Del Mar Council supports lawsuit against Metropolitan Water District

By Claire Harlin

The Del Mar City Council on Feb. 21 voted unanimously to support the San Diego County Water Authority’s (SDCWA) rate challenge lawsuit against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), in which a Superior Court judge on Feb. 17 reaffirmed an order granting discovery in the case.

SDCWA spokesman Dennis Cushman presented the issue to the council in what Councilman Don Mosier described as a “convincing argument.” In its lawsuit, SDCWA claims the water district illegally overcharges San Diego County ratepayers tens of millions of dollars annually for the transportation of water and also forces the county to subsidize the water costs of MWD’s other 25 member agencies. Cushman estimated the overcharges add up to about $40 million, and 55 percent of water costs in this region comes from payments to MWD, a consortium of 26 cities and water districts that provides drinking water to nearly 19 million people in several Southern California counties.

The lawsuit also claims MWD breached a 2003 contract with the water authority in which it pledged to follow applicable law in charging for water transportation, and it challenges MWD’s imposition of a contract provision that SDCWA claims is designed to prevent a rate challenge in court.

In reaffirming a prior ruling last week, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer rejected attempts by MWD to assert limits on discovery before the process even commenced, according to SDCWA.

District 3 County Supervisor Pam Slater-Price said the County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider a similar resolution supporting the lawsuit, and urged the Del Mar City Council to do the same. Nine local water districts have also declared support.

“We need to nail this down in a court of law,” she said. “It’s unfair to our ratepayers who have been paying through the nose for a long time.”

MWD claims SDCWA agreed to its set costs in 2003 to transport water from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID).

According to the MWD website, “SDCWA chose to pay more for IID water than it would for Metropolitan’s supplies to achieve a degree of water independence and additional reliability.

“However, SDCWA has no pipeline network to transport this water from IID and can only use Metropolitan’s facilities,” the site states. MWD further claims that SDCWA’s lawsuit seeks to avoid paying its share of the maintenance and transportation system that involves carrying water from the Colorado River (more than 200 miles to the east) and from Northern California’s Feather River system (more than 400 miles away) through a complex system of pipes, canals and aqueducts in which water is lifted hundreds of feet over mountains and hills by massive pumps.

To learn more about the lawsuit and to read the legal documents filed in the case, visit:

Related posts:

  1. Solana Beach irrigation district supports water authority’s lawsuit against Metropolitan Water District
  2. Metropolitan Water District to overhaul long-term plan
  3. Solana Beach water district board approves budget, 6 percent water rate increase
  4. Water rates for Santa Fe Irrigation District to increase in new year
  5. Water agencies prepare to challenge decision that could jeopardize region’s supply

Short URL:

Posted by Staff on Feb 22, 2012. Filed under Del Mar, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

1 Comment for “Del Mar Council supports lawsuit against Metropolitan Water District”

  1. Interesting that MWD would invoke the 2003 agreement. In fact, the price MWD would charge for transporting the water was already in dispute and partly because of that the 2003 agreement includes this provision:

    "1. IID, CVWD, MWD, and SDCWA do not agree on the nature or scope of rights to the delivery, use or transfer of Colorado River water within the State of California. Furthermore, the Districts and SDCWA agree not to use this Agreement or any provision hereof, as precedence for purposes of evidence, negotiation or agreement on any issue of California or federal law in any administrative, judicial or legislative proceeding, including without limitation, any attempt by IID and SDCWA to obtain further approval of any water transaction."

    The agreement is here:

Leave a Reply



Bottom Buttons 1

Bottom Buttons 2

Bottom Buttons 3

Bottom Buttons 4

Bottom Buttons 5

Bottom Buttons 6