Seize This Water Opportunity

Under California law, water is free, owned by the state on behalf of the people. What you pay for is the cost of collecting the water and getting it from where it is to where you want it to be. One of the state’s bitterest water fights in years has involved the use of the 242-mile-long Colorado River Aqueduct of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to transport someone else’s water.

That dispute, between Metropolitan and the San Diego County Water Authority, now seems close to resolution, a welcome report because the agreement is viewed as the keystone to solving related problems with Colorado River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water and assuring Southern California a reliable supply of high-quality water for decades to come.

The battle started when San Diego negotiated a contract with the Imperial Irrigation District to buy at least 200,000 acre-feet of water a year, enough to meet the household demands of more than 1 million people. The problem was that the only way to get the water from the Colorado River to San Diego was through the aqueduct owned by Metropolitan, a giant wholesaler that provides water to 27 districts, including San Diego County. The districts have been deadlocked for a year over the terms of a deal to use the aqueduct.

Now there has been a breakthrough, a legislative committee in Sacramento was told Tuesday. The remaining differences, mostly over who pays for certain water conservation facilities, boil down to about $100 million in cost, says David Kennedy, state water resources director. He suggested that the money could be paid out of a water and flood-control bond issue being proposed for the November election ballot. In other words, the state would foot the bill for the $100-million shortfall. In a 45-year deal involving $3 billion or more in cost, that is not a huge gap. The Legislature has about three weeks to fashion the bond issue, a fact that in effect sets a deadline for Metropolitan and San Diego to reach final agreement.

Lawmakers may have a problem selling a bond issue that in effect makes a gift of $100 million to the giant agencies, but those who know the importance of the deal argue that is a small price to pay for future water security. Perhaps, but it would surely be more palatable to voters to configure the $100 million as a loan from taxpayers rather than a gift.

However it is done, the deal is critical to California’s water future. The brief opportunity must not be missed.