LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles City Council moved Wednesday to officially oppose staged construction of a proposed multibillion-dollar water-delivery tunnel project if it would result in greater costs or a greater portion of the financial burden for Los Angeles ratepayers.

State water officials announced last month they will pursue staged construction of the California Waterfix project, leaving water agencies in the Southland and elsewhere to decide if they want to continue supporting the effort.

The project would divert water from the Sacramento River as it enters the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and carry it to existing federal and state pumping stations in the southern part of the delta through two 35-mile tunnels.

In the face of funding shortfalls for the nearly $17 billion project, state Department of Water Resources announced in February that the agency plans to pursue a staged construction approach, building only one tunnel initially at a cost of about $10.7 billion.

“I’ve been concerned about what [the project] means for L.A. ratepayers, whether that means that we are paying our fair share, because we are also talking about focusing on developing more local water sources,” Councilwoman Nury Martinez said earlier this month during a meeting of the Energy, Climate and Environmental Justice Committee.

Last October, the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the region’s wholesale water supplier, voted to commit about $4.3 billion toward the project. The agency’s support was considered key to the project’s success, and its directors must now decide whether to commit funds to the new staged construction proposal.

The City Council’s 13-0 vote directs the city’s chief legislative analyst, if necessary, to draft a resolution opposing the MWD’s involvement in the project if the proposal for adoption by its board of directors results in a larger financial burden or greater portion of the financial burden for Los Angeles ratepayers.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that the WMD staff is exploring the possibility of the district picking up the unfunded portion of building both tunnels, which would increase the cost to the MWD to around $11 billion.

The MWD is a wholesale water supplier which, along with the Los Angeles Aqueduct, accounts for roughly 85 percent of the city’s water supplies, with the total amount depending on the year’s environmental conditions.

The vote last October by the MWD board to commit $4.3 billion was considered by some observers to be a make-or-break decision on the tunnels, as another major water agency, the Westlands Water District, decided against helping to pay for the project.

The MWD is funded through property taxes and the price it charges for its water, so a decision by its board to help pay for the tunnels could affect Los Angeles’ ratepayers and property owners. MWD General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger has said funding the tunnels would not result in higher taxes because the project would be funded through the agency’s regular rate structure.

The 38-member MWD board represents each of the district’s 26 member agencies, including five members appointed by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. The City Council has no direct control over the MWD board and can only advise how it votes.

The tunnels would cost L.A.’s ratepayers an average of $1.73 per month in 2017 dollars, according to a 2017 report by Fred Pickel, director of the city’s Office of Public Accountability, who acts as a watchdog for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, has argued the cost will be higher than Pickel is estimating and could raise household water bills from $7 to $16 per month for more than 40 years.

The tunnels are supported by Gov. Jerry Brown, who has argued they would help the environment by protecting fish and also securing a more reliable delivery system for the water.

Some environmental groups have opposed the project, including the Sierra Club and Food and Water Watch, arguing the tunnels could be harmful to the environment and not worth the cost.