A Water Agency for the 21st Century: Can "Mother Met" Become Met 2.0?

To the non-water wonk, a long-range planning process within the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (known as Met) might appear as exciting as drying paint. But for those of us within the water community, it has the potential to offer high drama.

This process is confronting a question that has enormous implications for the future of California's water: How does a water agency that was built upon last century's tools--dams, canals, and other forms of concrete--adapt to the age of water conservation and efficiency?

How Met answers this question will shape its future and likely influence other water agencies around the state and the country.

You see, Met is the single largest urban water agency in the United States. It is also the juggernaut behind some of the most ambitious water projects of the 20th century, from tapping the Colorado River to hauling Delta water down the Central Valley and lifting it 2,000 feet over the Tehachapi Mountains.  

Met has been such a powerhouse that some local agencies call it Mother Met, and they don't always mean it fondly.  Met was created to import water and was one of the nation's most powerful water forces during the last century.

But the 20th century has passed, and California has entered the era of peak water. Traditional water development has over-taxed our rivers - as shown by the closure of California's salmon fishery.  And climate change is expected to reduce the amount of water in our rivers.  The only river left for California to tap into is the Virtual River, the one made up of conservation, water recycling, improved groundwater management, and urban stormwater capture.

Met may be famous for building monolithic projects, but California's water future will be more decentralized. Developing the water supplies of the future means installing millions of low-flush toilets, high efficiency dishwashers, washing machines, smart irrigation systems, groundwater clean up facilities, rainwater capture systems and water recycling plants.  Together, these decentralized investments will render more useable water than Met's traditional 20th century water supplies.

Can an agency accustomed to colossal water works be a leader in an era of dispersed strategies? Met member agencies are actively debating this question right now, trying to figure out how the agency can remain relevant.

I see two possible futures for Met:

Scenario 1: The Old Familiar Met

In this scenario, Met would remain the steward of last century's water strategy. It could keep making its money selling imported water from the Delta and the Colorado, even as those sources dwindle, and it could continue to maintain the massive systems its uses to transport the water.

Some local agencies would be happy to see Met stick to the same old routine, because they would be free to become the leaders in developing the emerging 21st century water tools. Over the years, Mother Met has been a strict parent, and some agencies are eager to break out on their own. If Met pursues this scenario, it will slowly shrink in significance and what happens at the local level--programs like conservation, recycling wastewater and capturing stormwater runoff from city streets--will rise in prominence.

Scenario 2: Met 2.0

In this scenario, Met would use its 20th century strength-- running complex infrastructure---in the service of 21st century conservation efforts.

The future may be more decentralized, but decentralized doesn't mean isolated. Local water conservation efforts will still require cooperation. Say your city has enough water to meet residents' needs, but your neighboring community doesn't. Maybe your neighbor would finance conservation efforts in your city if you agree to share your water. But how will it get from one place to the other? That's where Met's pipelines come in.

Or imagine your city has a first-rate wastewater treatment facility, but you don't have anywhere to store the water in the winter when irrigation use is lower. Your neighbor has extra groundwater storage, but again, how will the treated water get to the storage area? Met's pipelines.

Regional cooperation is a key to squeezing water out of the Virtual River, and Met can facilitate that exchange.

I get the sense that the agency itself wants to evolve into Met 2.0. For example, Met's Local Resources Program is already providing up to $250 per acre foot to help finance locally developed supplies, such as groundwater and wastewater recycling.  Still, within the greater water community, I get lobbied from both sides: from those who believe the future of Met lies with the Virtual River and from those who say Met should butt out of local conservation efforts.

In short, what is at issue here is whether Met will be the steward of the monolithic legacy of 20th century water development or the leader in the efficiency-based water strategies of the 21st century? 

Hey, it may not get the airtime of a helium filled UFO-shaped balloon, but in my world, the Met Integrated Regional Plan process represents Must See TV. 

Tell me what you think Met should or will become.

Comments