California,” Op-Ed, Aug. 10)

Los Angeles has made great strides in water efficiency, and it can now increase and diversify its water supply by cleaning up groundwater, creating incentives for efficiency and fixing its crumbling pipes. These measures will not be cheap, but they are essential to ensuring the continued flow of clean water to Los Angeles homes and businesses.

In contrast, Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to dig tunnels underneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta would put Los Angeles ratepayers on the hook for billions and not deliver any new water.

Given widespread skepticism toward the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, it is important for the city to spend wisely on projects that create real value for ratepayers.

Alexandra Nagy, Los Angeles

The writer is Southern California organizer for Food and Water Watch.

..

To the editor: Newton’s final paragraph is key. It contains the observation by Metropolitan Water District General Manager Jeff Kightlinger that in California, “the people do not live where the water is.”

When the L.A. Aqueduct opened a century ago, water poured into the San Fernando Valley, which then was not part of L.A. The water changed that.

California is a real estate game, with water moving to where the weather is easy, making developers rich and the Owens Valley a dust bowl. Elsewhere, major rivers such as the Sacramento and Colorado have become plumbing for the land speculators.

Newton mentions that water storage in L.A. is key, but contamination beneath the San Fernando Valley makes that difficult. So why don’t we heed Kightlinger’s words and start living where the water is, or at least used to be? Let’s free ourselves from the wishes of developers.

Jim Odling, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Rick Silva, the “water cop” in your article, said, “I don’t want my neighbor watering his lawn if I won’t have enough water to drink and live.” (“This L.A. cop gets the drop on water offenders,” Aug. 10)

That sort of says it all, doesn’t it? When you get past the glamour, the glitz, the big houses and toys, it comes down to the basic fact that we have to have water to live.

Since we are in a severe drought, and if 40% of the city’s drinking water is really used to irrigate landscaping, then our lawns have to go. Yes, that includes all of the cities in the L.A. and Orange County areas.

Jay James, Pico Rivera