Neither Inyo County nor LA, however, has proposed using this standard for the Drought Recovery Policy or anything else. Inyo County is, instead, settling for the lower standard of restoration of vegetation to 1984-1987 baseline conditions while DWP is attempting to evade even this low standard.

Our second comment is that measurement of total perennial cover -- one of the county's main techniques for measuring pumping impacts with regard to the Drought Recovery Policy -- is a crude tool to measure ecological change. Measurement of total perennial cover does not describe species composition or community structure. For example, native grasses in a meadow may be weakened by lowered water tables and subsequently be invaded by noxious weeds. If the total perennial cover of the weed-infested meadow, however, subsequently increases to reach the baseline cover of the original grass-dominated meadow, it appears both Inyo County and DWP will agree that the parcel has "recovered", release it from the constraints of the Drought Recovery Policy and allow the water table to be lowered again. By using this crude technique to measure change and recovery of vegetation in our opinion neither Inyo nor LADWP are adequately discharging their obligations to manage pumping to avoid significant environmental impacts.

For these reasons we believe that the 72,300 acre.feet. of pumping proposed by Inyo County is, if anything, excessive and should be the maximum -- rather than the minimum -- permissible volume of pumping for 2001-2002.

Finally, we would like to point out that Inyo County's attempt to implement the Drought Recovery Policy, even if imperfect, represents a good faith effort. The County has produced reports every year since 1999 describing in detail its application of the Drought Recovery Policy to every parcel. Prior to 1999 vegetation conditions were routinely reported to the Technical Group on at least an annual basis. LADWP, however, has never bothered to comment on these reports at Technical Group meetings nor has it even once raised the issue of how the Drought Recovery Policy might be implemented.

We object to DWP's submission of criticisms of the county's implementation of the Drought Recovery Policy to the arbitrator when DWP has chosen not to raise these criticisms in public at Technical Group meetings where they would be subject to critical scrutiny. The Water Agreement makes it clear that the Technical Group is the appropriate forum to resolve technical issues and we do not think DWP should be allowed to bypass it. For this reason we respectfully request that DWP's document of June 1, 2001 titled "Reply to Inyo County Water Department Comments Dated May 18, 2001 and Transmittal Letter Dated May 22, 2001" be withdrawn from consideration by the arbitrator.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Mike Prather, President, Owens Valley Committee