Met board overrides committee restrictions to certify Pure Water SoCal EIR

Met board overrides committee restrictions to certify Pure Water SoCal EIRThe board rejected a last-minute push to tie the massive reuse project's environmental clearance to future budget analyses, bowing to widespread stakeholder pressure to keep the scheme on track.

The board voted unanimously to certify the Final EIR for the Pure Water Southern California project without conditions.

Directors rejected a committee recommendation that would have required further analysis of alternative supply investments before additional budget allocations.

The project is designed to produce up to 150 million gallons per day (MGD) of purified water.

Director Adán Ortega’s board heard concerns that conditional approval could jeopardize external grant funding and signal a lack of commitment.

Staff committed to re-evaluating pump station locations in Irwindale following city concerns about local development conflicts.

The Board of Directors for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Met) voted unanimously on February 10 to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pure Water Southern California program, removing fiscal conditions that had been attached to the measure just a day prior. The decision marks a critical milestone for the regional recycled water program, which aims to produce up to 150 million gallons per day (MGD) by purifying wastewater from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' A.K. Warren Facility. While Met has historically incentivized over 100 local recycling projects producing 1.3 trillion gallons regionwide, Pure Water represents the wholesaler's first direct implementation of a large-scale purified drinking water system. However, the vote followed a procedural tug-of-war regarding how the agency manages the project's long-term costs. During the Engineering and Operations Committee meeting on February 9, Director Brenda Dennstedt had successfully introduced a motion requiring staff to conduct further analysis of other potential water supply investments before making additional budget allocations to Pure Water. At the full board meeting, however, Director Victor Garza moved to revert to the original staff recommendation—dubbed 'Option 1'—which simply certified the EIR and approved the project for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes without added stipulations. Garza and other directors argued that placing conditions on the EIR could send a negative signal to funding partners and regulators. 'It [the committee motion] sends a dangerous message... that this is a second-class project,' said Bruce Reznik of Los Angeles Waterkeeper during public comment, echoing a coalition of business, labor, and environmental groups urging a 'clean' approval. Speakers noted that conditional language could jeopardize grant funding and legal defensibility. Director Dennstedt ultimately seconded the motion for the clean approval, withdrawing her previous conditions. She cited assurances from the General Manager that future expenditures would still be subject to rigorous review through the agency's Climate Adaptation Master Plan for Water (CAMP4Water) and biennial budget processes. Dennstedt noted her primary concern was the 'long-term expenditures of $3.6 billion in the budget projections' for a project not yet fully approved for construction. The certified EIR allows Met to proceed with planning, permitting, and design work, though it does not yet authorize construction or appropriate construction funds. The General Manager clarified that the certification enables the district to maintain flexibility and evaluate project stages without committing to the full build-out immediately. While the approval received broad support, the City of Irwindale raised specific objections regarding the proposed location of the Santa Fe Pump Station. City representatives stated the site conflicts with an approved development plan and requested the EIR not be certified. Met staff responded that the pump station was analyzed at a programmatic level rather than a project-specific level, leaving the door open to find a 'more appropriate site' during the design phase if the current location remains unfavorable to the city.