Support for LAist comes from
Local and national news, NPR, things to do, food recommendations and guides to Los Angeles, Orange County and the Inland Empire
Stay Connected
Listen

Share This

KPCC Archive

How much might 'the California Water Fix' cost LA?

The California Aqueduct carries water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to Southern California as urgent calls for California residents to conserve water grow.
The California Aqueduct carries water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to Southern California as urgent calls for California residents to conserve water grow.
(
David McNew / Getty Images
)

Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.

A Los Angeles City Council committee heard public debate Tuesday over the amount that a massive project known as the California Water Fix could add to the water bills of local ratepayers.

According to a study by the city’s Office of Public Accountability/Ratepayer Advocate, it could be as little as $1.73 per month. But project opponent cite an independent study concluding the cost could be more than $7 a month.

The California Water Fix is an $18 billion to $26 billion proposal to build giant underground tunnels to route Sacramento River water under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The water would flow into the California Aqueduct for use by farms and homes to the south. The idea is to keep the river water out of the Delta to protect the Delta ecosystem and improve the quality and amount of water coming to users in Central and Southern California.

Members of the council’s Energy, Climate Change and Environmental Justice Committee were not ready Tuesday to vote on the whether to recommend the city support the project.

Support for LAist comes from

City Councilman Paul Krekorian, who represents parts of the San Fernando Valley, says he’s not sold on the idea.

“There’s a lot of things that we have to invest in, and this is only one of them. And I just don’t know if it’s the best one,” Krekorian told the committee. Councilwoman Nury Martinez, who chairs the committee, had asked that any vote on the project be delayed until its next meeting, Sept. 19.

The plan goes before the Metropolitan Water District board in late September.

Representatives of Food & Water Watch, Los Angeles Waterkeeper, Consumer Watchdog and Southern California Watershed Alliance sent a letter to Martinez on Monday calling the project a “colossal waste of public dollars for a project that will not bring any new water to Los Angeles."

Meanwhile, business groups like the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Valley Industry Commerce Association and a few union groups spoke in favor of the project because it would support a continued water supply for the region and potentially create new jobs.

The Office of Public Accountability, which reviews DWP actions from a ratepayer advocacy perspective, said the Water Fix project would be affordable to Los Angeles households.

The project would add about $1.73 to the monthly $60 water bill of the median single family household, said Fred Pickel, executive director of the OPA.

Support for LAist comes from

Single-family households would be paying between 87 cents and $4.31 per month in added costs, when other contributions such as property taxes and DWP water charges are included in the calculations, Pickel’s report said.

That $1.73 per month estimate is quite a bit lower than the $5 per month added cost estimate put out by the project’s advocates.

Pickel’s lower estimate is based on the expectation that the city’s reliance on imported water will diminish in future years and that by 2040 it would receive only 2.1 percent of the water the tunnel project delivers.  The added cost of the project would be paid proportionally by the water agencies that receive the water, with those costs passed on to ratepayers.

But opponents disagree with that assumption. Consumer Watchdog, for example, says the estimate understates the cost to households because it does not include expenses like interest, operating costs and construction overruns. 

The OPA report assumed potential cost overruns of 36 percent, and does, in fact, include interest and operating expenses, Pickel said.

As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.

Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.

We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.

No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.

Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.

Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

Chip in now to fund your local journalism
A row of graphics payment types: Visa, MasterCard, Apple Pay and PayPal, and  below a lock with Secure Payment text to the right
(
LAist
)

Trending on LAist