Disputes over water have been a constant in California history, and San Diego is going through a particularly rough patch on that front these days.<\/p>\n
At the center of the current maelstrom is Dan Denham, general manager of the San Diego County Water Authority.<\/p>\n
Often the fights have been over water availability, but that\u2019s not the case here. The county has plenty. That was by design, the result of an effort launched a quarter-century ago to ensure water security for the region after the threat of devastating reductions during a drought in the 1990s.<\/p>\n
In fact, San Diego now has too much water.<\/p>\n
The dependability and unplanned excess came at a tremendous cost, leading to repeated and large water rate hikes for residents, triggering a public backlash and frustrating local officials.<\/p>\n
Last week, the San Diego City Council delayed action<\/a> until the end of this month on another round of proposed increases in water and sewer rates \u2014 63 percent and 31 percent, respectively, over four years. A city budget analysis said there is no wiggle room and warns of dire consequences<\/a> if the rates are not raised, but council members insisted it was too much.<\/p>\n Some council members criticized Mayor Todd Gloria in part for this predicament. Others for weeks have trained their fire on the San Diego County Water Authority, a collective of the region\u2019s water agencies that some council members suggest should be disbanded.<\/p>\n There is some irony here because the city is a member of the water authority and has near controlling weight on its board. Meanwhile, some board members, including at least one of the city\u2019s appointees, have not only noted that the city backed the long-term, expensive water security plan over the years, but moved ahead with its own costly wastewater recycling system, Pure Water San Diego.<\/p>\n Denham was blunt about the prospect of a major overhaul or dissolution of the 81-year-old regional water wholesaler.<\/p>\n \u201cAbsolutely not,\u201d he said in an interview. \u201cI don\u2019t see any restructuring of the water authority. That\u2019s a knee-jerk reaction to the really tough times we are going through.\u201d<\/p>\n He added that doing away with the agency is \u201cgoing to cost ratepayers more.\u201d<\/p>\n That may be a point of dispute in an upcoming review<\/a> of the water authority by an agency that will have a big say in whether the authority continues to exist, at least in its current form. The Local Agency Formation Commission oversees boundary changes of cities and special districts. Its analysis is expected later this year.<\/p>\n San Diego is not alone in looking to find another way on water. Two small North County water districts recently divorced<\/a> from the water authority to join other agencies promising lower costs. However, the resolution, overseen by LAFCO, resulted in higher separation fees than district officials initially thought.<\/p>\n The proceedings were contentious, with the water authority filing a lawsuit<\/a> against LAFCO to stop the \u201cdetachment.\u201d<\/p>\n While districts may find less expensive water elsewhere, they would still be on the hook to pay a proportional share of fixed costs, particularly the billions in debt racked up by the water authority to guarantee reliable water. San Diego, the biggest member, likely would be responsible for the lion\u2019s share if it were to pull out.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, another county water authority member, the Sweetwater Authority, is exploring a groundwater desalination project to lessen its reliance \u2014 maybe entirely \u2014 on sales from the county water authority, according<\/a> to the Voice of San Diego.<\/p>\n The Sweetwater consideration comes at a time when projects to de-salt water have come under scrutiny. The Carlsbad desalination plant, which provides the county water authority with about 10 percent of its supply, has faced criticism for producing some of the most expensive water anywhere.<\/p>\n While taking rearguard action against the criticism, Denham said he believes the way forward is his \u201cNo. 1 priority: Get water to other places.\u201d<\/p>\n Opening markets across Southern California and the West would benefit San Diego, he said, by allowing the water authority to sell surplus water to districts in need. That big supply largely stems from much greater conservation by water users than officials projected when locking in projects and contracts to secure water more than two decades ago.<\/p>\n There were restrictions on such water transfers, but some of them were done away with earlier this year as part of a settlement<\/a> of a 15-year-long legal dispute between the water authority and the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District, of which the county water authority is a member.<\/p>\n Denham sent a letter on Monday to Metropolitan members offering them first right of refusal to buy 50,000 acre-feet of water next year. (An acre-foot is equivalent to 325,851 gallons). He said he had subsequent discussions with general managers of Metropolitan members.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also been talk of San Diego-Arizona water deals.<\/p>\n He said such transfers are the \u201csingle biggest thing\u201d the region could do to address the local cost of water.<\/p>\n \u201cI think that will give us breathing room to hold fast on rates,\u201d he said.\u00a0\u201c\u2026 I don\u2019t want to oversell it, but we have made progress in a short period of time.\u201d<\/p>\n He said nondisclosure agreements prohibit him from going into details.<\/p>\n Unloading unneeded water may help the finances of the water authority and its members in the long run. But that doesn\u2019t do much to douse the immediate rate-hike firestorm, especially in the city of San Diego. This comes after city officials have raised fees on trash collection and parking, among many other things, to address budget shortfalls.<\/p>\n Jim Madaffer, a city appointee to the water authority board and former council member, said in a Voice of San Diego commentary<\/a> that one way for the city to address water costs is to delay the multibillion-dollar Phase 2 of the Pure Water project. That was published the day before the council\u2019s contentious meeting on water rates and clearly stirred the pot.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s not a new idea. In April of 2024 city staff recommended a re-evaluation<\/a> of the Pure Water project, with one official saying \u201call parts of the Phase 2 plan are under consideration.\u201d<\/p>\n What they said<\/strong><\/p>\n Los Angeles Times (@latimes<\/a>).<\/p>\n