Blog / The Business Perspective
Water Opponents Aim to Deceive Consumers
September 4, 2012
by Gary Toebben
Outside forces as far away as Oregon are suddenly concerned about future water rates in Los Angeles. If that sounds strange, well it is. Beware of long standing opponents of statewide water solutions who are now becoming self-anointed guardians of the Los Angeles water ratepayer.State and federal administrations have made great progress on a proposal to restore in Northern California the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta’s ailing ecosystem and improve the conveyance of critical water supplies to Southern California, the Bay Area and the Central Valley. Physically separating the movement of the public water supplies from the estuary has emerged as a key part of the solution. The administrations are proposing 35-mile tunnels to transport the water from the Sacramento River to the aqueduct facilities as a way to increase reliability and reintroduce more natural flow patterns in the estuary.
Opponents are trying to convince public water agencies and their constituencies that protecting their water supplies with a better conveyance system is not worth the investment. And an activist group Food and Water Watch has underwritten a study by ECONorthwest out of Eugene, Oregon, to provide dramatically inflated estimates of the potential impacts on water rates in Los Angeles. As Stockton's The Record recently reported, "Opponents plan to use dollar signs to fight Delta tunnels."
Opponents of fixing the Delta suggest alternate sources of water like desalination, which many environmental groups strongly oppose and many experts say would be much more expensive than the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. They also suggest conservation, a solution that is already a big part of the region’s water future, not a new alternative that needs to be suggested by outsiders. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California already has short-term plans to conserve and recycle more water in a typical year than it needs from Northern California.
While the final figures aren’t in, Metropolitan is estimating that a conveyance solution in the Delta that would lead to a more reliable water supply for half a century would add $4 - $5 per month to a typical water bill. And in all likelihood, our generation will face a more modest investment than previous generations that voted to build the Metropolitan aqueduct system to the Colorado River and the State Water Project to Northern California.
There are many reasons to believe that the emerging Delta solution will make strong business sense for Los Angeles and all of California. There are also many reasons to be wary of outsiders who are suddenly worried about Los Angeles water rates.
And that's The Business Perspective.
Comments
While the Business Perspective is correct in stating that conservation efforts are not a new part of the solution it fails to recognize all of the work that has yet to be done in this arena. It is not only a big part of the solution but crucial to it. The Business Perspective also fails to mention that the proposal to divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is also not new. Governor Brown?s old idea is simply re-packaged and is misleadingly being sold under the guise of conservation. In 1982 Brown tried and failed to push this project and CA voters defeated it in a historic ballot initiative but here we are thirty years later battling the same unnecessary project. We have seen water use go down by 30% in the last 30 years despite population growth of 1 million people LA. In the last two years alone water use has gone down by 15% and there?s no current need or outcry to import more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CA voters were right!
The notion that importing more water from Northern California to Southern California would increase reliability is absurd, as we know that Southern Californian cities can only secure the future of water supply by diversifying local water sources. It is also important to note that the estimates in the ECONorthwest study cannot be dramatically inflated as the numbers come directly from the Governor?s office. If this project goes through, LA will see dramatic and unfair water rate hikes for water that the proposal cannot even guarantee Southern California will receive. Two-thirds of the water from the State Water Project currently goes to the Central Valley?s largest corporate agriculture interests, nothing suggests this would differ if the project goes through but what is certain is that this would be financed by ratepayers thus unfairly affecting residents and business owners.
This piece warns readers to beware of the long-standing opponents of this fiscally irresponsible project yet any sensible businessman can discern that this is simply a bad business deal. I would caution readers to beware of an old corporate water grab that is currently being forced upon LA, as the CA legislature gave Brown sole authority over the implementation of this project thereby eliminating the democratic process, and to beware of any Chamber of Commerce that misguides its members into bad business.
The notion that importing more water from Northern California to Southern California would increase reliability is absurd, as we know that Southern Californian cities can only secure the future of water supply by diversifying local water sources. It is also important to note that the estimates in the ECONorthwest study cannot be dramatically inflated as the numbers come directly from the Governor?s office. If this project goes through, LA will see dramatic and unfair water rate hikes for water that the proposal cannot even guarantee Southern California will receive. Two-thirds of the water from the State Water Project currently goes to the Central Valley?s largest corporate agriculture interests, nothing suggests this would differ if the project goes through but what is certain is that this would be financed by ratepayers thus unfairly affecting residents and business owners.
This piece warns readers to beware of the long-standing opponents of this fiscally irresponsible project yet any sensible businessman can discern that this is simply a bad business deal. I would caution readers to beware of an old corporate water grab that is currently being forced upon LA, as the CA legislature gave Brown sole authority over the implementation of this project thereby eliminating the democratic process, and to beware of any Chamber of Commerce that misguides its members into bad business.
Posted by: Jessica @ 1:03:00 pm
Dear Mr. Toebben,
Thank you for your concern about increasing water reliability in Southern California. I was wondering though, how building these tunnels will help with more natural flow patterns in the estuary? Is it not the daily moving in and out of the ocean tide what naturally drains water from the estuary, the not increased pumping?
Also, who do you mean by those opposed to fixing the delta? Do you mean the people who are opposed to the tunnel project? And if so, again, how does building these tunnels which will drain water from the estuary fix the problem of the present increasing salinity of the region?
Also, you mention that conservation is also a big part of the Delta region's future. How so? Why aren't MWD's water conservation and recycling plans sufficient for the long term if they will supply more than we need from Northern California in the short term?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sara
Thank you for your concern about increasing water reliability in Southern California. I was wondering though, how building these tunnels will help with more natural flow patterns in the estuary? Is it not the daily moving in and out of the ocean tide what naturally drains water from the estuary, the not increased pumping?
Also, who do you mean by those opposed to fixing the delta? Do you mean the people who are opposed to the tunnel project? And if so, again, how does building these tunnels which will drain water from the estuary fix the problem of the present increasing salinity of the region?
Also, you mention that conservation is also a big part of the Delta region's future. How so? Why aren't MWD's water conservation and recycling plans sufficient for the long term if they will supply more than we need from Northern California in the short term?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sara
Posted by: Sara @ 2:14:00 pm
California has the benefit of the Pacific Ocean and should be investing in desalinization technology that is available today and being used in many other countries. 30% or more of California's water requirements could be handled by this within a 3 year, much more over time.
Posted by: Mike O'Connor @ 1:09:00 pm
Thank you for shedding much needed light on this subject. Too often, with the nattional and international news cycles, crucial local subjects get short shrift and very little illumination.
Posted by: Bill Stennis @ 11:44:00 am
Leave a Comment
Comments submitted are subject to review by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce prior to posting. The Chamber reserves the right to monitor and withhold comments that include personal, offensive, potentially libelous or copyright protected language, materials or links. Only comments relevant to the topic will be posted. Comments posted must have a valid email address. View our full terms & conditions.