By Bruce Reznik, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper
When it comes to determining the fate of big water projects in California, there is no bigger influencer than the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Metropolitan is the largest water wholesaler in the nation, supplying water to 26 water districts throughout the region that in turn keep the taps flowing to 19 million people. As such, the agency is often the 800-pound gorilla in the room when big-ticket water infrastructure projects are looking for investors in California.
Metropolitan was conceived and initially operated as a water importer, bringing this precious commodity to burgeoning Southern California first from the Colorado River starting in the 1930s and subsequently from the Bay-Delta. The district’s objectives and operations mirrored those of the LA Department of Water and Power, whose infamous former leader celebrated the opening of the Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913 by declaring, “There it is, Take it!”
In the decades since Metropolitan’s founding, however, our climate has changed. Droughts have become more extreme, precipitation patterns more erratic, and the import-based approach to providing water to Southern Californians has revealed itself to be unreliable as the primary way to quench the thirst of the state’s most populous region.
Thankfully, the agency is clear-eyed about these challenges and has started to make some changes, most recently by adopting a Climate Adaptation Master Plan for Water earlier this year that puts climate resilience front-and-center in future investments. Metropolitan’s ambitious Pure Water Southern California wastewater recycling project, and increased investments in conservation, groundwater cleanup, and stormwater capture, demonstrate the agency’s recognition that it needs to improve the reliability of local water supplies.
As Metropolitan’s board represents communities from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties, it should be no surprise that its members do not always see eye-to-eye on the best way to provide economically and environmentally sustainable water supplies to the region. And as much of the state’s gray infrastructure ages and climate change worsens, the agency will continue to face tough choices about which investments to prioritize in a world with limited resources and escalating climate concerns.
Should the agency prioritize spending on rebates to replace lawns with native landscaping or spend big on the environmentally damaging and potentially unreliable Sites Reservoir? Should it invest in the Delta Conveyance Project or double down on increasing local water supplies through wastewater recycling and groundwater cleanup? All these projects are expensive, and ratepayers’ pockets are only so deep.
With these existential questions now bearing down, Metropolitan is on the verge of making one of its most consequential decisions, perhaps ever: Who will lead the agency through its next chapter? General Manager Deven Upadhyay will soon be retiring, and a search for his replacement is actively underway.
Initial interviews have already taken place for this critical role. For those of us who have advocated for reliable, sustainable, equitable and affordable water supplies, NGOs, Tribes and other sustainable water advocates have clear criteria we hope board members will keep in mind as they make their selection.
Metropolitan’s new General Manager should have significant experience supporting, developing and managing resilient local water supplies, particularly wastewater recycling projects, as opposed to antiquated dams and diversions. We need a forward-looking leader who has the specific experience required to bring modern infrastructure online. In the 20th Century, water imports were generally perceived as beneficial. But that infrastructure was built at a time when we understood far less about how human intervention can negatively affect ecosystems and the services they provide that make our world livable, and when the powers that be turned a blind eye on their impacts on Indigenous communities. We must focus on the infrastructure that will serve us in the years to come, not double down on outdated approaches.
The new GM should be able to hit the ground running. Metropolitan has had its share of tumult over the past few years that has left the agency scarred. For the new GM to be effective from the get-go, they will need to have a record effectively running a water utility. They must also have strong relationships with Metropolitan board members and staff and be willing to focus predominantly on managing and healing the agency. With massive decisions to make in the coming months and years – including whether to continue funding Sites Reservoir and Delta Conveyance, negotiations over Colorado River allocations and determining how Pure Water Southern California will proceed – having a candidate the board and staff are comfortable with is imperative.
Metropolitan’s new leader should build on the agency’s success of recent years in bringing community voices into its decision-making processes. That means the new GM should ideally be well known and well respected by the local environmental, environmental justice, and NGO/CBO communities, as well as by Tribes and labor organizations. The success of this leader will rest largely on their ability to work effectively with a broad range of stakeholders, both within and beyond the agency.
Metropolitan must take the time it needs to find the right candidate. It is understandable the board is eager to pick its new leader, especially with the agency having gone through a good deal of transition in the last couple years and the current GM’s retirement fast approaching. But it must resist the urge to pick someone for the sake of picking someone, and make sure all due diligence is undertaken to find the right candidate.
We are at a truly pivotal moment for California’s water future. Our state’s largest water agency needs the right kind of leader to guide us all to a truly sustainable future. For the sake of every California resident, and for our wildlife and ecosystem health, the board must choose wisely.
COMMENTARY: Why every Californian has a stake in who Metropolitan picks for its new GM
By Bruce Reznik, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper
When it comes to determining the fate of big water projects in California, there is no bigger influencer than the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Metropolitan is the largest water wholesaler in the nation, supplying water to 26 water districts throughout the region that in turn keep the taps flowing to 19 million people. As such, the agency is often the 800-pound gorilla in the room when big-ticket water infrastructure projects are looking for investors in California.
Metropolitan was conceived and initially operated as a water importer, bringing this precious commodity to burgeoning Southern California first from the Colorado River starting in the 1930s and subsequently from the Bay-Delta. The district’s objectives and operations mirrored those of the LA Department of Water and Power, whose infamous former leader celebrated the opening of the Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913 by declaring, “There it is, Take it!”
In the decades since Metropolitan’s founding, however, our climate has changed. Droughts have become more extreme, precipitation patterns more erratic, and the import-based approach to providing water to Southern Californians has revealed itself to be unreliable as the primary way to quench the thirst of the state’s most populous region.
Thankfully, the agency is clear-eyed about these challenges and has started to make some changes, most recently by adopting a Climate Adaptation Master Plan for Water earlier this year that puts climate resilience front-and-center in future investments. Metropolitan’s ambitious Pure Water Southern California wastewater recycling project, and increased investments in conservation, groundwater cleanup, and stormwater capture, demonstrate the agency’s recognition that it needs to improve the reliability of local water supplies.
As Metropolitan’s board represents communities from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties, it should be no surprise that its members do not always see eye-to-eye on the best way to provide economically and environmentally sustainable water supplies to the region. And as much of the state’s gray infrastructure ages and climate change worsens, the agency will continue to face tough choices about which investments to prioritize in a world with limited resources and escalating climate concerns.
Should the agency prioritize spending on rebates to replace lawns with native landscaping or spend big on the environmentally damaging and potentially unreliable Sites Reservoir? Should it invest in the Delta Conveyance Project or double down on increasing local water supplies through wastewater recycling and groundwater cleanup? All these projects are expensive, and ratepayers’ pockets are only so deep.
With these existential questions now bearing down, Metropolitan is on the verge of making one of its most consequential decisions, perhaps ever: Who will lead the agency through its next chapter? General Manager Deven Upadhyay will soon be retiring, and a search for his replacement is actively underway.
Initial interviews have already taken place for this critical role. For those of us who have advocated for reliable, sustainable, equitable and affordable water supplies, NGOs, Tribes and other sustainable water advocates have clear criteria we hope board members will keep in mind as they make their selection.
Metropolitan’s new General Manager should have significant experience supporting, developing and managing resilient local water supplies, particularly wastewater recycling projects, as opposed to antiquated dams and diversions. We need a forward-looking leader who has the specific experience required to bring modern infrastructure online. In the 20th Century, water imports were generally perceived as beneficial. But that infrastructure was built at a time when we understood far less about how human intervention can negatively affect ecosystems and the services they provide that make our world livable, and when the powers that be turned a blind eye on their impacts on Indigenous communities. We must focus on the infrastructure that will serve us in the years to come, not double down on outdated approaches.
The new GM should be able to hit the ground running. Metropolitan has had its share of tumult over the past few years that has left the agency scarred. For the new GM to be effective from the get-go, they will need to have a record effectively running a water utility. They must also have strong relationships with Metropolitan board members and staff and be willing to focus predominantly on managing and healing the agency. With massive decisions to make in the coming months and years – including whether to continue funding Sites Reservoir and Delta Conveyance, negotiations over Colorado River allocations and determining how Pure Water Southern California will proceed – having a candidate the board and staff are comfortable with is imperative.
Metropolitan’s new leader should build on the agency’s success of recent years in bringing community voices into its decision-making processes. That means the new GM should ideally be well known and well respected by the local environmental, environmental justice, and NGO/CBO communities, as well as by Tribes and labor organizations. The success of this leader will rest largely on their ability to work effectively with a broad range of stakeholders, both within and beyond the agency.
Metropolitan must take the time it needs to find the right candidate. It is understandable the board is eager to pick its new leader, especially with the agency having gone through a good deal of transition in the last couple years and the current GM’s retirement fast approaching. But it must resist the urge to pick someone for the sake of picking someone, and make sure all due diligence is undertaken to find the right candidate.
We are at a truly pivotal moment for California’s water future. Our state’s largest water agency needs the right kind of leader to guide us all to a truly sustainable future. For the sake of every California resident, and for our wildlife and ecosystem health, the board must choose wisely.