Southern California should get more of its water locally, groups say
A coalition of conservation groups wants Southern California to get 85% of its water locally, up from the 50% it gets now, by 2045, and says a new plan shows how.
It’s urging state leaders to scrap plans for a 45-mile tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and consider asking voters to approve a bond measure to fund local water solutions. The 34-page strategy was released as critical decisions loom for local officials, California’s next governor and legislators.
Over the last century, Southern California has grown and thrived thanks to giant aqueducts it built to bring water from hundreds of miles away — the Eastern Sierra, the Colorado River and Northern California.
But with water costs rising and climate change jeopardizing these distant sources, there is growing interest in finding ways to get more water locally.
The allied groups are calling for recycling more wastewater, capturing more stormwater, improving efficiency and cleaning up contaminated groundwater.
“We have to prioritize our investments, and prioritizing them in local water makes the most sense,” said Bruce Reznik, executive director of the group Los Angeles Waterkeeper.
The coalition includes fishing groups, environmental organizations and Northern California’s Winnemem Wintu Tribe.
Its plan calls for a “new urban water renaissance” in California that prioritizes local water. This approach would reliably yield more and cost far less than Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed Delta Conveyance Project beneath the Delta.
The state estimated in 2024 the tunnel would cost $20.1 billion, but opponents say it could cost three to five times more.
“Local water is reliable, it’s more affordable, and it’s more flexible, so that we’re not committing California ratepayers to higher bills that they don’t need,” said Kyle Jones, a water expert and consultant who helped prepare the plan for the coalition.
Southern California imports about half of its water from other regions.
The coalition’s plan says the region can secure up to 2 million acre-feet of local water per year. It estimates the costs of more conservation and efficiency, more stormwater and groundwater cleaning, and more water recycling at $44 billion over two decades. The Delta tunnel, in contrast, could cost $60 billion to $100 billion, it says.
Whether the tunnel project is ultimately built may hinge on whether large water agencies, including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, decide to participate and pay for it.
1. Cranes rise above the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant in Van Nuys. 2. When completed, Los Angeles will nearly double recycled water for 500,000 residents. 3. Storage tanks sit behind a fence before being placed in the ground at the plant. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
“Metropolitan Water District really does have a significant choice on it, that not just impacts their ratepayers but impacts every single person in the state,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the group Restore the Delta. “Are we going to spend $20, $60, maybe upward to $100 million on a tunnel? Or are we going to invest significant money in local solutions that provide water resiliency and sustainability for everyone in California? That is what is at stake right now.”
The Metropolitan Water District already is planning a large new facility in Carson to transform wastewater into purified drinking water. Los Angeles and San Diego are also building water recycling plants.
“At the same time, water imported from the northern Sierra and the Colorado River provides the foundation of water supply reliability for Southern California,” said Shivaji Deshmukh, the MWD’s general manager.
He noted that the MWD invests in water efficiency and capturing stormwater, and has helped reduce per-person water use by more than 40% since 1990.
The agency’s 38-member board last year adopted a climate adaptation strategy that sets goals for lining up additional water.
Los Angeles city leaders and L.A. County supervisors have also set goals for becoming more locally self-sufficient.
The advocates who wrote the policy plan said these efforts should accelerate and expand. They pointed out that the Colorado River’s reservoirs are falling to perilously low levels, and native fish in the Delta are in decline as the pumping of water takes an ecological toll.
“Climate change is exacerbating the challenges in those ecosystems, meaning that less and less water will be available to import,” said Ashley Overhouse, water policy advisor for the group Defenders of Wildlife. “All the while, the cost of water is continuing to rise.”
About 20 other environmental groups endorsed the coalition’s strategy.
“We have got to do a better job in the next 100 years than we did in the last 100 years, if we truly want to create a place of abundance once again,” said Frankie Myers, a member of the Yurok Tribe in Northern California. “This idea that we can steal … and divert water however we want with no consequences has got to end.”
Construction continues at the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant in Van Nuys in October 2025.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
Benjamin Bass, a UCLA scientist who studies how climate change is affecting the Colorado River and other water sources, joined the group as they presented their proposal in an online briefing.
“Traditional sources for imported water are less reliable than they used to be,” Bass said. “The most reliable source of water in the future is local water.”
Other experts have reached similar conclusions.
Researchers at the Pacific Institute, a water think tank in Oakland, have examined improvements such as fixing leaks in pipes, switching out inefficient washing machines and toilets, and replacing thirsty lawns with plants suited to the state’s Mediterranean climate.
In a 2022 report, they found that a set of standard practices and technologies could reduce total urban water use by 30% or more.