|
The Owens Valley Committee |
| [Home] [About OVC] [News] [Events] [Issues] [Take Action] [Owens Valley] [Related Links] [Contact Us] [Site Map] | |
|
News |
| 2/15/2008 | For Valentine's Day, Lower Owens carries LA mayor away |
| OWENS RIVER INTAKE, INYO COUNTY, CA--Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa let the Lower Owens River sweep him off his feet Wednesday, February 13. After presiding over a ceremony to celebrate the beginning of the first artificial seasonal habitat flow since the river's official rewatering in December 2006, the mayor climbed into a yellow canoe and rowed gently downstream. Many others joined him in a small celebratory flotilla, including Mark Bagley, local Sierra Club representative, and David Nahai, new DWP general manager, who sat elbow-to-elbow at the bow of a drift boat. The Lower Owens River Project partly mitigates environmental damage from groundwater pumping from 1970 to 1990. Yearly seasonal habitat flows--including this, the first for the newly rewatered river--are meant to imitate natural flooding by redistributing muck from the river bottom, helping to distribute and germinate seeds from riparian vegetation such as willows and cottonwood, and recharging groundwater tables in the flood plain, among other purposes. Several speakers at the ceremony wryly acknowledged that mitigation projects for Los Angeles' water exports from the Owens Valley have often been a labor of law more than a labor of love. "We recognize that Los Angeles was a desert before we came to the Owens Valley and that the Owens Valley was an oasis," the mayor said. "....Today we say we're going to share the prosperity....We're here to be the neighbors we should have been one hundred years ago." "We've done this together," said David Nahai, who served on the Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners before becoming LADWP's new general manager in December 2007. "....While the past is immutable, the future is there for anyone to change." That future is still written in water. Although the Lower Owens River Project partly mitigates groundwater pumping damage from 1970-1990, damage to the Owens Valley from ongoing groundwater pumping is still a source of conflict. In spite of joint groundwater management agreements, Los Angeles' average yearly groundwater pumping exceeded sustainable levels until 2005, when a court order temporarily reduced Los Angeles' groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley until minimum flows in the river were well established. Inyo County and Los Angeles are still negotiating the terms by which groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley will be managed to avoid additional environmental impacts. Desertification and damage to the valley's groundwater-dependent meadows are a deep and ongoing concern. And, as Owens Valley Committee president Carla Scheidlinger noted during the habitat flow ceremony, the Lower Owens River Project's degree of success will rest on an as-yet-to-be-determined monitoring and adaptive management plan for the river. Habitat flows to the Lower Owens will be ramped up slowly during a seven-day period from the river's base flow of 40 cubic feet per second to approximately 200 cubic feet per second at the Aqueduct Intake by about February 20. A peak flow of 200 cubic feet per second will be maintained for 24 hours, and then flows will slowly drop again by about 20 percent per day to the 40 cubic feet per second base flow. Increased flows will take approximately two weeks to travel down the river to the Alabama Gates area, where flows will then be supplemented to maintain a 200 cfs flow for several days in the Lower Owens River below the Alabama Spill Gate. |
|
| Contacts: | Ceal Klingler webmaster@ovcweb.org Phone: |
|
|
|
| 12/12/2007 | Deaton retires, and Nahai takes the helm |
| The Los Angeles City Council has confirmed H. David Nahai's appointment as new general manager for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Mayor Villaraigosa announced his appointment of Nahai, who served as a Board of Water and Power commissioner for two years, this October, after Los Angeles Department of Water and Power general manager Ron Deaton announced that he would be retiring from his position in December. Nahai's appointment required approval by the City Council. Deaton, who worked with the City of Los Angeles for 42 years, made a reluctant decision to retire after several months of medical leave with heart problems. "The challenges over the last several months are surpassed only by the difficult decision to retire from service in the City I hold so dear," Deaton wrote in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "....Most recently, it was a distinct pleasure to focus my energies at the place where my City Service began--The Department of Water and Power." Nahai has visited the Owens Valley several times to consider local water policy issues during his service as a DWP commissioner, and has garnered a reputation locally for detailed knowledge of the issues and for a patient--but wary--ear for residents' comments and questions. He has gained a reputation for pithy and humorous observations as well, such as his rewording of William Mulholland's 1913 speech regarding the diversion of the Owens River. "There it is," Nahai said at the Owens River rewatering ceremony in 2006. "Take it back." --Ceal Klingler |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 7/13/2007 | In brief: Standing Committee meeting summary |
| BISHOP--The Inyo County/Los Angeles Standing Committee, a group of appointed representatives from Inyo County and Los Angeles created to jointly manage groundwater policy in the Owens Valley, met Monday to discuss Green Book revisions, the Lower Owens River Project, upcoming responsibilities, and mitigation projects. The meeting flowed quickly with only one snag and a mostly warm current that Los Angeles Water Commissioner David Nahai attributed, with a wry smile, to members' efforts "to introduce a modicum of trust." In brief: * Green Book: No formal revisions have been drafted yet for the Green Book--a technical appendix to the 1991 Long Term Water Agreement that sets forth protocols for monitoring of water tables and management of groundwater pumping (see endnote 1)--but suggested revisions will likely involve hydrologic aspects of ON/OFF triggers for wells, evaluation of exempt wells, groundwater mining (and hopefully the prevention thereof), and testing of new wells. * Lower Owens River Project: In measurements taken last week, water flows in the river averaged well above 40 cubic feet per second at all of the monitoring stations except the pumpback station. As hoped, riparian vegetation is quickly greening the banks of the river channel. * Standing Committee responsibilities: In years when runoff is less than average, the Standing Committee will need to approve water releases to the Blackrock Waterfowl Area and will also need to approve the amount of water (if any) dedicated to the yearly Lower Owens River seasonal habitat flow. * Presentation of projects from the ad hoc group: The 1997 Memorandum of Understanding stipulates, among other requirements, that LADWP must complete a number of environmental mitigation projects for which the total water allotment would be approximately 1600 acre feet per year. Although a project at Hines Spring is required, the nature and location of other mitigation projects are somewhat flexible. Tom Brooks of Inyo County Water Department and Carla Scheidlinger of the Owens Valley Committee presented a list of potential mitigation projects negotiated by an ad hoc group of representatives from ICWD, LADWP, Sierra Club, the Owens Valley Committee, California DFG, the Inyo County Agricultural Commssioner, and the ranching community. The group selected potential projects that would, among other criteria, require very little or no MOU or Stipulation and Order modification, require no new wells that might be misinterpreted as potential new production wells, and that would not return additional flow to the river (and hence to the LA aqueduct). Six potential projects throughout the valley met these and other criteria and include projects to: -return water to the historic channels of Freeman Creek -develop riparian and aquatic habitat in the Hines Creek/Aberdeen Ditch area -create ponds or wetland/riparian vegetation in the Hines Spring area -create spring-type habitat southeast of Independence -create spring-type habitat north of Mazourka Canyon Road -deliver the balance of mitigation water to Warren Lake. *Public comments: The Standing Committee invited a member of the public to make scheduled but not publicly agendized comments following the LORP update regarding the effects of the first river flushing/seasonal habitat flow on his ranch's grazing schedule. During these comments, the Standing Committee began to discuss potential ways of changing the timing or volume of the flow. Confusion ensued among both the Committee members and the audience regarding timing of public comments and formal meeting and decision rules. The Standing Committee then decided to allow public comments following each of the remaining agenda items. Comments from the public included comments 1) urging the Committee to schedule a public discussion and to consider the rationale for the first flushing flow/seasonal habitat flow before considering changing the management of the LORP; 2) praise for the ad hoc process; and 3) a request to consider certain policy changes in groundwater management. Daniel Pritchett of the Bristlecone chapter of the California Native Plant Society suggested that the Standing Committee set benchmarks, deadlines, and goals for the Technical Group, that Technical Group meetings should be tape recorded to solve the question of how to get accurate information to the public regarding the content of those meetings, and that rather than pumping additional groundwater to mitigate for groundwater pumping damage at Big Seeley Springs and other areas in the valley, the Standing Committee should first consider whether those mitigation projects violate an overriding requirement of the Long Term Water Agreement to avoid further significant impacts. Mr. Pritchett also submitted additional written comments, which we have posted on the Owens Valley Committee website as a PDF (see endnote 2). In response, Los Angeles Commissioner David Nahai agreed that a Technical Group timeline should be established and that Los Angeles would ask the city attorney to evaluate whether prevention (i.e., avoidance of damage) was a higher legal priority than remediation. (1) To see a PDF of the 1990 Green Book, which is not in fact green but which has appeared in the real world with a green paper cover, see www.inyowater.org/Water_Resources/Green%20Book%202000.PDF (2) Links to download Mr. Pritchett's comments and a related cover letter from the Bristlecone chapter of the CNPS are posted under "Ripples" on the OVC home page at www.OVCweb.org |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 5/23/2007 | A first descent: Lower Owens floats their boats |
| In a celebration of the river's renewed existence, nine people kayaked and canoed approximately the northmost five miles of the Lower Owens this April in what was likely the first boat descent in nearly a century. Until a rewatering ceremony December 6, 2006, the southern sixty miles of the Owens River had been mostly a memory and an empty riverbed since 1913, when Los Angeles diverted the river into the first Los Angeles aqueduct. Plans for a river resurrection surfaced in the 1980s and 1990s, when Los Angeles lost a series of court battles over impacts to the Owens Valley from excessive groundwater pumping and from exports via a second aqueduct. Eventually the city agreed to partly restore the Lower Owens River as partial mitigation for thirty years of groundwater pumping damage, but the project stalled in its planning stages. In 2005, a judge ordered Los Angeles to, among other measures, begin flows to the river by January 2007 or risk losing the use of its second Owens Valley aqueduct. Flows began in winter 2006, and Los Angeles announced in February 2007 that flows had reached required levels throughout the river. Speculation about floating the river inevitably followed--or rather, led. The river explorers met obstacles, of course: chain link fence, tules, tamarisk stumps. But they persevered. “In some cases we could squeeze by, next to a bank, either paddling with great difficulty or walking on the bottom and pulling the boats,” wrote Frank Colver, an Owens Valley Committee member, in a recent account of the descent. “....In many cases the water was so deep where we needed to push a path through the tules that we could not use our feet on the bottom for traction. Instead, we would sort of lie down or walk on our knees being supported by the floating refuse of dead tules.” Colver is fairly certain he and other expedition members--Gary, Karla, and Jessamyn Peebles; Nathan and Mike Piehl; Mel Herlin; Sylvia Stevenson; and Russ Brown--can claim the title of first descent of the newly restored river. “We did not see any evidence of anyone having broken a boat path through the tules,” he wrote. “It looked untouched (it doesn’t any longer).” The trip breaks no records for longest, most difficult, or most remote. No one will sing love songs to the river's rapids, or extoll any holes, plunge pools, or dangerous deviousness--oxbows notwithstanding. What makes this river trip special is not the character of the river's water; it's the simple presence of water. “It was a thrill for me to float over the new gauging station just above Black Rock Road," Colver wrote. "Last December 7 I walked over to it--[it was] only a trickle then--and stood there wondering if I would ever be able to find myself floating over it.” The group took out at the east bank of the river at Black Rock Road, leaving further exploration for a time when the channel is less choked with vegetation. For a while, the Lower Owens River Project wouldn't float. Now it does. --Ceal Klingler |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 3/13/2007 | Judge rules lower Owens close, but no vacation |
| MARCH 13, 2007--In a ruling issued late yesterday, Inyo County Superior Court Judge Lee Cooper found that the Los Angeles Department of Water (DWP) has "proceeded with commendable diligence" in complying with a 2005 court order to rewater the lower Owens River, but that DWP isn't done yet. "On the record before me, I cannot find that the City has complied with all of the conditions set forth," Cooper wrote. "....All means all, not just some of the conditions!" Los Angeles diverted the lower Owens River to its first aqueduct in 1913. The river rewatering project, required as partial mitigation for environmental damage from Los Angeles' groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley from 1970 to 1990, had foundered for years until a lawsuit initiated by the Owens Valley Committee and the Sierra Club resulted in Judge Cooper's 2005 order. In his 2005 ruling, Cooper issued an injunction that would stop Los Angeles' water exports via its second aqueduct if the City did not meet certain conditions by January and July of 2007. Among other measures, the court order required Los Angeles to pay $5,000 a day beginning September 5, 2005 and continuing until flows in the lower Owens had been fully implemented. The City was also required to begin flows to the lower Owens River by January 2007 and to implement flows of 40 cubic feet per second throughout the river by July 2007. Los Angeles began flows into the lower Owens River in early December last year. In late February, attorneys for the City submitted a request to Judge Cooper to vacate the injunction and lift the other conditions of the court order. "LADWP is pleased to inform the Court and the parties that it has established permanent baseflows of approximately 40 c.f.s. throughout the Lower Owens River in compliance with the Court's Order.... nearly five months ahead of the compliance deadline," the City's attorneys wrote. Judge Cooper, however, found that the City hadn't earned a vacation yet. The DWP had constructed only nine of 17 stations required for monitoring flows throughout the river and was unable to provide adequate data about the volume of the flows. "Regrettably," the judge wrote, "given the history of the [Lower Owens River Project], a certain level of skepticism by the other parties about DWP's representations is understandable, particularly when required monitoring stations have not been provided and the additional flow data that would have been generated is not available." Nevertheless, the judge continued, he looked forward to Los Angeles' fulfillment of all of the conditions of his order, which would allow him to "declare the Lower Owens to be a river again." --Ceal Klingler |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 12/7/2006 | At last, water rejoins the lower Owens River |
| LOS ANGELES AQUEDUCT INTAKE, INYO COUNTY, CA--At the flick of a toggle, water flowed into the lower Owens River Wednesday afternoon, December 6. Although the water flowed from the same Los Angeles aqueduct intake that diverted the Owens River more than ninety years ago, rather than directly from the upper Owens River, hundreds of people witnessed and cheered the small flow as a good first step in mending relations between Los Angeles and the Owens Valley. The project, intended as partial mitigation for environmental damage from Los Angeles' groundwater pumping from 1970 to 1990, had remained in dry dock for years until Inyo County Superior Court Judge Lee Cooper, Jr., ordered Los Angeles to initiate flows by late January 2007 or lose the use of its second aqueduct. The ruling resulted from a series of lawsuits initiated by the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee--a local water-policy-oriented citizens' action group. Among other measures, Cooper ordered that Los Angeles temporarily reduce its groundwater pumping and pay a $5,000-a-day fee until flows in the lower Owens River reach a specified level. "There it is. Take it back," said H. David Nahai, President of the Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners, before introducing Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at a ceremony to celebrate the initiation of flows. Nahai's audience, many of them Owens Valley residents, applauded his slight modification of the 1913 speech William Mulholland gave to San Fernando Valley residents after Mulholland had diverted the Owens River to the Los Angeles Aqueduct. ("There it is," Mulholland said originally. "Take it.") "Like these waters behind us, we need to change course," said Villaraigosa. "....We have an historic obligation and an essential role to play." He spoke not only of the relationship between Los Angeles and the Owens Valley, but also of the role he hoped Los Angeles would someday achieve as one of the "cleanest and greenest" cities in the U.S. "It's about damn time," observed a bystander. Water reentered the river at a not atypically delicate juncture in relations between Los Angeles and the Owens Valley. Earlier in the week, the City and the Great Basin Air Pollution Control district finished renegotiating the conditions under which the City would control dust emissions from the Owens dry lake bed, which became the largest point source of particulate matter pollution in the United States after Los Angeles' surface water diversions. Los Angeles' continued groundwater pumping remains a significant environmental concern in the Owens Valley. In spite of two high runoff years and a court order that temporarily reduced pumping, water tables have not recovered to levels set by a 1991 Long Term Water Agreement (LTWA) established by the City and Inyo County, and alkali meadows in the valley have showed a steady decline over the last few decades. Many mitigation projects for previous groundwater pumping damage remain stalled. A few years ago, Los Angeles unilaterally suspended a Drought Recovery Policy instituted by Inyo and Los Angeles to allow groundwater tables in the Owens Valley to recover from low run-off years and avoid further environmental damage. Committee meetings between Inyo County and the City to coordinate joint water management policy under the terms of the 1991 LTWA ceased in 2003. Those meetings, however, finally resumed last month--a signal from Villaraigosa's administration that the mayor hopes to stop the downward spiral in relations between Inyo County and Los Angeles. Two leaders of local groups echoed that hope in their remarks at the rewatering ceremony. "Cities in the American West, and indeed all over the world, are engaged in a struggle to obtain adequate water supplies for their burgeoning populations. And the struggle has often been bitter and wasteful," said Carla Scheidlinger, president of the Owens Valley Committee. The rewatering ceremony, she said, "marks what we 'watchers of the water' fervently hope is the beginning of a new era of cooperation with Los Angeles." "The commencement of the Lower Owens River Project is a symbol of the hope we have for the future. It's a symbol of the improvement that's occurred in our working relationship with the city during the last nine months," said Mark Bagley, a longtime local Sierra Club leader who has also been instrumental in the negotiations and lawsuits surrounding Owens Valley water. After the lower Owens River rewatering ceremony, once the crowd had cleared and the mayor had returned to Los Angeles, a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) employee carefully reduced the water flow from the aqueduct to the river. The Los Angeles DWP has not yet completed work on the pumpback station that will return water from the southern end of the river to the Los Angeles aqueduct, where the water will resume its journey to Los Angeles. Until the pumpback station is ready, flows will be kept at minimal levels to prevent water from reaching the Owens Lake bed, where a different set of lawsuits have governed how much water goes where. Perhaps more important, as Water and Power Commissioner Mary Nichols noted dryly during the ceremony, "DWP releases no drop of water ahead of its time." --Ceal Klingler |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 11/30/2006 | Mulholland Christmas Carol musical satire opens in LA |
| The award winning musical satire "A Mulholland Christmas Carol" opened Nov. 24 in Los Angeles at the Sacred Fools Theater (660 Heliothrop). Shows are $25 Fridays and Saturdays at 8PM and Sundays at 4PM. The show closes December 23. Most of the cast from last year's show returns this year, and a new song has been added to the show. |
|
| Contacts: | Sacred Fools Theater prather@qnet.com Phone: 310.281.8337 |
|
|
|
| 11/30/2006 | EPA backs down from threats to rural air standards at Mono and Owens lakes |
| The federal Environmental Protection Agency in September decided not to gut rural dust control standards for Mono Lake and Owens Lake, in large part as the result of a huge public outcry. Many thanks to everyone who submitted comments, called, or encouraged others to protest the proposed changes. Go to www.monolake.org/airquality for details, or for details and comments on the plan, see "Reminder: EPA proposal leaves Owens Valley in the dust" in our news archives for 4/14/2006.) |
|
| Contacts: | Mike Prather prather@qnet.com Phone: 760.876.5807 |
|
|
|
| 8/30/2006 | Ad hoc meetings bring hope to mitigation process |
| Reprinted from the Summer/Fall 2006 issue of the Rainshadow, OVC's bi-annual newsletter The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), to which the OVC is a party, mandates that there be a total of 1600 acre-feet of water each year left in the Owens Valley for the creation of wetlands to mitigate for springs and seeps that were lost in the wake of groundwater pumping associated with the second aqueduct. Although three different consultants have presented plans for the use of this water, all the plans have violated some provision of the MOU and have left all parties with a great sense of frustration and doubt that any reasonable mitigations could be developed that would please us all. The OVC took the unprecedented step of initiating an "ad hoc" process in an effort to get this important mitigation back on track. "Ad hoc" means that any decision the group reaches is not binding and that any participant can leave the process at any time without endangering the legal MOU process, which remains in place. Furthermore, no decision of the group can be implemented until all proper legal protocols are observed, including public input into the resulting proposal. Inyo County Water Department, LADWP, California Department of Fish and Game, the Sierra Club, and the ranching community have joined the OVC in this "ad hoc" process. What makes the process special is that it has created an atmosphere in which we have been able to brainstorm freely. Initial contacts were stilted and hostilities were evident, but as we have moved into a third month of meetings, the process has resulted in increased trust. Very creative and practical ideas have surfaced. We now have seven projects under consideration that include one associated with Hines Spring, as well as six more that will utilize both artesian well waters and canal waters to create habitats that will substantially enhance wetland habitat in the Owens Valley for the benefit of wildlife and aquatic organisms. OVC members Carla Scheidlinger, Derrick Vocelka, and Mark Bagley feel genuinely enthusiastic about this process and believe that, time-consuming as it is, it will result in a much more environmentally valuable project than could have been obtained from the consultants alone. If a proposal before the decision-makers of the "ad hoc" participants truly is universally supported, it will be a real landmark in the Owens Valley water wars. We may be replacing “see you in court” with “see you on the next field trip.” —Carla Scheidlinger, President, Owens Valley Committee |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 8/30/2006 | Ripping yarn or happy ending: Can the Green Book be revised? |
| The Inyo County/Los Angeles Technical Group met this morning in Bishop to discuss, among other issues, how to find a way to revise the Green Book--a technical appendix to the Inyo-Los Angeles Long Term Water Agreement that describes and defines the methods by which Inyo and Los Angeles will monitor vegetation and water table levels in Inyo County and how they'll interpret and respond to those changes. Tom Brooks, director of the Inyo County Water Department, described the problem in a nutshell--or rather, two nutshells. Pointing to two separate ovals depicting the respective staffs of Inyo County Water Department and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, he noted that both staffs respond to policy directives from higher up as part of their jobs. If policy goals of Los Angeles and Inyo County don't overlap, he said, asking LADWP and Inyo County staff below them to find compromises is "an exercise in frustration and futility." Two staffs pursuing disparate goals means the ovals encompassing those goals, by definition, can't be forced into common space. Brooks outlined a proposal to crack these two hard nutshells using the stated and presumably mutual goals of the Long Term Water Agreement by which both Inyo County and Los Angeles are legally--if sometimes uncomfortably-- bound. Identifying three key elements of the Water Agreement--avoidance of impacts to the environment, a reliable water supply for Los Angeles, and joint management of groundwater as a resource--he suggested a list of principles for implementing the Agreement and followed with a set of simple parameters that could be used to help direct water management: 1. A depth-to-water target (a water table level that needs to be attained periodically to meet the vegetation maintenance goals of the Long Term Water Agreement) 2. A recovery curve that defines the amount of time needed to return to the depth-to-water target 3. A period of time for vegetation to recover after water tables returned to the depth-to-water target 4. A depth-to-water floor (a water table level that would allow "timely" recovery of the water tables to the depth-to-water target. Or, in other words, a water table level high enough that vegetation would be able to survive during the wait for water tables to return to rooting zones and to recover afterward). Such a model, Brooks said, would allow LADWP to decide what groundwater pumping strategy it wants to use within a set of well-defined guidelines. Joint management would mean that Inyo and Los Angeles would try to agree upon and adjust the first three parameters as the two agencies gather data on how well their models were working. Most important, Brooks said, was that "our decision-makers" identify policy goals for the two agencies that would allow some compromise between them. Gene Coufal, manager of the LADWP aqueduct business group, agreed that the two agencies should be able to find common ground, noting that a separate series of ad hoc meetings regarding mitigation plans for Owens Valley (see "Ad hoc meetings bring hope to mitigation process" above) have been "very positive and successful." "We can do this," he said. "Let's just get this process started." The two agencies agreed to hold a staff "kick-off" meeting in late September that would allow employees of both agencies to create a list of general problems with the Green Book and, from there, ask policy-makers at upcoming Standing Committee meetings to give them specific directives--or at least a specific direction--related to those problems. Today's discussion also included * an Owens Valley operations and runoff update (updated information through June has been posted at ladwp.com) *a discussion of On/Off well status (no change since April or May) * an update on water spreading (all water spreading has now stopped and the court order to spread 16,294 acre feet of water has been met and slightly exceeded) * a brief discussion of LADWP's proposed new wells (including a new well in Bell Canyon that will be used to supply the new Big Pine ditch system, a replacement well in the Bairs-Georges wellfield, a domestic well in Keeler, and 4 new monitoring wells to replace monitoring wells that will be affected during expansion of Hwy. 395 as part of the Manzanar Highway Improvement Project). One problem that will have to be addressed soon is how to designate new vegetation transects and locate monitoring wells to adequately substitute for those at vegetation monitoring sites SS3 and SS4, which will be affected by the highway expansion. Finally, Brooks and Coufal discussed items for the next Standing Committee meeting agenda. Brooks suggested that the Standing Committee should start discussion on the Green Book if possible, determine whether or not the Drought Recovery Policy is still in effect, and set a schedule for the next three or four Standing Committee meetings--"for the next six, seven, or eight months"--given that the Committee has not met for several years, thus making "joint management" difficult at best. Coufal suggested that the Standing Committee also discuss the third phase of LADWP land releases and that he'd like the committee to direct staff to study the problem of water supply for the Owens Lake, more specifically to evaluate whether or not groundwater could be used as a water supply for the Owens Lake mitigation project. The next technical group meeting will be September 27 at 10 a.m. in the LADWP multi-purpose room at 300 Mandich Street in Bishop. --Ceal Klingler |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 4/14/2006 | Reminder: EPA proposal leaves Owens Valley in the dust |
| Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rules and amendments for National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter are due April 17. The EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended tightening particulate matter pollution limits to protect public health and to comply with the Clean Air Act, but the EPA has proposed limits at a level that even its own committee sees as inadequate. Proposed rules loosen or abolish monitoring and control standards for rural areas such as the east side of the Sierra Nevada--or for that matter, most of the western United States--which means federal air quality standards wouldn’t apply any more even for those who live or travel in rural areas with air quality poor enough to harm their health. The new proposed rules and amendments would revoke current national 24-hour particulate matter (PM10) air pollution monitoring standards and restrict proposed monitoring to “urbanized” areas with “a population of at least 100,000 persons” |1|. The rules would ignore the recommendations of the EPA’s own advisory committee |2|, exclude control of “agricultural sources and mining sources,” and specifically exclude “any ambient mix of PM10-2.5 that is dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and PM generated by agricultural and mining sources” from monitoring |3|. In other words, areas like the Owens (dry) Lake, which has been called “possibly the greatest or most intense human-disturbed dust source on earth” |4| would not qualify for monitoring under the EPA’s new rules, nor would Mono Lake or other rural areas with similar problems throughout the United States. PM-10 pollution has been linked to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular problems, asthma and other respiratory problems (particularly among children, athletes, and the elderly) and to increased risk of premature death among those 50 years old or older. |5|. Airborne pollution flowing from the Owens lake bed carries a toxic cocktail of arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and sulfates. Windblown dust storms from the lake have engulfed not only the small communities of Lone Pine, Independence, Keeler, and Olancha, Calfornia, but have also rolled as far north as Bishop and as far south as the China Lake Naval Weapons Center and Ridgecrest. Although Los Angeles has made significant strides in reducing pollution from the lake bed--which dried after Los Angeles diverted the lower Owens River to its aqueduct--more work remains. Unfortunately, Los Angeles has recently shown reluctance to expand that work. |6| Due to windblown dust from the lake bed, the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District has already issued more than a dozen Stage 1 and Stage 2 air pollution health advisories for communities in the Owens Valley since this January. |7| A Stage 1 health advisory recommends that children, the elderly, and people with heart and lung problems refrain from strenuous outdoor activities in the area; a Stage 2 advisory simply recommends that everyone refrain from strenuous outdoor activities in the area. |8| The Owens Valley is bordered by three National Parks and several Wilderness Areas. The vast majority of Inyo County is public land. Fishing, ranching, hiking, bicycling, running, skiing, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management activities, and other “strenuous outdoor” tourism and employment constitute significant contributions to Inyo County’s economy and to neighboring Mono County's economy. Consequently, toxic dust storms affect not only residents’ health but also their livelihoods. “Rural windblown dust” also causes health problems across the U.S. in communities that would not qualify for monitoring under the EPA’s proposed rules. Aside from health problems caused by PM-10 pollution from crustal sources in rural areas |9|, including arsenic- and cadmium-laced windblown dust throughout Arizona |10|, windblown dust from rural areas, mines, and agricultural sources carries: • coccidioidomycosis, or “Valley Fever” (which bears a heavy cost in both human terms and economic terms) |11| • other human pathogens, aerosolized manure, and pesticide-laden dust |12| • silica (which can cause severe scarring of the lungs, cancer, and other disorders) |13| • heavy metals--including lead, zinc, mercury, and uranium--and additional silica from mining operations |14| • PM10 from both wood fires and wildfires |15| • automobile pollution from mobile sources, for example, exhaust from the cars of millions of urban and rural residents who drive through rural areas en route to parks and recreation areas, including the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park |16|. Current PM 10 monitoring rules provide equal protection under the law. Under new rules, rural areas and residents already subjected to unhealthy and out-of-compliance air quality would not even qualify for monitoring because of proposed rules’ emphasis on population density and on who generates the pollution rather than on the level of pollution. Constitutional considerations aside (the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) |17|, the rules would overlook at least one third of the U.S. population and at least three quarters (75%) of its land mass, if not more |18|. Whether or not the EPA chooses to protect rural residents as well as urban residents, windblown dust makes no distinctions. Human pathogens such as coccidioidomycosis have been carried as PM-10 pollution not only to neighboring urban areas from rural areas, but across continents and oceans as well |19|. WHAT YOU CAN DO Write, fax, or e-mail a letter to the EPA (information below). Or if you prefer, sign on to someone else’s letter (links below). If you’re writing your own letter 1. Be sure to identify your comments with the identification information “Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2004–0018” 2. Send your comments to one of the following addresses (deadline April 17): a. Over the Web: go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow online instructions b. E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov c. Fax: 202-566-1749 d. Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017 and EPA–HQ– OAR–2004–0018, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460 (The EPA requests two copies if you choose to mail your comments). 3. The EPA’s proposed rules, amendments, and other comments are posted on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/actions.html. We suggest including one or more of the following points in your letter in your own words: --Remind the EPA that people in rural areas--like people in urban areas--have lungs, enjoy being able to breathe, and are entitled to equal protection under the law. The proposed rules would subject rural residents to worse air pollution standards and less protection than urban residents would receive. --Ask that the EPA establish a national monitoring program for PM 10-2.5 (particulate matter than ranges from 10 to 2.5 micrometers in size) across the nation regardless of population density or that, at the very least, the EPA maintains current PM-10 monitoring standards in rural areas. Trying to protect the health of the nation while ignoring its rural communities is like trying to drive children to school with the windshield covered: it’s possible to get there by looking through the rear view mirror and out the side windows, but it’s much safer, easier, and healthier to look ahead than to drive backwards or drive blindly. --Ask that the EPA follow its own committee’s recommendations to continue to study the health effects of such pollution rather than giving certain industries a blanket exemption. Rural dust can be more toxic than urban dust or less toxic than urban dust--it’s not the rural or agricultural nature of the dust that determines its toxicity, it’s the content and the size. --Ask the EPA to revise its proposed PM 2.5 daily and annual standards and PM 10-2.5 daily standard downward to the lower end of the ranges recommended by the committee it asked to study the problem, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, and to apply those standards throughout the nation. --Ask the EPA not to leave the Owens Valley in the dust. If you’d rather not write your own letter, or if you need a bit more help: The Mono Lake Committee has posted information and a sample letter at http://www.monolakecommittee.org/airquality/. A wealth of local information is available as well in the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District’s comments, which are posted at http://www.gbuapcd.org/Information/EPACommentLetter.pdf. The American Lung Association and the League of Conservation Voters have posted more general prepackaged e-mail sign-on letters at http://lungaction.org/campaign/Air_Health_Standards and at http://action.lcv.org/campaign/clean_air041306 respectively. ENDNOTES 1. p. 2736. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2005. 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018; FRL-8015-9] Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations. Proposed Rule; amendments. Downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/a179.pdf April 11, 2006. See also Environmental Protection Agency. December 2005. 40 CFR Part 50 [EPA–HQ– OAR–2004–0018] National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/a177.pd April 11, 2006. 2. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. March 2006. Letter: Recommendations Concerning the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-CASAC-LTR-06-002. Downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-ltr-06-002.pdf April 10, 2006. 3. p. 2718. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2005. 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018; FRL-8015-9] Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations. Proposed rule; amendments. Downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/a179.pdf April 11, 2006. 4. Hinkley, T.K. U.S. Geological Survey: Mineral Dusts in the Southwestern U.S. http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/geology/dust. Downloaded from the World Wide Web April 3, 2006. 5. Many studies have appeared on the effects of PM-10 pollution. For samples of the discussion, see a. Brunekreef B. and Forsberg B. 2005. Epidemiological evidence of effects of coarse airborne particles on health. Eur Respir J. 26(2):309-18. b. Ostro, B.D., Hurley S., and Lipsett, M.J. 1999. Air pollution and daily mortality in the Coachella Valley, California: a study of PM10 dominated by coarse particles. Environ Res. 81(3): 231-8. c. Carlisle, A.J., and Sharp, N. C. 2001. Exercise and outdoor ambient air pollution. Br J Sports Med 35: 214-22. 6. For information on windblown dust from the Owens Lake, see a. Reheis, M.C. U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Owens (Dry) Lake, California: A Human-Induced Dust Problem. http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/geology/owens/ Downloaded from the World Wide Web April 6, 2006. b. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District. Owens Lake. http://www.gbuapcd.org/owenslake/index.htm Downloaded from the World Wide Web April 10, 2006. For recent articles on Los Angeles’ lawsuit appealing dry lake dust reduction measures, see c. Klusmire, J. April 2006. Dry Lake legal battle takes flight. The Inyo Register. 136 (41): A1. 7. Archived health advisories from the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.gbuapcd.org/weblog.htm (downloaded April 10, 2006). 8. GBUAPCD explains its health advisories on the World Wide Web at http://www.gbuapcd.org/healthadvisory/pressrelease.htm (downloaded April 10, 2006). 9. See Ostro, B.D., Hurley S., and Lipsett, M.J. 1999. Air pollution and daily mortality in the Coachella Valley, California: a study of PM10 dominated by coarse particles. Environ Res. 81(3): 231-8. 10. Wrona, N.C. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Subject: OAQPS Staff Paper Publication No. EPA-452/D-05-005. Letter to Mr. Fred Butterfield, EPA Science Advisory Board, dated August 4, 2005. 11. Coccididioidomycosis or “Valley Fever” is a well-known hitchhiker on rural, windblown dust in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. Because the spores are frequently a component of PM-10 pollution, they can be tracked using pollution monitoring mechanisms already in place. The following articles describe the spore’s health effects, virulence, costs, endemic rural presence, and ability to travel in windblown dust: a. Comrie, A.C. 2005. Climate Factors Influencing Coccidioidomycosis Seasonality and Outbreaks. Environ Health Perspect. 113(6): 688-92. b. Pappagianis, D. and Einstein, H. 1978. Tempest from Tehachapi Takes Toll or Coccidioides Conveyed Aloft and Afar. West J Med 129: 527-530. c. Pappagianis, D. 1988. Epidemiology of Coccidioidomycosis. Curr Top Med Mycol. 2: 199-238. d. Williams, P.L., Sable, D.L., Mendez, P. and Smyth, L.T. 1979. Symptomatic coccidioidomycosis following a severe natural dust storm. An outbreak at the Naval Air Station, Lemoore, Calif. Chest 76(5): 577-70. e. Durry E., Pappagianis D., Werner S.B., Hurtwagner L., Sun R.K., Maurer M., McNeil MM, and Pinner R.W. 1997. Coccidioidomycosis in Tulare County, California, 1991: reemergence of an endemic disease. J Med Vet Mycol 35(5):321-6. f. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. Coccidioidomycosis among persons attending the world championship of model airplane flying--Kern County, California, October 2001. (The CDC also describes Coccidoidomycosis and its dust-loving nature on its web site at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/coccidioidomycosis_t.htm ). 12. See Popendorf, W., Donham K.J., Easton D.N., and Silk, J. 1985. A synopsis of agricultural respiratory hazards. Am Ind Hyg Assoc. J. 46(3): 154-161. For a discussion of airborne manure issues, see Pillai SD and Ricke SC. 2002. Bioaerosols from municipal and animal wastes: background and contemporary issues. Can J Microbiol. 48(8):681-96. 13. For a description of abundant silica in wind-blown dust, see Gillette, D. 1997. Soil derived dust as a source of silica: aerosol properties, emissions, depositions, and transport. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 7(3):303-11. For a discussion of the health effects of breathing quartz silica, see Canada’s National Occupational Health & Safety Resource site on the Web at http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/quartz_silica/health_qua.html 14. Mine tailings often contain materials that can be transported by wind or that are emitted into the atmosphere. These materials include mercury (for example, see a), cadmium, lead, and zinc (for examples, see b, c, and d). Uranium can also be carried in windblown tailings (see d). a. Nacht, D.M., Gustin, M.S., Engle, M.A., Zehner, R.E., Giglini, A.D. 2004. Atmospheric mercury emissions and speciation at the sulphur bank mercury mine superfund site, Northern California. Eviron Sci Technol 38(7): 1977-83. b. Pierzynski, G.M., Lambert, M., Hetrick, B.A.D., Sweeney, D.W., and Erickson, L.E. 2002. Phytostabilization of Metal Mine Tailings Using Tall Fescue. Pract. Periodical of Haz., Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Mgmt 6(4): 212-217. c. Hasselbach, L., Ver Hoef J.M., Ford J., Neitlich P., Crecelius E., Berryman S., Wolk, B. and Bohle T. 2005. Spatial patterns of cadmium and lead deposition on and adjacent to National Park Service lands in the vicinity of Red Dog Mine, Alaska. Sci Total Environ, 348(1-3):211-30. d. Neuberger J.S. and Hollowell J.G. 1982. Lung cancer excess in an abandoned lead-zinc mining and smelting area. Sci Total Environ 25(3):287-94. e. Thomas, P.A. 2000. Radionuclides in the terrestrial ecosystem near a Canadian uranium mill--Part III: Atmospheric deposition rates (pilot test). Health Phys 78(6): 633-40. 15. The town of Mammoth Lakes in Mono County California is a good example of a “rural” community that suffers from excessive PM10 pollution in winter “due to a combination of wood smoke and cinders put on icy roads for traction in winter” (Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District web site, “History and Purpose,” http://www.gbuapcd.org/background.htm, downloaded April 10, 2006.) 16. Tailpipe emissions have been or are becoming a significant concern at many of the nation’s National Parks. Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks--accessible from Mono and Inyo Counties--suffered for many years from air pollution that sometimes exceeded that of cities; Yosemite still exceeds the EPA’s limits for ozone pollution. Great Smoky Mountains National Park suffers from pollution that rivals Los Angeles’ (and tops the National Parks Conservation Association’s list of the nation’s five most polluted national parks on the Web at http://www.npca.org/across_the_nation/visitor_experience/code_red/default.asp). Winter snowmobile emissions are a significant concern at Yellowstone (see Mockler, K. 1999. Dirty air in the deep of winter. High Country News 31(22): Bulletin Board), and windblown urban pollution is still a concern for the Grand Canyon (see http://www.nps.gov/grca/pphtml/subenvironmentalfactors23.html and http://www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/epafin.htm. Rural gateway communities adjacent to National Parks, however, escape scrutiny. 17. See Amendment 14 (and Amendments 11-27) to the Constitution at http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html . (The Constitution itself can be found at http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html ). 18. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates, based on U.S. Census figures, that approximately 68 percent of Americans lived in urbanized areas in 2000 (see “Measuring Rurality: What Is Rural?” on the USDA’s website at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Rurality/WhatIsRural/index.htm, downloaded April 11, 2006) and that at least 75 percent of the nation’s land mass would be classified as strictly rural (see “Measuring Rurality: New Definitions in 2003” at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Rurality/NewDefinitions/, downloaded April 11,2006). Thus, by U.S. Census standards, at least 90 million Americans (32 percent of the year 2000 population as defined by the U.S. Census--see more at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en) live in non-urbanized areas that would likely not qualify for PM10-2.5 monitoring. EPA definitions of “urbanized,” however, would be even stricter, focusing on the most densely populated portions of urbanized areas (see p. 2737 of Environmental Protection Agency. December 2005. 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018; FRL-8015-9] Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations. Proposed rule; amendments. Downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day-17/a179.pdf April 11, 2006). 19. For a surprising list of human, other animal, and plant pathogens that travel across oceans and continents on wind-blown dust from rural and urban areas, see Shinn, E.A., Griffin, D.W., and Seba, D.B. 2003. Atmospheric transport of mold spores in clouds of desert dust. Arch Environ Health 58(8) 498-504. |
|
| Contacts: | Ceal Klingler webmaster@ovcweb.org Phone: |
|
|
|
| 1/25/2006 | Construction begins on Lower Owens River Project |
| Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced January 12 that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) had begun construction on the Lower Owens River Project, a project that would allow water to flow once again into the southern 62-mile stretch of the Owens River. The project, anticipated for many years, is meant to help mitigate some of the environmental impacts to the Owens Valley from LADWP groundwater pumping between 1970 and 1990. LADWP Board President Mary Nichols cited the construction's start as signaling "what we hope to be a new spirit of cooperation that fulfills the City's environmental responsibility in the Owens Valley and demonstrates our commitment to restore and protect the natural resources of the Eastern Sierra watershed." In recent years, the old spirit of cooperation in the valley had acquired a haunted look. Although flows to the river were scheduled to begin in mid-2003, delays in planning the project stretched from months to years. In July 2005, Inyo County Superior Court Judge Lee Cooper, Jr., ordered the LADWP to begin flows to the river by January 2007 or be "enjoined and restrained" from using its second aqueduct to continue to export water from the Owens Valley. "...[I]t is important to note that DWP has been and is in violation of CEQA [the California Environmental Quality Act] since the early '70s because the mitigation measures it agreed to have not been accomplished as agreed and ordered," he wrote in a June 2005 Statement of Decision. LADWP officials received the last outstanding permit for the project --a section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers--January 10. Officials at the agency estimate that the project will be completed in 16 months. --Ceal Klingler |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 1/18/2006 | New revisions may turn a blind eye to lake dust |
| Take a deep breath, but don't hold it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed, among other pollution monitoring revisions, to revoke current 24-hour air pollution monitoring standards in rural areas of the U.S. such as Inyo County because, as a December 20 EPA press release stated (1), windblown dust and soils and agricultural and mining sources "do not pose much risk to public health." Dust pollution from the Owens (Dry) Lake in Inyo County, California has frequently--and flagrantly-- violated federal air pollution control standards and has been acknowledged as a health hazard previously by the EPA, which noted in 1999 that "the dust from the lake bed contains carcinogens such as nickel, cadmium, and arsenic, as well as sodium, chlorine, iron, calcium, potassium, sulfur, aluminum and magnesium" (2) and that--aside from the well-known carcinogens in the dry lake dust--"particulate matter air pollution is especially harmful to people with lung disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema.... Exposure to air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause wheezing, coughing, and respiratory irritation in individuals with sensitive airways." (3) Although the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has made some strides in dust control efforts under a State Implementation Plan, which is enforced by the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (4) and which was strongly encouraged by the EPA, the dry lake bed is the largest single source of PM-10 pollution in the United States. The lake has been cited as a "spectacular example" of dust storms and desertification from surface water diversion. Dust storms from the lake have been anecdotally linked to surges in hospital emergency room visits as far as Ridgecrest, California, 60 miles south. Dust from the lake has impaired visibility in Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Death Valley National Parks as well as at China Lake Naval Weapons Center. (5) Under the new rules, the federal government would simply stop monitoring dust pollution in rural areas such as the Owens Valley, operating on the assumption that dust pollution in rural areas does not significantly endanger human health and that monitoring efforts should focus instead on urban areas. "Armed with the Bush Administration's innovative clean air policies and the best available science we will continue to improve air quality and public health," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. (6) Proposed revisions to EPA rules have been posted on the EPA web site at www.epa.gov/air/particles/actions.html (see their comments on "coarse particles") and on the Federal Register online at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ (use the search term "ambient air"). Public comment is invited. --Ceal Klingler 1. See yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/4d84d5d9a719de8c85257018005467c2/1e5d3c6f081ac7ea852570de0050ae2b!OpenDocument 2. See www.epa.gov/region09/air/owens/pmplan.html 3. See www.epa.gov/region09/air/owens/qa.html 4. See www.gbuapcd.org/ 5. See geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/geology/owens/ 6. See http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/4d84d5d9a719de8c85257018005467c2/1e5d3c6f081ac7ea852570de0050ae2b!OpenDocument |
|
| Contacts: | Ceal webmaster@ovcweb.org Phone: |
|
|
|
| 7/25/2005 | Judge threatens to stop exports |
| In a July 25 hearing to discuss sanctions against the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) for delays in implementing the Lower Owens River Project (LORP), Inyo County Superior Court Judge Lee Cooper, Jr., outlined an order that will stop water exports from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles via Los Angeles' second aqueduct if Los Angeles fails to commence flows to the Lower Owens River by January 25, 2007. The project, which would restore 62 miles of the Lower Owens River, is partial mitigation for decades of groundwater pumping to fill the second aqueduct. Los Angeles diverted the Lower Owens River to its first aqueduct in 1913. Cooper ordered that until flows in the river reach 40 cubic feet per second--the level agreed upon in a 1997 Memorandum of Understanding-- LADWP will provide 16,294 acre feet of water a year to replenish groundwater tables in the Owens Valley, restrict groundwater pumping to 57,412 acre feet per year, and beginning September 5, 2005--the most recent deadline for flows to commence to the river-- pay $5,000 per day until base flows in the river reach agreed-upon levels. If LADWP does not meet these conditions in addition to commencing flows by January 25, 2007, the judge's order to enjoin and restrain LADWP from exporting water from the Owens Valley through its second aqueduct will be implemented permanently. "No excuses will be accepted," Cooper said. He added that it was "incredible" that LADWP had been in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act for more than 30 years. The California Attorney General's Office, the Sierra Club, and the Owens Valley Committee (OVC) all requested during the hearing that the judge implement both deadlines and groundwater sanctions against LADWP. Gordon Burns, Deputy Attorney General for California, observed that LADWP had a "perverse incentive" to miss deadlines because the agency saved millions of dollars from delays. "Now is not the time to take the foot off the gas," he said, pointing out that LADWP had become much more "creative" in seeking solutions since Cooper's June 24 ruling that LADWP should face sanctions for delays. Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney Joseph Brajevich argued that sanctions against LADWP were inappropriate because it was other parties who were slowing the project. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way," he said. "....We're prepared to lead if others will get out of the way." If LADWP was, after years of delay, now prepared to lead, replied OVC attorney Don Mooney, it was "because we're behind them pushing." Ultimately, Cooper concluded that "virtually every order ha[d] been violated" by LADWP. "It's time that stopped," he said. --Ceal Klingler |
|
| Contacts: | CJK Phone: |
|
|
|
| 6/25/2005 | Judge rules against LADWP |
| An Inyo County Superior Court judge ruled June 24 that the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) should face sanctions for missing a series of court-ordered deadlines in the Lower Owens River Project (LORP). "DWP has been and is in violation of CEQA since the early 70's because the mitigation measures it agreed to have not been accomplished as agreed and ordered," Judge Lee Cooper, Jr., wrote in a Statement of Decision. "....It appears that DWP needs the threat of immediate sanctions before it gets busy on the LORP." The project, which would restore 62 miles of the Lower Owens River, is partial mitigation for environmental damage from decades of groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley to fill a second Los Angeles aqueduct. Los Angeles diverted the Lower Owens River to its first aqueduct in 1913. Cooper scheduled a hearing for July 25, 2005, to determine the nature of the sanctions, which may include fines or a reduction in water exports from the Owens Valley. Representatives of the Owens Valley Committee and the Sierra Club, who initiated the lawsuit, have observed that Los Angeles saves millions of dollars for every year the project is delayed. DWP's claims that delays were beyond its control didn't wash with the judge. "If [DWP] had not piddled around trying to play bureaucratic games with EPA and with the parties," Cooper wrote regarding one missed deadline, "...it appears likely they could have complied with the order." --Ceal Klingler |
|
| Contacts: | CJK Phone: |
|
|
|
| 4/19/2005 | LADWP releases April 1 snow surveys in eastern Sierra |
| LADWP snow surveys as of April 1, 2005 show the following heavy snowpacks: Gem Pass- 151% Mammoth Pass- 162% Rock creek- 101% Cottonwood lakes- 179% These figures are less than 1982-83, but are quite high compared to any recent years. Recharge of aquifers in the Owens Valley from runoff moving under alluvial fans will be considerable. Depth to water in several well fields has been below 1985 baseline levels. In fact, depths to water in some well fields have been down since massive LADWP pumping in 1987-1989. What will be known soon (April 20) is the level of LADWP groundwater pumping for 2005-2006. Will water tables be allowed to rise closer to the root zones of grasses (2 meters) and shrubs (4 meters)? Or will pumping levels above the 70,000 acre-feet/year thought sustainable by USGS be exceeded once again? |
|
| Contacts: | Mike Prather Prather@qnet.com Phone: 876.5807 |
|
|
|
| 2/21/2005 | OVC Foundation Visitor Center opens in Lone Pine |
| A well-attended reception marked the opening of the OVC Foundation (OVCF) Visitor Center in Lone Pine Saturday, February 19th. A generous donation by an OVC member in honor of Betty Brown and OVC founding member Betty Gilchrist made the opening possible. OVCF is involved in education, science, service and legal fundraising dealing with land and water management in the Owens Valley, particularly lands owned by the City of Los Angeles and managed by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The Center, which houses a document and text library as well as interpretive displays, is open to the public. The center will be open most Mondays through Fridays in from 10:00AM to 2:00PM. Call 760.876.1845 for further details or come in and see us at 134 E. Bush St. in Lone Pine (across the street from the Post Office). |
|
| Contacts: | Mike Prather prather@qnet.com Phone: 760.876.5807 |
|
|
|
| 2/1/2005 | Note to Gewe: Legal obligations aren't a frill |
In a visit to the Owens Valley this January, LADWP chief operating officer Gerald Gewe was quoted in a local newspaper (Inyo Register, 01/27/2005) as complaining that "third parties want to add bells and whistles" that could add to the cost of the Lower Owens River Project. He said that such "bells and whistles" might prompt LADWP to "walk away" from the project. The following letter of response appeared in the Inyo Register (02/01/05) and is reprinted here with the author's permission: To the Editor, The Owens Valley Committee appreciates Jerry Gewe’s desire to get the Lower Owens River Project (LORP) moving. That has been our desire as well for the seven years that have expired since the LORP was finally agreed upon in the 1997 MOU. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) committed at that time to having water flowing in the river by June 2003. That day has come and gone. Gewe implies that the delays are due to the fact that “third parties want to add bells and whistles” that were never intended as part of the LORP re-watering plan. As a negotiator of that plan, I can assure you that the “bells and whistles” that Gewe seems to be referring to were in fact integral parts of the plan that were painstakingly negotiated by all parties. I assume that he is referring to the requirements that LADWP prepare an adequate Environmental Impact Report for the project, and that a monitoring and adaptive management plan be an integral part of the project description. Bypassing that requirement would be akin the Planning Department giving a go-ahead to a developer to slap up a building complex without having addressed the traffic impacts, fire protection requirements, or other new public services or liabilities associated with the complex. Gewe’s attitude suggests that water can just be put into the river, and any problems that might arise can be dealt with later. Responsible planners don’t consider that to be a good approach. LADWP’s inability to provide these documents in a legally adequate form is part of a pattern of performance that has been in place since 1970, when the first environmental documentation for impacts to the Owens Valley caused by the second barrel of the aqueduct was required by California law. For the past 35 years, LADWP has continued to extract water from the Owens Valley without full compliance with environmental law for adequate mitigation. The LORP is the major mitigation required for the impacts that have been accumulating since 1970. LADWP’s strategy appears to be to produce inadequate environmental documents, and then oblige the “third parties” to either accept them and condemn the valley to ongoing degradation, or to challenge them, resulting in delays to the project. The parties have opted to challenge. Let’s lay the delays where they belong. The “third parties” were an integral part of the LORP negotiations, and we are well aware of what kind of a deal we struck. Our refusal to accept shoddy planning is not a desire for “bells and whistles”. It is simply what is required to assure that this project does what it is supposed to do: mitigate for damages to the valley since 1970. A deal is a deal. If schedules are not being met, the fault lies squarely at the door of LADWP. The idea that LADWP can “walk away” from the LORP is an empty threat. The LORP is a legally required mitigation for the on-going exportation of water from the Owens Valley. The court wants to see this project implemented too, and the “third parties” are dedicated to assuring that the court continues to maintain oversight over the process. Sincerely, Carla Scheidlinger Owens Valley Committee |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 1/18/2005 | OVC and Sierra Club ask Court to enforce MOU |
| The Owens Valley Committee and the Sierra Club filed a petition for injunctive relief against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in mid-January with the Superior Court of California. The lawsuit alleges that LADWP has failed to comply with the terms of a 1997 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would have rewatered approximately sixty miles of the Lower Owens River by June 2003. Among other things, the petition alleges that the current plan for the Lower Owens River Project restricts or eliminates the use of seasonal habitat flows to manage the health of the river, fails to describe adequate monitoring and adaptive management techniques to ensure the success of the project, doesn't follow consultants' recommendations for the project, reduces water flows to important shallow water habitat in the Delta Habitat Area, and includes no final monitoring plan for the project. The suit notes that, although the City of Los Angeles acknowledged many years ago that groundwater pumping from 1970 to 1990 had caused significant environmental impacts, and although they agreed to the Lower Owens River Project as partial mitigation for some of that damage, LADWP continues to export water while mitigation projects languish. The suit seeks an order from the Court that would both require LADWP to meet its MOU obligations and to provide a plan for the Lower Owens River Project that would satisfy those obligations. |
|
| Contacts: | CJK Phone: |
|
|
|
| 10/17/2004 | Inyo County BOS studies options for possible reorganization of the Inyo County Water Department |
OVC members attended several meetings/workshops of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors in September and October addressing the possible reorganization of the Inyo County Water Department (ICWD). This is an important issue for OVC because of the close working relationship OVC maintains with ICWD staff and also the clear role that the ICWD represents as the frontline defender of the Owens Valley against the continuous pressure of LADWP for more water. Several options are being studied by supervisors prior to making a decision: 1) Splitting legal work from the Water Director position. This would move the legal work into the Inyo County Counsel Office or a separate office from the ICWD. 2) Keeping the two positions together as is the current structure when hiring a new Water Director, which would require finding a person with both legal and managerial skills. 3) Filling the Water Director position from within Inyo County staff (closed recruitment) or hiring nationwide (open recruitment). 4) Appoint an Interim Water Director as soon as possible because hiring new people for any permanent position may take until mid 2005. Retiring Water Director Greg James has been contracted with to do legal work through 2005. 5.) Moving the salt cedar removal to the Agricultural Commissioners Office. This would result in a new loss of grant revenue and may not happen. A schedule of Board of Supervisor meetings leading to a possible decision is as follows: Oct. 19 – Agendize the discussion of an Interim Water Director. Probably closed session due to being a personnel item. Position most likely would be filled from within Inyo County government departments. Oct. 26 – Agendize the discussion of the cost of each option Nov. 2 – Possible BOS action on Interim Water Director appointment and cost options. The public is urged to share their views with supervisors prior to any decision being made. Options discussed are listed on the ICWD website at www.inyowater.org. County Administrator Rene Mendez urged the BOS to adopt a clear and strong policy decision for the goals of any changes being made to the ICWD. He suggested policy that clearly states the BOS's desire to strengthen the ICWD and improve its effectiveness in dealing with Los Angeles. He also stated that he expects next year to have a full agenda of legal action as Inyo County prepares to deal with a list of disputes with Los Angeles. |
|
| Contacts: | Mike Prather prather@qnet.com Phone: 760.876.5807 |
|
|
|
| 10/6/2004 | Sierra Club files CEQA lawsuit against LADWP |
| The Sierra Club filed a lawsuit October sixth against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) over the adequacy of the Lower Owens River Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The lawsuit alleges a violation of CEQA in that the Final EIR failed to identify a significant impact to approximately 600 acres of valuable shorebird and wading bird habitat on the Owens Lake playa located just below the Owens River Delta. The project described in the FEIR proposes reduced flows to the area in fall, winter, and spring, resulting in effects acknowledged as a significant impact in the LORP Draft Environmental Impact Report. The description of reduced flows as a significant impact, however, was eliminated from the Final EIR without explanation. The Sierra Club also seeks a Writ of Mandate directing LADWP to comply with its obligations to submit a habitat management plan for shorebird and snowy plover habitat under a 2001 Fish and Game Code 1601 Agreement. As part of a lakebed alteration agreement that LADWP was required to obtain for its dust control project--a project to reduce air pollution caused by the drying of Owens Lake, which resulted from the City’s export of water from the Owens River--LADWP is required to create and dedicate in perpetuity up to 2000 acres of shorebird and snowy plover habitat on the Owens Lake playa. LADWP failed to submit and implement a habitat management plan, due in December 2003, for 1000 acres of habitat within shallow flooded areas created for the Owens Lake Dust Control Project. The agency also failed to submit and implement a habitat management plan, due in July 2003, for up to an additional 1000 acres of habitat to be created on Owens Lake using only naturally occurring water sources. |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 7/30/2004 | Short takes from the July 29 Inyo County Water Commission meeting |
| LORP EIR/EIS: Deciding not to decide The Inyo County Water Commission voted 4-1 Thursday night to affirm the Inyo County Water Department's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to 1) defer consideration of certification of the Lower Owens River Project EIR/EIS until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines whether or not it will disburse grant money in time to help fund construction of the project and 2) direct staff to work with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the EPA to "(a) achieve an EIR/EIS that is acceptable to the three agencies, (b) to secure the federal grant funds for the County at the soonest possible time, and (c) to begin construction of the LORP at the soonest possible time." Given that the EPA is likely to issue a statement next week saying that the EIS--as it stands now--is inadequate, and given that the EPA originally planned to disburse approximately $5.2 million grants-in-aid for the LORP to the County only upon the issuance of an adequate EIS and a Quality Assurance Plan, Inyo County Water Department Director Greg James recommended that Inyo County defer its decision so that the County will neither be rejecting the project nor committing itself without sufficient funding. Reorganize or flush the Water Department? ICWD Director Greg James also discussed a Board of Supervisors workshop planned for August 3, 2004, during which the Board will discuss a reorganization of the Inyo County Water Department. Given James' impending December 30 retirement, the Supervisors face several options. They may decide to 1) merge the Inyo County Water Department with another department--a solution that would, James noted, place a difficult burden on the person chosen to direct the two departments, 2) let the ICWD remain as a stand-alone department and recruit a new director internally, or 3) let the ICWD stand alone and recruit a new director externally. If the department remains independent, it may still be reorganized. ICWD's perpetually dehydrated budget has left it with no seasonal staff, resulting in a 40% drop in vegetation monitoring, no seasonal assistants to help with well monitoring, and dependence on grants in order to maintain the rest of the department's full-time staff. Recent changes in LADWP's irrigation water and stock water policies have raised the specter of changes in Type E vegetation, and changes in tailwater may affect Type D vegetation and other vegetation, but ICWD doesn't have the staff to monitor such changes. If EPA funding evaporates, staff and funds for the Lower Owens River Project would present another serious challenge. The Supervisors will probably not make a final decision on the question of reorganization until at least August 17. |
|
| Contacts: | CJK Phone: |
|
|
|
| 6/24/2004 | Correction: not necessarily a Final Environmental Impact Statement |
| A previous news item on the Owens Valley Committee web site ("LADWP releases LORP report," 6/23/04) labeled an LADWP report as a Lower Owens River Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement (LORP FEIR/S). In fact, although the LADWP-titled "Final Environmental Impact Report & Environmental Impact Statement" listed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the "NEPA Lead Agency" and the Inyo County Water Department as the "CEQA Responsible Agency," the report was completed and released with neither final input or final approval from either agency. Although Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn said last December that an agreement that established new deadlines for the LORP signaled "a new spirit of cooperation," this May LADWP informed both Inyo County and the EPA that it would be completing the Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement for the LORP alone. In a June 1 press release retroactively explaining the decision, Jerry Gewe, chief operating officer of LADWP's water system, said LADWP decided to complete the report by itself in order to meet court-ordered deadlines. "As most of us know, it is a much more time-consuming process when you must reach consensus among several agencies that often have different priorities and responsibilities," Gewe said. "We were making progress in resolving the remaining issues, but time was running out." It remains to be seen whether a project that meets the priorities of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power can also meet the standards of the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA will decide whether and how much to help fund the project--in amounts up to 6.2 million dollars-- based upon how well the project complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and based on the environmental impact analysis, the process from which it was disinvited in May. Originally conceived and agreed to in 1991 as partial mitigation for decades of Owens Valley environmental damage due to Los Angeles's groundwater pumping, the Lower Owens River Project would, among other measures, partially rewater a 62-mile stretch of the Lower Owens River that ceased to flow after surface water diversions to the first City of Los Angeles aqueduct in the early 1900s. A Memorandum of Understanding between LADWP and other parties in 1997 clarified terms of the project. Groundwater pumping continues, but the LORP remains unimplemented. |
|
| Contacts: | CJK Phone: |
|
|
|
| 6/23/2004 | LADWP releases LORP report |
| The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) released a searchable PDF version of the "Lower Owens River Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement" (LORP FEIR/S) today (June 23, 2004). Compact discs containing the LORP FEIR/S are available to the public at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at 300 Mandich Street in Bishop, California. The FEIR/S has been divided into three volumes. Volume one follows the same format as the LORP Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement and contains a description of the project, including anticipated costs and impacts. Volume two contains written responses and a transcript of oral comments from the public regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement for the LORP; the third volume contains responses to those comments. For those who don't mind heavy lifting, a printed version of the LORP FEIR/S will be available at the end of the month for $65; it'll run to more than 1500 pages. Public and private agencies and concerned citizens cited a number of concerns in their review of the first description of the LORP in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, which was released November 1, 2002. These included the proposed water supply for the project, the size of a pumpback station to return water from the river to LADWP's aqueduct, the effects of reduced flows to the Owens River Delta, project funding, thresholds for and implementation of adaptive management, and management of noxious weeds (see http://www.ovcweb.org/Issues/LORPDEIR.html#Responses for more information on the DEIR/S). Recent legal settlements have affirmed a 50 cubic feet per second size for the pumpback station and designated matching funds from LADWP to help with saltcedar control, but enough issues remain that the LORP FEIR/S faces significant scrutiny on its release date. |
|
| Contacts: | CJK Phone: |
|
|
|
| 6/15/2004 | Lower Owens River Project Update |
(This article has been reprinted with the permission of the author, Darla Heil) Nume Muna a Paya "Our People's Water" Originally printed in Newsletter of the Owens Valley Indian Water Commission, Spring 2004, Vol. 6(1) Water politics in the Owens Valley – sometimes bewildering, often overwhelming, but never dull and seemingly never resolved. For those who try to keep up with the water-based environmental issues of the Owens Valley, the past year has been a particularly busy one. Lately it seems as if the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) staff has been working overtime to come up with new ways to squeeze more water out of this wonderful valley that we call home. Because it’s difficult to stay informed about local water issues, we decided to include an article in each of our next few newsletters to highlight and summarize some of the more important water issues and proposed projects that are being dealt with in the Owens Valley at the time of writing. Sometimes I like to imagine what the Owens Valley must have looked like before LADWP began exploiting the valley’s water resources. To furnish my imaginings I refer to an 1859 report by J.W. Davidson detailing an expedition he lead through the valley during July and August of that year. Davidson wrote, “…I then marched as far as the Canyon of Owens River through some of the finest country I have ever seen. It may be said literally to be a vast meadow, watered every few miles with clear, cold mountain streams, and the grass (although in August) as green as in the first of spring.” It is unfortunate that in the intervening 145 years the Owens Valley’s environment seems to have slid so far down the slippery slope that is desertification, a process that was begun in the early twentieth century when LADWP began exporting water from the Owens Valley through the first LA Aqueduct to the thirsty young city of Los Angeles. This article will discuss recent developments in the attempt to implement a mitigation project whose completion date is long overdue, the Lower Owens River Project (LORP). The LORP was first identified in LADWP’s 1991 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as a compensatory (counterbalancing) mitigation for the hard to identify and quantify negative impacts that groundwater pumping and export have had on the environment of the Owens Valley, especially since 1970, when LADWP’s second aqueduct began being filled in part with pumped groundwater. Inyo County and LADWP committed to the LORP as a mitigation project in 1991, when they entered into the Inyo/Los Angeles (LA) Water Agreement. Subsequent to that agreement, a 1997 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) settlement, provisions of which further defined the LORP, was entered into by Inyo County, LADWP, the California Department of Fish & Game, the State Lands Commission, the Sierra Club, and the Owens Valley Committee to end 25 years of litigation over Owens Valley water. Under the Inyo/LA Water Agreement and the 1997 MOU, the County and LADWP committed to rewatering the full 60-mile reach of the Lower Owens River that was diverted to the Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913 to supply water to the city. The project is also supposed to create or enhance riparian and wetland habitats for a wide variety of species by providing permanent water supplies to several lakes and ponds and to two waterfowl and shorebird habitat areas totaling approximately 1,800 acres, while providing recreational opportunities and preserving the historical uses of the land. Water for the project is to be supplied by LADWP from the LA Aqueduct and, according to the 1997 Inyo/LA Water Agreement, is to be returned to LADWP’s water conveyance systems via a 50 cfs pump station to be constructed above the Owens River delta. It was planned that some of the water from the LORP would bypass the pump station to provide water to the delta for habitat enhancement. Prior to implementation of the LORP, it was stipulated that the project must undergo a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review separate from the 1991 EIR (which described the Inyo/LA Water Agreement). Because federally allocated funds were slated to be provided for the project through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) it was necessary that the LORP EIR, which is state mandated under CEQA, be expanded into a joint document incorporating an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is federally mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects using federal funding. Thus the environmental assessment that must precede implementation of the LORP became a joint EIR/EIS. Under the Inyo/LA Water Agreement construction of the project was supposed to begin within three years of the Court’s approval of the agreement, or by 2000, unless delays were agreed to by the county and LADWP. Under the MOU a 40 cubic feet per second (cfs) baseflow of water was supposed to be released to the river by June 2003, with any delays in that date needing approval from all of the MOU signatories. That was the plan; however, the reality is that by May 2004, almost a year after the LORP was to have been fully implemented, the project is still far from completion. In the view of many observers, after LADWP committed to implementing the project by signing the Inyo/LA Water Agreement and the MOU in 1997 they have used every opportunity to delay implementation of the LORP. This perceived lack of a good faith effort to complete the project on LADWP’s part is not particularly surprising when we consider that the water that will be used to run the LORP will reduce LADWP’s profits, which in part are earned from the export of water from the Owens Valley. LADWP has much to gain by stalling the project for as long as possible. As a result of LADWP’s delaying tactics, seven years after the agreements were signed and almost a full year after baseflows were supposed to be established in the river, the LORP EIR/EIS, completion of which is the first step in the implementation process, has still not been completed, much less the design, permitting, and construction of the facilities needed to implement the project. Another result of these delays is that local volunteer citizens groups have been forced to take the legal lead in forcing LA’s hand to proceed with implementation of the LORP. During December 2001, the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee (OVC) sued LADWP over their failure to prepare the LORP Draft EIR after LADWP missed yet another deadline for completion of the draft in October 2001. Soon thereafter, LADWP implicated Inyo County in the suit because the LORP is a joint project between LADWP and the County. As a result of this litigation, the court ordered that the Draft EIR/EIS be completed and released for public comment by November 1, 2002 with the possibility of court-ordered sanctions if the deadline was not reached. Thus compelled, LADWP released the Draft EIR/EIS on the court imposed deadline, after five years in preparation. The Draft EIR/EIS contained at least one major 6-month delay built into the document. This delay involved LADWP’s insistence that they are allowed to build a 150 cfs pump station above Owens Lake (three times as large as the pump station agreed to in the Inyo/LA Water Agreement). LADWP included the large (150 cfs) pump station as an alternative in the LORP Draft EIR/EIS, while declining to actually design the smaller 50 cfs pump station. The Draft EIR/EIS informed the public that if the smaller pump station were eventually picked as the preferred alternative for the LORP, it would delay implementation of the project for six additional months, which length of time LADWP declared they would need to design the smaller pump station. The size of the pump station was a highly contentious issue because it was feared that if LADWP were allowed to build the larger pumpback facility, it could turn what had been designed as a long term groundwater pumping mitigation project into an opportunity for LA to pump and export groundwater from the east side of the Owens Valley. The fear was that if the large (150 cfs) pump station were constructed for the LORP, LADWP could use the Lower Owens River to convey water pumped from the east side of the Owens Valley, which was previously inaccessible for export because it would have to be pumped uphill to reach the LA Aqueduct, to the pump station where the water could effectively be pumped to the aqueduct. The fact that LADWP entered into an $8 million contract in 2001 with Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH), in which a specific task was written instructing the consultants to explore the possibility of locating production wells on the east side of the Owens Valley, seemed to justify these fears. In December 2003, the California State Attorney General’s office joined the Sierra Club and the OVC in their lawsuit against LADWP regarding missed LORP deadlines, among other issues. In February 2004 the parties to the lawsuit, who are also signatories of the 1997 MOU (LADWP, Inyo County, the Sierra Club, the OVC, California Fish & Game, and the State Lands Commission), signed a second agreement, a LORP Stipulation and Order, in which LADWP agreed to: 1) abandon their plans for a 150 cfs pump station for the LORP and instead to construct the 50 cfs pump station, as was originally agreed upon; 2) court stipulated deadlines for completion of different parts of the LORP including a deadline of June 23, 2004 for completion of the Final EIR/EIS; 3) court mandated status reporting of progress on implementation of the LORP; and additional stipulations on assorted other mitigation-related projects. By mid-March 2004 LADWP and Inyo County had already missed deadlines set forth in the Stipulation & Order (S&O), which had only been finalized a month earlier. Because Inyo and LA failed to reach agreement on work plans for two of the mitigation projects by the date set in the S&O, the court (Judge Denton) began to hold mandatory settlement hearings to help settle the disputes and move the mitigation projects along. On April 9th, in a scheduled biweekly status report, LADWP declared that, under current working conditions and due to lack of agreement between LADWP, Inyo County and EPA in dealing with revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS and responses to public comment, the Final EIR/EIS would be 26-31 weeks late. Inyo County then suggested “tiering” the Final EIR/EIS so that the project could move forward while the final environmental document was completed. The County’s suggested Tier One would address the pump station and flows, and would be completed by the June 23rd deadline, so that there would be no delay for the release of water into the river. Tier Two would address monitoring and adaptive management and would allow those details to be worked out over a longer period of time without delaying the release of water to the river. Since the County recognized that the “tiering” scheme would require EPA approval, EPA and the Attorney General’s Office were contacted, and on 4/29/04, Greg James (Inyo County Water Department) notified Art Walsh (LADWP attorney) that the EPA and Attorney General’s Office were both willing to work on tiering the environmental document and that EPA would check to see if agency funding could be released for LORP construction prior to release of the second tier environmental document so that water could be released to the river on schedule. In the same message Mr. James included a brief description of two possible approaches and legal precedents for tiering the environmental document and asked Mr. Walsh if LADWP was willing to work on a tiered approach to completing the Final EIR/EIS to avoid further delays in the project. On May 10th in a status report LADWP rejected working on a tiered approach to completing the Final EIR/EIS, arguing that either approach would violate or circumvent CEQA. However, in a letter to Judge Denton dated May 10th Gordon Burns of the Attorney General’s Office disagreed with LA’s position that either of the two possibilities for a tiered approach suggested by Inyo County would necessarily violate or circumvent CEQA, and pointed out that LA is already in violation of CEQA by not having already implemented the LORP. In the May 10th status report LADWP offered the following three options for completing the final environmental documents: Option 1) LADWP would stop working with Inyo County and EPA on completing the Final EIR/EIS and would work with only their consultant MWH in completing an Final EIR by the June 23rd deadline. LA noted that the Final EIR thus produced “will be an awkward document” lacking in summaries and organization and containing inconsistent areas unless LA was given an extra month to work on the Final EIR with MWH. Walsh’s letter suggested that upon completion of the Final EIR, LADWP and MWH staff would work with Inyo County and EPA to complete the Final EIS. Option 2) Continue working on the document with all of the agencies and LADWP’s consultants and be given a time extension of 26 to 31 extra weeks, or more, to complete the document. Option 3) Inyo County and EPA would be given a limited amount of time to complete their review of the document and give comments after which LADWP and MWH would incorporate those comments as deemed appropriate. This option would require an extension of at least 180 days. LADWP also noted that they would require a time extension to complete a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), for which EPA approval is needed before EPA funds can be released to be used for the collection of environmental data for the project. During a May 10th conference call with Judge Denton, the Sierra Club, OVC, and Attorney General’s Office attorneys refused LADWP’s request for a time extension for completion of the LORP Final EIR/EIS. On May 11th LADWP attorney Art Walsh sent an e-mail message to Inyo County and EPA telling them that after the status conference on the previous day with Judge Denton and the other parties, LADWP had determined that they were compelled to complete the FEIR/FEIS by June 23rd, and that to do this they would cease working with the County and EPA on the document and would henceforth work only with their contractors, MWH, to complete the document. Walsh said that LADWP would attempt to incorporate comments in the document received from EPA and the County prior to May 14th. On May 17th, Janet Parrish of the US EPA wrote LADWP to remind them that EPA funding for the project could be jeopardized if environmental measurements are taken before obtaining EPA approval on a Quality Assurance Project Plan for LORP data collection. Ms. Parrish also reiterated that EPA funding for the project (which currently totals over $6 million to both LADWP and Inyo County) cannot be released if LADWP’s environmental document does not meet EPA requirements under NEPA so that the final document cannot be released as a joint EIR/EIS. Without an EIS, federal funds cannot be released for the project. Ms. Parrish wrote of EPA’s continued wish to investigate proceeding with the project under the tiered approach as suggested by Inyo County and offered mediation services for the issues. Finally, in the latest LORP developments, in the May 21st status report to the court, LADWP reported that the LORP Stipulation & Order deadline for release of an Administrative Draft of the Final EIR/EIS (May 3rd) had not been reached and declared that the LADWP most likely would not provide Inyo County or EPA with an Administrative Draft before the June 23rd scheduled public release of the Final EIR/EIS. The OVC, the Sierra Club and the Attorney General's office are currently discussing preparations for filing a motion to the court dealing with LA's non-compliance with CEQA, since the LORP is long overdue. As a further complication, on May 24th the parties to the LORP Stipulation and Order received notice that Judge Denton has formally withdrawn from the case. In future newsletters we will attempt to keep the Tribal people of the Owens Valley informed about progress on implementation of the LORP. We’ll also attempt to inform our readers about the numerous other projects that LADWP has recently proposed which potentially threaten the environmental of the Owens Valley and at the same time attack the viability of the Inyo/LA Water Agreement. The issues that are at the top of our list of concerns right now include: 1) LADWP’s proposal to reduce irrigation on their leased lands beginning in 2004 and their declaration that a Mitigated Negative Declaration fulfills their CEQA obligations for a project of this scope that they need not disclose the range of possible negative impacts that implementation of such a project could have on the valley; 2) LADWP’s refusal to shut down deep well tests at Wells 380 and 381 after Inyo County requested discontinuance of the cooperative study test; 3) LADWP’s continued pumping at Reinhackle Springs without a County approved pump protocol and without the installation of any monitoring wells, in violation of the Inyo/LA Water Agreement; 4) LADWP’s progress in their plan to construct new production wells on the Bishop Cone; 5) LADWP’s plans for pumping at Well 416 near Lone Pine; 6) the failure of the Three-Year Interim Pumping Plan Agreement; and 7) LADWP’s attempted unilateral abandonment of the Drought Recovery Policy. We are also interested in reporting updates on the Big Pine Ditch System and on the Laws Irrigation Project. Those who are interested in getting more information on these issues can use a home computer to access the Internet to discover many sources of information concerning Owens Valley water and environmental issues. The following websites were used as some of the sources of information for this article and can be accessed to further investigate the Owens Valley’s ongoing water struggles: Inyo County Water Department – www.inyowater.org, Owens Valley Committee – www.ovcweb.org, California Native Plant Society, Bristlecone Chapter – www.bristleconecnps.org/Conservation, and LADWP – www.ladwp.com. |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 4/22/2004 | April 15, 2004 Settlement Conference with Judge Denton |
| Summary on Mandatory Settlement Conference with Judge Denton April 15, 2004 Bishop, CA 1.) Yellow-billed Cuckoo work plan and schedule: Parties agree that each consultant (Laymon and Otis Bay) will work in their own area of expertise. Both consultants will be listed for each task. An amendment will be prepared for the Stipulation and Order showing the work plan and schedule. Plaintiffs will review schedules before amendment is filed. 2.) Hines spring (1600 AF Additional Mitigation): Parties agree on the revised work plan. 3.) LORP FEIR: The Supplement to the March 26, 2004 Status Report stated that due to lack of agreement between Inyo, LA and EPA in dealing with revisions to the LORP DEIR and responses to public comment the LORP FEIR will be 26-31 weeks later that the June 23, 2004 date called for in the Stipulation and Order schedule. Inyo County suggested “tiering” the FEIR. In Tier One address the pump and flows. In Tier Two address monitoring and adaptive management. EPA approval of tiering is necessary. All parties will contact EPA and ask for EPA’s approval of tiering. On April 29, 2004 the parties will hold a conference via telephone with Judge Denton and share the results of talks with EPA. If there has been EPA approval then the parties will meet two weeks later in Bishop with Judge Denton. EPA has asked for a QAPP (Quality Assurance Plan Program) that all grantees must file to show compliance with grant requirements and thereby receive funding. EPA wants the QAPP to address monitoring. A consultant will prepare the QAPP. The next Status Report is due April 23, 2004. |
|
| Contacts: | Mike Prather Prather@qnet.com Phone: 760.876.5807 |
|
|
|
| 4/5/2004 | Public invited to groundwater lecture at Bishop Union High School |
| Dr. Sally Manning, Vegetation Scientist of the Inyo County Water Department, will offer a presentation titled “Vegetation and Groundwater in the Owens Valley: Two Decades of Measuring Change” sponsored by the Owens Valley Committee. The presentation will be on Thursday April 22nd at 7:00 PM at the auditorium of the Bishop Union High School. Dr. Manning will update us on the status of the vegetation and groundwater monitoring activities of the Water Department, which was an issue much in the forefront when the area was negotiating the Long Term Water Agreement in the 1990’s. Ten years later, this issue remains as important as ever in the ongoing management of vegetation resources in the Owens Valley, and Dr. Manning’s update will provide the public with some critical observations made over the two decades during which this monitoring has occurred. All interested members of the public are invited. For further information, contact Carla Scheidlinger of the Owens Valley Committee at 873-0011 (day) or 873-8439 (evening). |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 3/15/2004 | Rose Foundation announces grant recipients |
| The OVC Foundation will receive a grant-in-aid this year from the Rose Foundation (www.rosefdn.org) for legal assistance and educational support in efforts to monitor groundwater mining and to encourage adherence to water management and environmental mitigation agreements in the Owens Valley. The announcement that the OVC Foundation would be one of the Rose Foundation's winter 2004 Northern California Grassroots Fund recipients came as welcome news in late February, particularly following news that LADWP had missed the first of a number of new deadlines established by a February 2004 Lower Owens River Project Stipulation and Order and preceding LADWP's March announcement of a new irrigation plan that would, by their own analysis, further reduce groundwater recharge in the beleaguered Owens Valley. The Rose Foundation's Northern California Grassroots Fund is a collaborative fund that includes 12 California foundations among its granting agencies. Other winter 2004 grant recipients include Forest Unlimited, for a watershed organizing project; Mountain Meadows Conservancy, to help protect and conserve the Mountain Meadows basin and watershed; the Norcal Environmental Student Network, for environmental education; the Southeast Sector Community Development Corporation, to help support an children's environmental photo essay contest; the Walnut Creek Open Space Foundation, to support an oak habitat restoration project; and the West Side School Volunteer Recycling Program, to help start a student-led composting program at a K-6 elementary school. |
|
| Contacts: | Phone: |
|
|
|
| 3/4/2004 | Judge Sets Mandatory Settlement Conference Over Recent LORP Settlement Non-compliance |
| As per the Feb. 10, 2004 LORP Stipulation and Order (S&O), LADWP and Inyo County were to have reached agreement by Feb. 17, 2004 on workplans for Yellow-billed Cuckoo habitats (Baker Ck. and Hogback Ck.) and for the use of 1600AF of "Additional Mitigation" water. The two parties did not reach agreement by Feb. 17, 2004. As a result of a Sierra Club request, the Inyo Superior Court has set a Mandatory Settlement Conference for March 16, 2004 as called for in the S & O. The Court will attempt to help Inyo County and LADWP reach agreement on the workplans. |
|
| Contacts: | Mike Prather prather@qnet.com Phone: 760.876.5807 |
|
|
|
| 3/2/2004 | Inyo County and LADWP release status report |
| REVIEW OF FEB. 20, 2004 STATUS REPORT BY INYO COUNTY AND LADWP concerning LORP Settlement Requirements and Compliance Mike Prather March 2, 2004 Copies of Feb.20, 2004 Status Report and the LORP Settlement document (S & O) and schedule (xls.) by Inyo County and LADWP can be requested from Tasks 1-5 and Section 10 are from the Feb. 10, 2004 S & O Schedule (xls.) Task 1 – NEARLY COMPLETED MWH/LADWP will respond to all DEIR comments and provide these responses to ICWD for their review, revision and eventual discussion. Status- MWH/LADWP responded to all comments sections on time to most of the schedule deadlines except for the Funding Section. LA and Inyo have now met and agreed on this section and it is being written up by MWH. Task 2 – NOT COMPLETED Inyo and EPA will review all DEIR comment response sections provided by LADWP and send revisions back to LADWP. Status - Inyo has not completed comments on all sections with EPA. See the Status Report (2.20.04) for exact issue sections (6-13). Task 3 – NOT COMPLETED MWH/LADWP will identify all issues requiring further discussion between the parties. Status - Inyo and EPA have not reviewed all response sections together and provided these to LADWP. Therefore, LADWP has not been able to identify issues requiring further work. Task 4 – MEETING INTENT OF THE TASK Inyo and LADWP conduct weekly conference calls. Status- Some weeks no calls and some weeks more than one, therefore effort has averaged the intent of the task. Task 5 – COMPLETED MWH create a Revised FEIR/EIS Schedule (xls). Status- This was done. Some of the issue dates have remained the same and some have moved up or back. Compare the first schedule with the revised one. ALL issue sections must be finished by April 16 and the Administrative Draft of the FEIR/EIS will be out on the original date May 7, 2004. Section 10 – NOT COMPLETED LADWP and Inyo will agree on work plans for the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (YBCU) and for the Additional Mitigation (Hines Spring) by Feb. 17, 2004, one week after the S & O was filed. Status-Inyo and LADWP met Feb. 24, 2004 two weeks after the filing of the S & O to discuss work plans for the YBCU and Additional Mitigation. Met again Feb. 26, 2004. THE SETTLEMENT: STIPULATION AND ORDER (S & O ) DATES (filed Feb. 10. 2004) 1.) Work Plans – Feb. 17, 2004 – [NOT met on deadline] Inyo and LA will agree on work plans for Yellow-billed Cuckoo Habitat Enhancement Plans (MOU III.A.1) and Additional Mitigation (MOU III.A.3) OR the Court shall schedule a mandatory settlement conference for the purpose of reaching agreement on work plans. 2.) Annual Reports - May 31, 2004 – LADWP shall complete and release the annual report for 2003 (MOU III.H.). And on or about May 1st of every year thereafter LADWP and Inyo will jointly or independently release annual reports. 3.) Progress Reports – Jan. 23, 2004 [completed] Feb. 20, 2004[completed] March 26, 2004 May 21, 2004. LADWP and Inyo will file progress reports with the court. Also every two weeks thereafter until the FEIR is certified (June 4, June 18, July 2…). 4.) Progress Reports AFTER Final EIR (FEIR) Certification (FEIR due June 23, 2004) Inyo and LADWP will file jointly or independently the LAST DAY of each month until base flows have been implemented. |
|
| Contacts: | Mike Prather prather@qnet.com Phone: 760.876.5807 |
|
|
|
| 12/18/2003 | Inyo County approves tentative settlement of LORP litigation |
| Press release, County of Inyo county counsel The Inyo County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Board of Water and Power Commissioners respectively approved a proposed settlement for litigation over the Lower Owens River Project December 16 and December 17. Under the terms of a 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) was required to have established a 40 cfs base flow in the Lower Owens River by June 2003. The MOU deadline passed without the commencement of the base flow. In addition, LADWP has not completed many of its other obligations under the MOU. Past efforts to secure the performance of these obligations have been unsuccessful. The Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee filed a lawsuit September 26, 2003 that sought to have the Inyo County Superior Court set enforceable dates for the establishment of baseflows in the river and for completion of other MOU obligations. On December 4, 2003, the California Department of Fish and Game and the California State Lands Commission filed a similar lawsuit. For several years, there has been disagreement over whether a pump station to be constructed as part of the Lower Owens River Project can be as large as 150 cfs, as proposed by LADWP, or is limited to 50 cfs by the MOU and 1991 Water Agreement. During this time, discussions concerning a settlement of the issue have been conducted without a resolution. With the assistance of the judge assigned to the litigation, the Honorable Edward Denton, the attorneys for the parties to the litigation and for the County drafted a proposed settlement agreement. The key provisions of the proposed agreement are outlined below. Under the proposed agreement, all of the provisions will be enforceable orders of the Court. It is expected that the Sierra Club, the Owens Valley Committee, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California State Lands Commission will consider approval of the proposed settlement by the middle of next month. If all the parties approve the proposed settlement, it will be submitted to the Inyo County Superior Court together with a request that it become an order of the Court. Copies of the proposed agreement are available to the public by contacting the Inyo County Water Department at 163 May Street, Bishop, California (760-872-1168). |
|
| Contacts: | Inyo County Water Department Phone: 760-872-1168 |
|
|
|
| 12/5/2003 | California Attorney General files suit against DWP over LORP delays |
| News release Office of the Attorney General (INDEPENDENCE) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a lawsuit to force the City of Los Angeles to restore a 60-mile stretch of the Lower Owens River, a project required under the 1997 settlement of a legal action that established the city's groundwater pumping in Inyo County violated state law and caused substantial environmental damage to the Owens Valley. "This project will provide long-needed restoration of habitats, wildlife and recreation in the Owens Valley," said Lockyer. "It's what the community wants. It's what the city promised. We're asking the court to make sure it happens." The complaint filed today is the latest chapter in a 33-year litigation saga. The full story, however, dates back to 1913, and the completion of the first aqueduct to transport water from Inyo County to Los Angeles. That action essentially dammed part of the Owens River, which ultimately dried up Owens Lake. In 1970, the city and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) finished a second aqueduct and filled it partly by increasing groundwater pumping in Inyo County. The county filed a lawsuit alleging the city and LADWP violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the complaint alleged the two public entities failed to asse | |