Readers React:  Defending the ‘Westlands’ water deal

To the editor: We disagree strenuously with Michael Hiltzik’s recent column on the Westlands Water District. (“Secret water deal sets an awful example,” Column, Sept. 20) As for any “secrecy,” the federal district court, Congress and interested nongovernmental organizations were regularly updated on the status of negotiations, and the terms of a potential settlement were shared in December 2013.

We also disagree on the characterization of the terms of the settlement. Westlands is not immunized from cutbacks; the government may still impose environmental or drought restrictions as before.

Moreover, the settlement reduces the government’s obligation to Westlands by 25%, even in wet years when full allocations will be available to other contractors.

While the Obama administration, Gov. Jerry Brown and others are trying to find ways to resolve water supply issues, some are still embracing tired old divisions of the past — north vs. south, fish vs. farmers. Thankfully, the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior crafted a settlement in which all parties were held responsible and all had their decades-long legal disputes resolved.

Don Peracchi, Fresno

The writer is president of the Westlands Water District.

..

To the editor: Absolutely amazing that we are just now hearing about Westlands’ “secret” deal for California water. Where was the governor when this was being brokered?

As a Californian who has been struggling to reduce my family’s water use, facing a dead or dying lawn and landscaping, I am outraged at the audacity of the government and this (obviously powerful) water district that continues to put a major drain on this precious state resource, to the detriment of the state’s residents.

William Franklin, Wildomar, Calif.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook