Invisible Agency and Unknown Candidates?

By Ed La Bahn

The November 7, 2000 election of MWDOC directors is a unique event, not soon to be repeated. (Few incumbents are involved.) Based on the nature of MWDOC's operations and a lack of media coverage, few voters are familiar with the District and its issues. In the absence of candidate forums, voters will find it difficult to evaluate the relative qualifications of candidates.

Certain operational characteristics also are important. Neither CMWD nor MWDOC, which are mainly paper organizations with little in the way of infrastructure, have direct links to potable water end users. Both are member agencies of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET). They purchase imported water from MET and, in turn, sell this water wholesale to local retail water agencies. These indirect links have resulted in the two wholesale agencies having low levels of visibility to the public. As a result, the general public is relatively unaware of regional water supply issues. These issues include: reliability in meeting present and future demands, water rates and transfers, water quality, pending changes in legislation and MET governance. Although the consolidation of the two existing districts is unlikely to significantly change this situation, the future scheduling of water supply public workshops to discuss and evaluate these issues would help.

Due to the high priority given to other elective offices and ballot measures reflected in the November 7, 2000 General Election ballot, there has been no attempt by the media or others to schedule candidate forums for the 39 candidates running for MWDOC's seven seats. Depending partly on the extent to which both candidates and voters choose to utilize the California League of Women Voters Smart Voter website, voters will find it difficult to evaluate the relative qualifications of candidates.