Alternative to Water Plan Sought

Criticizing as extreme a $70-million project that would require Los Angeles to give up a sizable portion of its valuable water, city leaders vowed Tuesday to draft a more viable solution to stop severe dust storms created by the city’s draining of Owens Lake in the Eastern Sierra.

“The mayor is committed to addressing legitimate health impacts in the Owens Valley, but we have to do that in a cost-effective and feasible manner,” said Christopher O’Donnell, who is Mayor Richard Riordan’s director of budget and strategic planning. “The mayor is very hopeful that the city can reach an amicable resolution. We don’t see it as drawing a line in the sand yet.”

On Monday, an Owens Valley pollution board voted unanimously to endorse a plan that would force Los Angeles to return 13% of its Owens River aqueduct water to Owens Lake, about 14 million gallons a day. After analyzing the environmental effects, the board will vote in May to adopt a final version of the project.

The city’s diversion of the Owens River, which began in 1913, has left the sprawling playa covered with a thick crust of salt crystals. When winds from the Sierra whip through, tons of fine powder drape the Owens Valley and desert towns.

About 40,000 people from Ridgecrest to Lone Pine occasionally breathe unhealthful amounts of the particles, which can pierce deep into the lungs, triggering respiratory problems such as asthma attacks. The salty powder also contains traces of hazardous substances, including lead and arsenic. Doctors in the area say their offices and emergency rooms fill up with sick people when the immense dust clouds blow off the lake.

Drafted after 14 years of studying various options, the solution endorsed by the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District would make Los Angeles cover 35 square miles of the dustiest portion of the lake with a mix of shallow water, gravel and irrigated salt grass.

On Tuesday, several Los Angeles City Council members balked at the plan, which would force the city to spend $23 million a year to replace the water and raise water rates about 9%. But they said the two regions, which are nearly 200 miles apart, should compromise rather than battle it out in court.

“There are very good reasons why people in the Owens Valley are frustrated with the city of Los Angeles,” said Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, who heads a committee that oversees the Department of Water and Power. “What we’re trying to do is demonstrate that the modern DWP is environmentally sensitive. The question is: Can we work out a solution that is economically good for the citizens of Los Angeles and the citizens of Owens Valley? It’s an answer that will have to be worked out jointly.”

Councilman Mike Feuer agreed that it is unacceptable to ask Los Angeles to pay $70 million to fix Owens Lake, but equally unrealistic to expect residents there to continue suffering health problems because of the city’s unquenchable thirst.

“The city of Los Angeles does have some historic responsibility,” he said. “There has to be a much deeper spirit of cooperation . . . to develop an approach that is much less costly and much more mutually beneficial.”

DWP officials have said they will not give up any water to irrigate Owens Lake, although they have not come up with any alternatives to curb the air pollution. Instead, the DWP has recommended more research.

Although city leaders were talking Tuesday about seeking a compromise, DWP officials have taken a hard-line approach on the issue.

DWP officials told the Owens Valley board Monday that it is the “unequivocal position of the city and the department” that it will not give up water to irrigate Owens Lake. The DWP has said it is willing to work on finding another solution to curb the air pollution, but it has not come up with any alternatives and instead has recommended more research that could last several years.

DWP Assistant General Manager James Wickser called the dust storms a “very minor health problem and aesthetic problem” for people in the Owens Valley and said the plan is far too expensive and technically unproved.

Sources at City Hall, however, said Riordan prefers to avoid a long legal dispute with the Owens Valley or the state Air Resources Board, which has ultimate authority to enforce the pollution project. In an effort to reach a consensus, they said, talks with the Owens Valley will now include top city aides and council members beyond the DWP.

The city of Los Angeles has only a few months to reach an agreement because it faces a key federal deadline. Under the Clean Air Act, all states must approve a plan to clean up particulate pollution in 1997 and meet clean-air standards by 2001, or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can impose solutions of its own.

The project would take at least five years to complete, so the DWP would have to begin construction at Owens Lake next year to meet the 2001 deadline.

“What we’d like to see is the city saying, ‘Let’s get going on this now and maybe down the road we’ll find a way to use less water,’ ” said Ted Schade, projects manager for the Great Basin agency. “Our mandate is to get this problem fixed by 2001. . . . [Los Angeles] has to fix the problem. There is no way around that.”

The Owens Valley water war dates back almost 100 years, and Los Angeles has gone to great lengths to safeguard its aqueduct water, which is the city’s cheapest water source by far.

Although it was legal at the time, the city’s water grab in 1905 was a scandalous affair marked by bribes and collusion, and since then many Owens Valley officials have said Los Angeles should pay for leaving its natural resources and economy depleted.

The Clean Air Act and state law give the small Eastern Sierra pollution board--which is governed by six county supervisors and one town council member--tremendous power over the nation’s second-largest city.

The board can require Los Angeles to “undertake reasonable measures” to control the pollution at Owens Lake.