The California Water Crisis

It may have poured buckets of rain water on the weekend of Jan. 5 throughout California, but experts say it won't be enough to stifle the water shortage the state is facing.

In fact, the Metropolitan Water District, which serves six counties and some 18 million people, met Jan. 7 to discuss a contingency plan that would have the MWD adopting a water formula for the first time in its existence.

The heavy storm, which had the Federal Emergency Management Agency in preparedness mode with local and state officials through the weekend, was a warm welcome for the state which had an unusually dry fall and winter in 2006 and a relatively dry 2007. It may have allowed some in the state to be disillusioned by the fact that the water crisis is a huge deal that will not be covered up by a weekend's worth of rainy day weather.

The water contingency plan that MWD board members discussed, would reduce water use by using a formula that allots a certain amount of water to each city or agency under the MWD's jurisdiction. If a city or agency goes over that allotment by up to 10 percent, they would be charged $1,347 per acre-foot (as opposed to the $508 per acre-foot). A larger penalty fee would be given for exceeding the allotment by more than 10 percent.

In addition to possibly adopting a formula, the MWD is also considering rate increases between 10 percent and 20 percent that would be implemented as early as next year.

Water allotment to cities would be based on retail customers, the population, local water supplies and conservation efforts among several other factors.

The new measures the Board is currently discussing have already come under fire by those within the Metropolitan Water District's rule, that say they would be shortchanged if the new rules are adopted.

Many are arguing that the new formula would only benefit newer suburbs, while older communities lose out.

Indeed, there are some issues with some of the rules. For example, the base years for deciding who gets cuts in their water supplies based on conservation efforts, would be 2004 to 2006. However, it does not take an expert to know that cities have been implementing conservation efforts well before 2004.

California has faced serious drought issues throughout the years. (After all, Los Angeles was a desert before it was a major city.) The argument that newer cities and the wealthy would benefit more from the formula is, in a lot of ways, just a cop-out and easy way to attack what the MWD is attempting to do. It is absurd to argue that the Metropolitan Water District is out to shortchange minorities and low-income residents, which is what some people are arguing.

Everyone is probably in agreement in recognizing that something has to be done about water usage throughout the state. Slinging around accusations isn't going to help anyone address the water shortage issue any faster.