Could Valley Be a City Without Water?

You have to hand it to the people who are promoting San Fernando Valley secession. They have come up with a patriotic rationale for extracting county tax funds to further their campaign: to remind everyone that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of citizens to petition for a redress of grievances.

From all indications, this rhetoric has put politicians on the defensive, and it has weakened their resolve not to spend taxpayers’ money to validate petition signatures or pay for the costly Local Agency Formation Commission study that will be required before secession can go on the ballot.

The ultimate irony is the likelihood that secession will fail over the issue of rights, but it will not be about the petitioner’s rights. It will be about critical water rights.

Assuming the money will be forthcoming, LAFCO will find that the Valley is different from other communities that have divorced. This is because the Valley agreed to annex to the city of Los Angeles in 1915 for the specific purpose of obtaining water from the newly completed Los Angeles-Owens River Aqueduct.

The annulment of this agreement would leave the Valley with some residual rights to Colorado River and Northern California water, but not enough to maintain prosperity.

The Valley Vote people, who are backing secession, disagree with this assessment. As proof, they point to recent state legislation that assures seceding communities an equitable division of assets, including water rights. They also cite a letter from the city attorney’s office to Mayor Richard Riordan that mentions a 1907 state Supreme Court decision that may require the city to continue to provide water to the Valley.

What is clear, however, is that in the event of secession, the water the Valley normally absorbs from the Owens Valley and the Los Angeles River would become a surplus to the city of Los Angeles, which could be resold to Valleyites, probably at a higher price to make up for any loss of tax revenue. But this would be a best-case scenario that assumes a plentiful supply. In case of a water shortage, the City Charter spells out that the city’s first obligation is to serve water to its own citizens and to discontinue service to other communities.

According to the city attorney’s office, the state law that Valley Vote is relying on for water rights and guaranteed service may violate the city’s charter rights under the home rule provisions of the California Constitution. Thus the entire issue may end up in the courts, and the Valley’s future could be placed on hold until a decision is reached.

The city has to be concerned because at some point, unless new supplies become available, growth is expected to exceed the water supply. This is why the city is promoting conservation and subsidizing the purchase of low-flush toilets and more efficient washing machines.

But even if LAFCO were to avoid the sticky issue of water availability, there is another concern that could explode into controversy and sink secession.

This has to do with the quality of the water. When the Valley agreed to annexation, it not only assured its prosperity but also, by virtue of geography, became first in line for the city’s finest water. Water from the Owens Valley is better-tasting and softer than water from other sources and contains a higher amount of natural fluorides for healthy teeth.

This water crosses the Valley from north to south, and it is intercepted by Valleyites before it goes over the Santa Monica Mountains into West and South Los Angeles. When water usage soars during the hot summer months, residents who live over the mountains may receive very little of this premium water. And therein lies trouble.

There is a perception, expressed at a recent conference at Cal State Northridge, that secession reflects a drawbridge mentality directed at the poor and minority groups. If secession succeeds and the Valley continues to receive the city’s best water, this could be seen as discrimination and could result in a massive class action suit against the city and Valley Vote.

LAFCO sees its task as determining whether secession will be revenue neutral. But before secession is allowed to go before the voters, the commission should weigh also the social risks.