Sale of Southern California Water to Northern Urban Areas Proposed

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is considering the sale of water to two Northern California urban areas that face a third consecutive dry year because of below-normal rainfall and near-empty reservoirs.

If a deal is struck authorizing the complex water transfer, the MWD will sell 20,000 acre-feet of its state water allotment, at cost, to the San Francisco Water Department and 35,000 acre-feet to the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which serves the Silicon Valley and San Jose.

It was already clear Friday, however, that the transfer will not occur without a fight. The biggest objections are from agricultural users, who already are facing cuts in their water allotments.

The proposal was presented to the Executive Committee of the district’s Board of Directors at a special meeting Friday. No matter what action the district ultimately takes, such a deal would have to be approved by the state Department of Water Resources and the other state Water Project users, officials said.

‘Asked If We Could Help’

Metropolitan General Manager Carl Boronkay told the Executive Committee that the Bay Area districts had proposed the sale. “They asked if we could help. . . . I told them I’d check it out.” Southern California has enough Colorado River water that it could manage to get by without the state water this summer, Boronkay said.

“What would happen is that we would take that much less” from the state aqueduct, Boronkay said. That water would be transferred to the Bay Area, probably through the South Bay Aqueduct.

Such a deal will not be easy to put together because of competing water interests, Boronkay warned. If the district gives up water, he said, the state has the right to deliver it to any of the 29 other agencies holding state water contracts.

‘Emphasis on Urban Problems’

“In the past, farmers have taken (the extra water), but now the emphasis is on urban problems,” Boronkay said. He recommended that the district extend a “helping hand” to the Bay Area cities, but only in exchange for their political support for Southern California’s efforts to get the state Water Project completed.

The 17-member Executive Committee authorized Boronkay to explore the feasibility of the water transfer, but not without reservations. Several directors were concerned about letting water go at a time when Southern California farmers served by MWD are facing the threat of reduced water supplies. Boronkay will report back to the full board at its March 14 meeting.

The MWD delivers 2.5 million acre-feet of water to 27 agencies serving 14.1 million people in six Southern California counties. About half of this water comes from the state project, and most of the rest from the Colorado River. An acre-foot of water is enough to serve a family of four for one year, or to grow one-third of an acre of cotton.

By 1992, Southern California will be required to relinquish to Arizona more than half of its Colorado River water supply, district officials said. This loss will be replaced by state water that the MWD has contracted for but cannot take until additional facilities are built to move more Northern California water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta toward the south, district officials explained.

If the current proposal is approved by all sides, it would be the second time the MWD has given up state water to help out drought-stricken Bay Area residents. In 1977, some of the district’s water went to Marin County through a special pipeline laid across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. The district also released some of its state water for use on San Joaquin Valley farms that year, officials said.

Officials Surprised

News of the proposal surprised some top state officials and water experts, who wondered how Southern California could have extra water for sale after three dry years. Several directors said they had received calls from state Sen. Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino), chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee, in which Ayala said he was upset because legislators had not been informed of the proposed deal.

“It is befuddling to imagine that MWD, which has continuously claimed to be water-deficient . . . finds it has excess water to deliver north of the Tehachapis,” Stephen Macola, staff director of the Senate committee, said in a telephone interview. “It is mind-boggling.”

One top state official doubted the idea was workable. “I don’t think we would go along with that” MWD proposal, said John R. Eaton, chief of operations for the state project. He pointed out that the state’s farmers are already being asked to take big water cuts. If the district does not need the water, he said, “they should make it available to everybody . . . and agriculture would take less of a cut.”

A third year of below-normal precipitation and low runoff have left the state in “a drought situation,” according to William Helms, coordinator of the state’s drought center. “Our (water) storage has not recovered. . . . We only have 65% of normal in major reservoirs,” Helms said. Both state and federal water projects have ordered 40% to 50% cuts in deliveries to Central Valley farmers.

The hardest-hit urban areas are around San Francisco Bay and in the Santa Clara Valley, where water district managers have called on users to cut consumption 45%, officials there report. All of these districts are looking for more water.

While Northern California’s request to buy water from the south is not without irony, the proposed sale points to a new era of cooperation between the managers of urban water districts throughout the state, some officials believe.

“Eight or 10 urban water district managers have been meeting for three years now, talking about mutual problems . . . and how we can help each other,” Boronkay said. He suggested that by helping out these water-short areas now, Southern California could “build some (political) bridges” that will help push for completion of the state Water Project.

Most of the directors on the Executive Committee said they favored assisting the Northern Californians, but not before several directors dragged out many of the old arguments that have fueled the water fights between the north and the south for so many years.