The California Water Commission’s recent

Yet after harsh droughts for much of this century, state voters were ready for a new direction in 2014. They approved Proposition 1, a measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature which allowed for the issuing of up to $7.1 billion in state bonds for water infrastructure projects. After a lengthy review process, nearly 40 percent of these funds were allocated by the water commission last week for eight projects with the potential to add enough water capacity to serve more than 5 million households a year.

But skeptics have already made the case that by far the single biggest project – the Sites Reservoir in rural Colusa County north of Sacramento – actually suffered a setback in the water commission’s deliberations.

If built as envisioned, the project by itself would have been responsible for more than 60 percent of additional water storage statewide. Yet after the complex “public benefit” assessments that water commissioners used to decide how much each proposal got in bond funds, only $816 million was designated for the $5.2 billion Sites project – much less than advocates hoped. This means at the least that local water agencies and their ratepayers will have to pony up more more than they had hoped for construction.

This led Jim Watson, general manager of the Sites Project Authority, to tell the Sacramento Bee that it was possible that major changes lay ahead. If participating water agencies balk at higher costs, in the “worst case, we could build a smaller reservoir,” he said.

Commission, regulators differ on water availability

Yet the Sites Reservoir’s prospects are complicated by other factors as well. Key details of the reservoir’s construction plan have so far faced little direct criticism from environmentalists – perhaps surprising for what would be the biggest new reservoir to be built in California since the 1970s.

But as a Bee analysis noted, some environmentalists question the basic wisdom of the project. They cite the schism between the Water Commission’s conclusion that Sites could divert 500,000 acre-feet of water from the nearby Sacramento River each year and warnings from some state regulators that less water – not more – should be diverted from the river and the ecologically fragile Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta (pictured).

One more obstacle also has less to do with Sites itself than the state’s fraught water policy fights. Critics of Gov. Jerry Brown’s California WaterFix plan – meant to shore up the state’s north-south water conveyance system – see Sites as an integral and thus objectionable part of Brown’s proposal.

The $17 billion project would build two 40-foot-wide tunnels to pump water from the Sacramento River some 35 miles south, where it would reach the water distribution network that allows wetter Northern California to provide much of the water used in desert-like Southern California.

The project appeared to be on the ropes until April, when the giant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California voted to commit its member agencies to covering $10.8 billion of the WaterFix tab – nearly two-thirds the total cost.

Brown is trying to win final approval of the project before leaving office in January. But Northern California environmental groups, local water agencies and farming industry groups are in a pitched battle to stall any final decision until after a new governor is elected.

Both remaining gubernatorial candidates – heavily favored Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, and Republican businessman John Cox of Rancho Santa Fe – are highly unlikely to embrace WaterFix if elected. Newsom thinks a smaller project makes more sense, and Cox is flatly opposed, according to the Restore The Delta website, which tracks candidates’ remarks on Delta issues.

Years of lobbying for what the Brown administration dubbed the WaterFix project had produced more indifference and outright opposition than support. The $16.7 billion plan would build two 35-mile-long, 40-foot-high tunnels to take water south from the Sacramento River to the State Water Project pumps in the town of Tracy. The governor argued that this would sharply reduce the intermittent heavy pumping that played havoc with endangered species in the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and would firm up supplies both for Central Valley farmers and the 20 million-plus residents of Southern California.

But in September, the board of the Westlands Water District – which serves 600,000 acres of farmland in King and Fresno counties and is the largest U.S. agricultural district – voted 7-1 against providing about $3 billion for the project. Westlands officials trashed claims made for WaterFix, questioning whether it would actually stabilize the Delta ecosystem and predicting cost overruns.

In November, the Trump administration announced that the federal government would not provide any financial assistance to get the project built. While the Interior Department statement was not unexpected, it contributed to the sense the WaterFix proposal was foundering. By February, Brown administration officials had put the word out they would accept building only one tunnel under the delta and adding a second later.

MWD backed scaled-back project, then changed mind

The death of the original plan appeared confirmed on April 2 when officials with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California – the giant, politically powerful water wholesaler serving 19 million people – issued a memo expressing support for the one-tunnel option. The rationale: a lack of a consensus for the two-tunnel plan among the water districts south of Sacramento that would need to pay for the project.

But after intense lobbying by the Brown administration, on April 10, the MWD board voted by a 3-to-2 margin to endorse the two-tunnels project and to agree to pay for about two-thirds of the tab – about $10.8 billion. The weighted vote, based on the size of individual agencies, came over the objections of the MWD board’s single largest member, the San Diego County Water Authority.

Momentum continued to build last Wednesday when the board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District – the biggest water agency in Silicon Valley – voted 4-3 to commit its 2 million ratepayers to pay up to $650 million for the project, or nearly 4 percent of the total tab. Santa Clara officials had previously narrowly opposed providing funding.

On Thursday, Brown hailed the decision in a speech to a conference of the Association of California Water Agencies in Sacramento. But the governor also warned that the project still had big obstacles that went beyond getting more water districts to agree to share construction costs. He noted that state and federal regulators still had yet to issue required permits.

On this front, WaterFix may face more skepticism in Brown’s backyard than in Washington. As CalWatchdog reported last year, the Trump administration gave a key senior Interior Department post to Colorado lawyer David Bernhardt, a veteran of California water wars and a critic of the federal government’s traditionally high-profile role in land-use decisions in Western states.

Meanwhile, the California Water Resources Control Board has sided with environmentalists in a long list of previous decisions. In filings with the state board, Restore the Delta and several other environmental groups have challenged the governor’s project on its central claim: that it improves the health of the Delta ecosystem.

Even if the state and federal permits are granted, the tunnels plan still faces hurdles. The Bay Area News Group reported last week that more than two dozen state and federal lawsuits had been filed against the project.

With a seeming vote of confidence from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California – the giant agency that supplies water to about half the state’s 38 million residents – Gov. Jerry Brown appears set to soldier ahead with his $17 billion plan to build two 35-mile-long tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Brown’s view that the tunnels are crucial both to stabilize the Delta ecosystem and to shore up the state’s water distribution system was rejected last week by the board of the Westlands Water District, which voted 7-1 against joining in the “California WaterFix” project. Westlands – the nation’s largest agricultural water district with 600,000 acres of farmland in Fresno and Kings counties – had been counted on to cover about $3 billion of the project’s total cost.

But Westlands officials voted “no” after expressing concern both about the high price-tag they’d have to pay and about whether WaterFix truly would make water supplies more consistent and reliable. The water district was the first in the state to decide on whether to sign up for the project, and its decisive early opposition appeared to stun some supporters.

This led to reports that Brown’s legacy project could be all but dead by Oct. 10, when the MWD is scheduled to vote on whether to participate. The agency is expected to cover $4 billion of the project’s cost.

But on Tuesday, MWD leaders indicated that at least for now, they were still supportive. Board member Larry McKenney said it was in MWD’s interest to try to promote confidence in the project going forward, according to a Sacramento Bee report. MWD shares Brown’s view that the project is crucial for long-term water distribution reliability.

Brown’s would-be successors cool to his plan

Yet the MWD reprieve might not save the day for WaterFix. For months, Sacramento insiders have noted that Brown appears far more enthusiastic about the project than other significant players in state politics – including those running to succeed him as governor next year.

Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton reported Tuesday that Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Treasurer John Chiang and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had each expressed doubts about the project. Newsom and Chiang worried about its environmental impact on the Delta and beyond, while Villaraigosa suggested bold new conservation programs should be tried to see if they could save enough water to make the tunnels unnecessary.

But even if the Westlands district, Newsom, Chiang and Villaraigosa were all on the WaterFix bandwagon, its future would hardly be assured. Environmentalists have a long history of suing and winning over California water policies. In June, they filed the first two of what could be several federal lawsuits targeting Brown’s project in response to a preliminary go-ahead given by the Trump administration.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Defenders of Wildlife, the Bay Institute and the Golden Gate Salmon Association alleged that the project would wipe out salmon, smelt and other fish and would worsen water quality not just in the Delta but the San Francisco Bay.

While the Trump administration gave initial approval to WaterFix, it too could prove a wildcard. House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield and other GOP lawmakers from California have urged the White House to challenge water allocation policies they have long argued favor Delta fish over human beings.

While it didn’t register as significant news in California, Trump’s nomination of David Bernhardt to the No. 2 job in the Interior Department this spring suggested changes in how the federal government deals with water in the Golden State could be in the offing.

As CalWatchdog reported in June, Bernhardt is a Colorado-based partner in Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a law firm which has represented the Westlands Water District in federal lawsuits targeting Interior Department policies. This background and other concerns led 43 Senate Democrats to vote against his confirmation in July.

The California Supreme Court cleared a big obstacle to Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to tunnel more Delta water out of Northern California, allowing the Southland’s Metropolitan Water District to proceed with the purchase of estuary islands that would be key to speeding up construction. 

“The previous owner, Delta Wetlands, an affiliate of a Swiss insurer, had wanted to build reservoirs on the islands to market water to areas south of the Delta,” according to the Sacramento Bee. “The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t settle Metropolitan’s legal fight over the pending sale,” however, as the Bee observed, allowing San Joaquin’s lawsuit to go forward along with a separate suit arguing “that Delta Wetlands signed a contract that requires future buyers to abide by the negotiated settlements.”

Nevertheless, Brown’s plan has already gained strength under the ruling. “Two of the islands are in the path of the proposed $15-billion tunnel system, a project that MWD supports,” the Los Angeles Times noted. “MWD ownership of the islands would eliminate the need for eminent domain proceedings and provide easy access for construction crews on part of the project route.”

Environmental uncertainty

Still, a somewhat cagey WMD quickly left the fate of the tunnel project, which would promise a massive and controversial undertaking even under the best circumstances, up in the air. “An MWD spokesman reiterated Friday that the agency has not proposed a project for the land,” the Times reported.  

“In the past, the district has said the 20,000 acres could be converted to fish and wildlife habitat or used to store materials for emergency levee repairs. They have also said the islands could be used to provide access for the construction of the tunnel system, which would carry Sacramento River water under the delta to the pumping operations that send supplies south.”

The court decision marked yet another turn in fortunes for the proposed deal, reversing a lower court’s own prior change of course. “One day after lifting a temporary order that blocked the sale, the state’s Third District Court of Appeal reinstated the stay, preventing the big Metropolitan Water District from completing the $175 million purchase of the islands,” as the San Jose Mercury News reported.

In addition to eminent domain and breach of contract issues, MWD quickly faced staunch opposition to the prospect of tunnel construction on environmental grounds. Opponents, including “Contra Costa and San Joaquin counties, environmentalists, and Delta land owners,” argued “the tunnels will be used to export more Delta water to Southern California, and they assert that an environmental impact report should be done before the land sale is allowed,” the Mercury News added. In response, MWD claimed “there is no reason to stop the sale nor require an environmental report because no formal plan has been filed to use the island properties in a water project.”

Racing the clock

For now, that argument has helped suffice to keep the deal moving forward. But by the time all the issues and controversies surrounding the ownership and use of the islands have finally been adjudicated, the political landscape in Sacramento could well be remade. Officials told the Times it could take “months or even years until all the legal challenges to the purchase are resolved,” placing the go-ahead for Brown’s tunnel project outside the reach of Brown himself, who is termed out of the governor’s office this year.

But Brown has moved perhaps as decisively as possible to hurry things along, bringing on former Clinton secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to tip the Bay Area scales in Brown’s favor. Babbitt has remained “friends with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among the most influential voices on the topic, and has access to partisans in the San Joaquin Valley and in Southern California,” Dan Morain recently noted at the Bee. “One of Babbitt’s chief aides at Interior was Jay Ziegler. Now, Ziegler is policy director for The Nature Conservancy, one of the most influential environmentalist groups on water issues. In the Clinton years, Babbitt’s undersecretary was John Garamendi. As the Democratic congressman who represents the Delta, Garamendi is a pointed critic of Brown’s tunnel project.”

“It’s already a less dire situation, given the precipitation we have received so far this winter. But it would have to rain almost every day — storm after storm after storm — in March for there to be no drought rules this summer,” Max Gomberg, a top official with the State Water Resources Control Board, told the San Jose Mercury-News.

A Los Angeles-based National Weather Service official, however, wasn’t ready to give El Nino much credit for providing relief. Meteorologist David Sweet told the Los Angeles Times that downtown L.A. had actually received only about half the normal 10 inches of rain it would typically get from Oct. 1 to the end of February. This contradicts the expectations of weather authorities, the Times noted:

“Though experts predicted that the Pacific warming phenomenon known as El Niño could bring consecutive downpours to Southern California between January and March — now some say as late as April — nothing of the sort has occurred since the first week of the year.”

Dry south benefits from heavy rains in north

Nevertheless, this dry period isn’t as bad news for the region as it might seem because the giant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California gets 30 percent of its water from Northern California via the State Water Project’s 444-mile-long aqueduct. As of Feb. 22, the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which feeds the state water system, was 94 percent of normal.

Meanwhile, a Monterey-based National Weather Service forecaster thinks El Nino could have a March rally.

“There was a lot of hopeful anticipation that we were going to end the drought this winter, and that we’ll be able to wash our cars and water our lawns,” Bob Benjamin told the Mercury-News. “People are saying what happened to the floods? I bought all these sandbags. But remember: the winter is not over. There is still a good potential for us to reach or exceed our normal rainfall this year.”

Stanford climate scientist Daniel Swain, writing for KQED earlier this month, isn’t so sure. Swain says this El Nino has been much different than past events:

Northern California and the Pacific Northwest have gotten soaked, while Southern California has been left pretty dry (with a few notable exceptions). While a veritable “parade of storms” has indeed inundated the northern reaches of the state with very heavy precipitation … even leading to some minor flooding at times, many of California’s most populous cities haven’t witnessed an especially remarkable winter to date. … [T]his isn’t quite the blockbuster year that many had hoped for (especially in the south).

The result is likely to be another year of pressure from water officials to keep showers short, let lawns go brown and wash vehicles less often.

Southern Californians who received cash rebates for replacing their lawns with drought-tolerant landscaping will soon get a federal tax form in the mail reporting the amount, but water officials said Thursday it is still not clear whether the reimbursement will be taxable.

 

Officials from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California — which funded a $340 million incentive program — say they are sending 1099 forms to turf rebate recipients of $600 or more and leaving reporting up to participants and their tax advisers.

 

“We’re doing what we believe is our obligation, which is sending the 1099s,” said Deven Upadhyay, an MWD manager. Recipients “would have to work with their own tax adviser in terms of the way that they might characterize it in terms of the way they file their own taxes.”

 

This would affect most of those who received rebates, Upadhyay said, though he did not give an exact number. The average residential rebate totals about $3,000, according to MWD data. In some cases, residents received rebates of more than $70,000.

 

MWD spokesman Bob Muir said the agency believes the rebates should be “tax-free.”

 

California provides a tax exemption for turf removal rebates, but the federal tax code provides an exemption only for rebates related to energy efficiency, officials said.

‘Strategic’ water conservation promoted

The peculiarity here is that the federal government has been formally committed to promoting water conservation for decades, since long before warnings about the West’s expected “mega-drought” began. This is from a 1998 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overview of federal conservation policy:

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300j-15), as amended in 1996, requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish guidelines for use by water utilities in preparing a water conservation plan. …

 

These Water Conservation Plan Guidelines are addressed to water system planners but use of the Guidelines is not required by federal law or regulation. States decide whether or not to require water systems to file conservation plans consistent with these or any other guidelines. …

 

The infrastructure needs of the nation’s water systems are great. Strategic use of water conservation can help extend the value and life of infrastructure assets used in both water supply and wastewater treatment, while also extending the beneficial investment of public funds through the SRF and other programs.

L.A. controller calls program a ‘gimmick’

But there’s another twist to this story. The MWD program that many L.A. and water officials want to be federal tax-free doesn’t appear to be very effective, according to a Los Angeles city audit released in November:

Los Angeles’ turf rebate program saved less water per dollar spent than other Department of Water and Power conservation programs, an audit released by the city controller said Friday.

 

Auditors found that money spent for rebates on items such as high-efficiency appliances yielded a water savings almost five times higher than turf replacement. …

 

City Controller Ron Galperin called on the water provider to focus its conservation programs in order to achieve more sustained and cost-effective water savings. …

 

In fiscal year 2014-15, the DWP spent $40.2 million on customer incentive and rebate programs, Galperin’s office said. Nearly $17.8 million of that went to turf rebates. Each dollar invested in turf rebates is expected to save 350 gallons of water over the estimated 10-year “life expectancy” of residential turf replacement, the audit said.

 

In comparison, the department spent $14.9 million on rebates for high-efficiency appliances and fixtures. Those rebates yield a per-dollar savings of more than 1,700 gallons of water over their estimated lifetimes of up to 19 years, Galperin’s office said.

 

The turf rebate program “had value as a gimmick that … probably spurred a heightened awareness,” Galperin said at a news conference, adding: “It’s the job of my office to look at return on investment.”

That’s from a Nov. 20 Times story.

Visitors to Rough & Tumble, the insider-beloved news aggregator devoted to California politics and government, generally see two or three flashing ads under its masthead. This month, two are always on view. One touts the Cabinet Report education website. The other asks, “Is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Over-Charging You?” Those who click on the latter ad are taken to a website run by the San Diego water agency, mwdfacts.com, packed with unflattering reports about MWD, its leaders and its history.

You could call it a 21st-century version of “Chinatown” — hardball water politics going places no one has gone before.

MWD targeted San Diego officials at least twice

The MWD-San Diego feud began in the early 1990s when San Diego officials responded to being squeezed on supplies during a severe drought by seeking to hugely diversify where they got water, starting with obtaining some of the massive allotment going to agriculture in Imperial County. MWD took this decision from its largest client as an outrageous affront and launched what the Los Angeles Times later called a “clandestine effort to discredit San Diego County water leaders,” a well-funded campaign in which communications firms were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to push stories that the county agency was betraying its residents by forcing them to pay more for water than necessary.

San Diego County Water Authority leaders also alleged that MWD had launched another conspiratorial campaign against the agency more recently. In 2014, documents obtained by the authority showed MWD had orchestrated one of its member agencies’ public-relations campaign against the San Diego agency while denying involvement.

The San Diego County Water Authority was 95 percent reliant on MWD supplies in 1991. This year, it says 49 percent of the water it delivers to 3.2 million people comes from MWD, and that figure will drop even more in coming months when the Carlsbad desalination plant, the largest in the Western Hemisphere, goes online. MWD has never wavered from its primary criticism of the San Diego approach: that it forces customers to use much more expensive supplies without solid reasons.

Filling reservoirs during a drought

But the San Diego agency’s record in dealing with the state’s lengthy drought has made charges of incompetence tough to stick. The only reason the San Diego region is making big cuts in water usage is because Gov. Jerry Brown issued a statewide decree. The San Diego County agency announced this spring that it believed it had supplies to cover 99 percent of normal demand in fiscal 2016, which started July 1. This fact, combined with the state-mandated reduction in water use, has led to an unusual phenomenon: One of California’s largest water agencies is steadily filling its reservoirs in the middle of a historic and destructive drought.

The San Diego agency has also enjoyed legal success against MWD after years of claims of systematic overcharging. In a preliminary judgment issued in July and ratified in August, a San Francisco Superior Court judge awarded the the county water authority $188.3 million plus interest for MWD overcharges from 2011-2014. An MWD appeal is considered a certainty.

The Palm Springs region and its 400,000 residents and 124 golf courses aren’t gobbling up an extreme chunk of Colorado River supplies, as many assume. It’s blessed with huge underground aquifers that are tapped with an efficient water infrastructure that has drawn admiring looks for decades. Its residents, tourism industry and business community have deeply benefited from state laws that require water rates to be linked to the actual cost of providing water.

This is from a 1991 Los Angeles Times story during the last major California drought:

PALM SPRINGS — Like a mirage lurking in a dip in the highway, Palm Springs shimmers enticingly atop the Sonoran Desert, an impossibly green splotch on a canvas of tawny brown.

 

Outside the city, the flat, sandy landscape is broken only rarely by scraggly tamarisk trees, yucca plants and pathetic shrubs twisted by relentless desert winds.

 

But in town it’s another world, with lush grass and petunias lining the boulevards, fountains gurgling outside local landmarks and shaggy palms swaying soothingly in the breeze. There are even misters on several restaurant patios, which shower diners with a fine, tropical spray.

 

For visitors from drought-stressed corners of California, the dramatic contrast provokes instant suspicion: Is this artificial oasis hogging water while folks in other regions are skipping showers?

 

It does look suspicious, but appearances can be deceiving. The truth is, Palm Springs — which gets just 5 inches of rain annually and sweats out 120-degree temperatures most summers — sits atop a vast sea of ground water, which has been carefully managed and now insulates the city from the effects of drought.

Water rates a fraction of coastal cities

During the current drought, Palm Springs water officials are keeping a lower profile — and for good reason. The state government’s announcement Friday that it will put on hold some of the old rules that governed water apportionment in the Central Valley could foreshadow a full-on attack on labyrinth rules that assign water rights in thousands of communities.

But one still sees stories in the local press that underscore how much different — and better — things are in Palm Springs. Some articles in the Desert Sun talk about city officials stepping up water conservation efforts, but they seem to be more about creating a sympathetic appearance than in response to an actual need for conservation.

Articles such as this 2013 piece raise long-term concerns about overpumping, but they aren’t remotely as daunting as analyses looking at the state’s long-term water-supply picture. That’s because they include facts such as these:

The state Department of Water Resources in 1964 estimated that the aquifer, in the first 1,000 feet below ground, had a total capacity of at least 39.2 million acre-feet. Based on that estimate, the aquifer has lost about 13.5 percent of the total since the 1970s.

That’s not good news. But it’s nothing like the problems facing coastal water agencies and those in the Central Valley.

This hugely favorable status quo is why rates at the Desert Water Agency have barely budged in recent years. With a base rate of from $1.16 to $1.83 per 100 cubic feet of drinking water, depending on the community, Coachella Valley water bills are far less than those in San Diego County, which are based on a rate of over $4 per 100 cubic feet, or San Francisco (over $5).

Will we see water power plays?

Water politics in California have been fraught and ugly for decades. The movie “Chinatown” reflects the cutthroat atmosphere of 80 years ago, but the tactics of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in the 1990s are also jaw-dropping. When its largest client — the San Diego County Water Authority — began looking for new supplies, the MWD undertook what the Los Angeles Times called a “clandestine effort to discredit San Diego County water leaders.”

So it wouldn’t be surprising to see wealthy communities in Silicon Valley and the MWD agitate for a statewide market in water, disguising a grab for cheaper water supplies as a “for the greater good” policy change. The economic argument for such markets is clean and lean. But the history of California was shaped by the complex water rights system left over from a century ago. There would be no Palm Springs as we now know it if water rates in the region were affected by outside factors.

A change in basic water rights isn’t just an existential threat to the economy of the Coachella Valley. It would imperil Imperial Country, the mini-agricultural juggernaut in the state’s southeastern corner that thrives because of cheap, grandfathered water rights.

Brutal battles loom in coming years. But in the short term, what we’re likely to see is more bureaucratic maneuvers. This is from the L.A. Daily News via the San Jose Mercury-News:

“… as the long hot summer drags on, more curtailments are likely to affect those who hold even older rights,” said Caren Trgovcich, the board’s deputy director.

“We are continuing to evaluate the hydrology in watersheds. There could be additional action” as early as next Friday, she said.

The mayors, city managers and city council members in the Coachella Valley and Imperial County are likely to be paying close attention.

But almost none of the coverage has reflected the fact that formal, official planning has been going on for years for one of the world’s largest desal plants along the coast of the Camp Pendleton Marine base in north San Diego County. Any construction is years off, but necessary preparatory work is well under way.

The image above of a proposed desal plant there comes from a 2010 presentation by the San Diego County Water Authority. It shows how sky-high water planners are on the potential of the 17-mile Camp Pendleton coast. Attention is now focused on a site in the southwest corner of the 125,000-acre base, just north of Oceanside and about 20 miles north of the Carlsbad desalination plant that is scheduled to open in coming months.

The Carlsbad plant will be the biggest in the Western Hemisphere and is expected to produce 50 million gallons of water a day — 7 percent of the San Diego region’s needed supply.

The Camp Pendleton project would be far bigger, with desalination experts saying 150 million gallons of water a day is realistic. That would make it one of the largest desal plants in the world.

A Saudi Arabian desalination plant will produce 264 million gallons a day when its first phase is complete, Bloomberg News reports.

A 2009 San Diego County Water Authority report didn’t take it for granted that the Pendleton project’s supplies are needed. It spoke of only expanding the project to the full 150 million gallons a day “as supply and demand conditions warranted.”

After four years of drought, there’s not much doubt that California needs far more reliable water sources — especially in the San Diego region, given that local water officials have spent 20-plus years fighting with the giant Metropolitan Water District over supply and costs.

The water mega-wholesaler has long opposed San Diego’s efforts to diversify its water supply by partnering with Poseidon, a private company, to build the Carlsbad plant and by striking a deal to shift Colorado River water from agricultural uses in Imperial County to supplies for homes and businesses in San Diego County.

Utility pressure

In Los Angeles, for example, public utility officers have sought in vain for leniency from Sacramento. “We have voiced concern that we’re not getting credit for our track record,” Marty Adams, director of water operations at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, told Al Jazeera America. “Whatever the state water board decides in early May will not change the fact that the Metropolitan Water District, southern California’s water supplier, plans to vote next week to ration water it sells to 26 cities, including Los Angeles,” it reported.

In a decision affecting some 19 million residents from L.A. County to Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties, the Metropolitan Water District recently voted in “cutbacks that would slash supplies to its member cities and agencies by 15 percent,” according to NBC4 Los Angeles.

“The cuts in water allocation to local districts were approved by an MWD committee on Monday and the full board Tuesday. The move marks only the fourth time the MWD has cut back on supplying water.”

“Southern California has led the way in water conservation for more  than 20 years, and now we’re asking people to do significantly more,” said chairman Randy Record, according to NBC4. “We know it will be difficult, but we’re in an unprecedented drought.”

Notwithstanding years of conservation, both L.A. and its surrounding areas have had to propose twisting the taps tighter — even though, Fox News reported, “the governor’s order directs the State Water Resources Control Board to take such efforts into consideration in setting specific reduction goals.” Under Brown’s orders, “the State Water Resources Control Board released draft reduction targets for more than 400 water agencies that must cut their water use by anywhere from 10 percent to 35 percent. The targets are based on per-capita water use.”

Court controversy

For one group of Southern California residents, however, the new rules proved too much to take. In San Capistrano, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the use of tiered water pricing. The prospect of a favorable ruling from the Orange County appeals court currently deciding the case has put observers and officials on edge, as the Los Angeles Times reported:

“If the 4th District Court of Appeal rules in favor of the plaintiffs, water districts that use similar tiered rate structures could be sued on similar grounds if they don’t change how they charge. Water districts located in appeals districts outside of Orange County would not technically be bound by the decision, but water lawyers are likely to rely on it as they argue future cases[.]”

The suit has placed the decisions of both the DWP and MWD at risk. But according to experts, the Times suggested, the utilities could choose to rejigger pricing according to the source of residents’ water.

Fracking safe

One usage of water that Brown has decided to defend, however, is fracking. Faced with environmentalist criticism over the practice, which forces water deep into the ground to break up rock that prevents drilling access (hence its full name, hydraulic fracturing.) Although critics have blamed fracking for using up to 70 million gallons of water last year, Brown has insisted that the practice impacts the drought in a minor way.

“Fracking in California has been going on for more than 50 years,” Brown told Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. “It uses a fraction of the water of fracking on the East Coast, for gas, particularly.”