Valley Secession

Re “Water Rights Could Sink Valley Secession,” April 24.

Water terrorists claim that because of an old contract, the city cannot sell Owens Valley water outside city limits. However, since all L.A. water flows to homes and businesses through one set of pipes, there is no positive means to identify Owens Valley water.

Naysayers also tell us that the king of Spain once granted Los Angeles an “indivisible” right to all the water in the L.A. River and from underground, including the Valley aquifer, which furnishes 17% of all water used within the city limits.

This presumably leaves the Metropolitan Water District or a private supplier as the only sources of water for the new city, and the water terrorists like to think that MWD will gouge the Valley up to three times more than the Department of Water and Power, as soon as the split is finalized.

What the water terrorists always overlook is the important role that in the county’s Local Area Formation Commission will play in deciding who gets how much water. LAFCO not only has the final word on whether secession is economically feasible, but the California Government Code gives LAFCO exclusive right to make the final decision concerning “the fixing and establishment of priorities of use, or right of use, of water . . . .”

The Times forgot to mention [that] since the Valley uses 40% to 45% of all water sold in Los Angeles, the DWP’s water income would be cut almost in half if the Valley purchased this somewhere else. It seems very likely that the DWP and its unions will push hard to keep a new Valley city, or any other detached area, as a valued customer. The real bottom line is that plenty of water is available, and it is simply a matter of negotiating for its use and cost.

WALTER N. PRINCE, Chair, PRIDE Land-Use Committee, Northridge

*

Re “Splitting Up Could Cut Our Costs,” April 19.

What taxpayers / residents expect, but seldom obtain, is a reasonable level of services at the lowest possible cost. Breaking up Los Angeles cannot possibly lower overall costs. I wonder what the city and county of San Francisco would be today with out the consolidation of numerous governmental units over 50 years ago. Breaking up Los Angeles will (not may) add new fixed costs and possibly some semi-fixed costs. No one can argue about the variable costs, which necessarily are considerable because a function of the number of firemen, policemen, sanitation workers and the like--small or large, a city must have the appropriate level of such personnel per capita. I, as a resident of Los Angeles, would like to reduce fixed and semi-fixed costs, not increase them.

At the risk of being shot on sight, I would study the effects of consolidation of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena into one city!

DRO AMIRIAN, Studio City

*

Re “Draft Valley Secession Petition Is Released,” April 23.

It would be nice if Valley VOTE would make its financing public and indicate where all of its money is coming from. VOTE says that 80% of Valley residents favor a [secession] study. Then why is it necessary to hire professional petition passers? They don’t come cheap.

Please read before you sign.

LOUIS ROBINS, Van Nuys