In a historic action, Southern California’s largest water agency voted Tuesday to help build the state’s massive Delta water project.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California will spend $4.3 billion to help pay for the $17 billion state project, contributing the largest share of any agency in the state. The project, dubbed California WaterFix, would rework the existing State Water Project that takes water from the twin rivers and sends its 700 miles down the state, providing 30 percent of California’s water needs.

The project harkens back to the Peripheral Canal plan defeated by voters in 1982. Like the 35 year-old canals idea, the new tunnels ignited a debate over what’s viewed as Southern Californians — although comprising two-thirds the state’s population — stealing Northern California’s water.

The project, endorsed by Gov. Jerry Brown, includes installing three water in-takes north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and building of two, 35-mile concrete diversion tunnels to move water more efficiently into thirsty Central and Southern California.

Metropolitan’s board action may have put the proposal back on track. But it did not assure the tunnels would get built unless more agencies chip in more funding.

“It means we are still moving forward. Southern California has basically endorsed the governor’s project and we will contribute our fair share,” said Jeff Kightlinger, general manager of Metropolitan, the agency responsible for providing water to 19 million Southern Californians.

The state Department of Water Resources’ project was dealt a surprising blow last month when the Westlands Water District, which supplies irrigation water to farms in Fresno and Kings counties, voted 7-1 to withdraw from the project.

If other agricultural water districts follow, the project may never receive the necessary funding needed for construction. The Westlands vote put Metropolitan in an uncomfortable position of waiting to see whether Kern County and Santa Clara County water districts — scheduled to vote in the next few weeks — go all in or fold. These two are important because they represent farming and the Silicon Valley, both large users of water.

“We’ll just have to see how they vote. Then we’ll have to talk to the governor’s office and figure out what are the next steps,” he said in an interview after the vote.

The controversial project also failed to gain the full support of the two largest cities in Southern California — San Diego and Los Angeles. Six of the agency’s 38 directors voted against joining the effort — three from Los Angeles, two from San Diego and one from Santa Monica. The final vote was 28-6 with two abstentions and two directors absent.

People show their signs during Metropolitan Water District board meeting in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

Charming Evelyn, right, Sierra Club member, addresses the media, as Kathleen Smith, left, Sierra Club member, and others show their signs during a press conference at Metropolitan Water District courtyard in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

Sound The gallery will resume in seconds

Gerald Cerda, right, and others show their signs during Metropolitan Water District board meeting in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

Chairman Randy A. Record, center, and board members listen as people give a speech during Metropolitan Water District board meeting in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

John Hanna, government affairs director, special counsel, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, gives a speech during Metropolitan Water District board meeting in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)



Chairman Randy A. Record, center, and board members listen as people give a speech during Metropolitan Water District board meeting in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director and co-founder of Restore the Delta, gives a speech during Metropolitan Water District board meeting in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

Chairman Randy A. Record, center, and board members listen as people give a speech during Metropolitan Water District board meeting in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

Liza Tucker, consumer advocate, Consumer Watchdog, gives a speech during Metropolitan Water District board meeting in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017. (Photo by Ed Crisostomo, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

Several Los Angeles directors, appointed by Mayor Eric Garcetti, wanted MWD to trim the proposal, perhaps building only one tunnel instead of two. They were concerned about raising rates on Los Angeles Department of Water and Power customers and the environmental impacts on endangered fish in the Delta.

“I hope what we are voting on today evolves into a one-tunnel project,” said Mark Gold, formerly with the environmental group Heal the Bay, who voted against the project. Gold said he was not surprised that the yeas had it. L.A. director Jesus Quinoñez, who also voted no, said the cost will be carried by low and moderate-income Angelenos.

MWD’s rates — which will have to increase — will pay for its share of the project. Kightlinger said the average household will see a $2 to $3 a month bump in its water bill once the project is built. The project will take between 17 and 20 years to build.

Water customers within the West Basin Municipal Water District, which serves 17 cities from Carson to Culver City to Manhattan Beach, would pay between $0.86 per month to $5 per month extra, said Gloria Gray, MWD director from the district.

Several environmental groups have sued the state on grounds that the project would not protect endangered fish, including the native salmon, and does not address climate change’s effects on water runoff. They view the project as a benefit to big agriculture and the Silicon Valley firms — basically a form of corporate welfare.

Many speakers told the board they would rather the money be spent on smaller fixes, such as water recycling, capturing rain water and water conservation.

“It is a bad deal,” said Brenna Norton, senior organizer with Food & Water Watch, one of many environmental and consumer watchdog groups who opposed the project. “The people of California already said ‘no’ in 1982. If they hadn’t taken away our vote this time we would’ve said ‘no’ again,” she said after the vote.

However, the majority of directors said they were voting to upgrade the State Water Project, built in 1960.

“This vote is not for ourselves,” said director Charles Trevino with the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. “We are taking this vote for future generations. It will say we believed in their future, for their ability to live the dream.”

All four Orange County directors voted in favor.

O.C. Director Larry McKenney disagreed with the L.A. directors, saying a phased-in project, starting with one tunnel, would end up raising the price tag.

Larry Dick, of the Municipal Water District of Orange County, said building just to get by is not good engineering. “It is better to have and not need, then need and not have,” he said.