THE OUTDOORS : A River Ready to Run : Proposal to Bring Back the Owens Not Cut and Dried

In mid-summer the valley of the Lower Owens River lies still, apparently parched, in unconditional surrender to the sun.

Motorists along U.S. 395 between the oases of Lone Pine and Independence turn up their air conditioning, check the mileage to Bishop and chuckle at the roadside sign alerting them to “Elk Next 15 Miles.”

Elk? In the Godforsaken desert?

Yes, tule elk, and waterfowl and fish and beavers and other wildlife one wouldn’t imagine, the last survivors of a time when the river flowed deep and free into Owens Lake, where steamboats hauled silver ingots from the Cerro Gordo mines.

The steamboats would need wheels now. The lake has been dry since around 1925.

Dr. David Groeneveld, a plant ecologist for the Inyo County Water Dept., said he has only heard of a time “when flights of ducks blackened the sky. This valley must have been incredible before white man came.”

The white man drained the lake to irrigate his crops, then sucked up the river with the Los Angeles Aqueduct to water his lawns and wash his cars more than 200 miles away.

The land is not Godforsaken but manforsaken. Its water ration became minimal, as if it were being tortured to see how little it could get by on before it would finally die of thirst. But with a sip here, a gulp there, it hung on to life. And now, it’s making a comeback.

Look east from 395 to where the desert drops off from an arid plateau to the old river plain and there is a meandering ribbon of greenery. Looking closer from the ground or the air, wildlife is seen. A few people are fishing.

Most of that is the result of the Lower Owens River Project, which was formally launched in June of 1986 when Los Angeles City officials opened the aqueduct spill gates near the Black Rock fish hatchery north of Independence to let 25 cubic feet per second back into the river.

Why in the world would they do that?

Maybe they were feeling guilty about the environmental errors of their forebears. Maybe they were weary of years of litigation with Inyo County. Maybe they just wanted to do the right thing.

In any event, the diversion assured the river 18,000-acre feet of water a year--an acre foot is enough water to cover an acre of land a foot deep. Offhand, one might say big deal, they could spare it, considering that 25-cubic feet a second amounts to less than 4% of the aqueduct’s average flow, and that Inyo County agreed to let L.A. make that up by pumping ground water from new wells.

But now there is a better idea.

Enthusiastic people from the Inyo County and L.A. City water departments and the California Department of Fish and Game have developed a proposal to regenerate a 25-mile stretch of dried-up river land from Black Rock to Lone Pine into, initially, 600 acres of wetlands.

All it would take, they say, is up to triple the off-flow they’re getting now--and it would cost the city of Los Angeles hardly a drop.

The water would be taken out of the aqueduct at Black Rock and put back in near Lone Pine with a pump-back station. The fish and wildlife would just use it for a while. The folks in Los Angeles would never know the difference.

“It would make more water available for L.A.,” Groeneveld said. “They wouldn’t lose as much to evaporation.”

Lloyd Anderson, ranch lands manager in Bishop for the Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power, said: “To a certain extent, that’s true. We’re willing to concede on that.”

Taking the water out would be no trouble at all. Just turn the big iron wheels that raise the Black Rock spill gates and it’s done.

The catch is putting it back in. Who pays for the pump-back station?

The county thinks the DWP should. The DWP thinks the state should.

The DWP estimates that the station would cost $4-6 million to construct and $100,000 to $200,000 a year to operate and maintain if built at Keeler Bridge on California 136 southeast of Lone Pine, about 5 miles from the aqueduct.

The costs would be somewhat less if it were built at Alabama Gates north of Lone Pine, about a mile from the aqueduct. But that would mean 10 miles less of wetlands.

Anderson said that the department is willing to pay the operation and maintenance costs but thinks Fish and Game could--or should--help pay for the construction.

“They have indicated to us that there are several different funding sources at state levels for habitat improvement projects that could be used for this,” Anderson said.

Inyo County, which has a population of only 17,400 in 11,900 square miles, says it doesn’t have the money but projects that the new wetlands area would result in 300,000 angler days and produce $24 million annually for the county.

Anderson said: “That’s one point where we differ. We think there would be greater benefits for waterfowl than as a fishery. We have some doubt as to its potential.”

But Thaddeus Taylor, vice chairman of the Inyo County Water Dept. and also an officer of CalTrout, said the project would mean “a Mecca for wildlife.”

Brian Tillemans, the range and wildlife specialist for DWP at Bishop, drafted the plan and sent it to Fish and Game and county officials in May for comment.

Tillemans said: “You’d think Fish and Game would want to jump on an opportunity like this.”

After Inyo County outlined the proposal, with color slides, to the Fish and Game Commission at its meeting in Bishop last month, Albert Taucher of Long Beach, the commission chairman, appointed a two-person subcommittee to follow up.

“It sounds like it’s worth looking into,” Taucher said later, cautiously. “We don’t have a lot to go on, but it sounds like a good idea to me.”

While the DFG considers the matter, the Inyo and Los Angeles water departments are facing a court-ordered deadline of April 1, 1989, to reach a preliminary agreement on a long-term ground-water management plan.

Taylor feels a sense of urgency.

“The water that there is stands a good chance of getting cut off if we don’t have any further agreements,” he said.

Not everybody in Inyo County hates Los Angeles for buying most of their land and siphoning their water.

Groeneveld said: “There’s been some good to it, (such as) locking up the land from development.”

Earl Brown, a Bishop businessman and resident since 1951, said: “I wouldn’t be living in the Eastern Sierra if it wasn’t for the city of L.A. All this would be houses. It would be posted, restricted and fenced. I’d have to go to Oregon or Nevada.”

Groeneveld, piloting a single-engine plane, flew a reporter and photographer over the area early one morning. Denyse Racine, a wildlife biologist for the DFG, also was along to point out potential benefits of the project.

The White Mountains to the east still held back the dawn from the Sierra slopes to the west as Groeneveld headed south over dried traces of the old course of the river. The new river wandered aimlessly almost in circles, pausing occasionally at a beaver pond or one of the five larger picturesque ponds below Independence where fish and wildlife exist.

“Caught a 5-pound bass right down here,” Groeneveld said.

Near Thibaut Ponds, a dozen Tule elk were just waking up, some grazing among the cottonwoods, their magnificent antlers casting long shadows on the grass. The low-flying plane sent them running.

The elk have thrived in the Owens Valley. “And they aren’t even indigenous to this area,” Racine said.

When the Owens Valley herd has exceeded its quota of 490 at each annual count--524 last year--the excess animals have been shipped to other areas of the state. This year, instead, the DFG proposed to issue 90 hunting permits for the first elk hunt since the ‘70s, scheduled Nov. 5-13 and Nov. 26-Dec. 4.

However, litigation by conservationist groups is pending.

Some of the wetlands have been sustained in years of heavy precipitation when the aqueduct reached capacity and had to be spilled.

Nobody wants to refill Owens Lake. It has been dry for so long that its saline particles--called “fugitive dust” by scientists--already are carried hundreds of miles by the wind, and water “would only bring the finer particles to the surface,” Tillemans said.

Anderson said: “Both sides recognize that draining water into Owens Lake is undesirable.”

But above the dry lake, Tillemans added, “There’s a good chance of establishing permanent residency for waterfowl, (although) it’s probably too far south for geese.”

Among Anderson and Tillemans for the DWP, Groeneveld and Taylor for the Inyo Water Department and Racine and Milliron for the DFG, the project is viable. But the final decisions--such as, who pays--will be made higher up.

“Presently, we’re waiting for comments back from Fish and Game and the county,” Tillemans said.

Groeneveld said: “With very little effort and very little cash, L.A. could do some wonderful things environmentally and for wildlife.”

And Anderson: “Enhancing recreational activities and (public) use of our lands is part of department policy. I think there’s a strong possibility it will happen.”

Taylor sees no reason why Los Angeles shouldn’t pay much of the cost.

“Of 300,000 (projected) angler days, 150,000 would be L.A. people,” he reasoned. “We are the park for Los Angeles.”