"Marital Bliss Just Pipe Dream" (July 18), concerning the new cities' water supply in the event of secession, is inadequate in that it merely echoes the Local Agency Formation Commission's decision that the water supply is "community property" that can be divided just like any other asset. It ignores the fact that the Valley and Hollywood would be reneging on an agreement they made to annex to Los Angeles to obtain water from the Owens Valley. LAFCO's assumption is that this is no longer a valid legal agreement, and the new cities would retain proportional rights to this water, as well as the L.A. River water, after secession.
In the event of a severe drought and a water shortage, Los Angeles officials will have a first responsibility to their own citizens to prevent rationing. It is at that point that the annulment of annexation agreements and the question of who owns the water will come into play. My guess is that Los Angeles will not wait for such a crisis to occur and will litigate this matter immediately if the areas were to secede. Under these circumstances, why would any thinking person accept the risk of secession?
Leon Furgatch
Granada Hills
