A Higher Responsibility

Los Angeles must stop treating the Owens Valley and Mono Lake Basin as remote colonies that are good for just one thing: exporting their water. The city Department of Water and Power has an opportunity this week to recognize its responsibility to the environment of Inyo and Mono counties and not just the city’s right to divert the water, which is under serious legal dispute.

In Sacramento, efforts will be made to keep alive legislation by Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg (D-Sacramento) to compensate Los Angeles by up to $100 million for the loss of the water needed to maintain the integrity of Mono Lake, which is protected by both state and federal legislation as a unique natural feature. And the city and Inyo County officials will seek to revise a draft ground-water pumping agreement to meet the reasonable requests of Owens Valley residents.

The city cannot, and need not, attempt to atone for 75 years of exploitation of the Owens Valley and half a century of depleting Mono Lake. But it can, and should, agree to real compromises to protect the environment of the eastern Sierra and to make at least a minimum effort to improve it.

Under Duane Georgeson and Duane Buchholz, the department has improved relations with the eastern Sierra on a limited scale. The limit has been the formal legal position of Water and Power, which is to cling to every drop of water and every dollar of profit from the region (the water division netted $34 million last year).

But the city must do more than squeeze water and cash from the eastern Sierra. For instance, in the draft agreement with Inyo County, the city pledges to avoid significant adverse impact with its pumping. That is not good enough, considering the damage done to date. As environmental groups contend, the goal should be to maintain and improve the vegetation of the valley, while assuring Los Angeles a reliable water supply.

At Mono Lake, the city insists--considerable scientific evidence to the contrary--that no one knows how far the lake must fall before permanent damage is done. There is damage enough already, and the lake level must be stabilized. With the city’s Mono Lake water rights already in jeopardy, the department is not likely to get a better deal than that offered by the Isenberg bill.

Throughout both the Inyo and Mono affairs, there is a major gap in the city’s position that makes it impossible for the department to fairly balance the environment against Los Angeles’ water demand. The department’s entire institutional history and singular purpose is to get the water. It will yield to environmental constraints only when forced to do so by the law and not just because it is the right thing to do. By then, of course, the damage may be irreversible.

The department will not give proper consideration to the moral and ethical issues involved unless forced to by a higher authority: the Board of Water and Power Commissioners, the City Council or the mayor. After all, the city is not Exxon or General Motors. It has a higher responsibility than just delivering a product at a profit.

Unless the board, council or mayor forces the department to change course, it will divert all the water it can until one of two things happens: The courts make it stop or it is too late to prevent further environmental harm. Or both.