You are now in For the Record News category.

U-T Publishes Response to Errant Story on Water Issues

/in , /by by Water News Network Staff

The San Diego Union-Tribune on July 28 published and In Response article by Water Authority Board Chair Mark Muir that addressed a serious omission in a July 1 story about the cost of the regional water supply diversification strategy.

Said Muir: “Unfortunately, the story omitted clear-cut evidence that the region’s supply reliability strategy is an unqualified success: Our independent water supplies from the Colorado River are both less expensive and more reliable than supplies from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which have been cut twice in the past decade by drought.”

Click here to read Muir’s published response. In addition, the paper has posted two corrections to the story.

However, the paper’s In Response format didn’t allow enough space to address other substantive problems in the July 1 story that the Water Authority had raised with the U-T.

For instance, the story inaccurately presented MWD’s water costs, which are actually about 30 percent higher than cited in the story because MWD adds substantial fixed charges on top of its volumetric charges, requiring additional calculations to arrive at a valid comparison with the cost of water from the Water Authority’s other sources.

“Clearly, Water Authority investments in more reliable supplies and large-scale infrastructure have contributed to higher local water rates, and we have never said otherwise,” said Muir in the article submitted to the U-T that was edited for space constraints. “However, no factor has had a bigger impact on wholesale treated water rates in our region since 2008 than rate increases imposed on us by MWD – a fact that would have helped readers understand the value of reducing reliance on MWD.”

The story also failed to serve readers by presenting Steve Erie as an objective, disinterested academic. In fact, Erie has been a paid consultant and expert witness for MWD in two major lawsuits against the Water Authority. Mr. Erie is entitled to his opinions and the U-T is entitled to print them – but the paper should have disclosed his business relationship with MWD, in which he was paid $250 an hour for his services.

Finally, it’s important to note that the story significantly undercounted the amount of water produced locally. In 2020, for example, the Water Authority expects the San Diego region will generate 39 percent of its supplies locally (not 30 percent, as the article said).

“Converted to gallons, that’s approximately the annual production of the drought-proof Claude ‘Bud’ Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant – a critical component of a successful, cost-effective strategy to support our region’s economy and quality of life,” Muir said.

Delta Middle River - Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Photo: Dale Kolke / California Department of Water Resources WaterFix rates

For the Record: San Diego County Residents Face Steep Water Bill Increases from MWD

/in /by by Water News Network Staff

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has repeatedly said that the proposed $16.7 billion WaterFix project will cost homeowners $2 to $5 a month.

In reality, MWD’s own data and assumptions show the costs could be $21 a month for San Diego County homeowners when the project’s full debt payments are in effect. The costs would grow to more than $23 a month if MWD ends up paying more for the project – a real possibility given that the MWD board effectively gave the agency’s general manager a blank check for the project.

On April 10, MWD’s board committed $10.8 billion to the twin tunnels project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta to stabilize its supplies from the State Water Project. This authorization more than doubled its previous pledge. MWD’s own documents show there will be no increase in water supply compared to spending $5.2 billion for a single-tunnel project.

MWD’s costs will impact customers differently across Southern California, depending on how much water their local agencies purchase from MWD.

San Diego County bills also will be affected by how MWD decides to recover its costs through rates and charges. Traditionally, the state Department of Water Resources has characterized facilities like the WaterFix as supply costs, however, MWD’s planning documents suggest that it plans to recoup WaterFix costs through its transportation rates.

If WaterFix costs are allocated to MWD’s transportation rates, average monthly household bills in San Diego County could rise by $21 in coming years because the Water Authority uses MWD’s aqueduct to transport large volumes of non-MWD water from the Colorado River to San Diego County.

If MWD allocates its WaterFix costs as supplies, average monthly household bills in San Diego County would rise by 55 cents to 80 cents when the project is implemented because the Water Authority’s purchases of MWD supplies are expected to continue dropping significantly in coming decades.

All costs would rise if the overall project bill grows beyond current projections.

Commitment to cost-effective solutions

The Bay-Delta is the hub of the State Water Project, the nation’s largest state-built water conveyance system. That system has become less reliable in recent decades as the environment has deteriorated. San Diego County’s reliance on Bay-Delta supplies has decreased significantly in recent years due to the Water Authority’s successful strategy to develop locally controlled, drought-proof water supplies, and long-term water-use efficiency measures by homes and businesses across the region.

The Water Authority’s Board of Directors has long supported the development of a cost effective and environmentally sustainable Bay-Delta solution, and it has actively engaged in long-running discussions about how to address region’s complex environmental and water supply challenges. The Water Authority’s Board has not taken a formal position on WaterFix because of key unanswered questions about who would pay project costs.

The current projected cost for WaterFix is $16.7 billion, and MWD’s Board voted April 10 to pay 64.6 percent. However, MWD Board left the agency’s actual WaterFix payment to the “reasonable discretion and judgment” of its general manager, to whom the Board also gave sole authority over determining the project’s final cost.

The Water Authority’s delegates to MWD’s Board voted against the funding proposal because MWD did not provide sufficient cost-benefit analysis of the options or enough time to fully evaluate the recommendations. Delegates from cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica and San Fernando also voted against the proposal, which passed with 60.83 percent of the vote.