Water: A Primer California is among the fastest growing states in the nation. Its population is expected to grow from 35 million in 2000 to 46 million in 2020.1 Water consumption is increasing at an even faster rate – from 200 gallons per person per day in 1992 to 229 gallons today.2 Along with the influx of millions of new residents, California continues to experience rapid economic growth. Stress on water resources is augmented further still by the state’s popularity among the computer and biotechnology industries – both of which depend on tremendous amounts of water. Because of these developments, the state – which is already facing serious water supply challenges – will need even more water in the years to come. But only so many bricks will fit inside your toilet. The big question is: Where will the extra water come from?

According to Maurice Ross, chief hydrolo- to save water. gist for the California Department of Water In 1987 California entered another dry Services, urban demand for water will rise from spell that lasted until 1992. Rationing was the 1995 figure of 8.8 million acre-feet to imposed in many municipalities, reaching 12 million acre-feet by 2020.3 50 percent of the average usage in some California’s water usage averages communities. Santa Barbara instituted a 80 million acre-feet annually. In dry years, the 14-month ban on lawn watering.5 figure drops to about 65 million acre-feet. In The 1987-1992 drought served yet an- 1998, the California Department of Water other reminder of California’s dependence on Resources (CDWR) forecasted that the state water and the state’s limited supplies. To prepare would experience increased water shortages by for other possible supply shortages, new facili- 2020 – 2.4 million acre-feet in an average year ties were built and new water-sharing agree- and 6.2 million acre-feet in a drought year.4 ments were negotiated. The Metropolitan Water Many Californians are intimately ac- District’s Diamond Valley Lake Reservoir in quainted with the consequences of shortages Riverside County and Contra Costa Water and droughts. In 1976-77 the state experienced District’s Los Vaqueros Reservoir, for instance, a severe drought that forced radical changes in were built to provide emergency water supplies. the lifestyles of many people, ranging from the California’s water supply fluctuates signifi- inability to water lawns, wash cars and fill up cantly between wet and dry years. Seventy-five swimming pools, to having to put bricks in toilets percent of California’s precipitation falls between November and March. Increased The Central Valley Project (CVP) was autho- winter precipitation results in wet years. Con- rized by President Roosevelt in 1930s to transfer versely, precipitation shortages lead to droughts. northern water to the Central Valley. A system of Hence, a number of initiatives to deal with canals, dams and reservoirs, administered by California’s water problems involve storing water the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, encompasses in both above-ground and underground reser- an area more than 400 miles long and voirs. 100 miles wide, delivering irrigation water to large portions of the Central Valley and its farms. Water Wars In the process, millions of acres of wetlands The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San have been obliterated, threatening half of all Joaquin Delta Estuary (the Bay-Delta) is the core Pacific Flyway birds and damaging wildlife of California’s water supply, providing water to refuges.9 two-thirds of state residents and more than In 1992 a bill designed to ameliorate 7 million acres of farmland. Both the Central these problems was introduced by George Valley Project and the State Water Project, Miller, a U.S. representative from the Bay-Delta California’s two largest water distribution sys- area. Signed into law by President Bush, the tems, draw water from the Bay-Delta.6 Central Valley Project Improvement Act was a The Delta was abused throughout much of radical departure from the institutionalized the 20th century, largely to satisfy demands of abuse of the Delta and a major victory for its consumers in other parts of the state. Building environmental community. The legislation dams, diverting the system’s water and polluting ordered 800,000 acre-feet of annual freshwater the sources had calamitous environmental flow to be restored; established a regulated consequences: By the early 1980s, fish species market in which farmers could sell water to were becoming extinct, salinity intrusions were urban users, thus decreasing demand; directed occurring more frequently and contamination the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to double wild levels were increasing, mainly because of runoff salmon populations; and created economic from industrialized farms. incentives to conserve CVP water.10 When environmental protection groups Construction of California’s other major began a campaign to save the Delta, they were water storage and delivery system, the State met by fierce opposition from state officials and Water Project, began in the early 1960s. Man- powerful agricultural and urban lobbies of aged by the CDWR, the system consists of Central and Southern California. canals, aqueducts, dams and pumps that runs Northern California residents have long 662 miles from Plumas to Riverside County. It harbored resentment towards the southern supplies water for 20 million customers in San regions for diverting their water. In the 1980s, as Jose, Los Angeles and other cities, and to destructive environmental effects became 660,000 acres of farmland. Seventy percent of commonplace, the sentiment intensified further its water supply is allocated to urban users, with still. Many felt that wildlife habitats and water the remainder going to the agricultural sector.11 quality were being compromised in order to These two projects are at the heart of the benefit the wasteful agricultural sector, urban water wars between North and South. The sprawl and economic growth in arid Southern disputes have also involved legal battles over California. how much control the Bay-Delta regions exer- The numbers lend credence to these cise over their water resources. concerns. Bay-Delta water supports 16 million southern Californians and their $450 billion CALFED economy.7 It is also crucial to the state’s agricul- In 1994 talks over water sharing resulted in ture industry, which grows 45 percent of the the Bay-Delta Accord, negotiated by the agricul- country’s produce while consuming 80 percent tural, urban and environmental communities. of California’s water.8 The accord called for the creation of a joint The Central Valley Project and State Water federal/state task force to address California’s Project are the chief instruments of this grandi- water issues. Although the task force is not an ose water transfer system. agency per se, it works with both state and

- 2 - federal agencies to find solutions to water source for California. The state has been al- allocation, quality, supply and reliability prob- lowed to draw surplus water from the river lems, as well as environmental issues. because other states were not using their full While CALFED has initiated the most com- quotas. However, as demand from other states prehensive ecosystem restoration project in the increases over the next 15 years, California will , many environmentalists neverthe- have to reduce its take. less feel the effort is skewed in favor of con- A recent agreement among states using sumption instead of conservation. the Colorado’s water requires California to Recent proposals to expand the water reduce its take from 5.5 million acre-feet per transfer infrastructure have been criticized by year to 4.4 million, putting the state in the environmental groups. Pending CALFED reautho- position of having to look elsewhere to make rization bills, sponsored by U.S. Sen. Dianne up the difference.14 The “4.4 Plan” will hit South- Feinstein and Rep. Ken Calvert, would do little to ern California especially hard because Colo- curb water usage or explore new sources of rado River is a key water source for the region. water, such as desalination or recycling. Instead, The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the they ask Congress to enlarge the Shasta Dam Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and to build new (MWD or the “Met”) are the two biggest recipi- storage facilities. ents of water, receiving Rep. Miller has criticized this approach and 70 percent and 12 percent, respectively. The has introduced legislation of his own that better MWD charges much higher prices for its urban reflects the interests of the Bay-Delta region. customers than the IID charges for its agricul- tural customers. As a result, an antagonistic Groundwater and relationship has developed between the two the Colorado River agencies.15 Groundwater is seen by many as a way to As the largest wholesale water supplier in alleviate stress on the Bay-Delta. the country with 17 million customers, the Met is According to the CDWR, 30 percent of in a perpetual search for new sources. Among California’s water supply comes from groundwa- its initiatives is a controversial deal with Cadiz ter sources, a level that increases during dry Inc., an agriculture corporation that owns land in years. The largest quantities of groundwater are the Mojave Desert. Cadiz has proposed extract- drawn from the Central and Salinas valleys, as ing water from the aquifer beneath its property well as the Southern California coastal plain. and selling it directly to the MWD. Groundwater extractions exceed permitted Environmentalists argue that the extraction levels by 1.5 million acre-feet annually. A major- levels proposed by Cadiz exceed recharge ity of the overdraft occurs in San Joaquin Valley. levels, and that the desert environment will In 1995 the CDWR estimated that developed suffer as a result. groundwater supplies were 12.5 million acre- feet lower than what they should be under the Taking Water to Market average hydrologic conditions.12 Over the last decade, the idea of water During droughts, reliance on groundwater markets has become increasingly popular – sources increases, often leading to dire environ- particularly in California, due to the state’s large mental consequences. During the 1987-92 dry agricultural sector. Put simply, water markets spell, for instance, many private wells and wells allow owners of water sources or water rights supplying small rural systems dried up. During (which is more common) to sell them. the same period, extractions in San Joaquin In California, water is classified into three Valley exceeded recharge levels by 11 million categories: real water, new water and paper acre-feet. In 1991 the San Antonio and water. Real water is the easiest to transfer be- Nacimiento reservoirs, which are used by the cause it does not injure the rights of others. New Monterey County Water Resources Agency, were water is a source that has not previously been at just 6 percent of their capacity.13 available, such as groundwater. And paper The Colorado River, which provides water water is a source made available by fallowing to seven states and Mexico, is another important of previously irrigated land. In the case of new

- 3 - and paper water, transfers are more difficult beyond the farmer’s property. It may also feed because of their potential to inflict environmen- springs that support wildlife habitats. Thus, the tal and economic damage.16 farmer’s profit would be made at the expense of The CDWR defines water marketing in the others. Under a different scenario, the owner of following terms: overlying property could opt to sell groundwa- ! A permanent sale of water right by the ter. In an average year, groundwater amounts water right holder. to 30 percent of the state’s water supply.21 ! A lease from the water right holder (who Groundwater rights are very complex, and retains the water right), allowing the lessee to the absence of a comprehensive state law to use the water under certain conditions over a manage groundwater often results in overdrafts. certain period of time. Owners of land overlying aquifers generally ! A sale or lease of a contractual right to share groundwater within the scope of reason- water supply. Under this arrangement, the able use under the correlative rights doctrine, holder’s ability to transfer a contractual water yet the property rights approach is being used in right is usually contingent upon receiving ap- some basins, namely Tehachapi and Mojave.22 proval from the supplier. An example of this type Under the property rights doctrine (also of arrangement is a sale or lease by a water known as absolute ownership/rule of capture), agency that receives its supply from the CVP, the owner of overlying land can capture any SWP or other water wholesaler.17 amount of groundwater, even if doing so would Because of subsidies, farmers can pur- threaten the water supplies of other landholders chase their water at discounted prices, often whose properties overlie the same aquifer. representing only a fraction of the real costs or Under the correlative rights doctrine, landowners prices paid by urban users. are entitled to a groundwater amount propor- For instance, Southern California’s MWD tionate to their land holdings. When too much sells treated water to urban users for $431 per water is withdrawn, all landowners are expected acre-foot, a price influenced by storage, desalin- to limit their consumption. ization and conservation.18 The IID, however, A more comprehensive groundwater charges only $15 per acre-foot.19 Naturally, it regulatory regime is needed to prevent over- makes sense for both the IID and the farmers it extraction. It is not uncommon for farmers to supplies to sell surplus water to cities. The idea is overexploit groundwater sources when they are attractive to urban users, because buying water selling surface water to municipalities. It is likely allows them to increase or stabilize supplies that as water markets develop, farmers would without substantially increasing rates. rely on groundwater not only to compensate for An agreement between the IID and San sold surface water, but also to make a profit by Diego County Water Authority, for example, selling it directly. provides for such water transfers for 45 years. Proponents of water markets argue that Prices in San Diego are influenced by the costs applying property rights to water is the only of water conservation by Imperial Valley farmers solution to over-extraction. However, a more and incentives for them to conserve.20 Because comprehensive groundwater regulatory regime of conservation incentives, water marketing is would accomplish the same goals. Also, if supported by some members of the environ- farmers are tempted to overdraft groundwater mental community. to compensate for sold surface water, they would possibly overdraft to make a profit. Mixed Messages The current water marketing system en- Though the basic premise of water market- ables agriculture companies to generate profits ing appears simple, it is much more complex in by selling a resource they obtain at subsidized practice. prices. Thus, taxpayers from California and other A farmer who chooses to sell a portion of states are forced to indirectly subsidize farming real water and whose property overlies an companies and water brokers in indirect trans- aquifer may turn to groundwater to satisfy actions. Nevertheless, water marketing irrigation needs. Groundwater is generally a arrangements are becoming more common- shared source that may supply water for others place.

- 4 - Over the past eight years, California has MWD’s pipes. enjoyed high levels of precipitation. In 2001, The MWD board approved the plan in April however, these levels decreased, leading to 2001, despite many complaints from citizens concerns about another drought. Between worried about water availability in the future, 1995 and 2000, the Sacramento River provided and from environmental groups worried about an average of 18.1 million acre-feet of water the desiccation of springs essential to sustaining annually, but is expected to provide only natural habitats. They have also suggested that 9.7 million acre-feet in 2001.23 extracting what could amount to 49 billion Another drought would not only reignite gallons of water annually could create dust the water wars, but would also make it easier to bowls.29 California’s Sierra Club has been market water. The Water Bank, California’s first especially active in opposing the contract. large-scale arrangement to facilitate water Monitoring water levels would be a critical marketing, was created in 1991 in response to part of the plan. However, according to Kristina the drought. Clark of Association of California Water Agen- cies, the monitoring program alone could cost Going Private $2 million. “If this becomes the new standard Water markets are central to the emer- [for storage programs], we may end up pricing gence of privatization efforts in California. ourselves out of the future,” Clark said.30 For instance, the MWD is looking to buy Plus, chromium-6, a suspected carcinogen, 100,000 acre-feet of water to be stored for the was found in the aquifer’s water in December next drought. It has received 16 offers from 2000, a discovery that would likely augment the agricultural interests and private companies, costs of water treatment.31 including Enron’s former water subsidiary Azurix, Despite these elaborate plans to extract which owns cotton acreage and water rights in such massive amounts of water, it is not yet the San Joaquin Valley.24 known how much water the aquifer actually Among the other water companies that holds. The U.S. Geological Survey has reported are very active in the state is U.S. Filter, a Vivendi that Cadiz and the MWD have exaggerated the subsidiary that owns 43,000 acres of farmland amount. (Cadiz and the MWD estimated that and extensive water rights in the Imperial Val- 750 billion gallons of native water could be ley.25 extracted safely over the next 50 years).32 The The privatization of water and wastewater Survey has also criticized the company’s re- systems is another important development in charge rate estimates.33 California. The following three cases exemplify These criticisms were echoed by environ- these two trends. mentalists and hydrologists, who say the area is Cadiz and Mojave Desert capable of generating only 5,000 acre-feet per The Met’s options for new sources includes year, not the 50,000 acre-feet projected by 34 a controversial deal with Cadiz Inc., an agricul- Cadiz. ture company that owns property in the Mojave The environmental review of the project Desert. Cadiz proposes extracting water from the was released in September 2001 by the U.S. aquifer beneath its property and selling it directly Bureau of Land Management, which must bless to the MWD, which could fetch approximately the project before the MWD can proceed. $20 million per year.26 The agreement would The final version of the contract – which last 50 years and cost the district as much as would specify construction and operating costs, $1 billion, half of which would go to Cadiz.27 establish a pricing formula, and create security The deal also involves diverting Colorado provisions – is still being negotiated. A tentative River water to Cadiz’s aquifers during wet years plan bans pumping in the first five years, as and extracting it, together with native waters, more precise data is being collected. The MWD during droughts.28 This raises concerns about and Cadiz have not yet agreed on minimum 35 possible contamination of the aquifer’s water levels. According to Dennis Wolcott of groundwater. the Met, the contract could be finalized as early 35a Finally, the deal would allow Cadiz to sell as January 2002. up to 30,000 acre-feet to the third parties via The MWD is also pursuing two similar

- 5 - storage programs in the Palm Springs area, approved the deal. The Professional and Techni- though they involve public agencies.36 cal Engineers Local 21 managed to win the It is worth noting that Cadiz CEO Keith inclusion of several provisions to the contract, Brackpool is a very powerful figure in California such as breaking up the 15-year contract into politics. He was the leading campaign contribu- 4-year segments and conducting an annual tor to ’ gubernatorial campaign.37 performance review that, depending on the Brackpool has also become the governor’s results, could trigger the termination of the leading advisor and confidant on water issues. contract.44 Not only has he been appointed to important The contract leaves one big question committees, but he has also spoken on behalf unanswered: How will the $4-8 billion project be of Davis in public forums when the governor financed? San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said was not available.38 According to several gov- a bond measure would amount to political ernment officials, Brackpool influenced the suicide because it would trigger a tax increase. allocation of state funds from a new $1.9 billion At the same time, city officials have been water bond.39 criticized for not pumping water revenues back Brackpool and others in Cadiz also do- into repairs, but instead using the money to nated $36,000 to Antonio Villaraigosa’s mayoral balance the city’s budget. In 2000, $29 million campaign in Los Angeles and $50,000 to the out of $39 million in water funds was used for state Democratic Party, which campaigned purposes other than water projects.45 heavily on behalf of Villaraigosa two weeks Brown has proposed alternative methods before the April 2001 election.40 These contribu- to raise money, such as selling more power tions are noteworthy, in light of mayor’s power from PUC-owned hydroelectric dams. Another to appoint four of the Met’s 20 Board members. idea is to invite bottled water giants, such as San Francisco Evian and Perrier, to export water from the Hetch 46 The century-old Hetch Hetchy water system Hetchy. These initiatives, however, would only draws from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in cover a fraction of the total repair costs. Yosemite National Park, providing water to Locals speculate that the mayor wants to 2.3 million people in San Francisco, San Mateo, hire a private company instead of performing Santa Clara and Alameda counties. The aging the upgrades in-house because doing so would system needs as much as $8 billion for seismic attract private-sector financing, which would upgrades and repairs.41 require a higher degree of private involvement After much controversy, the city of San in operating and managing the water system. Francisco in 2000 awarded a $45 million Accordingly, many have argued that the consulting contract to a consortium led by the contract eventually would lead to a complete Bechtel Corporation. The San Francisco Public privatization. According to David Novogrodsky, Utilities Commission (PUC) claimed that hiring executive director of the Professional and Bechtel to oversee the modernization of San Technical Engineers Local 21, the mayor has Francisco’s water system would produce as been a long-time proponent of privatization. much as $45 million in savings over four years Moreover, according to the San Francisco and provide access to necessary expertise. Independent, Brown has met with Bill Wardwell Many spoke out against the contract of American Water Services, which has ex- during the exploratory and negotiation stages. pressed an interest in running the Hetch Hetchy. San Francisco budget analyst Harvey Rose According to the mayor’s office, Brown would disagreed with the projected savings, maintain- consider ideas that involve privatization ing that they were not supported by any evi- schemes of a lesser degree than an outright dence.42 Supervisor Tom Ammiano not only ownership transfer. So far, no comprehensive questioned Bechtel’s ability to produce cost financing plan has been developed. savings, but he also feared the contract would Criticisms of Bechtel abound. According to eventually lead to a complete privatization of Novogrodsky, the company has done very little the Hetch Hetchy system.43 other than charge “outrageous” fees. Bechtel’s Nevertheless, the Board of Supervisors workers do not work closely with the city engi- neers. Additionally, there are a few “higher-ups”

- 6 - who go beyond their contractual role as con- members. Thus, his ability to promote privatiza- sultants and often attempt to manage PUC tion of the water system would be hampered. staffers. And, there are many Bechtel support Stockton staff with no knowledge or experience unique to In 2000, Stockton decided to consider Bechtel. Moreover, said Novogrodsky, most staff privatizing its water, wastewater and stormwater members are not qualified, and it is not unusual systems after Mayor Gary Podesto suggested to see Bechtel employees sitting down studying that hiring a private company to operate and for their engineering exams, instead of perform- repair the city’s systems would save money and 47 ing actual work. keep rates down. According to the San Francisco Bay Guard- In December the city released a document ian, many city workers feel Bechtel is not aiding that laid out the scope of the proposal: The them in their work, and is actually slowing contract would last for 20 years and include progress because the company has to approve operating and maintaining the systems, billing, certain in-house jobs. City workers also feel that customer service, and designing and carrying instead of acquiring valuable skills from out the capital improvements. Bechtel’s engineers, as was originally intended, The companies that have expressed an they have to explain even basic operations to interest in the deal are a partnership of OMI and them. Finally, staffers feel the city is being billed Thames Water; a partnership of California Water 48 for work already performed by city employees. Service and United Water called Stockton Water The city’s first semiannual audit found the Service; and U.S. Filter.53 Bechtel consortium’s performance to be satisfac- Since 1998, Stockton’s Municipal Utility tory, even though many tasks were not evalu- District has been able to stabilize rates by in- 49 ated because they were in the start-up phase. creasing efficiency and lowering costs. The The auditor did find that of the $75,943 in agency has estimated that the savings would reimbursement requests submitted by the yield enough money to bankroll infrastructure consortium, $2,766 was not identified as allow- repairs and expansion over the next 10 years. able under the contract. These costs included However, some unexpected costs may drive up refreshments and lunches, telephone charges, rates, which the city believes a private company 50 and relocation and travel expenses. The would be able to prevent. auditor also found that the consortium did not Mayor Podesto’s plan could easily inform the PUC about changes in staff work backfire. Private companies not only have to locations, which is essential in order for the city turn a profit and pay taxes, shareholder divi- to determine whether the consortium is charg- dends and high executive salaries, they are also 51 ing correct rates. ineligible for low-interest public financing, thus Additionally, a Bay Guardian investigation raising the cost of capital improvements. documented many instances of wasteful spend- To their credit, city officials have made it ing. Bechtel, for instance, was paid nearly clear that they would privatize the water systems $500,000 to restore and change the format of only if it is to the city’s advantage. The city is data already prepared by the city. Most of shooting for cost savings of 15 percent, though Bechtel’s work, the newspaper said, was either this is not a “hard and fast” criterion.54 “unnecessary, duplicated work that city staffers However, Alternative Resources, the Con- had already done, or wasn’t specialized enough cord, Mass.-based consulting firm that will play a 52 to require a highly paid outside consultant.” key role in deciding whether to privatize and In November 2001, two initiatives will selecting the winning company, is a major appear on the San Francisco ballot that would player in privatization industry. The firm’s mem- create a Municipal Utility District designed to bership in the National Council for Public-Private lower electricity rates and take control of the Partnerships, one of the country’s most vigorous city’s electric plants. Under the proposals, PUC advocates of privatization, raises unsettling members would be elected by citizens living in questions about how objective the firm will be those districts. when it comes time to recommend for or Mayor Brown opposes these measures against privatizing Stockton’s water systems. because he would lose power to appoint PUC

- 7 - million Mojave project at a hearing.” Press-Enterprise (Riverside, Notes Ca), 1 Dec. 2000. 1 California Department of Finance. “Interim county population 31 Ibid. projections.” 1 July 2000. 32 Wisckol, Martin. “District cautions in deal with private water 2 Martin, Glen. “Drought could be our next crisis. Population growth supplier.” , 17 Jan. 2001. threatens water supply.” San Francisco Chronicle, 22 July 2001. 33 Bowles, Jennifer. “Panel tables decision on Mojave water plan.” 3 Ibid. Press-Enterprise (Riverside, Cal.), 9 Jan. 2001. 4 California Department of Water Resources. “The California Water 34 Lair, Keith. “Bighorn threat effects of new water plan worry animal Plan Update. Bulletin 160-98.” rubicon.water.ca.gov/pdfs/ conservation officials.” , 10 May 2001. b160cont.html#es, 1998. 35 Keith, Leon D. “Fenner Valley aquifer spurs water war. Environ- 5 Martin, Glen. “Drought could be our next crisis. Population growth mentalists, officials debate plan to sell ground water.” Detroit threatens water supply.” San Francisco Chronicle, 22 July 2001. News, 30 April 2001. 6 CALFED Bay-Delta Program. “Program Summary – August 2000.” 35a Personal communication, Dennis Wolcott, Metropolitan Water 7 CALFED Bay-Delta Program. “Southern California’s stake.” 31 July District of Southern California, 4 Oct. 2001. 2001, calfed.ca.gov/pub_info_materials/southern_california.html. 36 Perry, Tony. “California and the West MWD Delays vote on buying 8 CALFED Bay-Delta Program. “Central California’s stake.” 31 July water utilities; with the energy crisis on their minds, board 2001, calfed.ca.gov/pub_info_materials/central.html. members suggest caution in purchasing from Cadiz Land Co. 9 “The Largest wetlands reclamation in history – the Central Valley and selling to consumers at market rates.” , 9 Project.” Great Outdoor Recreation Pages, 31 July 2001, Jan. 2001. www.gorp.com/gorp/resource/us_nwr/ca_cvp.htm 37 Rabin, Jeffrey. “Firm that seeks water deal gives heavily to 10 The Bay Institute. “A Political History: The Bay Institute and the Bay Villaraigosa contribution: Cadiz Inc. hopes to operate a $150 Watershed.” 31 July 2001, www.bay.org/policy/p_hist.html. million storage project. The next mayor will appoint water board 11 California Department of Water Resources. “State Water Project.” members.” Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2001. Online: wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/dir-state_water_projectR2/ 38 Clifford, Frank and Tony Perry. “Desert water entrepreneur closely State_Water_Project_R2.html, July 2001. tied to governor. Keith Brackpool has Davis’ year and his 12 California Department of Water Resources. “Preparing for controversial Mojave plan gives him a big stake in state policies.” California’s Next Drought. Changes since 1987-92.” July 2000. Los Angeles Times, 16 April 2000. Online: watersupplyconditions.water.ca.gov. 39 Gardner, Michael. “Davis water ally awash in criticism. Campaign 13 Martin, Glen. “Drought could be our next crisis. Population growth contributor accused of corrupting bond process.” San Diego threatens water supply.” San Francisco Chronicle, 22 July 2001. Union-Tribune, 21 June 2001. 14 Perry, Tony. “California and the West MWD Delays vote on buying 40 Rabin, Jeffrey. “Firm that seeks water deal gives heavily to water utilities; with the energy crisis on their minds, board Villaraigosa contribution: Cadiz Inc. hopes to operate a $150- members suggest caution in purchasing from Cadiz Land Co. million storage project. The next mayor will appoint water board and selling to consumers at market rates.” Los Angeles Times, 9 members.” Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2001. Jan. 2001. 41 Epstein, Edward. “Price estimate doubles for fixing Hetch Hetchy. 15 Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. “Ending California’s S.F. mayor seeks ways to cover $8 billion in repairs.” San Water Crisis. A market solution to the politics of water.” July 1999. Francisco Chronicle, 15 Nov. 2000. 16 Dingler, Megan L., reviewer. “What is needed to create a more 42 Wilson, Yumi. “Analyst for S.F. criticizes water contract award. PUC efficient market?” Colby College, 31 July 2001, www.colby.edu/ can’t prove that money’s saved.” San Francisco Chronicle, 15 July personal/t/thtieten/wat-ca2.html... 2000. 17 California Department of Water Resources. “The California Water 43 Epstein, Edward. “S.F. Board OKs Hetch Hetchy pact. Bechtel-led Plan Update. Bulletin 160-98.” 1998. consortium to renovate water system.” San Francisco Chronicle. 8 Rates available from www.mwd.dst.ca.us/mwdh2o//pages/ 29 Aug. 2000. operations/rates01.htm. 44 David Novogrodsky, Professional and Technical Engineers Local 19 Telephone inquiry, 760-339-9426, 31 July 2000. 21, Phone conversation, 23 July 2001. 20 Imperial Irrigation District. “Water Transfer Agreement.” Accessed 45 Lelchuk, Ilene. “Willie Brown Plans for water delivery system. 31 July 2001, www.iid.com/water/transfer.html. Bonds, taxes last choices on his list for funding repairs.” San 21 California Department of Water Resources. “The California Water Francisco Examiner, 15 Nov. 2000. Plan Update. Bulletin 160-98.” rubicon.water.ca.gov/pdfs/ 46 Ibid. b160cont.html#es, p. ES3-5, 1998. 47 Personal communication, David Novogrodsky, Professional and 22 Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. “Ending California’s Technical Engineers Local 21, 23 July 2001. Water Crisis. A market solution to the politics of water.” July 1999. 48 Blackwell, Savannah. “Blocking Bechtel.” San Francisco Bay 23 Martin, Glen. “Drought could be our next crisis. Population growth Guardian, 20 June 2001. threatens water supply.” San Francisco Chronicle, 22 July 2001. 49 Audit of San Francisco Water Alliance contract, Controller’s Office, 24 Flanigan, James. “Decision forces new water era upon California.” City and County of San Francisco, July 2001, p. 8. Los Angeles Times, 7 June 2000. 50 Ibid. p. 7. 25 Gardner, Michael. “California water wars pay off for lobbyists. 51 Ibid. p. 8. Metropolitan District is the biggest spender.” San Diego Union- 52 Blackwell, Savannah. “Bechtel’s $45 million screw job.” San Tribune, 19 June 2000. Francisco Bay Guardian, 12 Sept. 2001. 26 Coy, Debra. “California: Why the electricity crisis should help the 53 See www.waterindustry.org/New%20Projects/stockton-ca-2.htm private water market.” Public Works Financing, Jan. 2001. 54 Request for Qualifications and Expressions of Interest for 27 Wisckol, Martin. “District cautious in deal with private water Operation and Maintenance of and Capital Improvements to supplier.” Orange County Register, 17 Jan. 2001. Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Utilities, Stockton, Cal. Office 28 Bowles, Jennifer. “Water plan questioned: Residents’ concerns of City Manager. Dec. 2000. center on availability and the environment. Some praise the $150 million Mojave project at a hearing.” The Press-Enterprise For more information, contact us at: (Riverside, Cal.), 1 Dec. 2000. 29 Bowles, Jennifer. “Panel tables decision on Mojave water plan.” (202) 546-4996 Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), 9 Jan. 2001. [email protected] 30 Bowles, Jennifer. “Water plan questioned: Residents’ concerns www.citizen.org/cmep center on availability and the environment. Some praise the $150

- 8 -