It looks increasingly parched for certain water interests in California. They've staked their future on water sources that are anything but reliable. Fearing they will come up empty, they are lashing out. Their only salvation may be the Legislature or California's court system, which gives you a sense of how desperate they are.

Which region am I referring to? Southern California?

Yes, but more specifically, I am thinking about San Diego. Home to 3 million people and a revitalized downtown that Sacramento should envy, San Diego is arguably the most risk-challenged user of water of any region in California. The city imports nearly 90 percent of its supplies. It also is largely dependent on the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California – a mortal enemy – for every drop that it purchases.

Metropolitan and the San Diego County Water Authority have feuded since the 1940s, when they were joined in a shotgun wedding. They now are in their fourth round of litigation. San Diego accuses Metropolitan of charging too much for the water it delivers. Metropolitan, in turn, says San Diego is interested only in itself and stubbornly refuses to participate in programs to improve regional water supplies.

San Diego filed its latest lawsuit last year, but now it is doubling down with a PR blitz. Armed with a PowerPoint presentation, water authority leaders have been visiting lawmakers and editorial boards, accusing Metropolitan of fiscal mismanagement. Even more boldly, they started suggesting the powerful "Met" lacks the financial wherewithal to help pay for a peripheral canal in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, one of its top priorities.

There's no doubt that Metropolitan, like many water agencies, is in financial difficulties. The water wholesaler faces a $200 million shortfall in the current fiscal year and has been forced to raise rates sharply for the water it delivers to member agencies.

Jeffrey Kightlinger, Metropolitan's general manager, waves off concerns about the deficit. Recent years have been cool and rainy, meaning that water agencies don't need to purchase as much supply as they normally would. "Our sales go up and down," he told me. "This has happened before."

Yet San Diego officials say the problem is more than cyclical. Metropolitan, they argue, has been encouraging its member agencies to develop their own independent supplies of water. Partly because of this trend, Metropolitan's sales of water have dropped 32 percent since 2008, to about 1.5 million acre-feet of water yearly, enough for 3 million households.

"Metropolitan's sales keep dropping, yet it is still spending money as if nothing has changed," said Dennis Kushman, assistant general manager of the San Diego water authority, who describes Metropolitan as a "house of cards."

San Diego's status on the Metropolitan board of directors is one big reason for its gripes. Although San Diego is Metropolitan's biggest current customer, it doesn't have voting power proportional to its purchases. That's because voting on Metropolitan's board is weighted to reflect property values. San Diego's property values are rising, but for now, it often gets outvoted by Los Angeles and others on the ruling council.

While San Diego fumes about not having power comparable to its purchases, its opponents regard it as selfish. In recent decades, Metropolitan has spent more than $3 billion on the Diamond Valley Reservoir and 44 miles of tunnels – known as the Inland Feeder project. Both projects, said Kightlinger, serve Southern California's growing population and help protect it from drought. "San Diego voted 'no' on both," he noted.

On top of this, Metropolitan's leadership has long felt that San Diego has inadequately recognized (or paid for) infrastructure that was constructed before San Diego joined the water district. According to one study co-written by UC San Diego political scientist Steven P. Erie, by the mid-1990s San Diego had underpaid by $2 billion and Los Angeles had overpaid by $3 billion.

Lester Snow, former director of the California Department of Water Resources, said it is long past time for Metropolitan and San Diego to declare some kind of truce. Snow was general manager of the San Diego authority from 1988 to 1995 and is sympathetic to his former employer. But efforts to vilify Metropolitan and discredit its financial viability could backfire, he said.

"It is like threatening to shoot your Siamese twin," said Snow. "Where does that leave you?"

San Diego and Southern California face looming questions on the Colorado River. Since 2003, the region has been banking on a major transfer of Colorado River water from the Imperial Irrigation District to San Diego. But aspects of that deal – part of the Quantification Settlement Agreement of 2003 – have so far been blocked by a lawsuit against the QSA. Another wild card is the Colorado River itself, which scientists say is vulnerable to an extended drought.

For many us in Northern California, it might be tempting to applaud continued battles between San Diego and Metropolitan. After all, if Southern Californians are living in a house divided, they'll be less likely to impose their will over use of water from the Delta, including possible construction of a peripheral canal.

But I'm not sure if I can join this camp. Decades of litigation and fighting have done little to help our state resolve conflicts over its environment and water supply. The litigation keeps building year after year, and the only winners in this race to the bottom are the lawyers.

"It's indicative of water issues as a whole," said Snow. "These are tough issues, but why can't adults sit down and work this out without bringing guns to bear?"

Editor's note: This story was corrected from a previous version to restore missing words.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.