Ruling expected next month in groundwater storage lawsuit

The council approved a letter to Superior Court Judge Abraham Kahn urging him to approve the negotiated settlement.

“There is a general consensus that a water storage plan, if designed and operated appropriately, would assist water producers in effective management of their water resources,” Oskoui said in his written report Aug. 27.

Key parts of the plan are:

• Establishing a storage space of 330,000 acre feet in the Central Basin Municipal Water District, which covers about 30 Southeast Los Angels County cities. An acre foot is about 326,000 gallons. Cities and pumpers would not be charged a storage fee.

• Allowing a water provider to store up to 50 percent of its annual water rights and allowing pumping from a separate “community storage pool” 23,000 acre feet in case of a water shortage emergency or for use by a “disadvantaged community” with limited water pumping rights.

• Creating a seven-member water rights panel, elected by pumpers with water rights, to oversee the storage program.

• Allowing the Lakewood-based Water Replenishment District of Southern California to function as record keeper and providing space for the district to store water for use in its replenishment efforts but not for its own account.

Oskoui said the record-keeping cost by the Water Replenishment District would be less expensive than the current cost of oversight by the state Department of Water Resources. The plan would remove the department as “water master.”

Oskoui said the lawsuit, legally called Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District et all vs. Charles E. Adams and city of Lakewood, goes back more than 45 years.

The Water Replenishment District has sought to limit pumping in the basin, generally covering southern Los Angeles County, to halt over-pumping and thus diminishing the basin's limited ground water supply.

A 1965 court decision allocated cities and private providers with a limited amount of water, measured in acre feet, which they could pump out in a year.

A 1991 amendment allowed pumpers to carry over to the following year their unused water allocation.

But storage was not involved.

Since then, the regional water agency has been divided into three groups, the Water Replenishment District, the Central Basin Municipal Water District, based in Commerce; and the West Basin Municipal Water District, based in Carson.

The Water Replenishment District buys outside water from the Colorado River and Sacramento River Delta to replenish water pumped to consumers by spreading over the Montebello Forebay in Pico Rivera where it sinks into the ground to the basin aquifers.

The Central and West Basins sell water to pumpers who need to supplement their allocated water rights to meet customer demand.

Storage of captured storm water, along with conservation and water recycling, are the main parts of a Water Replenishment District plan to be independent from the more expensive “outside water.”

Oskoui said a storage controversy began in 2009 when the Water Replenishment District and the cities of Long Beach, Lakewood, Huntington Park, Los Angeles and Vernon, along with the  private pumping companies of Golden State Water and the Cal Water Services Company proposed a storage plan which was challenged by Downey, Cerritos and Signal Hill.

The latter three cities, along with Long Beach and Lakewood, came up with the current compromise and, through the Paramount-based Gateway Council of Governments, obtained support from other affected cities at meetings held over the summer, Oskoui said.

Those cities included smaller Central Basin water pumpers such as Bellflower, Norwalk, Montebello Land and Water and the Pico Water District in Pico Rivera. The Water Replenishment District and Central Basin have also supported the compromise.

Oskoui said a separate lawsuit, concerning protests by Downey, Cerritos and Signal Hill over alleged illegal replenishment rates by the Water Replenishment District will go before a judge in January.

The three cities have not paid their replenishment fees for several years, saying the rates were established in violation of Proposition 218, in that there were no public hearings on the rates until this year.

The courts have ruled in favor of the cities but the Water Replenishment District has appealed, saying Proposition 218 refers to taxes while the Water Replenishment District fees are to reimburse the district for water replenishment purposes.

The current replenishment fee is $268 an acre foot, up from last year's $244.

Meanwhile, the city of Downey has lauded the passage of Senate Bill 620, authored by state Sen. Roderick Wright, D-Los Angeles, which would establish a budget advisory committee to oversee future Water Replenishment District spending and replenishment allocations. Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to sign the bill.

The committee will consist of seven representatives from affected cities and or water pumping companies.

Downey Mayor Mario Guerra said the bill allows affected pumpers to provide input to Water Replenishment District decisions and provides greater transparency.