SHOULD PASADENA QUIT MWD? CHIEF HAHAMONGA HAS LAST LAUGH

Pasadena Sub Rosa ^ | Wayne Lusvardi

[WayneLusvardi]

Imagine your city is located next door to a valley water district with enough surplus water to meet your needs but instead your city imports about two-thirds of its water hundreds of miles from the Colorado River and the Sacramento Delta, and pays a premium price for it, resulting in environmental degradation in the process. Do you think this is wise policy for water rate payers in a city that praises itself for its Green City Action Plan?

Moreover, as your city conserves more water due to a purported drought, municipal water rates go up because of a decline in water sold, and the underground water basin in your city becomes depleted. Again, I ask you, is this rational water planning in a city which is continually advertising that it is preserving its natural watersheds?

The City of Pasadena is such a city. Pasadena's largest park, Hahamonga Park located in its famed watershed the Arroyo Seco, ironically means "land of flowing waters." But pregnant within the Indian word Hahamonga is the idiom "ha-ha," perhaps implying that flowing water in Pasadena is a joke. A street definition of Hahamonga may be "laughing waters" with Chief Hahamonga as a green version of The Joker.

The City of Pasadena is presently holding a series of workshops to gain political support for a continuation of the water status quo - de facto planned obsolescence of the Raymond Basin and greater reliance on costly imported water supplies -- all paradoxically justified in the name of environmental "sustainability."

If Pasadena, and its water special interests, were serious about sustainability it should at least consider another option -- opting out of the regional Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and instead buying surplus water from the nearby San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, as well as recharging the Raymond Basin.

Pasadena has historically been at the forefront of water planning, having been the progenitor of The Metropolitan Water District at historic meetings held at the Green Hotel about 100 years ago. The City of Pasadena and MWD are so intertwined that just the thought of bolting from MWD membership is no doubt unthinkable. But Pasadena's current dire water situation perhaps is reason to think outside the box.

Pasadena's and California's water systems are broken, perhaps beyond repair. Pasadena has recently mandated a once a week outdoor watering limit in response to a drought that is normal by historical measures. The longstanding water war between northern and southern California has resulted in nothing but a political logjam with no real solution in sight. And in Imperial County a Superior Court case has just begun challenging Southern California's allocation of Colorado River water. Due to all of the above, Pasadena is nearly back to where it started about 100 years ago with its water situation. Pasadena might as well consider starting all over again, at least as an exercise in worst-case contingency planning.

Additionally, the CEQA environmental clearance process is self-defeating as to the development of any new sources of water. CEQA makes it nearly prohibitive to consider building any new reservoir in a watershed that would add to our water supply. Only pure storage reservoirs in non-watersheds are able to vet through the tortuous environmental gauntlet. But even if we could build a new reservoir in a watershed where would we get an equal amount of water for environmental mitigation? Counting on new large water infrastructure projects such as the Peripheral Canal or the proposed "Sites" Reservoir may thus be a zero sum game that ends up as a cruel joke.

The policy question water planners and elite policy makers should be asking is not trendy environmental or partisan political questions but what is best for the long-term interests of Pasadena's water ratepayers and the natural environment which Pasadenans are passionate about.

That would mean putting on the planning table the possibility of eventually quitting the MWD and working out a deal to buy imported water from the nearby San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District which reportedly will have a potential surplus of water to sell in the near future. As SGVMWD cleans up its huge underground reservoir of water from pollution it is expected to have a surplus it could sell to others. Pasadena should be poised to consider such an arrangement, especially before others beat them to it.

Of course, this would mean that Pasadena would have to at least symbolically give up its historical role as a leader of water policy. It would mean abandoning the child it created, the MWD. It would mean having to give up some political power and stature on the larger stage of California's water politics. It would mean having to partially abandon the water conservation policies and politics it has embraced as nothing but a "dry hole." It would possibly mean having to sever its strong ties to the Sierra Club with its dead end conservation policies. It would mean giving up all the power and privileges it gets from being a member agency of MWD. It would mean giving up having its MWD Board Member as the present Chairman of the Board of MWD. The entrapments of power are the major impediment to any consideration of quitting MWD.

The technocrats in the water industry will likely laugh at any such notion of quitting MWD with replies that it just can't be done. The MWD Board would likely ask for a stranded asset termination fee for reducing its rate base (but also reducing its water demand burden). MWD's Board would demand a "wheeling fee" to use its pipelines to ship water from SGVMWD to PWP. But all these technical and legal details could be worked out if there was political will to do so.

MWD has reached an historical juncture and is a shell of its former self. It has a history of losing nearly every large court case and political battle (Arizona vs. California case, Peripheral Canal vote, etc.). Five years ago MWD got two-thirds of its water from the Colorado River and one-third from the Sacramento Delta. Now those percentages are reversed. MWD has evolved into nothing but another state agency subject to California's dysfunctional politics. It has been unable to develop new affordable water sources. MWD is moribund and Pasadena should reconsider its long-term relationship.

On the power side of the water and power equation, Pasadena is considering opting out of its long-term arrangement with the Intermountain coal-fired power plant in Utah. It should consider something similar only with its wholesale water supplier as part of its Integrated Water Plan.

Pasadena doesn't need an "Integrated Water Resources Plan" as much as it may need a water "disintegration" plan or "reintegration" plan.

Pasadena may continue with the water status quo which will include drought, geyser-like water rates, once a week watering, de facto depletion of the Raymond Basin, and gradual degradation of its natural resources. In which case the last laugh ("ha-ha") will be on us or among us (Hahamonga).

[SunkenCiv]

Imagine your city is located next door to a valley water district with enough surplus water to meet your needs but instead your city imports about two-thirds of its water hundreds of miles from the Colorado River and the Sacramento Delta, and pays a premium price for it, resulting in environmental degradation in the process. Do you think this is wise policy for water rate payers in a city that praises itself for its Green City Action Plan? Moreover, as your city conserves more water due to a purported drought, municipal water rates go up because of a decline in water sold, and the underground water basin in your city becomes depleted.