Greening the Valley

The city of Los Angeles and Inyo County can put an early end to more than two decades of legal struggles by agreeing on a long-term plan governing the city’s water exports from the Owens Valley. It is in the best interest of both to do so.

An equitable conclusion to the affair will not make Los Angeles officials entirely happy, for they will not be able to pump as much ground water from the eastern Sierra valley as they would like, when they would like. But then nothing the city can ever do will make up for the clandestine manner in which it took the valley’s water three-quarters of a century ago, and began to dominate Owens Valley affairs. Thad Taylor, a member of the Inyo County Water Commission, was right on both counts when he said recently: “One, we cannot turn back the clock. And two, Los Angeles is not going to go away.”

The latest legal skirmishes began in the early 1970s after the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power completed its second aqueduct to carry water from the Owens Valley and Mono County to Los Angeles. The city increased its pumping of ground water in the valley and the effect was immediately seen in dead vegetation and dry springs and artesian wells. Inyo County sued under the California Environmental Quality Act to require Los Angeles to justify its increased pumping in an environmental-impact report. It also adopted a ground-water management ordinance in an attempt to gain control over pumping.

Each side scored victories of sorts. The courts rejected two city environmental reports as inadequate and imposed limits on pumping. Inyo’s water ordinance was declared unconstitutional. In 1982 both sides agreed to attempt a negotiated settlement, leading in 1983 to a five-year interim agreement during which an attempt was to be made to mitigate environmental damage in the valley and to negotiate a conclusive agreement. The lawsuits were put on hold.

Now the armistice is ending. They must reach agreement by April 1 if they are to meet a court deadline to develop a joint environmental-impact report by June 30, 1990. If the court approves their agreement, further legal action would be abandoned. Without an agreement, the city will be required to write a new impact report to justify additional pumping, or restrict its pumping to about one-fourth of capacity. Inyo would pursue its ground-water ordinance suit.

In general, Owens Valley interests want Los Angeles to forgo any pumping that degrades the valley environment. This is not an unreasonable request and the city of Los Angeles would be hard-put to argue otherwise.

The city also should consider a proposal to let water flow 50 miles along the now-dry Owens River bed before it is diverted back into the aqueduct at the southern end of the valley. This would require construction of a pumping plant, probably costing several million dollars. But using the river bed rather than the aqueduct for that stretch of the water’s journey would allow restoration of riparian vegetation, waterfowl habitat and fisheries--all items that would enhance valley tourism.

The department makes millions of dollars in profit annually from its Owens Valley water and hydroelectric power operations, and economic development of the valley is severely limited because the city owns virtually all the developable property. What is most critical to Los Angeles is the water. The more amenable the city is to projects like the lower Owens River bed, the more willing Owens Valley residents are likely to be to share their water.