Woodman Avenue Median Retrofit Project

By Jay L. Stern

Water reclamation is a fine idea; this project has too many problems to be considered a fine idea, though. It does not make economic sense and may cause a disaster in the event of an earthquake.

Esthetically, the upgrade will likely be more attractive than the existing condition, although it is not clear if that is necessarily important in the selected location, nor if it will be kept-up for the long term. What I am wondering about, however, is the promotion of the project as a means to reclaim storm-water runoff and recharge ground water aquifers. If the estimated cost of the project, $3,396,750, is taken as the value of the water, then it must be examined in terms of the current value of water. From Department of Water and Power, we see that retail rates for water are currently about $3.57 per hundred cubic feet. We are told that the project will reclaim 80 acre-feet of water per year (typical). Since one acre-foot is 43,560 cubic feet, then 80 x 43,560 = 3,484,800 cubic feet, or 34,848 hundred cubic feet. Multiplying the retail value of the water by the amount reclaimed per year can be expected to be $124,407. At that rate, the time to break-even (ignoring maintenance costs on the reclamation system) is 27.3 years.

The flyer that I received at the meeting shows sources of money for the project. It is $1,646,750 from Prop.50, $1,000,000 from LADWP and $750,000 in "staff-support cost" from the LA Bureau of Sanitation. My understanding of Prop.50 is that the money came $3.44 billion with $3.46 billion in interest, payable over 30 years. So to improve the esthetics of a short stretch of Woodman Avenue, the taxpayers of California are on the hook for the capital expense along with $1,656,324 in interest.

I understand further that water projects permitted by Prop. 50 include:

• Specified CALFED Bay-Delta Program projects including urban and agricultural water use efficiency projects
• Grants and loans to reduce Colorado River water use
• Purchasing, protecting and restoring coastal wetlands near urban areas
• Competitive grants for water management and quality improvement projects
• Development of river parkways
• Improved security for state, local and regional water systems
• Grants for desalination and drinking water disinfection

If someone said that the project would enhance Panorama City, helping to raise property values, serving as model for other water reclamation projects, and so forth, then I would be more in favor of it. As it is, the project is being promoted on fraudulent grounds, I think. I believe it is intended to be a "make-work" activity that the mayor of Los Angeles and Councilman Cardenas can point to as accomplishments.

I am disappointed that the project has already started and the public meeting was after the fact. That means the project will continue even though it is of questionable value.

By the way, I also object to the project because I think it will lead to soil liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. The City sent me information about the soil conditions. Rather than allay my fears, the information exacerbates it!