MWD Running Out of Time

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is in the vortex of a debate that could determine the adequacy of Southern California’s water supply for decades to come. Its ability to handle a welter of intertwined issues will determine whether the region will have the water it needs to sustain population and economic growth.

Metropolitan will succeed only if it abandons its mossback approach and asserts new leadership in cooperation with the broader water community. No matter how big the MWD may be, its we-know-best approach no longer works.

The very structure of the district might be at risk as lawmakers consider proposals to overhaul the agency’s unwieldy hierarchy. One legislative plan would junk the MWD’s existing 51-member board and replace it with an elected board of five to nine members.

Even the MWD’s few friends in the Legislature have found it hard to defend the agency against charges of political manipulation, mismanagement and a campaign to undermine a critical deal to shift water from the farms of the Imperial Valley to San Diego.

A low point came last month when a hostile Senate committee studying Metropolitan’s affairs called on officials to account for a reported cost overrun of up to $500 million on construction of a new reservoir in Riverside County. When they acknowledged that mistakes were made but insisted there was no wrongdoing, Sen. Steve Peace (D-San Diego) retorted with a barnyard expletive.

The good news is that the MWD has a new general manager after a six-month leadership vacuum. Ronald R. Gastelum, a former MWD attorney and executive of a waste management firm, soon will be under pressure to give final approval to the big San Diego-Imperial water trade, help negotiate a state water bond issue for the March 2000 ballot and work on a California plan to stop exceeding the state’s allocation of Colorado River water. The San Diego-Imperial trade is the key to fashioning California’s allocation plan. And if there is no trade, Peace says he will block the water facilities bond issue.

Gastelum’s challenge is to pursue a strong, consistent policy that will restore the agency’s public credibility and effectiveness. That is possible only if board members do what they are supposed to do--set broad policy--and let Gastelum manage the agency.